This Just In…Keith Olbermann Just Scored….Again!!!

This rout would be seriously funny….weren’t it be so true, and the stakes so high.

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”) 

“That’s Emperor Chucklenuts To You, Fat Head!!!”

Oh, but you will not believe this…but if this article represents the overwhelming sentiment of the 24% of the population who still manages beyond a glimmer of working brain cells to support Dubya’s war games, then we are so totally screwed over….and not in the good way, either.

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… 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.

The Nigeria Tribune Takes On The Masturbation Menace

Gotta hand it to them….for all of the twisted stats and bloated claims they use to debunk self-pleasure, they do have a way with words.  A proper fisking follows.

Taken from the Nigeria Tribune: 

MASTURBATION: Temporary sexual pleasure with many dangers

There is a secret sexual practice common to both the young and old and it is known as masturbation. Seye Adeniyi in this report examines the causes, and the negative impacts it is having on health.

THERE is a secretive sexual practice common to both men and women, as well as young people, and it is known as masturbation. A team of scientists in Australia recently found that 98 per cent of men engage in this sexual act, while many women cannot also feign ignorance on this sexual act. In fact, they revealed that 89 per cent of females also practise masturbation. Your Health findings show that this habit is no respecter of age, as many young boys and girls are also aware of what masturbation is all about.

Oh,’s so “secretive” that almost everyone participates in the act of self-pleasure without remorse or harm….except, perhaps, certain writers for a supposedly national newspaper who are so obsessed with regulating other people’s sex lives.

Many of the medical practitioners who spoke with Your Health agreed that masturbation, which is the self-stimulation of one’s sexual organ by hand or by other means to achieve sexual excitement, satisfaction and ultimately, to ejaculation, is generally, secretive, but a bad practice common with teenagers.

Yup…really bad, like spitting in public and jaywalking, I suppose.

Though Dr. Adewale Oguntuase says adults also masturbate, but scientists have different opinions on its effect on health. Some say that masturbation is an act that must be resisted and that those already into it should find a way to stop it because it has harmful effects on the body, especially the brain.

Yeah, right… simply having men rape women unabated and reducing women to baby factories for God and nation is that much better??

Of course, there are some others that say that masturbation is a normal and healthy practice if done privately and discreetly…but let’s not give our own biases away, mmmmm-kay???

Another research also indicates that more children are masturbating. The survey indicates that about one-third of all girls and about half of all boys have masturbated to orgasm by the time they reached the age of 13, with boys generally starting earlier than girls.

“Another research”??? Ahhh….are y’all so busy fighting Ponzi schemes to mix in a proofreader for syntax??

For instance, an American social historian, Edward Brecher, in a research work published in a book about sex among older people in the United States entitled Love, Sex and Ageing (1984), reports that 33 per cent of women 70 years of age and older and 43 per cent of men in the same age range still engage in self-stimulation of their sexual organs.

“Sixty-five per cent of married women and 59 per cent of married men in that age range,” the researcher stated, still have sexual intercourse with their spouses. This means that even some of the old people still masturbate.

Oh, the horrrrah!!!  We have OLD PEOPLE who can’t keep their hands out of their pants and panties!!! This.  Must. Stop. Now. Next thing you know, we’ll have brothels in the geriatric wards of hospitals!!!

The next question then is: Does masturbation have any ill-effect on one’s life, sexual life, libido and most especially, one’s health? Going by submissions of medical experts, sexual coldness in women is far more common than lack of sex drive in men. Many women that practise masturbation develop the habit as a result of many factors, including peer influence.

Now…notice the intro of the phrase “sexual coldness”…of which we can readily translate to “women who won’t open their legs for their husbands/boyfriends/whomever and make for the babies for the glory of God, family, and country. How this is blamed on rampant masturbation may be a loss for most of us mormal folk…but I do digress….

In many women, the trouble often arises from lack of normal sex instructions during the early years. Many have been indoctrinated by their parents or elders that all matters pertaining to sex are shameful and wicked.

According to a health instructor, who simply wants to be addressed as Mrs. Oyemade, “it is a strange fact that some women can enjoy sex while away on vacation, but fail to do so on returning home and assuming the normal burdens of everyday living. This shows how important it is that all women and girls should be made to understand fully the real functions of their reproductive organs at the early stage of life, and the part they play in building and maintaining a happy home.”

Many girls and women don’t have this knowledge, and that is why some of them engage in unwholesome sexual habits like lesbianism and masturbation.

In other words, if Nigerian women would just remember that God created them to make plenty of babies and that they should just be quiet when their hubbies want to mount them, men wouldn’t “abuse” themselves quite as much. And….they would probably be soooooo satisfied by the magical working of such “swordsmanship” (so to speak) that they would never want to touch their clits again. 

And this woman is a “health instructor”???  Eeeeeee-yeah.

And for Mr. Bosun Banjoko, an immunologist/public health specialist at Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Osun State, “masturbation can actually affect one’s sexual life in future and also has both psychological and social effects on the doer.”

Mr. Idowu Bakare of Movement Against HIV/AIDS and Poverty (MAAIDS) and Olubowale Gbolahan, of Centre for Rural and Reproductive Health Development (CRRHD), also share the same view with Bosun Banjoko. Another health practitioner, Mr. Femi Adereti described masturbation as a secret act of sexual excitement which he said can be definitely harmful, especially when carried to excess. “Often the individual tends to become secretive, living in a kind of dream world where fantasy plays a dominant part. Many highly nervous older women freely admit that most of their troubles stem from some form of self-stimulation, indulged in for over a long period of time.”

For Dr. Bayo Omole, any young person who engages in masturbation is only exposing himself/herself to nervous problems. “In fact, nervous problems are always more common in those who indulge in this sort of thing. Many of them seem unable to face reality. Frequent masturbation, with its tendency to day-dreaming, can be harmful, particularly to those who are subject to nervous depression. So, I would advise young people, especially anybody who wants to enjoy his/her life to avoid the dirty, unholy sexual habit called masturbation,” Dr. Omole said.

Now, you do happen to spot the trend here towards citing numerous psychoanalyst “experts” to prove their case about the ultimate evil threat of masturbation to Nigerian civilization……because, quite simply, it’s a distraction f from doing God’s work, or so I guess.

From a religious point of view, Pastor Yemi Aduloju, an Ibadan-based man of God, in one of his sermons, submitted that masturbation is a sexual sin with dangers to health and most especially to one’s spiritual life. According to him, masturbation opens one to sickness and diseases as spelt out in biblical passages like Proverb 6: 32 – 33. Pastor Aduloju said: “Sexual sins like masturbation bring down great men and has also brought down great destiny in life. It makes God turn His back on you, even immediately you commence the dirty, unholy, sexual act with temporary pleasures.”

You mean, it’s not just about Lot defying God by spilling his seed??

For Okeke Uzoamaka, a senior social worker with CEREHAD – a non-governmental organisation, increasing cases of unwholesome sexual habit like masturbation, lesbianism and homosexuality among youths can also be traced to the advent of the internet. “Many young school boys and girls now go to cybercafe to watch pornographic films on the internet. Though many of them would tell you they are going to browse, but ask them what actually are they browsing? It is either X-rated films or blue films or they are looking for ways to commit internet fraud or crime. So, this is where they learn all these dirty sexual habits like masturbation which eventually would mar their health later in future,” Uzoamaka stated while speaking with Your Health recently.

Memo to Amber Rhea: You can forget about starting up a Sex 2.0 branch in Nigeria anytime soon.

Howeover, some people who spoke with Your Health do not see anything bad in masturbation. Many of them believe that masturbation is a normal sexual behaviour which almost everybody engages in. A medical doctor who will not want her name mentioned stated that for many people, masturbation remains a taboo subject and a practice that is still regarded as perverse or immoral. “Some medical practitioners and psychologists had condemned masturbation as destructive to mental health, even recommending amputation of the penis as a way to cure the habit in compulsive males. But today, many medical experts are beginning to change their belief.

“But for me, there is no ill-effect attached to masturbation. There is nothing wrong in it. It is not against the law, it is not immoral. It is perfectly a normal healthy thing done by 98 per cent of men, but the other two per cent are liars, who will not want to say the truth, but yet practise it,” she stated. In the opinion of Dr. Andrew Weil in his report entitled: “Dr Weil’s Vitamin Advisor for your Body, he states: “Now it appears that masturbation is not normal, it may be healthy and protective, especially for men. Said he: “In my view, masturbation can be a normal expression of sexuality in both men and women, when done compulsively or addictively. It can be irritating or exhausting, but in moderation it is medically harmless and may even be healthy, so if the Australian Scientists’ findings are confirmed, they should be part of the advice doctors would give men for protecting their repoduction systems.”

So….first off, why not publish the name of the “medical doctor” who offered a defense of masturbation….or for that matter, the names of all those who are not so reticent about defending mutual masturbation as a perfectly harmless (when done privately and consensually and respectfully) act of self-pleasure??  Could it be because that would really destroy the (il)logic of this entire article??  Naaaaaah…

Nonetheless, other dangers of masturbation as spelt out by medical experts include psychological guilt. A chance masturbator stands the risk of nervous-depressing permanent insanity, premature death, especially for those with high blood pressure, diabetes, blood diseases, inability to perform sexual act naturally, etc. Other dangers attached to masturbation sexes include inability to pull out of the act. It has even been documented to cause more deaths among boys in Europe than any plaque or war. Masturbation also results in total loss of sexual feelings and desire due to lack of sensation when it is time to actually engage in legitimate sexual intercourse. Quick, early or premature ejaculation is also one of the rewards of regular masturbation.

WOW.  If we are to believe that, masturbation causes death…more death than the Middle Ages wars, the Bubonic plague, cancer, lung disease, malnutrition, and violence….combined. And…it also leads to premature ejaculation in the “main event” of conception, too.  Really.  For sure.  Experts prove it!!!!

In girls, the breast development is arrested or retarded and the individual also stands the risk of experiencing spinal irritation resulting from epilepsy as a result of loss of seminal fluid in a male.

Oh, please….so loss of sperm count leads directly to epilepsy and spinal injury in women, as well as smaller breasts???  Gee, you forgot smaller, less rounded asses, too!!!

In.  Freakin’. Credible.  And I thought that only the Mormons and Paul Cameron had the exclusive monopoly on sexual crackpottery and wingnuttery.

Aborigine Troubles Down Under?? Just Ban The Porn And Booze!! (Or..Newt Gingrich Goes To Austrailia)

I didn’t know to ask whether Newt Gingrich must have moved to Austrailia, because only that can explain this kind of racist Puritan colonial nonsense (from the Guardian; h/t to Susie Bright):

Aborigines face ban on alcohol and porn

James Sturcke and agencies
Thursday June 21, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

Pornography and alcohol will be banned for Aborigines in Australia’s Northern Territory, the country’s prime minister, John Howard, announced today, after a report found that “rivers of grog” were leading to rampant child abuse.

“This is a national emergency,” Mr Howard told parliament. “We’re dealing with a group of young Australians for whom the concept of childhood innocence has never been present.” The sale, possession and transportation of alcohol would be banned for six months on Aboriginal-owned land in the Northern Territory, Mr Howard said, and sales would be reviewed after that.

Some Aboriginal leaders immediately attacked the plan as “disgusting and paternalistic”, saying they were not consulted and that they objected to restrictions on how indigenous people spend their welfare benefits.

The child abuse report, Little Children Are Sacred, released last week, found drinking was a key contributor to the collapse of Aboriginal culture and neglect of children, and created opportunities for paedophiles.

The report said hardcore pornography was rife in Aboriginal communities and available to children, who had become desensitised to sex with adults. The sale and possession of pornography is also to be banned.

“A river of grog [alcohol] is killing people and destroying our communities,” Pat Anderson, who co-chaired the inquiry, told reporters last week. “There is a strong association between alcohol abuse, violence and sexual abuse of children.”

About 60,000 of Australia’s roughly 400,000 Aborigines live in the Northern Territory. They are consistently the nation’s most disadvantaged group, with far higher rates of unemployment, alcohol and drug abuse, and domestic violence. Their life expectancy is 17 years shorter than that of other Australians.

Alcohol kills an Aborigine every 38 hours and accounts for a quarter of deaths in the Northern Territory.

Under Mr Howard’s plan, new restrictions would be placed on welfare payments for Aborigines, forcing parents to spend at least half of the money on essential items such as food – a measure meant to prevent wasting money on alcohol and gambling. Family welfare payments would also be linked to children’s school attendance.

Aboriginal leaders said it was the kind of government behaviour that disenfranchised their people and created the problems in the first place.

“I’m absolutely disgusted by this patronising government control,” said Mitch, who uses one name and is a member of a government board helping Aborigines who were taken from their parents under past assimilation laws. “And tying drinking with welfare payments is just disgusting.

“If they’re going to do that, they’re going to have to do that with every single person in Australia, not just black people.”

The report said banning alcohol sales in some Aboriginal communities had dramatically reduced sexual abuse and violence: “Alcohol is being used as a bartering tool to gain sex from children, either by offering it to the children themselves or in some cases to adult members of their family.”

One Aboriginal woman from the Yolngu tribe said “white man’s water is a curse” and called for alcohol outlets to be closed.

“Eradicate this curse that is killing us physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually,” she wrote in a letter published in the report.

The report said: “Many of the Aboriginal people spoken to by the inquiry were not aware of legal issues such as age of consent.” 

Oh, so let me get this straight…

First, “we” (by “we” I refer to universal White privileged people) steal their land from under them by means of force, rape, and any other means;

Then, “we” use their men for slaves and women for sperm deposits, not caring about their free will;

Then, “we” abandon them after using them to fetter for themselves, and throw alcohol and Bibles and meaningless trinkets of cash at them as cures for “their” apparant lack of morality;

And then, “we” issue reports decrying how immoral they have become and the results of “their” immorality, and thusly, in a fit of care, pass even more repressive and reactionary laws to control their lives that much more…all because “we” care sooooo deeply.

And yes, we absolutely must take away the porn and teh alcohol from the nigg…errrrrr…the Aboriginies, since unlike “us”, they have been proven unable to handle the stuff for themselves.

On second thoughts, maybe Newtie isn’t the role model that Aussie premier John Howard (who also happens to be the chief booster for Dubya’s war games, too) is trying to copy.  Perhaps David Duke would be more appropos here.

Now, the idea that perhaps the continuation of White racism and gross neglect of the Aboriginies might have a bit more to do with their lack of well being than the demon water and porn could have crossed the mind of those who created this report….but naaaaaah, that would be too liberal and would scare off the liquor companies.  So much easier to blame the victims and create more repression.

I kinda like Susie’s suggestion:

I’d like to see the Prime Minister ban drinking in his neighborhood for six fucking minutes.

Nice try, Susie, but that law probably wouldn’t last three minutes.

An Open Letter To The ByrdBrain (aka Birdeye)

Hey, jackass:

I really tried to give your brown nosed, MRA-sniffing, right-wing ass the benefit of the doubt, but when you decided to drop this lovely turd onto Renegade's blog, you crossed the line and earned yourself a serving of The Can of SmackDog Whupass(tm):

You do realize that the bodycounts racked up under Marxist/Commie regimes (like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc) – as far left as you can possibly get – absolutely DWARFED the absolute WORST estimates under Nazism (just to use your revisionist definition of it as "right-wing" for argument's sake)?

Anyhow, it's obvious the only reason you support "women's lib" is so you can get in their sex+ panties easier. 😀  

 Now, let's examine all these memes one by one, shall we??

1) Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot — as far left as you can possibly get — dwarfs the worst estimates under Nazism…

OK…I guess that you can say that as a general statement.  If you manage to avoid the fact that most of the supposed 2 million people allegedly squashed by Stalin during his regime happened to die as a result of World War II…when his country was actually invaded by Hitler and Nazi Germany.

Or…the basic fact that Pol Pot was so "far to the left" that his regime actually got the support of those evil socialists at the Reagan Administration when the Khmer Rouge-led government decided to launch a war with Vietnam during the 1980s??? (Not to mention that Pol Pot actually came to power following the invasion of his country by American forces, which followed a coup where the previous leader was toppled in favor of a much more right-wing govenor who was more amicable to the US??

And what is so "revisionist" about calling the Nazis "right wing"??  They were backed by the wealthiest sector of German industry and defended the socially conservative values of the most reactionary institutions.  They targeted homosexuals, women who didn't follow their standards of German social and sexual "purity", Jews, the Roma ("Gyspies"), and other scapegoats of their "Aryan supremacy" ideology. And they developed a mass propaganda and social machine for controlling and punishing deviant thought.  But, since they mocked the name "socialist", they can be attached onto anyone on the Left for you to slander, right??

And what would you say about the governments of Mussolini and Tojo in Italy and Japan, respectively?? They never called themselves "socialists", yet they too decided to team up with Hitler for their own reasons….and they have their own record of repression and violence.  I guess that that makes them left-wing, too….right??

But this is so inmaterial piffle compared to your feeble attempt to smack me down:

 Anyhow, it's obvious the only reason you support "women's lib" is so you can get in their sex+ panties easier. 😀 

Yeah. Right. 

I mean, every word of defense of Ren (who doesn't even see herself as a feminist that much anyway) and Belledame and Trinity and Amber Rhea is designed not as a means of social solidarity or a statement of support and respect….it's designed merely as a ploy by me to get into their panties.

Ahhhh, dewd…why go there?? 

As much as I consider Ren to be quite teh sexy (and she damn well IS, too, in addition to being smart and compassionate), I have this thing about breaking up healthy relationships….and last time I remember, she was already attached. I don't know her or any other of the women I meet online, and since I have this thing I call a JOB (not a handjob, ByrdBrain, but an actual JOB) that consumes much of my time, I really don't think that I'll be quite able to attempt to even meet them in person….heaven forbid, try to hook up with them.

But..guess what, BB? If they actually wanted me to get with them, I wouldn't mind it one damn bit, since these women, in addition to being decently attractive, happen to have something that you frankly don't show much of: a heart, some compassion and empathy, and a working brain.  They actually represent what's right about feminism, even if they are a bit estranged from the concept due to getting burned by the likes of Witchy-Woo.

I am soooo sorry to disappoint you and your strawman fantasies, ByrdBrain, but I don't support "women's lib" merely to get free sexual conquests (these days, my hands get me through quite well, thank you very much), but because it is the right thing to support. Either women are to be treated as fully human beings, or they are not. That some people who use the feminist label can on occasion abuse it as a club to beat other women down or as a crutch for their own myopia does not diminish the need for feminism one iota.

At least I respect women enough to value their brains and their humanity as much as I do their sexuality.  Can you top that..or is all your bluster nothing more than the rantings of a scared little man who can't stand women more powerful or smarter than he is??

As Beyonce would say: "To the left." (As in, either SYAD and pour yourself a tall glass of STFU; or waddle your sorry ass somewhere else and find somebody who really gives a damn.) 

Oh..and stop reading your faxes on the blogs, too.


US Appelate Court to FCC on Obscenity Rules:

Oh, but this is too damn sweet for words.

Memo to Teh Veep Dick: Try not to tell an opposing Senator to “f’ck yourself”; cause it just might come back to bite your ass.

From the New York Times today:

June 5, 2007

Court Rebuffs F.C.C. on Fines for Indecency

WASHINGTON, June 4 — If President Bush and Vice President Cheney can blurt out vulgar language, then the government cannot punish broadcast television stations for broadcasting the same words in similarly fleeting contexts.

That, in essence, was the decision on Monday, when a federal appeals panel struck down the government policy that allows stations and networks to be fined if they broadcast shows containing obscene language.

Although the case was primarily concerned with what is known as “fleeting expletives,” or blurted obscenities, on television, both network executives and top officials at the Federal Communications Commission said the opinion could gut the ability of the commission to regulate any speech on television or radio.

Now, while that would probably be a very good thing…more than likely probably it wouldn’t, since cable TV and satellite already exist for the more raunchier forms of TV, and over-the-air staions would still fall under FCC licensing purview.

Kevin J. Martin, the chairman of the F.C.C., said that the agency was now considering whether to seek an appeal before all the judges of the appeals court or to take the matter directly to the Supreme Court.

The decision, by a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, was a sharp rebuke for the F.C.C. and for the Bush administration. For the four television networks that filed the lawsuit — Fox, CBS, NBC and ABC — it was a major victory in a legal and cultural battle that they are waging with the commission and its supporters.

Under President Bush, the F.C.C. has expanded its indecency rules, taking a much harder line on obscenities uttered on broadcast television and radio. While the judges sent the case back to the commission to rewrite its indecency policy, it said that it was “doubtful” that the agency would be able to “adequately respond to the constitutional and statutory challenges raised by the networks.”

The networks hailed the decision.

“We are very pleased with the court’s decision and continue to believe that the government regulation of content serves no purpose other than to chill artistic expression in violation of the First Amendment,” said Scott Grogin, a senior vice president at Fox. “Viewers should be allowed to determine for themselves and their families, through the many parental control technologies available, what is appropriate viewing for their home.”

Hear, hear.  That’s why we have filters and that thing we call the “OFF” switch.

Mr. Martin, the chairman of the commission, attacked the panel’s reasoning.

“I completely disagree with the court’s ruling and am disappointed for American families,” he said. “The court says the commission is ‘divorced from reality.’ It is the New York court, not the commission, that is divorced from reality.”

He said that if the agency was unable to prohibit some vulgarities during prime time, “Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want.”

Oh, really, Mr. Martin???  I mean, it’s not as if people were howling four-letter bombs before your “Zero Tolerance” policy took effect.  Well..other than Dick Cheney, of course….

Beginning with the F.C.C.’s indecency finding in a case against NBC for a vulgarity uttered by the U2 singer Bono during the Golden Globes awards ceremony in 2003, President Bush’s Republican and Democratic appointees to the commission have imposed a tougher policy by punishing any station that broadcast a fleeting expletive. That includes vulgar language blurted out on live shows like the Golden Globes or scripted shows like “NYPD Blue,” which was cited in the case.

Reversing decades of a more lenient policy, the commission had found that the mere utterance of certain words implied that sexual or excretory acts were carried out and therefore violated the indecency rules.

But the judges said vulgar words are just as often used out of frustration or excitement, and not to convey any broader obscene meaning. “In recent times even the top leaders of our government have used variants of these expletives in a manner that no reasonable person would believe referenced sexual or excretory organs or activities.”

Adopting an argument made by lawyers for NBC, the judges then cited examples in which Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney had used the same language that would be penalized under the policy. Mr. Bush was caught on videotape last July using a common vulgarity that the commission finds objectionable in a conversation with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain. Three years ago, Mr. Cheney was widely reported to have muttered an angry obscene version of “get lost” to Senator Patrick Leahy on the floor of the United States Senate.

“We find that the F.C.C.’s new policy regarding ‘fleeting expletives’ fails to provide a reasoned analysis justifying its departure from the agency’s established practice,” said the panel.

Emily A. Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman, said Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney had no comment about the ruling.

Although the judges struck down the policy on statutory grounds, they also said there were serious constitutional problems with the commission’s attempt to regulate the language of television shows.

“We are skeptical that the commission can provide a reasoned explanation for its ‘fleeting expletive’ regime that would pass constitutional muster,” said the panel in an opinion written by Judge Rosemary S. Pooler and joined by Judge Peter W. Hall. “We question whether the F.C.C.’s indecency test can survive First Amendment scrutiny.”

In his dissent, Judge Pierre N. Leval defended the commission’s decision to toughen its indecency policy.

“In explanation of this relatively modest change of standard, the commission gave a sensible, although not necessarily compelling, reason,” he said.

“What we have is at most a difference of opinion between a court and an agency,” Judge Leval said. “Because of the deference courts must give to the reasoning of a duly authorized administrative agency in matters within the agency’s competence, a court’s disagreement with the commission on this question is of no consequence. The commission’s position is not irrational; it is not arbitrary and capricious.”

The case involved findings that the networks had violated the indecency rules for comments by Cher and Nicole Richie on the Billboard Music Awards, the use of expletives by the character Andy Sipowicz on “NYPD Blue” and a comment on “The Early Show” by a contestant from CBS’s reality show “Survivor.”

The commission did not issue fines in any of the cases because the programs were broadcast before the agency changed its policy. But the networks were concerned about the new interpretation of the rules, particularly since the agency has been issuing a record number of fines.

Two years ago, Congress increased the potential maximum penalty for each indecency infraction to $325,000, from $32,500. Producers and writers have complained that the prospect of stiff fines had begun to chill their creative efforts.

The case, Fox et al. v. Federal Communications Commission, along with a second case now before a federal appeals court in Philadelphia involving the malfunctioning wardrobe that exposed one of the pop singer Janet Jackson’s breasts during the halftime show of the 2004 Super Bowl, have been closely watched by the television industry and its critics for their broad implications for television programming.

Neither cable TV nor satellite programming faces the same indecency rules even though they cover about 85 percent of homes. And as the Bush administration’s appointees have taken a tougher view on indecency, the industry has waged a countercampaign in the courts.

The commission has struggled to consistently explain how it applies the rules. In the Bono case involving the Golden Globe awards, the staff initially ruled in favor of the network. After lawmakers began to complain about that decision, the commission, then led by Michael K. Powell, reversed the staff decision.

But the commission declined to impose a fine because, it noted, “existing precedent would have permitted this broadcast” and therefore NBC and its affiliates “necessarily did not have the requisite notice to justify a penalty.”

For those who might have missed the Bono/GGA brohaha, Bono dropped the “f’n brilliant” bomb when recieving his award. The FCC board mostly responded to the DeLay/Dole Congress, who raised such a stink that “liberal Hollywood” was so corrupting people by allowing graitiuous f-bombs.  Of course, dropping real bombs on Iraqis is perfectly OK still, you know…

Broadcast television executives have complained about what they say has been the arbitrary application of the rules. They expressed concern, for instance, that they might be penalized for broadcasting “Saving Private Ryan,” a Steven Spielberg movie about the invasion of Normandy during World War II, because of the repeated use of vulgarities.

But the F.C.C. in that case ruled in favor of the networks, finding that deleting the expletives “would have altered the nature of the artistic work and diminished the power, realism and immediacy of the film experience for viewers.”

WOW.  That would be considered a total rout.

Of course, it will be appealed to the Supremes, and with the new Scalito majority, you never know about these things.  Just stay tuned.


LiveJournal: Tough on “Pedophiles”; Soft on Bigots?!?!?!

You will not believe this shit that I just found out from Trinity (via The Strangest Alchemy).

It seems that LiveJournal is currently in a big stink for doing a mass purge of accounts due to a thinly-veiled campaign accusing them of allowing pedophiles and sexual predators to use their sites.  To that end, they went and "struck through" (i.e., shut down) dozens if not hundreds of LJ accounts and pages which basically were associated with themes of rape or incest or pedophilia.  Problem is, a great deal of the groups targeted for censorship were mostly innocent sites which merely either discussed those taboo subjects WITHOUT ever advocating them…or happened to be merely fan sites of slash fiction or GLBT or erotic fiction .  One site which was nuked only dealt with discussion of the novel Lolita…and still got axed.

The chief spokesperson for LJ, who calls himself SixApart, defended the purge against critics by saying that they were just following procedure and enforcing the Terms of Service that all their accounts are subjected to. (Yeah….and perhaps a visit from Abu Gonzales’ henchmen may have been a factor too…naaaaah.)

But here’s the fun part: turns out that the primary group responsible for most of the complaints leading to the purge just so happens to have a few skeletons in their own closets.

And a few hoods and robes.

And plenty of Stars and Bars flags.

And lots and lots of guns, too.

I’ll just let Dark Christian (through Trinity) take the story from here:

Here is the personal blog of the woman who sent in all those complaints to LJ (the Warriors for Innocence woman).


Nice Confederate battle flags, lady…one of which is a banner for a group known as the REDNECK MAFIA??? She’s a total right wing NUT JOB!!!

Her blog:

I can’t believe Six Apart got railroaded by an ultra-conservative xenophobe! What a bunch of dumb fucks!

Here’s where she got her ‘Redneck Mafia’ banner:

One banner she has on her blog reads: "America, Saving Europe’s Ass Since 1917" and another banner on her blog proudly bears the words: "United States of America Deportation Squad". It’s reassuring to know that Six Apart and Live Journal listen and take heed to the rantings of an individual who carries such negative feelings toward non-Americans and immigrants…huh.

Good job, Six Apart! *shakes head*

Here’s her Blogger profile:

And here’s her email:

Here’s where I located this information:

Pass this info around, please. I’ll be damned if I give my money to a company who bends to the will of a person like this woman…

First off, she links to a write-in campaign for Cary Cartter for the 2008 presidential race; a bit of digging around shows Cartter is explicitly dominionist and may in fact be linked with the "Christian Patriot" militia movement. At the very least, he is definitely part of the "Joel’s Army" movement; his blog includes links to a plethora of fellow "Joel’s Army" bloggers (including one named "Third Wave Dave"; "Third Wave" is a codeword for Joel’s Army theology in the Assemblies and other neopente churches) and a number of dominionist correspondence-school bloggers (as well as at least one explicitly Christian Reconstructionist journal called "Sovereign Joy").

The "Redneck Mafia" seems to be a collection of neo-Confederates and neo-Confederate sympathisers; the Blogspot site not only hosts essentially a webring of neo-Confederate sympathisers, but also a Texas-secessionist webring and an anti-UN webring; the Texas secessionist webring in turn also hosts a neoconservative webring and a secondary neo-Confederate sympathiser webring ("Children of the Confederacy"). Pretty much all of the members are almost identical between these Blogspot webrings.

In fact, almost *all* the blogs cross-link to each other (acting as essentially a web-ring of "Joel’s Army" folks connected to the owner of TexasFred, which is registered via DomainsByProxy (a service used to anonymise whois registration, and commonly abused by spammers). The main "Texas Fred" site includes a Java game entitled "Shoot The Wetback" and is a major promoter of the Minutemen militia group (which itself has extensive ties to "Christian Patriot" dominionist militia groups, racists, and in particular the Constitution Party (itself a de jure Christian Reconstructionist party and a de facto "Militia Party" to boot)). Other fun blogs in the same general "network" include "Beast Media" (which is a particularly obnoxious neocon site that actually makes "Mallard Fillmore" look humorous in comparison, a guy calling himself "Minuteman1776" (whose website links in turn to other parts of the "TexasFred" network including a site called "Radioactive Liberty"–which literally calls for war for oil–as well as a group calling itself "Marine Mom Militia". Almost all of these sites seem to be out to out-Ann Coulter Ann Coulter.

The same site also confirms something that a lot of folks have suspected–they are, in fact, simply searching Google for specific keywords (no matter the actual content) and sending complaints directly to Six Apart based on what they are finding on Google without any attempt to verify the actual content of sites. (As an aside, this could put Dark Christianity in danger–we actually have a "child abuse" tagline in our community, and have posts (searchable on Google) in regards to religiously motivated child abuse as well as sexual scandals (including paedophile pastors in dominionist denominations and the almost complete lack of policing in these denominations) that do come up on Google searches.)

….In other words, with the "Warriors for Innocence" scandal, we may actually be dealing with part of a fairly extensive network of neo-Confederate, militia-sympathiser (if not flat out militia-member) "Christian Patriot" God-warriors-with-guns "Joel’s Army" nutcases on our hand…one that potentially makes Focus on the Family or even the American Family Association look like the friggin’ Society of Friends in comparison.

WOW.  Just plain f’n WOW.

So now LJ allows racists and Dominionists not only to roam free and harrass other users, but censors their victims??

Dark Christian’s LJ has much more info on both the controversy and the group here.

Just scroll down Trinity’s LJ home page for the latest articles and links.

[Update: It seems that LJ is trying to right itself now: see this latest post from Trin for details.]

Wingnuttery Plus Manifest Destiny = Whiskey? Tonto? Foxtrot???

The following is a classic result of what happens when you consume a little too much of the right-wing Kool-Aid.

The New York Sun, who obviously must see the New York Post as a bastion of evil liberalism in comparison, decided to bring forth an editorial on the “sellout” of Dimocrats in Iraq. (For them, though, the sellout is not in backing Dubya’s war, but in having the gall to criticize Dubya’s noble mission in the first place.)

And to that end, they envoke the earlier period of “Manifest Destiny”; the acquisition (or, as real honest historians would call it, the outright theft) of half of Mexico to justify the present campaign.

Nezua does such a good job of dissecting this pile of horse dung over at his place..but this deserves a special can of SmackDog Whupass(TM) on its own.  So, if you will pardon my indulgence, on with the fisking.

Iraq and Mexico

New York Sun Editorial
May 29, 2007

News that Senators Clinton and Obama, acting on the eve of Memorial Day weekend, cast their votes against funding our GIs in Iraq put us in a mind to read about Abraham Lincoln and the Mexican War. This had been suggested by Governor Cuomo, in his spirited letter to the editor in response to our editorial about how President Lincoln turned away the editor of Chicago Tribune, Joseph Medill, and a delegation that had gone to see him, late in the Civil War, in hopes of getting him to back off a draft call from Cook County.

Of course, we all know the reality of that vote (and how Hilary and Barack really maneuvered themselves to act like they were in opposition…but why let facts get in the way of a good McCarthyite smear??

Lincoln had listened to the Illinois pleaders in the cavern of maps that was the office of his war secretary, Edwin Stanton. As Stanton recited the sanguinary statistics that illuminated the need for yet more men for the battle, Lincoln bowed his head. Then he turned on Medill, long a supporter, reminded him of how the Tribune had supported the war and called for Emancipation and told him to go back to Chicago and get the men. Medill retreated, saying that it was the first time he’d ever been whipped and that he didn’t have an answer.

The better analogy, Mr. Cuomo argued in his letter to the Sun ( , is the war that President Polk started with Mexico. “As a Congressman in the late 1840s,” Mr. Cuomo wrote, Lincoln, “objected passionately to America‘s war with Mexico.” The former governor quotes the man who would become the 16th president as warning, on the floor of the House on January 12, 1848, of the “exceeding brightness of military glory that attractive rainbow, that rises in showers of blood that serpent’s eye, that charms to destroy.”

The more we read about Lincoln and the Mexican War, however, the less it strikes us as offering a historical harbor for Democrats seeking to legitimize their appeasement line in Iraq. It is certainly true that Lincoln objected to the war, demanding that Polk show him the spot where the first firefight took place, Lincoln believing that it was not in America at all but in Mexican territory. Then a Whig congressman, Lincoln reckoned that the war would lead to an expansion of slave territories. Much of his term in the House was consumed to his opposition to the war.

OK…so tell me how giving the President a virtual blank check with timetables that he can basically ignore like so much chaffe in the wind amounts to legitimizing “appeasment”??  I guess that according to the Sun editorialist, only outright boosting for the war and unswerving allegiance to the President will count as anything other than “surrender”.

But what does this illuminate that could possibly help the Democrats in their current predicament? In contrast to Lincoln, Mrs. Clinton did not object to our entry into either the global war on terror or the battle of Iraq. On the contrary, she voted for it. Mr. Obama, who was not yet in the Senate, opposed Iraq expedition. In any event, there is another difference; once our military was engaged in battle in Mexico, Lincoln always voted to supply our soldiers, a point underlined for us by one of the city’s notable Lincoln scholars, Harold Holzer, co-author of part of Mr. Cuomo’s ” Why Lincoln Matters, Now More Than Ever.”

Lincoln’s support for our soldiers in the Mexican war is something that the Illinoisan boasted about in his debates with Judge Douglas. After all, his opposition to the war with Mexico, however high-minded, was costing him votes. This was particularly true because, even if Polk’s motives were ignoble and the fight seemed unjust at the beginning, the Mexican war had a favorable outcome for America. The Mexican Cession, made under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the war on February 2, 1848, established our border at the Rio Grande, ended any dispute over Texas, and gained us not only California, Nevada, and Utah but also parts of Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico.

Translation: Hey, who cares about moral considerations….WE WON!! And who cares about principles if it costs us votes??

But here’s where the cesspool really meets the Cat 3 hurricane (and this is exactly the money paragraph that Nez grabs):

Can it be that Mr. Cuomo and his fellow Democrats want to go into the 2008 election questioning the bona fides of the states of Texas, California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico? That’s a lot of electoral votes. The fact is the fate of those states illustrates one of the great truths about America — that those who either threw in with us or were won by us prospered and lived more freely than any of them would have under the ancien regimes. This is something that has been learned by other peoples, in Europe and in Asia, even into the late 20th century.

Oh, yeah….like the brown folk down there really do appreciate everything that the gringos have done to “liberate” them..just as the Iraqis really do, despite popular protests to the contrary, appreciate all the freedom that “we” have brought to them through the democratic means of torture chambers, carpet bombs, and pilfering their assests. Why, there really are flowers underneath those suicide bombs.

I wonder what these asshats would say about Black folks benefitting from slavery and Jim Crow. Or…maybe I shouldn’t.



As for Lincoln, his comprehension of the responsibilities of leadership changed radically when he acceded as president. He prosecuted the Civil War relentlessly, and his generals knew who was in command or suffered the consequences. Lincoln’s officers arrested the most troublesome of the Copperhead Democrats. In the case of Clement Vallandigham, who was discouraging enlistees in Ohio, Lincoln himself sent that particular Copperhead down through Confederate lines and into exile. Lincoln tested the Constitution as it had never been tested before. He fought his war to win.


Now…not that I as a Black man don’t appreciate the fact that the North won the Civil War and slavery was vanquished…but what the hell does that have to do with Iraq??  That because Honest Abe was the Commander-In-Chief who did manage to run the war and outgun his critics, that justifies his running roughshod over the Constitution??  And how does that justifies Dubya’s war games during a war in which 3/4ths of Americans do not support, that the supposed “benefactors” of such war (read, the citizens of Iraq) do not support, and was justified on base lies about Saddam’s invisible WMD and ties to al Queda and September 11th???

Oh, but I didn’t know…to the editorialists of the NY Sun, Saddam was in cahoots with bin Laden making nukes with Iran’s mullahs with the full connivance of those “cut-n-run” Democrat appeasers….which more than justifies making Dubya our supreme Emperor and protector against Islamofascists, illegal aliens, and evil socialists/liberals/radical feminists/whatever the particular right-wing panic button is.

It’s hard to imagine what Lincoln would have made of Mrs. Clinton, who started out in Illinois, when she claims to “fully support our troops” but votes against funding for the war in which they are risking everything. Or what he would have made of another Illinoisan, Mr. Obama, when he declares, as he did last week, that “enough is enough” and that the president should not get a “blank check,” or even, at least on these terms, any check. The more one reads about it, the more one gets the sense that Lincoln might have wondered why Mr. Bush has been so punctilious about the legal niceties. It’s hard to imagine Lincoln would not have understood Mr. Bush on the larger issues, particuarly his understanding of, and his willingness to shoulder, the responsibilities of the president in a time of war.



How nice that these editorialists have such wonderous powers of mindreading, that they can extrapolate the motives of a President who passed from this earthly coil nearly 150 years ago, and read him exactly to fit the mindset of our current occupant of the White House…and be so perfect to say that Lincoln would be smiling at Bush today, cheering him on to do more shredding of the “goddam piece of paper” that the former took to heart to defend the unity of the nation against the Confederates.

Ahhh…the mind of a right-wing wingnut….so simple in its complexity, so brutal in its subtlety….and so genocidal and arrogant in its equnamity.



FauxNewsChannel Whacks The Oxy(contin) Addict On Serial Killers Being Liberals

Thanks to ‘Bina Becker for granting me permission to post this video.

Sooooo…Rushbo says that the Va Tech shooter was a liberal trained by liberals to hate the rich, right????


Does he know about the history of serial killers??

Does he really want to go there??

Thankfully for us, (a spoof of the original FOXNews site) has the facts…as stated in this YouTube video.  Take that along with your bootleg Viagra on your next sex trip to the Bahamas, Fat-Ass:


 And let’s not forget about Eric Rudolph, Andrea Yates, Ted Bundy, Susan Smith, and on, and on, etc., etc., ….