He’s BAAAAAACCCCCKKKK!!!!

Linking to Ren’s blog… 

Here’s the new address for the SmackChron:

http://ajkenn-rgclub.com/SDChronBlog2dot5/index.php

Also…I see that WordPress has finally gone ahead and updated their platform for their WordPress.com blogs to their new 2.7 version…they say that they will complete the transformation and offer 2.7 to those self-hosted blogs located at WordPress.org by Saturday. Sounds decent…looking forward to what they offer.

——————————————————————————-

In case you didn’t know by now, I have moved the SmackChron blog to a new location and a new host.

http://ajkenn-rgclub.com/SDChronBlog2dot3/index.php

It seems, though, that in my rush to move the blog, I forgot to transfer all those who had registered to comment on the blog over there…and now I’m not getting any comments. (Trackbacks and permalinks, though, are working perfectly.)

If you happen to be a regular contributor to this blog, please email me so that I can register you at the new blog…or use your WordPress account to register yourself. If you have any problems getting a comment in, email me as well and I will do my best to fix any problems.

Thanks for staying here and viewing, and your feedback is always welcome.

But, now, I am happy to report that I have bought a new domain and reregistered with another hosting company, and now I have set up the SmackChron blog over there. 

Unfortunately, this blog has become too big to move all the posts and comments and categories over…so I will simply keep this blog as an archive, while posting all new posts at the new location.

The new addy for the SmackChron is here:

http://ajkenn-rgclub.com/sdchronblog/

I will also be transferring all of the old files and pages for the old Red Garter Club website there soon, so that I can reactivate that site, too. 

Just adjust your bookmarks accordingly, please.

————————————————————————— 

MAJOR UPDATE (11/07/07):  I have now moved the SmackChron site to an even better host, reflecting WordPress’ new 2.3.1 update.

Here is the new addy:

http://ajkenn-rgclub.com/SDChronBlog2dot3/

Unfortunately, I couldn’t move all of the posts from this blog over (the backup file was too big!!), so I will just use this blog as an archive. New posts will now appear there.

Please adjust your blogrolls as needed.  okthanxcyatherelaterbye. 

Snipped from Feministing (Original link here):

Yeah, right…of course, Southwest has to crack down on beautiful women with nice figures wearing casual clothing appropropriate for the time and venue…who knows, she might have been planning for a bathroom tryst or hiding a vibrator in her purse for use during that long flight??  And think of the children that would be scandalized, and men that would be aroused by the sight of such a woman….we must absolutely protect our virtuous airline from such slutty dress??  Right??  Right????

Ahhh….wrong. 

Funny, but I’d guess that a man wearing a Playboy T-shirt below a jacket and short pants barely holding his package and hugging his ass would probably not be considered such a moral risk and told to depart their plane, now wouldn’t he??

Good thing I don’t fly, because if I did, Southwest would get none of my money.

Knoxville rejects Nazis and Klan.

Saturday May 26th

The VNN Vanguard Nazi/KKK group attempted to host a hate rally to try to take advantage of the brutal murder of a white couple for media and recruitment purposes. http://www.volunteertv.com/special

Unfortunately for them the 100th ARA (Anti Racist Action) clown block came and handed them their asses by making them appear like the asses they were.

Alex Linder, the founder of VNN and the lead organizer of the rally, kicked off events by rushing the clowns in a fit of rage, and was promptly arrested by 4 Knoxville police officers who dropped him to the ground when he resisted and dragged him off past the red shiny shoes of the clowns. http://www.volunteertv.com/home/headlines/7704982.html

“White Power!” the Nazi’s shouted, “White Flour?” the clowns yelled back running in circles throwing flour in the air and raising separate letters which spelt “White Flour”.

“White Power!” the Nazi’s angrily shouted once more, “White flowers?” the clowns cheers and threw white flowers in the air and danced about merrily.

“White Power!” the Nazi’s tried once again in a doomed and somewhat funny attempt to clarify their message, “ohhhhhh!” the clowns yelled “Tight Shower!” and held a solar shower in the air and all tried to crowd under to get clean as per the Klan’s directions.

At this point several of the Nazi’s and Klan members began clutching their hearts as if they were about to have a heart attack. Their beady eyes bulged, and the veins in their tiny narrow foreheads beat in rage. One last time they screamed “White Power!”

The clown women thought they finally understood what the Klan was trying to say. “Ohhhhh…” the women clowns said. “Now we understand…”, “WIFE POWER!” they lifted the letters up in the air, grabbed the nearest male clowns and lifted them in their arms and ran about merrily chanting “WIFE POWER! WIFE POWER! WIFE POWER!”

It was at this point that several observers reported seeing several Klan members heads exploding in rage and they stopped trying to explain to the clowns what they wanted. 

[Excerpted from here]

 Now, THAT’S the way to deal with whackjob hatemongers…nice job there, clowns!!!

Here’s my question:  Why aren’t the freakin’ Dimocrats as willing as KO to lay such truth down?? Why does he have to carry all of the water for the “progressive” media??

Maybe KO should produce another “Special Comment” for the Bush Dogs and their enablers Pelosi and Reid….they are as much responsible for Dubya’s myopia getting a free ride as the Repugs are.

Either way….here’s Olbermann going off once again on Dubya on Iraq.

Countdown with Keith Olbermann: Special Comment 9/5/07 (Dubya’s Credibility on Iraq/”Playing Us”) 

An outfit called Family Security Matters, which claims to be a right-wing thinktank which boasts the likes of Frank Gaffney, Monica Crowley, Laura Ingraham, and James Woolsey on its Board of Directors, originally published this magnificent tome to the outstanding leadership qualities of our President-Select and the inadequacies of our present system of democracy to match his greatness.  Unfortunately, the original site decided that it was a bit too magnificent and pulled it from the site…but not before some of the liberal blogosphere cached it for posterity. Digby from Hullabaloo was one of them; she even felt so moved that she reprinted the whole entire article at her site; from whence I will borrow to post for your entertainment. As always, I’ll add my commentary and annotations within brackets where feasible.

Exclusive: Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy
Philip Atkinson

Author: Philip Atkinson
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: August 3, 2007

While democratic government is better than dictatorships and theocracies, it has its pitfalls. FSM Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson describes some of the difficulties facing President Bush today.

Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy
By Philip Atkinson

President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.

Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.

[Let's just say that Dubya's not too well liked by the majority, shall we?? For some, that might be a natural outcome of his policies..but Mr. Atkinson has a slightly different perspective...]

The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.

[Ohhhhhhh-kay.....so when this president was near 60-70% popularity right after September 11, 2001, that would indicate just as much the fickleness of the public...right, Mr. Atkinson??? Or does popular opinion and "democracy" only work well when your side controls all of the seats of power, as it was before November of last year??  (And considering the Dimocrats' record of caving in to all of Dubya's demands so far, even that minor glitch of losing the Congress doesn't seem to matter much anyway.)]

When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.

This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.

[Oh, yeah....those weapons of mass destuction that we know Saddam had that he was going to unleash on us any time back then.....if only we could have found them.  And this notion of "the threat returning if the Army "merely returns to its home"....which threat would that be, Mr. Atkinson?? al-Queda (who hated Saddam with a passion and called him an "infidel" and a Communist)??  The Iranians?? bin Laden (whom apparantly wasn't enough of a threat in Afghanistan when your favorite government was supporting and financing him and his band of "freedom fighters" against the Soviets)??? Or was it really the real threat of Saddam cutting off the US from Iraqi oil and trading in euros instead of petrodollars?? Oh, but wait...I'm getting ahead of myself; onward ho....]

The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.

[Not to mention that the nuclear fallout would make it a bit messy to clean up and dig up all that oil....and there is that slight possibility of China and Russia aiming their nukes at us in response...but why let facts get in the way of a wonderful empire??]

The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation’s powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.

[Somebody probably needs to remind Mr. Atkinson that Israel has all the nukes in the region, while Iran has.....none. And, regardless of Iran's boasting, they probably won't be able to even get enough nuclear power for a power plant, if past reaction from Israel means anything.]

As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.

[Oh, but ye of little faith, Mr. Atkinson.....surely, you saw the President's stirring speech in front of the VFW, where he remains quite the optimist about absolute and total victory in Iraq; regardless of the public's disapproval.]

By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.

However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.

When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.

Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.

[Of course, this ignores the fact that the Roman Empire ultimately collasped from exactly the "peace and prosperity" that Caeser provided and extended to his successors...or the fact that Caesar ended up assassinated.]

If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.

[Oh, yeah....Iraq, the Fifty-First State of the Union!!! And where would all those new Americans come from, incidentially???  Those "illegal aliens" that you wish to throw out of the mainland???  The detainees out of Guamtamano Bay and Abu Ghraib?? The entire Black population of the US???]

He could then follow Caesar’s example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.

[Yeah, right....a military coup that would suspend the Congress and the SCOTUS.  What kind of crack is this guy smoking??? He does know that most of the military would more than likely revolt the other way if such a "coup" would happen, right??  And he does know about this thing called "Federalism" which devolves political power to the States...and a certain constitutional amendment which limits Presidential terms to two consecutive four-year terms, right??? Boy, some folk do dream mighty dreams..mighty stupid dreams!!!]

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.

 Hold up…I thought that conservatives were supposed to be strict construtionists who opposed such concentration of power in one person, right???

If this was written by some tin-foil hat wingnut from Christian Identity or the MiNUTeKKKlan, it could be dismissable as certified crank lube….but this is coming from a serious neo-CON organization (although, they were pretty quick to clip Atkinson’s wings and repudiate in public his flights of fancy. And it does give great pause to what it says for some of the others in power who may share his myopia that going “Papa Doc for Life” might just be the ticket for avoiding the inevitable political ass kicking that the Repubs and ultra-cons are scheduled to recieve in November of next year.

Perhaps that may be Unkla Karl’s last parting gift to his President and his country.  Let’s hope not.

Sorry to disappoint you and your allies, Ginmar, but I don’t believe in wagging fingers: I just call BS like I see it.

And neither I nor IACB need to rescue the “sex pox” damsels in distress, since they do a pretty damn good job of defending themselves all their own. We speak for ourselves, and no one else.

And it’s so nice to hear you and your groupies reduce real human beings and real women (including a self-described feminist) to the level of horses merely because they don’t drink your brand of Kool-Aid. At least you are as consistent as you were with your “gender trumps race” smack earlier.

Here’s the deal, ladies: if you want to have a genuine discussion on the issues Ren raised at Feministe, then I will be respectful. If you want to continue playing your hit-and-run games and continue to smear and distort men and women who have done no harm….then we can go there, too.

Just be careful of what you wish for, ladies, it may come back to bite ‘ya…..hard. Some of us believe in fighting back.

Oh…and as for “who the fuck” I am: ask Bitch|Lab or see this link:

http://anthonyk.wordpress.com/2006/04/2 9/why-nubian-kicks-serious-ass-and-ginmar-can-just-kiss-mine-2/

Anthony

Nothing in my post about physically threatening her, see??  Not quite like Stormcloud’s threat to oust Ren, or Witchy-Woo’s open taunting of Ren for getting fired from her work at the crisis shelter, isn’t it??

Of course, Ginmar goes and bans me from her LJ so that I can’t even respond to her accusations; then goes all over the Feministe thread waving her supposedly bloody shirt saying how I’m in cahoots with the “yay pornies” threatening her and the other brave and courageous radfems.

And to top it all off, she has the unmitigated brass to accuse Lauren and Jill of deliberately censoring her (and by extension, other “womyn warriors” because they don’t immediately approve her posts with lightening speed and don’t allow her to “name names” and spread her lying, smearing rumors??  

Please.  Just….please. Enough, already. 

 [I have an entry at my Live Journal page with all of the details.]

You may have heard of the story of poor Florida state senator Bob Allen, who was at one time co-chair of John McCain’s state presidential campaign orgainzation, and a loud and frequent voice for all things moral and pure. 

At least, he was….until he got his ass caught and arrested in a Titusville park public restroom for soliciting an undercover cop for a blowjob.

You may even have heard of the excuse he gave for his innocence, too….except that it is so freakin’ whack that it deserves a replay.  This is from the Orlando Sentinel:

TITUSVILLE – State Rep. Bob Allen told police he was just playing along when a undercover officer suggested in a public restroom that the legislator give him oral sex and $20 because he was intimidated, according to a taped statement and other documents released Thursday.

Allen has already denied any wrongdoing, but the recordings and documents offered new details about what he and police say happened on July 11 inside the men’s room at Veterans Memorial Park.

“I certainly wasn’t there to have sex with anybody and certainly wasn’t there to exchange money for it,” said Allen, R-Merritt Island, who was arrested on charges of soliciting prostitution. 

“This was a pretty stocky black guy, and there was nothing but other black guys around in the park,” Allen, who is white, told police in a taped statement after his arrest. Allen said he feared he “was about to be a statistic” and would have said anything just to get away.

Allen, who couldn’t be reached for comment Thursday, has repeatedly declared his innocence, his intention to fight the charges and his desire to stay in office.

Uh-huh.  Sure.  Right, Senator. I feel your pain.  I mean, there’s just no reason for you to be out there in a public park with all those evil “stocky” Black men threatening your life…unless you really, really, really have a hunger for a piece of that thick, juicy dark meat.

Problem for him is, the police reports tell a somewhat different story.

Three undercover officers said they were staking out a nearby condo hoping to catch a burglar when Allen entered a park bathroom at about 3:30 p.m. 

The officers, who didn’t recognize the seven-year legislator, said they thought he was behaving suspiciously and thought that he was looking for a sexual partner, according to the reports released by the Brevard-Seminole State Attorney’s Office.

In a written statement released Thursday, Titusville Officer Danny Kavanaugh recalled entering the restroom twice and said he was drying his hands in a stall when Allen peered over the stall door.

After peering over the stall a second time, Allen pushed open the door and joined Kavanaugh inside, the officer wrote. Allen muttered ” ‘hi,’ ” and then said, ” ‘this is kind of a public place, isn’t it,’ ” the report said.

The officer said he asked Allen about going somewhere else and that the legislator suggested going “across the bridge, it’s quieter over there.”

“Well look, man, I’m trying to make some money; you think you can hook me up with 20 bucks?” Kavanaugh asked Allen.

The officer said Allen responded, “Sure, I can do that, but this place is too public.”

Then Kavanaugh said he told Allen, “I wanna know what I gotta do for 20 bucks before we leave.’ ” He said Allen replied: “I don’t know what you’re into.”

According to Kavanaugh’s statement, the officer said, “do you want just [oral sex]?” and Allen replied, “I was thinking you would want one.”

The officer said he then asked Allen, “but you’ll still give me the 20 bucks for that . . . and that the legislator said, “yeah, I wouldn’t argue with that.”

As Allen turned and motioned for the officer to follow him to his car, Kavanaugh identified himself as a police officer by raising his shirt and exposing his badge. 

Oh, shit….busted!!!

But give him credit, he did try the “Do you know who I am?” defense:

When Allen was being placed in a marked patrol car, he asked whether “it would help” if he was a state legislator, according to a police report. The officer replied, “No.” 

Now….the racist “blame the stocky evil Black men” angle has already been beaten (off) to death in several venues; and the “hidden gay desire to devour dark manmeat” angle will be left to more suitable commentators. 

For me, though, the fascinating thing is the fact that Allen (allegedly) solicited the cop not to get blown, but to blow.  I guess that he thought that if he was the initiator of the action, then he would be exempted from solicitation laws??  Or maybe, he was sooooo desperate for dark mantube (and the bigger the better, I’d think, considering his love of racist stereotyping) that he was willing to pay to relieve his hunger??

(But….twenty bucks?!?!?! For a state senator who happens to be a co-chair for a major Presidential candidate?? What….couldn’t he afford to rent a prostitute for one night?? Or is he really that cheap??)

But no…not even that surprises me that much….Florida is still part of the South, and uptown Klan racism flows through there no less than any other state of the region.

Nope….the real stunner is this: How in the HELL did  this fool get to be associated with John McCain’s campaign???  You know….”Straight Talk” McCain, the political “moderate” who disdains “extremism”??  Whom was at one time the frontrunner for the Republican nomination mostly because he was considered “electable” from the “center”??? Then again, this was the same McCain who sucked up to Jerry Falwell just before his passing; and whom stood by harmlessly in ’00 when Dubya’s forces savaged him for his adoption of a child of color during the primaries. I guess that such is the costs of getting the nomination, perhaps.

Then again, David Vitter was Rudy Giuliani’s mouthpiece and relay to the Christian Right…his love of diapers and hookas notwithstanding…so that might just be a trend for “moderate conservative” Repubs.

Goodness.  Some people just can’t control themselves…..maybe that’s why they so much want to control others??

The full exchange is here; I will simply issue the highlights, which include what turned out to be some crossed signals about the BPPA and its mission that were ultimately cleared up to everyone’s credit.

First, here’s Ernest’s original comment:

Anthony and Sheldon,I’ve now had a chance to visit the pro-porn activism site under discussion, and while its intentions are admirable and its content often valuable and always interesting, I’m concerned that it may be subject to the law of unintended consequences.

First of all, I think I should share with you and other forum participants here a disturbing phenomenon I can clearly observe from the panels available to me as an administrator. Over the past few months, we’ve experienced a high volume of anonymous traffic, much of it originating from geographically centralized IPs in a certain part of the Upper Mid-West, clearly seeking out printable versions of threads dealing with anti-porn feminism. By following the links from your new site, I’m sorry to say I think I know where some of that traffic is ending up. Various items from nina.com have been exhibited and/or quoted (obviously without notice to or permission from us) by presenters at anti-porn feminist events held on college campuses during that time period. The images and information used are extremely specific and, predictably, used to demonize Nina and by implication, other women who share her views.

What worries me is that your new site, just like this one, has the inadvertent effect of channeling traffic to the othewise obscure corners of the Internet inhabited by what is basically a small and isolated group of fanatics of whom the larger public to which we appeal takes little or no notice.

The question we must ask ourselves is this: in attempting to rebut their essentially preposterous arguments at great length and in excruciating detail, are we not giving them the very attention they crave and otherwise could not hope to attract? I already know how I feel about this, which is one reason why I’ve stopped posting on these subjects on this site. I don’t see any reason to encourage them to come here to or arm them with out-of-context snippets of commentaries they can recontextualize for their own despicable purposes.

This is not to say that those arguments don’t need answering or to discourage the establishment of forums for that use, but rather to raise the practical question of how best to neutralize whatever political threat to freedom of expression, their bette noir, they may represent.

For my own part, I’ve elected to engage in a the Japanese practice of “mokusatsu” – literally to kill by silence. I don’t want them using our words against us and I don’t want people from here upping their Alexa scores simply out of morbid curiousity.

Obviously, as genuine advocates of free speech, I would never ask any contributor to stop posting on this topic, but for my own part, speaking strategically, I’ve decided to let them carry on their vendetta with no help, direct or indirect, from me.

Just a thought to consider.

Ernest 

That particular criticism rankled some of the BPPA members as well as me, since it was perceived as a subtle slam at the blog for directing antiporn attacks towards Nina and the forum.

My first response to Ernest follows:

WOW…interesting points.

---

As one of the main contriibutors of the BPPA blog, I can’t speak for Renegade Evolution (who is the owner and chief founder of the BPPA blog) or any one of the other main contributors…but I feel the need to respond to your points.The main reason why so many antiporn sites are listed there is the stated policy that is agreed on by all the participants there uses the principle of “Know your enemies”; and that the viewpoints of the other side should be openly discussed and sourced whenever possible, with all transparency and clarity.

I understand and appreciate the fact that due to past circumstances and the history of previous attacks on you and Nina, you would feel as you do about attracting unwanted attention to those sites. Nevertheless, I still believe that exposing and repudiating their myopia and their positions is crucial to building an effective opposition to their policies, and that merely allowing them to promote their views unfettered only encourages them that much further. They may indeed be a tiny minority and an isolated voice, but they do have some degree of outreach that goes far beyond their small numbers…and I don’t believe that they should be simply ignored or dismissed.

Obviously, we will be much more careful about seeking your approval before posting or linking anything here in this forum; and if you prefer that we not use anything from this forum to refute their arguments or actions, just say the word and we will respect your wishes. (Here, I do speak for the rest of the members of the BPPA as well as for myself regarding my own blogs and sites.)

I will say that my own personal philosophy regarding dealing with these antipornfeminists is perhaps the exact opposite of what you prefer; I’d rather directly and openly confront all the contradictions and inaccuracies of their arguments, since I feel no need to hold back anything; nor am I hampered by any need to protect my past histories or actions on my part.

But, I do respect highly your position and your situation, Ernest, and will honor your request….and will take your suggestions into consideration along with the rest of the crew.

And I will forward this privately to the rest of the BPPA members for their consideration, too.

Anthony 

And initially, Ren did decide at first to remove links to Nina’s site and forum from the BPPA blogroll.

Ernest did attempt to make an initial offer to clarify his position:

Anthony,Thank you for your prompt and typically heartfelt reply. As I said, I’m not really asking for any specific action on your part or that of your compatriots, whose views I largely (though not entirely) share. I merely ask you to consider the situation strategically. I like to think of myself as a principled person who willingly takes risks on behalf of dearly-held beliefs, but my real-world experience has taught me that the effectiveness of those risks is what makes them worth taking. If by exposing myself or others to potential harm, I achieve nothing more than serving the purposes of my opponents, the risk is not worth the reward.

I completely agree with you that the preposterous arguments of anti-porn feminists must be confronted and exposed for the crypto-mystical, anti-rational, anti-intellectual bunk that they are. I suggest, however, that the most effective ground on which to join that battle is their own. Obviously, as they have nothing but contempt for anyone who disagrees with them in the slightest, indeed for the very idea of reasoned argument, they’re not about to allow you or anybody else to address their vicious lies and warped beliefs on Web sites they operate or at gatherings they sponsor. But there does exist a larger leftist/progressive community consisting of numerous blogs, publications, organizations and events through which they could be challenged to defend their destructive fixations that have cost the left as a whole so dearly, along with the nation itself and the greater world that might benefit from leftist dissent uncontaminated by their toxic brand of identity politics.

It has been their ability to shame and shout down all who do not embrace their rabid fanaticism in those venues that has, to a great extent, prevented the emergence of both an effective leftist critique of their madness and, more urgently, the formation of a unified opposition to the catastrophes of resurgent American imperialism abroad and the rise of theocratic absolutism at home. It is the responsibility of sane leftists with realistic priorities to kick these lunatics to the curb on their own street, rather than making it the onerous burden of those of us already embattled against a rabidly hostile regime bent on throwing as many of us as possible in jail and driving the rest of us out of business to have to fight a second front against this small but vocal claque of hate-mongers on ours.

That’s why Nina knowingly exposed herself to the savage hostility certain to follow by debunking Chyng Sun’s so-called “research” at AEE on Counterpunch rather than simply railing against it here. As she said at the time, the internal leftist/progressive struggle over pornography is really a battle for the hearts, minds and wallets of liberals who support progressive causes, if not necessarily progressive ideals.

It is the objective of Chyng Sun and her allies to humiliate defenders of free speech into backing away from protecting explicit sexual expression that makes them dangerous not only to us, but to anyone who regards open discourse about sexuality as a progressive priority. The success of the gang from KPFK in forcing NION to give back Larry Flynt’s money both demonstrates this danger and emboldens those to whom suppressing dirty pictures is more important than saving Iraqi and American lives.

Rather than starting up more Web sites and chat groups where we who deplore such moral disasters of the left can tut-tut about them and ventilate our anger and frustration over them (though, BTW, I have no gripe with anyone doing so, as we all need the support and reassurance of like-minded others), the more critical task lies in meeting these false-flagged reactionaries on the common turf of Z-Net and at the university campuses where anti-war groups are bullyed into turning away desperately-needed potential allies in the name of ideological purity.

Certainly, given the vile tactics anti-porn feminists employ and the personal viciousness with which anti-porn feminists attack all who dare stand up to them, I can’t blame anyone for preferring to lob rhetorical water balloons from behind the safe anonymity of friendly homepages. As one of the founders of BPPA pointed out, in contradistinction to the seemingly more menacing foes we face on the right, anti-porn feminists are much quicker to engage in the ugliest kind of trolling, hacking, DOS attacks and ad hominem smears. We’ve experience all these things repeatedly since Nina dared to tread on the sacred cyber-soil of Counterpunch. Nina has become nearly as popular a target as Larry Flynt, an honor I know she appreciates but a noxious burden nonetheless. As an example, here’s a lovely quotation from a recent article by APF stalwart Rebecca Whisnant:

“Thus it is that prominently featured on the website of “feminist pornographer” Nina Hartley is a new film entitled “O: The Power of Submission.” (13) Perusing Hartley’s list of favorite links, one finds a site called Slave Next Door, which carries the tagline “real sexual slavery.” The portal page of this website reads, in part, “Slave Next Door is the graphic depiction of a female sex slave’s life and training for sexual slavery. It contains extreme bdsm situations and . . . sadistic training.” In clicking to enter the site, one is told, one affirms that one is “not here in the capacity of law enforcement or religious activist.” (14)”

I can practically see all the grave faces and nodding heads in the room as Whisnant delivered this laughable “evidence,” which simultaneously distorts Nina’s opinions, this site, my movie, consensual BDSM and the perfectly sweet and thoughtful blog of our friends Master N and embre, to a group of fellow porn-bashers at one of the many recent conferences where said bashers meet to come up with new ways of heckling us. Who wants to be subjected to that kind of treatment?

And yet, if leftists and progressives who don’t buy the APF line hope to prevent it from prevailing and thus further enfeebling an already isolated, fractious and fundamentally ineffective community, that’s exactly the kind of warped logic that must be addressed where it lives. Twenty years ago, it was a group of feminists, led by Betty Friedan (founder of NOW), Rita Mae Brown, Kate Millet, Adrienne Rich and other icons of the women’s movement, who filed the amicus brief in the appeal of the McKinnon ordinance that helped restore mainstream feminism’s committment to civil liberties for all. Sensing an opportunity in the current atmosphere of political repression to undue that courageous stand, the new crop of APF fanatics shows signs of gaining real traction within the tiny, nearly invisible left that remains in America today. If they succeed, they’ll make sure it remains exactly that: tiny and invisible, though surely pure of corruption by the “harms” of porn and its defenders.

No matter how unpleasant the prospect, it’s up to you and your friends to do what Friedan and her compatriots did two decades ago. You must take your fight to the enemy instead of hunkering down on safer terrain. It’s your movement that’s at stake and you need to take it back from posers like Gail Dines, Bob Jensen and Stan Goff. If you won’t stand up to them where they are, how can any of the rest of us be expected to join you when you exhort us to stand up to the real power and potential fury of the ruling elites?

While APFs may claim to have been “censored” and “silenced,” the truth is that Gail Dines can get airtime on Fox News to spout her claptrap at no personal risk whatsoever, while we have members of our tribe facing 75 years in prison for selling videos. We know very well the real dangers of incurring the wrath of the real patriarchs, as opposed to the imaginary version against which leftists are constantly inveighed to do battle. If your gang isn’t ready to haul a few loud-mouthed mountebanks out of their ivory towers and expel them from your midst, why should we trust you to carry the standard into far more dangerous combat?

I’m just raising these questions. The answers need to come from your side. So far, all I read is a lot of electronic bickering. When I see you all picketing outside the gates of Wheelock College, demanding equal time for Nina to answer the slander and abuse heaped on her there, I’ll be more favorably disposed to help you make your case here.

As I do believe in freedom of expression, I won’t oppose your use of our bandwidth to channel traffic to your site, but I hope you’ll take into consideration the nuisances to which you expose us in doing so and offer up something in return that will make it all seem worth the additional trouble.

Ernest

My own rebuttal of that:

Welll…that’s a lot to think about.

---

I’m not sure, then, that the BPPA would be the proper venue for such a campaign that you would want, Ernest; since that blog is more for a generalized defense of porn rather than an explicitly Left critique. (The founder of that blog is more of a traditional conservative libertarian.)I’d guess that a more explicitly Leftist “pro-porn/’sex-positive” organization which directly confronted the smears and lies of antiporn “feminists” and their allies would be more productive by your suggestions. That would be a splendid idea, especially as an compliment to the more general mission of BPPA; and as soon as I get my bandwidth issues resolved; I will get to work on that by developing a forum dedicated to that very need.

I should say, though, that perhaps your targets should also be turned towards not only people like me who have indeed gone into the bellies of the beast and directly confronted APRF idiocy (remember Gooney Goff?? Z-Net??) but also towards more mainstream liberal and leftist groups who have remained generally silent or have avoided debate on this topic. Whatever happened to groups like Feminists for Free Expression or the Feminist Anticensorship Taskforce, who at least attempted to build a progressive critique to MacDworkinism in the 80s, but disappeared as soon as the battles seemed won?? Why aren’t there more porn talent who happen to be progressives (or even, heaven forbid, even Leftists) speaking out explicitly on the connections between defending sexual speech and expression and other left/liberal values that they profess in supporting?? It can’t all be a one-sided mission, you know.

Yes, indeed, there is a great need for sex-positive progressive folk to directly confront antiporn ideology whereever it wields its head; and to be much more open and loud about it. That will take both time and effort, however, and even some patience.

Also….considering the closed-loop policies of such organizations as Z-Net in its obvious biases towards antiporn ideology, wouldn’t it be more useful for sex-pos progressives to develop their own institutions of support and outreach and education, rather than waste time and energy attempting to roll over existing organizations that are simply too rooted to change??

Finally….like I said before, I am only one person, with limited time and resources; I’m sure that no one will question my dedication to the mission of defending the principles that I believe in; and I most definitely don’t question you or Nina’s dedication to the same. All I ask for is that we all respect our own methods and tactics, even if we may disagree with whatever tactics we may persue to the same goal.

Just my own personal opinion.

And may I assume that you speak for Nina as well on this??

Anthony

And in the next post, I cited both Trinity and Ren defending the mission of the BPPA blog (cited with permission from the both of them):

Incidentially enough; here is Renegade Evolution’s response…..

---

…upon learning of Ernest’s critique (posted originally via email, with permission granted by her to post here)

Quote:

I can understand Ernest’s concerns, but hey, as my people are wont to say “Silence = Death”…and I will point out that the BPPA is, for me, not only somewhat FUN, its also a theraputic and LITERARY way to point out my flaws. It’s not as if I’ve not “taken these issues to the people”…after all, I did engage in that long and futile email forum debate with Bob Jensen, I, along with Jill and others, sent letters of protest to Weelocke for NOT including sex workers in their conference, sent letters of protest and raised quite a stink about their use of porn performers images without consent or question, I then informed the porn companies whose work was sited of the use of that work by Wheelocke, and well, I’m a member of both HIPS and SWOP East…so yes, I BLOG about porn, sex ed, anti porn tactics, the 1st Amendment…I also DO in real life. I also know that I’ve had a decent number of “on the fence” feminists say by reading what I’ve put out there, they’ve rethought their feelings on porn and other aspects of sex work, and even some rad fems reconsider their beliefs on the matter, and to me…well, that counts and progress.I also think exposing the tactics the other side uses is important, because there still are a lot of people sitting on the fence, and I’d rather have them leaning to our side and have places where they can read the other side of the story and rebutals to the MASSIVE amounts of anti-porn propoganda out there. I mean gee, it’s not like I’ve been threatened or outted before, right? Damage is already done…I might as well, both in life and on the net, stand up for what I believe in. Ren

Incidentially, she has also went ahead and removed all links to this forum from the BPPA blog as well, out of respect for Ernest’s concerns.Update: Trinity of A Strange Alchemy; another contributor to the BPPA blog; just recently added this question for Ernest:

Quote:

Anthony,I’m a little unclear on what exactly Mr. Greene wants us to do. Is he saying he wants us not to link to NIna’s spot, or that he thinks we shouldn’t link to the *antis’* spots (because then they’ll see the trackbacks)? Because if it’s the second, I think it’s important to link to them to prove what we’re saying AND to allow opponents to rebut. Think about how gross it is that they don’t link to us, and can make up any context they will for what we say. I don’t think it’s right for us to do the same. Trinity

A legitimate question, I’d say.Anthony

To which, Ernest finally comes correct and makes his points clear, and directly addresses Ren’s and Trinity’s concerns [special emphasis added by me]:

Anthony,Thanks for getting back to me on this, and for a number of points well-made, as usual.

I think I may have created some misunderstandings that need clarfication and you have raised a question or two that need answering.

First of all, let me say that I don’t think sites like BPPA are bad things. On the contrary, I agree that exposing the lies and distortions of anti-porn feminism in whatever forum is a good thing. I do have concerns about amplifying their volume by callling attention to them, but that concern only applies if nothing else is done beyond preaching to the converted. I merely suggest that activism consists of more than just sharing opinions with those of like-mind.

As such, I give full credit to you for your willingness to take the battle to the other side’s terrain, and I commend ren for doing the same. I particularly appreciate ren’s challenge to the use of our intellectual property against us, and would offer as a further possibility the idea of acquainting APFs who use stolen explicit images in their propaganda that they, too, are subject to the requirements of 2257 and may find out for themselves the truth about just how “lawless” and “unregulated” our industry really is if they continue to do so. The measures you and ren describe are exactly the kinds of things I’m talking about and I hope you’ll do more in the future. I hope your influence grows on the left and that eventually you’ll help return some balance to the conversation about porn in that community. In short, I’m not criticizing you, your friends, what you’re doing or what you’re not doing. I’m merely raising strategic questions about how best to achieve our common goals.

In response to Trinity’s question, and yours, please remember that I began my post by saying that I am not asking for any specific action concerning BPPA. I didn’t ask that the link to our site be removed, or that you not link to APF sites. In fact, I’m sorry if that’s how my comments were interpreted. As far as linking to nina.com is concerned, the damage was done long ago by the other side, which knows all about us and will continue to come around here whatever you do. I’d as soon have our link back on your site, as at least we might get a few more friendly contributors as a result. And I fully agree that air and light best serve in separating good arguments from bad, so I don’t support the idea of silencing any point of view. I think knowing one’s enemies is important and I appreciate BPPA’s willingness to address all points of view and to expose the specious claims of our opponents. Frankly, I’m sorry my comments seem to have been taken some other way and apologize for not stating them more clearly. Personally, I would like to see our link restored at BPPA. We are all part of the same struggle and I don’t wish to see us excluded from solidarity with your efforts over there.

Where you and I don’t agree is in your implied criticism of progressive elements in the industry for not joining you at the barricades. Those of us who can certainly do. Nina is most definitely a case in point, as it was her blast on Counterpunch that made her such a popular target for APF attacks. And while FACT seems dormant for the moment, FFE is very much alive. Indeed, BPPA links to their site, where you’ll find such familiar names as Carol Queen and Candida Royale.

And I don’t buy the argument that the larger leftist community and its organizations and media are so closed to counter-arguments about porn there’s no point in confronting them directly. That’s a costly concession of defeat when the other side has simply dominated the floor by intimidation and should be challenged, as they were successfully twenty years ago, which was one of my main points earlier. Setting up alternative institutions is fine as far as it goes, but ceding the larger leftist entities to the other side, which is exactly what happened at NION, carries dangers not only for those of our particular persuasions regarding the expression of sexuality, but for the left as a whole, which the NION episode demonstrates all too vividly.

Indeed, when you propose that liberals should take a more active role in this struggle, you make my point for me. First of all, they are the ones who do so most effectively. Nadine Strossen and the ACLU have done more to protect sexually explicit expression than all the self-identified leftists in the land. They’re the people who put up the money and the time to fight the court battles that directly impact what we do. However, they’re largely excluded from leftist forums in a way that avowed leftists are not. Moreover, they are the very element Chyng Sun and her friends are trying to shame into abandoning us over here, and to some extent (I’m not defending this, BTW), traditional liberals have been cowed by the ferocity of APF rhetoric into avoiding the whole debate. As someone who doesn’t much respect liberals when it comes to stands on principle, you of all people can hardly expect them to conduct a campaign to reassert support for Amendment One among leftists who have largely turned against it. Liberals and their organizations have no credibility on your side of the fence.

The suggestion that working porn performers could get in the fray is problematic as well. Most are very young, very busy with learning their way in this business while trying to sort out their own sexualities, and generally not politically inclined. They’re extremely resistant to organization, as we’ve found to our dismay through repeated attempts to do so over the years. Morevoer, when they do step forward, as a few have on talk shows and in other mainstream media, they get beaten to pieces, much as Belladonna was by Diane Sawyer and Jenna Jameson by Bill O’Reilly. They don’t get the kind of respectful treatment APFs can always count on from fundamentally conservative news sources.

As to confronting APFs in their campus strongholds, both Nina and Ron Jeremy have done so and will continue to do so, not only because they believe in the importance of this work, but also because they have the luxury of time and the visibility that come with being senior members of the industry. Remember too that we’re involved in a much higher-stakes conflict with the feds. Come October, at least two major obscenity cases will go to trial in federal court with long prison sentences on the line should our side lose. That’s a battle outsiders don’t face and I’m sure you can understand why we conserve much of our strength for it. That’s the place where we must make our best arguments, not only for our own sakes, but for those of anyone who values freedom of expression, even that of our enemies.

No one questions your dedication or your principles and while I may respect your choice of methods and tactics, I would hope you and your friends would be open to some outside examination of the latter. We’re all seeking the same thing, but we may not agree on every article when it comes to the best method of achieving it.

And yes, Nina and I have discussed this at length and are in agreement on these issues. She will be out debating Susan Cole on college campuses this fall and will continue to take the fight wherever she can get on the field. She just leaves this part of the task to me, as we’ve found that letting her do the talking and letting me do the writing is a more effective distribution of labor. We’re on the same page as far as basic philosophy is concerned and share the same tactical perspective born of many, many years in this struggle.

In no way is this a one-sided mission. We all have contributions to make suited to our resources and beliefs. Nina and I welcome support for the cause from virtually any source. Unlike our enemies, we have no litmus test that excludes leftists, progressives, libertarians, sexual liberationists, liberals, or anyone else who embraces individual liberty.

The last thing I wish to do is add to the internal dissension within that loose coalition. I hope you and your friends will regard this as a message of solidarity and conciliation and will simply consider the practical issues I’ve raised.

Again, I’m not attacking anyone here or proposing any specific changes of approach. I’m merely offering a perspective for others to examine.

Ernest 

Based on that post, the links were put back up…and they remain to this day.

Later on in the thread, Ernest goes on on what he sees as one of the main problems with passive Left acceptance of antiporn propaganda:

Oh lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood…

---

I think it’s smashing too. Lot’s of good, thought-provoking reading and many important ideas, (and Sheldon’s too – kidding) all centralized in one place. Excellent. I wish nothing but the best for BPPA. I don’t even have to agree with everything said there to see its value.I like to think I make myself pretty clear, but sometimes I wonder if all these years of W.’s rule haven’t started to affect my relationship with the English language. Never intended to be critical of BPPA, its value or its intentions.

That said, I’m still stuck, if that’s the correct word, with my worries about what might actually be effective in countering the hammerlock that APF thinking seems to have gotten on leftist debate. By an ironic coincidence, in a completely unrelated thread in this section, Eric posts a letter he’s sent to Noam Chomsky seeking clarification of Chomsky’s denunciation of Hustler after having granted Hustler an interview.

I may not always agree with Chomsky, who was a huge presence in the left of my own radical era and remains one in the left of today, but he’s always been a man of courage and committment regardless of the waxing and waning of his popularity. I’d like to think he’d speak his mind when it comes to Hustler or pornography in general without worrying about how his comments might be received in certain quarters. And yet I’m not optimistic that Eric will get a straight answer on this one out of Chomsky – or any answer at all.

That’s what I’m really talking about on this thread. When figures of Chomky’s stature have to engage, as he did, in all kinds of backpedaling for having dared allow his words to appear in Hustler, I can’t help worrying about the APF influence on the left as a whole.

This sort of degenerated into one of those endless and useless wrangles over who is more responsible for the current state of affairs, when what I really want to hear discussed is what might be done to take back some of the ground we’ve lost. Why was there no counter-pressure from our side in the NION affair? Why did no one raise a voice in anger when KPFK devoted an hour of airtime to (using a favorite phrase of Stan Goff) San and Ann Simonton to bash Nina and subsequently refuse her even the courtesy of an explanation for refusing to allow her an on-air rebutttal? Why does the left cave so quickly to identiy politics of all kinds, this kind in particular? What is to be done if there is ever going to be a broad-based anti-war movement to resist what threatens to be a much longer and even more destructive conflict than Vietnam? Kronstadt may think the domestic anti-war movement was largely irrelevant to the outcome that time and that the NVA simply hammered the Americans on the ground, but I was here at the time and know otherwise.

For the left to regain credibility as a political force in American life, whether the issue is pornography or Iraq, it will have to address the problem of identity politics directly. No faction’s individual interests or orthodoxies can be allowed to so dominate the discussion as to exclude literally milliions of potential supporters from participation in dissent against the worst and most dangerous policies this nation has ever adopted.

I’m still waiting for anyone on the left to take on the very real issue of what to do in the face of a Supreme Court that will be hostile to civil rights cases for the rest of most of our lives. Even within our own interest group, where there was once hope that laws against so-called “adult obscenity” would be overturned by the current porn prosecutions under Lawrence v. Texas, there is now the grim realization that, should any of those prosecutions actually reach the high court, those laws will not only be upheld, but may be substantially broadened.

In short, my real complaint is that the left is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic in much the same fashion as Bush where Iraq is concerned. In both instances, a defeat of epic preportions looms with terrible human costs, and no specific means to prevent either of these related disasters has yet been put forward.

I’m not a leftist myself anymore, but I know this nation needs leftist activism now even more than it did three decades ago, and I’m not reassured by what I see so far.

Again, this is a general observation that implies no criticism of the nice folks at BPPA, any individual here or any other well-intentioned person. It’s just a lament and a plea for action where action is urgently needed.

When I have the time, I do hope to get over to BPPA and post a purely friendly and completely non-critical greeting. I can only offer my full and unconditional support to such a worthy enterprise.

Now, if somebody will tell me how we’re going to keep Rob Black and Lizzie Borden (whose work I don’t like at all but who shouldn’t be facing ruination as a result of it) from going to the pen for the rest of their lives, I’ll feel a bit better.

Ernest

 Interesting and fascinating questions…anyone up to the challenge???

Well, it seems that things have blown up faster than Hurricane Katrina did in the Gulf of Mexico before devastating New Orleans.

To update so far (and you will notice that I will not provide any linkage for obvious reasons of driving any of the hacks or attacks my way, just use Google if you wish to see more):

1) Heart had attempted to place an autobiographical profile of herself based on an article that she had done for the radfem site off our backs on Wikipedia….only to be stoned when some regulars complained that it violated Wiki’s rules about degree of importance.

2) Meanwhile….Heart goes off the deep end (understandably) on the attacks on her, claiming it to be the prime example of how “yaypornies” work to destroy all women radical womyn like her. She then goes of on how she caught her young son looking at and masturbating to nekkid women, and her attempts to….well, shall we say, disuade him of that instinct. Which includes everything short of throwing out the computer.

3) Then, here comes Biting Beaver (aka BB or Beeb) into the tempest with her own story of catching her son doing the same thing….and then dropping the wish that she wished that she had never birthed him to begin with.

4) That bolt of inspiration arouses the crew at Encyclopedia Dramatica, an outfit of mostly Bevis and Butthead-grade MRA wannabes who basically get off on smacking down “political correctness”; they proceed to launch a major campaign against Heart and Beeb’s sites; up to and including DoS raids; Photoshopped images of both ladies; and the usual “feminazi”/”evol whore”/sexual innuendo rhetoric.

5) And now, they’s greatly expanded their campaign to include not only a few other radfem celebs like Luckynkl and Ginmar; but also Feministe (mostly because of a comment posted there that was critical of the lads engineering the attacks. 

Needless to say, what I said last time still applies here.  No matter how I think that Heart and Luckynkl and Ginmar and Beeb are supreme loonies and whackjobs and completely off their rockers; not even they deserve to have their private sites vandalized or to have rape threats put up against them.  And even if I do happen to think that Heart et. al.’s attempt to milk this for all the victimhood sympathy that they can muster and to rally the radfem troops to smack down the “yayporn” crowd for aiding and abetting such behavior (which is nothing less than the ultimate smear and a huge damn LIE), it still doesn’t justify any of this behavior…EVER.

So..if any of you ED loonies want to come here to bitch and moan about how your “heroic” campaign is meant only in self-defense for what Heart and Beeb said….save if for someone who actually cares. I go after ideas and acts, not people.

And for any radfem extremists on the other side who want to attempt to bait me into this: you can save your bandwidth, too. I’ve said my peace on this, and that will be all.

[Comments will remain open for this thread, but will be highly moderated for even a hint of spamming or hacking; violators will be kicked out on the spot.]

Everything should be working fine now.

Plus, I’m now on an official paid vacation from work for a week….so now I can catch up on things.  Just be patient….  

However…there is a fundamental line of decency and debate that everyone must respect….and that line was broken today.

Someone — probably an MRA with too much time on his hands — decided to hack into Womens’ Spaces/The Margins (Heart’s blog) and IBTP and post some particularly vile, lowdown, and threatening messages…most of which had to do with their particular rape fantasies directed towards certain women there.

Already, Heart is using this as a crutch to slander all who criticise her antiporn politics as supporting such cyberterrorism; with the usual notions that \”pro-porn\” women are untouched by such acts.

Now, I would think that Renegade Evolution and Quare Dewd and Nina Hartley (who have all suffered hackjobs at one time or another, amongst other threats) would disagree with that…but that is inmaterial right now.

Let me cut right to the chase right now and right here.

The people who did this vile hackjob will get nothing from me (and I speak for not only myself, but for all decent human beings who happen to be of our position) but the utmost contempt, derision, and unabashed repudiation of their acts.  They no more represent sex-positive feminism or sex radicalism or advocates for consensual sexual speech than neo-Nazis or White supremacists represent all White people…..and their actions should be condemned to the highest. In fact, they are the exact antithesis of what progressive sex radicalism should be.

And anyone who comes here even thinking about attempting to justify these cowardly acts will get read out of here in an instant….and I don’t mean with the proverbial can of SmackDog Whupass, but with a REAL ass kicking.

Just because I may oppose antipornfeminist theology in general does NOT mean that rampant misogyny like this is considered anywhere near acceptable. For just this once, I’m routing for Heart and Twisty to nail these ignorant suckas to the wall…and I will unabashedly offer any support to finding and catching these fools and serving justice to them as they deserve.

This shit deserves no place on the Internet…and especially not against women bloggers, whatever their ideology.  Not even Ann Coulter deserves that kind of crap.

I don’t work that way, and neither should anyone else who calls him/herself a progressive or a feminist or a radical. Anyone who does will get no love or support from this ‘Dog…but he will get a foot up his ass.

I recieved a trackback to a LiveJournal blog owned by B. C. Holmes where she linked my entry riffing on Heart’s madness…and promptly accused me of “fanning the flames”.  Her exact words, as posted at her blog:

That last link [to Heart's original post] can be an uncomfortable read, especially for transfolk. It’s fair to say that I disagree with it. But what I want to say right now is that, generally, I think there’s a lot of fruitful stuff in the writings of radical feminism, and I’m not supportive of tarring all of radical feminism with the evil brush. (There’s a specific response, here [link to my rant] that, in my opinion, only fans the flames).

Now, I do think that B.C., from a quick glance at her blog, apperars to be a reasonable woman and a decent person who happens to be both a transperson and a feminist who does support some radfem theories. At the very least, she does tend not to be as quick to choose sides as some of the more strident followers; thusly, she does deserve the decency of proper respect for her and other radfems who don’t go as far over the cliff as the caucus of Heart/Witchy-Woo/delphyne/luckynkl/et. al.

Nevertheless, the idea that I am “fanning the flames” by calling out Heart’s BS kinda got to me enough that I posted this response over at her blog a few minutes ago:

anthonyjk_6319 wrote:

Jul. 31st, 2007 03:19 am (UTC)

Well..you are entitled to your opinion…

…and I won’t be disrespectful of it or of you.

I really don’t think, though, that my response to Heart’s madness really amounts to “fanning the flames”…at least not nearly as much than the anti-transphobic and extreme commentary over at Heart’s place already does enough of that.

No, all of radical feminism does not deserve all of the evil brush…but the particular brand of pseudo radfem theology that Heart and her followers do promote constantly at her blog certainly does, in my own opinion, cross the line of common decency several times over enough to deserve the highest of criticism and denouncement.

If that be considered “fanning the flames”, then so be it. You can’t please everyone, and sometimes you have to stand by your words. I stand by every single one….take it or leave it.

Anthony Kennerson
Founder/Owner, The SmackDog Chronicles Blog

I am more than willing to hear from D. C. and other transwomen who share her views; and I really have no beef with her or those more moderate transwomen who may the basic philosophy of feminism or even the more radical tenents thereof….after all, I’d hate on MRAs and traditional right-wingers with the same brush that I do the more strident Womynz’ Caucus when they pile their nonsense on innocent people. I will, however, stand by what I say and say what I stand by….and you are totally free to either love it, hate it, ignore it, or whatever suits your fancy.  I only speak for myself, and myself alone.

Hopefully, that clears things up a bit.

Interpretation and added emphasis by me is included just for entertainment purposes only.

A Few Words About the Latest Round of Anti-Radical Feminist, Pro-Men’s Rights, Propaganda

A few responses to the latest anti-radical feminist tactics, screeds, attacks, propaganda:

Radical feminists are no more “transphobes” than we are “manhaters.”  To allege that we are is to indulge in sexist, misogynist, anti-feminist propaganda.   The herstoric position of radical feminism is that those who are born male into this world enjoy male privilege, for all of the years they live as males and as men.  It is never “_phobic” for an oppressed people group — which females certainly are – to castigate its oppressors, even in harsh and mean-spirited terms, with name-calling, swearing, and hyperbole.  It might be mean-spirited, we might be generalizing, we might be stereotyping, we might — and likely are — angry, but we aren’t “manhaters” because we denounce what men do or because we denounce male privilege, which again, all who are born male into the world have or have had.    Male to female transsexuals/transgendered persons have enjoyed male privilege, for all of the time that they have moved and lived in the world as males or continue to.  To call them out for their sexism whenever we see it, find it, hear of it, know of it, are targeted by it,  are impacted and affected by it  is not “transphobic.”  It is feminism.

Ahhhh…eeeeee-yah. Of course, when “radical feminist” women trash transsexuals as simply rapists and “chicks with dicks” trying to get into real womyn’s panties, it surely isn’t bigotry or hatred or even “transphobia”…it’s just decent classic feminist critique of “male privilege”. Now, the fact that most transsexuals don’t have the choice to lop off their dicks and become real womyn (not that even that would suffice in the deranged den of cobwebs that consists of Heart(less)’s brain, since only “biowomen” can be truly oppressed as women by the patriarchy), or that such “privilege” that they are alleged to retain usually comes at the steep risk of getting beaten down by other men of “privilege”, doesn’t seem to register at all with her radfem manifesto.  And besides…some of those evil transfolk happen to be born with vaginas, too; but never mind that….just having a dick makes you powerful enough. So why am I not a freakin’ millionaire, Heart, just by osmosis??

 Female-to-male transsexuals/transgendered persons are situated much differently than male-to-female transsexuals/transgendered persons.  Transmen have not enjoyed male  privilege for any of the years they lived as females and as women, and they never enjoy male privilege as men do.   When radical feminists call out transpersons, we are calling them out on their sexism.  This means that most of the time, we are calling out transwomen or trans-identified men, not transmen. 

Ahhh…hold up a sec……so, FTM “transmen” (I assume that Patrick (nee Pat) Califia would be an exception, because he’s against everything Heart(less) stands for), who now live as men, are exempt from being part of the evol patriarchy because they lived as women prior to their surgery and their change in sexual orientation?? But by that logic, shouldn’t they be the ultimate sellouts to womynhood for abandoning their natural “sex” and taking on that penis??? Why should they get a free ride??  Oh, and if male power is so overwhelming, then shouldn’t MTF “transwomen” actually get some credit for rejecting and repudiating such “male privilege”??  Oh, but nooooooooosiree…..it’s all about their schlongs attempting to distort and destroy the purity of natural womynspace.  Oh, and the fact that they might attempt to seduce real biowomyn in bathrooms out of the sisterhood doesn’t help their cause, either.

Were that the worst of Heart’s rant, I could barely let it slide…..but then she attempts to seperate herself and her transhating minnions from the Religious Right….and only ends up making things that much worse.

To compare radical feminists to the Religious Right is propaganda, it is a smear campaign, it is disingenuous, and it is transparently and hatefully misogynist.   Shame on “progressives” who can’t find more positive ways to articulate their perspectives than to engage in down and dirty cheap shots of this nature.

Oh, but she must be right…..I mean, giving the nod and wink to the likes of Luckynkl and MarySunshine and delphyne comparing transsexual women to evil gay men cruising public restrooms is certainly much different than the lunacies of NARTH or the ex-gays.  Really, it is. And woe to such “progressives” who simply attack the fundamentalists who rip on the perversity of “the gay/tranny lifestyle” without understanding the subtle nuance of radfem theory which is at least more “positive” in its willingness to suck up to….errrrrrr, criticize traditional conservatives for their beliefs against sexual dissidents.

I was personally put out of business by the Religious Right.  I sued eight fundamentalist organizations including several fundamentalist churches in federal court in 1997 and I won by a unanimous jury verdict.   It’s silly to attempt to lump me in with the Religious Right.   Having said that, I would much rather deal with the open and unapologetic misogyny of the Religious Right than with the veiled and unapologetic misogyny of white leftist liberal men.  At least with the Religious Right, all the cards are on the table, and I do not have to, for example, deal with someone who is calling himself a “feminist” who prostitutes women, makes, uses, or benefits from the making of pornography, and engages in other acts of male oppression and privilege while pretending to be my ally .

Translation: “No, I’m not a fundamentalist antisex hatemonger, but when fundies happen to share my fear and loathing of evil ‘white leftist liberal men’ (hey, Heart, I’m not a liberal or White; so am I exempted from your wrath??) who defend porn, prostitiution, and other evil “male oppressive” sex acts, I can work with them anytime.”

There are plenty of transgender/transsexual people who are religious fundamentalists and the Religious Right does not take any unified  or unitary position as to transgender/transsexuality.  To suggest that it does is to participate in, and be guilty of, the willful ignorance around issues of religious fundamentalism and religion in general of which far too many liberals, self-identified feminists, and ”progressives” so-called are guilty, which ruins whatever shreds of credibility remain so far as the Left goes and clouds the credibility of progressive movements in general.  

Ahhhhh….I get it now; Heart’s brand of antipornradicalfeminism is really a page from her conception of the “Religious Left”; a nice means of retaining political credibility while appealing to social conservatives. But I guess that “credibility” amongst the Left can only be found by parroting the Right on social policy and making sexually Puritanical women the new vangard of the progressive movement.  Didn’t the Democratic Leadership Council already try that tact for the last 20 years, and fall flat on its face??

People need to do their homework about the Religious Right if there is to be any productive confrontation or challenge to fundamentalisms (as opposed to tickle-for-a-nickle demonizing and scapegoating).  There are female persons, girls and women, being horrifically oppressed by fundamentalist men.  They deserve and need our educated and intelligent SUPPORT.  Women and girls in fundamentalist religion are not similarly situated with men in fundamentalist religion and should not be lumped in with men in fundamentalist religion.  Women in fundamentalist religion are an oppressed people group .

Yeah….Phyllis Schafly and Kathleen Parker and Mona Charen really are radicalfeminists, however they may deny it. They just don’t know it yet…because they are soooo oppressed.

Mary Daly did not “compare transsexuals with Frankenstein.”  This is a lie.

Well, we’ll just let Daly’s own words be the judge of that. From a comment (which was altered by Heart for “snarkiness”) by nexyjo, quoting directly from GYN/Ecology (pp. 70 – 71):

“Today the Frankenstein phenomenon is omnipresent not only in religious myth, but in its offspring, phallocratic technology. The insane desire for power, the madness of boundary violation, is the mark of necrophiliacs who sense the lack of soul/spirit/life-loving principle with themselves and therefore try to invade and kill off all spirit, substituting conglomerates of corpses. This necrophillic invasion/elimination takes a variety of forms. Transsexualism is an example of male surgical siring which invades the female world with substitutes.” 

[Emphasis added by me.]

Remember, this is the same Mary Daly who proposed “Misterectomy” as a cure for all of womyn’s ills.

Going back to Heart(less), who’s never, never out of control (often):

Male-to-female transsexuality/transgender is really about men’s rights.  It has nothing to do with feminism.  As such, as feminists,  just as we oppose men’s rights, in general,  we oppose this manifestation of men’s rights as well.

Because, of course, in a perfect womynhood, men would have no rights that womyn would be bound to respect…in fact, men would probably be reduced in population for the survival of the human race and the good of society in Heart’s grand vision of “progressive radicalfeminist” society. And, of course, transsexualism would not even exist, since technology and womyn’s wisdom will be able to nip any such deviancy in the bud through “natural selection”…or merely trashing “male nanates”.

And finally, Heart concludes with the grand finish:

One more.  Critiques of transgender/transsexuality are no more meant as attacks on individual transgender/transsexual persons than critiques of prostituting women are meant as attacks on prostitutes or critiques of pornography are meant as attacks on women in pornography or critiques of motherhood are meant as attacks on mothers or critiques of marriage as an institution are meant as critiques of married women or critiques of high heels are meant as critiques of those who wear them or critiques of lipstick are critiques of those who wear it or critiques of shaving are critiques of those who shave or critiques of boob jobs are critiques of those who have them, and on and on and on, infinity.   Some ought to get over themselves and learn the difference between critiques, analysis, opinions, politics and them.  I can critique the hell out of your politics and your theories and ideas and go to the mat for you,  love the hell out of you, and be willing to lay down my life for you.   This is what any mother knows.  This is what any lover knows.   If you want to know how to critique and analyze the hell out of something without making it personal, try unconditionally fucking loving somebody, would you?  Then you’ll understand.  Maybe unconditional love is just so goddamn rare right now, nobody knows what it is any more.  And if people don’t learn, then there will not be any revolution, not any time soon.

So, now, all you funk-filled bratwurst lovers, you lipstick faux-lesbians, you stripper prostitute sexbots, you patriarchy/mixed gender fuckers…listen up; Mama Heart has only your best interests at heart (sorry for the pun) when she tells you that you are betraying the sisterhood by getting those implants or dabbing on lip gloss or shaving your legs or putting on those stilettos for your oppressors. How can she show such unconditional love for you if you don’t reciprocate by adopting her ideas to the hilt?? If you’d just stop taking yourself so seriously and just give in to her and her whacked-out beliefs, then she and her Womyn Nation will love you forever and ever….and all will be right with the world. After all, it’s only analysis and science, it’s not personal.

Sure, Heart.  Nothing personal about The Bell Curve or Birth of a Nation, either.

Ann and Nancy Wilson (of the 80′s rock group Heart) oughta sue this woman for libelling their good name. Most decent progressive people should do the same out of general moral principle.

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)

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……

And look what she has created in response??

And who in the hell is that whom she invited to guest host there?? Gee….who’d thunk it??

YeaPornies of the world, go there and unite!!!!  You have nothing to lose but your inhibitions…..and a foe of those heavy chains.

Renegade Evolution: Pro-Porn Activism

Especially since it takes a TV journalist to say the things that our supposed quasi-liberal “opposition” party should have been screaming in unison from the very beginning.

Paraphrasing the immortal words of Arsenio Hall: Kick it, KO.

From Countdown with Keith Olbermann: Special Comment on Scooter Libby Commutation (7/3/07) via YouTube, with the usual h/t to Crooks and Liars)

Though I’m not hitching my hopes on Dubya or Big Dick resigning in disgrace (more likely, they’ll sooner be dragged out of the White House kicking and screaming, or hatch another terrorist plot to suspend the elections for good), resignation seems to be looking pretty good as an option. Especially since the Dimocrats aren’t going to revive impeachment any time soon……damn them to hell.