Uterusgate

It's scandalous I tell you. Last week Rep. Scott Randolph (D-Orlando) thought he'd mock the Republican's supposed opposition to all regulations. During a debate in the Florida legislature regarding union dues, Randolph suggested that his wife "incorporate her uterus" to stop Republicans from pushing measures that would restrict abortions. Hilarity ensued.

The Republicans didn't say much about the silly idea, but instead were horrified over the word "uterus." Never mind that it's a specific medical term that should come up in any anatomy class. To Republicans, it's an icky part of the female body.

So they banned the word "uterus" from the house floor. Ironically, the anti-regulation conservatives want to regulate speech and women's bodies. Why not go a step further and ban actual uteri?

Besides being a dickish move to reprimand a Democrat, what's really going on here? A bunch of grown men acting like adolescent boys, feeling embarrassed and blushing over a basic sex ed technical term? Or is it an attempt to halt any possible abortion debate that might actually veer into the realm of medical reality land?

Well, now thanks to this stupidity, the Florida ACLU has set up a site to incorporate your uterus. And of course there is also a Facebook page to make the usage of the word "uterus" less embarrassing to pages in the Florida Legislature. So I'm asking you, in all seriousness, who's in?

Funeral Rights

We can call it a reaffirmation of the First Amendment, but just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s right.

I'm talking, of course, about the U.S. Supreme Court's decision that those shitheads at the Westboro Baptist church can protest at military funerals.

I totally agree that speech should not be restricted just because it's offensive. The whole reason for the First Amendment is to protect offensive speech. Nobody needs a First Amendment to protect mundane speech.

But my God, Fred Phelps and his hateful little family of rainbow sign-making lawyers disgust me. Shortly after the Supreme Court announced this ruling, a leader of the Westboro church said they will now "quadruple" the number of funeral protests. Well, I hope the counter-protesters can septuple their efforts with their angel wing shields.

However, how is this ruling compatible with the "free speech zones" used at political gatherings? Remember how these secluded zones, surrounded by chain-link fence, would be setup half a mile from anywhere George W. Bush was speaking? Remember how the Secret Service instructed local police to use the zones to quarantine anybody who disagreed with Bush?

Much Orwellian rationale has been offered as explanation for these zones, but it's censorship pure and simple -- keep political protesters out of sight of the MSM so their message doesn't get out.

I guess our country is very "selective" about supporting the First Amendment.

However, it's nice to know I can protest at burials. Now I'm dreaming up creative sign slogans as I'm patiently waiting for a Phelps family funeral to attend.

Publish Fearlessly

"If we're talking about creating threats to small publishers to stop them publishing, the U.S. has lost its way. It has abrogated its founding traditions. It has thrown the First Amendment in the bin. Because publishers must be free to publish." — Julian Assange on 60 Minutes.

Advertising Violence

(Billboard in Tucson, Arizona. Image found on Deus Ex Malcontent.)

"...when you saturate the air with hate you cannot control who breathes it in," Dan from Pruning Shears explains in his post about the Arizona massacre. Take a few minutes to read his post, but I'll summarize his insightful points about advertising as best I can.

Advertising works. That's why Coke, Pepsi, Ford, Apple and everybody else advertises when they have a product to sell. In fact, they spend billions of dollars on advertising, often not even knowing which ad "sticks" and which is wasted. But it is a fact that increased spending on advertising will lead to increased sales of the product advertised.

And so when you look at the political climate in Arizona, the violent imagery used by Sarah Palin, the "Second Amendment remedies" suggested by Sharron Angle, the violent fantasies presented by Glenn Beck, and the Arizona Tea Party favorite who urged followers "Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly"... it becomes bloody obvious these people are advertising violence.

And it works -- even if you can't draw a straight line from any one advertisement to the reprehensible act -- it works.

So the "alleged" shooter, Jared Loughner is mentally ill? I have no doubt that he is. But that doesn't make the crime an "isolated incident." David Neweirt proposed there is a level of moral and ethical culpability when violent speech has the following features:

• It is factually false, or so grossly distorted and misleading as to constitute functional falsity.

• It holds certain targeted individuals or groups of people up for vilification and demonization.

• It smears them with false or misleading information that depicts them in a degraded light.

• It depicts them as either emblematic, or the actual source, of a significant problem or a major threat.

• It leads its audience to conclude that the solution to the problem manifested by these people is their elimination.

Crazy talk incites crazy people.

I get the feeling that some people honestly believe that if we never find a direct connection between Loughner and any pundit's violent rhetoric, then somehow violent speech is vindicated, acceptable and righteous. It is not.

It Has to be Said

"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous. And, unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry... It's not unusual for all public officials to get threats constantly, myself included. And that's the sad thing of what's going on in America. Pretty soon, we're not going to be able to find reasonable, decent people who are willing to subject themselves to serve in public office... Let me just say one thing, because people tend to poo-poo this business about all the vitriol that we hear inflaming the American public by people who make a living off of doing that. That may be free speech. But it's not without consequences." — Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik.

Apparently the message hasn't reached Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist church. They plan to picket the funerals of Arizona shooting victims.

Nine Years Have Come and Gone

Nine years have come and gone since September 11, 2001. I thought things were getting better. I mean, despite the senseless wars, I thought we were losing some of that irrational fear that gripped us in the days following the terrorist attacks.

But now I believe that fear and bigotry were laying dormant in some Americans as we were preoccupied with oil spills and unemployment.

In the last few months we've seen some crazy fear-mongering over the so-called "Ground Zero mosque," which was quickly followed by some idiotic hillbilly pastor organizing "burn a Quran day." I can only conclude that many misguided Americans honestly believe that we are at war with the Islamic faith. It makes me literally sick to see religious intolerance becoming part of our mainstream political discourse.

We are just as irrational as ever.

The story of how one lone idiot, pimping an 18th-century brand of community terrorism, held the media hostage and forced some of this nation's most powerful people to their knees to fitfully beg an end to his wackdoodlery is an extraordinary one.

I suppose that quote from Jason Linkins of the Huffington Post would make one think first of Osama bin Laden, but Linkins is of course referring to the aforementioned hillbilly pastor, Terry Jones.

Terry Jones has certainly found a way to make himself famous. Pat Robertson is surely jealous that some novice nobody trumped him on anti-Muslim rhetoric?

But what I've found most dangerous about the media's elevation of this story is the ability of one little fanatic in the U.S. to engage and enrage fanatics on the other side of the world -- bypassing all statesman, military Generals, and responsible adults. Consequently, the Secretary of Defense had to call this nimrod and tell him to shut up!

And though the Quran burning was canceled, I think the damage is done. Religious fanatics have been provoked into another round of hatred and intolerance. Haven't we learned anything?

President Obama wants us to know that "This is a difficult time for our country. And it's often in such moments that some try to stoke bitterness -- to divide us based on our differences, to blind us to what we have in common. But on this day, we are reminded that at our best, we do not give in to this temptation."

Playing the Martyr, the Sequel

(image via Boing Boing.)

"I want to regain my First Amendment rights. I want to be able to say what's on my mind and in my heart and what I think is helpful and useful without somebody getting angry - some special interest group deciding this is a time to silence a voice of dissent and attack affiliates and sponsors." — Dr. Laura Schlessinger.

Where have I heard these distressful cries of victimhood mixed with an unfortunate misinterpretation of the First Amendment before? I remember now. It was from California beauty queen Carrie Prejean in May 2009 during the flap over her beauty pageant comments on gay marriage.

What I said about Miss Prejean then applies to Dr. Laura now, but let me summarize. Your free speech rights have not been violated. You haven't been squelched by the big, bad government; you've been told to shut up by the free market. It's not free speech you're seeking; it's freedom from criticism you're seeking. And you rarely find that around here!

But it's okay. Dr. Laura can quit her nationally syndicated radio show in exchange for, I predict, a multi-media blitz of books, FOX appearances, and twitterific political rants just like that other queen quitter, Sarah Palin.

By the way, are Palin and Dr. Laura soul sisters now?


I wonder how Palin would have reacted if Dr. Laura had used the "R-word" instead?

But I don't think this whole controversy boils down to individual word choices. It's Dr. Laura's genuine bigotry and racism that got her into trouble. The "haven't we done enough for you people" attitude and the implication that a black woman consents to racism when she marries a white man is so archaic it should be left to the Old Testament... I'm sure it's all written in there somewhere.

I don't know how Dr. Laura was able to position herself as the victim in this story, but she sure plays the part well.

Radio Blah Blah

Of all the batshit insane people you can seek advice from, Dr. Laura Schlessinger is the batshit insaniest! Why, oh why, do people still listen to this fundamentalist harpy?

Earlier this week, one of Dr. Laura's masochistic listeners called and asked for advice on inter-racial marriage. I refer to the caller as "masochistic" because any "long-time listener" should know that every call ends with Dr. Laura telling the advice seeker what a horrible, irresponsible, selfish, sinful person they are. However, Tuesday's admonishments included multiple uses of the "n-word," and a racially-charged political rant against people who voted for Obama. What a treat:



Gee, am I being hypersensitive, or does Dr. Laura have a chip on her shoulder about race? Somebody ought to inform the non-psychologist that racism is bad for your health. And also inform her that her non-apology is crap.

So why don't I tell you how I really feel about Dr. Laura? Here is my recycled post from April 2008 titled Fundamentalist Psychopath:

Dr. Laura Schlessinger -- love her or hate her -- oh hell, you can probably tell I hate her right from the title, huh? Well, she's going to be given a new pulpit on Fox New's Hannity's America. Thanks Fox!

For those who don't know, Dr. Laura (as she is commonly called) is an American radio host, author, and commentator. Her views are conservative to put it mildly. From about 1996 to 2003 she was an Orthodox Jew. Before that she was an atheist. Currently, I'm not certain what she is, but she sure is self-righteous about it!

On a typical day of her radio show, masochistic callers will air their problems about parenting, work, and relationships. Dr. Laura dishes out some harsh advice often invoking "God's Law" and other canned responses that sound like they were written by the religious right. Funny thing is she is not a medical doctor nor accredited in a discipline such as divinity, psychology or sociology. Her Ph.D. is actually in physiology.

Whatever her education or religion, she believes homosexuality is a "biological error." I never understood how this belief is compatible with any kind of religion. God creates errors? Sounds like blasphemy to me! Despite these stupid ideas, in 2000 somebody at Paramount thought it was a good idea to give Dr. Laura a TV show. Outraged activists launched StopDrLaura.com and quickly succeeded. Paramount dropped the show like a fiery brimstone.

Dr. Laura has also taken on the families of children with Tourette's syndrome. According to non-expert Dr. Laura, "[The child's mother] can punish the whole world because of this affliction of her son. She can punish everybody who doesn't want to call this normal. But it's not normal. And it's not nice."

Damn! As I read her sanctimonious bullshit, I keep spewing random curse words. Maybe I'm developing Tourette's too?

Do I have any right to spew bad words or express my opinion? Not according to Dr. Laura. She criticised a 14-year-old's award-winning essay defending free speech on the Internet. Dr. Laura said the eighth-grader's support of the First Amendment was "stupid" and "dangerous." Oh the irony when a radio talk show host does not support free speech!

Many of Dr. Laura's stupid ideas are culled from her literal interpretation of the Bible. People like that always scare me, but what really bothers me is how come these self-professed Bible scholars can't answer a simple question: Why Can't I Own a Canadian? I really want to know.

I also want to know how Dr. Laura, being such an expert in moral, societal and spiritual matters, can raise such a monster for a son? Dr. Laura has referred to herself as "the proud mother of a deployed American paratrooper." She is talking about her son Deryk who is serving in Afghanistan. It seems little Deryk had an incredibly salacious MySpace page. [Link changed from original post.] The actual MySpace page has been deleted, but those who saw it were shocked at the contents:

...cartoon depictions of rape, murder, torture and child molestation; photographs of soldiers with guns in their mouths; a photograph of a bound and blindfolded detainee captioned "My Sweet Little Habib"; accounts of illicit drug use; and a blog entry headlined by a series of obscenities and racial epithets.

But wait! There's more!

"Yes . . . F---ING Yes!!!" said one blog entry on the Schlessinger site. "I LOVE MY JOB, it takes everything reckless and deviant and heathenistic and just overall bad about me and hyper focuses these traits into my job of running around this horrid place doing nasty things to people that deserve it . . . and some that don't."

I'm so glad he was raised in a household with strong family values. Just imagine how bad he could have been!

To be fair, the military investigated the situation. The conclusion was that the MySpace page was not created by al Qeada or other enemies, but "the Army will only confirm that the investigation is complete, but will not discuss whether Schlessinger was at fault or whether he was reprimanded." And then the story disappeared from the media.

And oh I wish Dr. Laura would disappear too... along with her sponsors. However, free speech lover that I am, I still believe in her right to say dumb stuff.

A Book Burner By Any Other Name

"If you don't want a man unhappy politically, don't give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war." — Fahrenheit 451.

They call themselves the "Digg Patriots," but they're a conservative wingnut community conspiring to bury liberal posts on sites like Digg, StumbleUpon, YouTube, and Facebook. Of course, it's not difficult to up-vote/down-vote articles on social media sites. It never was difficult to burn books either. Censorship has always been the inarticulate grunt of asses and fools.

Seven Dirty Words You Won't Be Fined For

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Dreaming

Get a free BP sticker from Sticker Robot, put it on your car, and try to ignore the cognitive dissonance this may cause.

He'll Realize the Irony Soon

I happen to be a big fan of the Hitler Downfall parodies on YouTube -- much to the confusion of my Facebook friends who became awkwardly silent when I posted Hitler's Reaction to the Oasis Split. Maybe they don't like Oasis.

But you can't watch that particular parody video now. It's been DMCA'd -- taken down, along with many other Downfall parodies, by a copyright claim from Constantin Film. This is a real shame. There's something fun about watching the crazy-eyed murderous loon having a nervous collapse over modern trifles like balloon boy, Michael Jackson, and MySpace.

But all these parodies are clearly fair use and never should have been removed by YouTube. Luckily, Rocketboom has put together a video explaining how to dispute a YouTube content take down in six easy steps. Hitler will be relieved.


(YouTube video.)

How to Wuss Out

Angry celebrities, violent ginger kids, and Mecha Streisand are about to destroy South Park and all anyone wants to know is, "Who is Eric Cartman's father?" That's how Comedy Central hyped South Park's two-part 200th show celebration.

But when I tuned in last night to watch the conclusion of this monumental event, all I saw was a repeat of "The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs."

Well, let's backup to last week's part one, which aired uncensored. The plot was truly aimed at the die-hard fans. Every celebrity who the people of South Park ever ridiculed over the last 14 seasons were coming together for a class action lawsuit (led by fudge-packer Tom Cruise).

Of course, any South Park retrospective has to incorporate The Super Best Friends, an episode which featured major religious figures including Jesus, Buddha, Moses, Joseph Smith, Krishna, Lao Tzu, Muhammad and Sea Man defending the world against evil. This cartoon alliance didn't cause a stir back when it originally aired in July 2001.

But sometime after the attacks on September 11, 2001, an era of media self-censorship began, and the myth of the prohibition on the pictorial representation of the Prophet Mohammad became an extremist rallying point:

Even a tradition as seemingly deeply set and unyielding as the one at the heart of the controversy over the Danish cartoons – the prohibition on the pictorial representation of the Prophet Mohammed – is in truth neither deeply set nor unyielding. Far from Islam having always forbidden representations of the Prophet, it was common to portray him until comparatively recently. The prohibition against such depictions only emerged in the 17th century. Even over the past 400 years, a number of Islamic, especially Shiite, traditions have accepted the pictorial representation of Muhammed. The Edinburgh University Library in Scotland, the Bibliotheque National in Paris, New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Topkapi Palace Museum, Istanbul, all contain dozens of Persian, Ottoman and Afghan manuscripts depicting the Prophet. His face can be seen in many mosques too – even in Iran. A seventeenth-century mural on the Iman Zahdah Chah Zaid Mosque in the Iranian town of Isfahan, for instance, shows a Mohammed whose facial features are clearly visible.

Even today, few Muslims have a problem in seeing the Prophet's face. Shortly after Jyllands Posten published the cartoons, the Egyptian newspaper Al Fagr reprinted them. They were accompanied by a critical commentary, but Al Fagr did not think it necessary to blank out Mohammad's face, and faced no opprobrium for not doing so. Egypt's religious and political authorities, even as they were demanding an apology from the Danish Prime Minister, raised no objections to Al Fagr's full frontal photos.

The Danish cartoons they're referring to are the 12 editorial cartoons, most depicting Mohammad, which resulted in widespread demonstrations, arson, and death threats in 2005.

So, rather predictably, a radical Islamic site issued threats (and denied they were threats) before last night's episode of South Park could air:

We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.

Theo Van Gogh was the Dutch film director who was murdered by an Islamic extremist for making a documentary critical of the treatment of women in Islam.

Now, Matt and Trey, the producers of South Park, are smart people, and clearly they planned for a bit more controversy than usual. They knew they could get away with showing Buddha snorting coke and Jesus viewing porn, but simply showing Mohammad would be the touchy issue. So part of episode 200 dealt with the South Park kids figuring out how to disguise Mohammad. One hilarious ruse involved Mohammad wearing a bear suit.

Keep in mind, they never even utilized the original cartoon version of Mohammad from 2001. Comedy Central and Viacom were probably too wussy for that, but Matt and Trey were making a larger point -- a point about fear and intimidation.

So what did Comedy Central and Viacom do? They succumbed to fear and intimidation. They bleeped out every mention of the prophet -- and then refused to repeat the episode anyway. That's the way to totally wuss out.

It's easy to think it was all some kind of meta-joke, but Matt and Trey issued a statement regarding this ridiculous censorship:

In the 14 years we've been doing South Park we have never done a show that we couldn't stand behind. We delivered our version of the show to Comedy Central and they made a determination to alter the episode. It wasn't some meta-joke on our part. Comedy Central added the bleeps. In fact, Kyle's customary final speech was about intimidation and fear. It didn't mention Muhammad at all but it got bleeped too. We'll be back next week with a whole new show about something completely different and we'll see what happens to it.

Comedy Central airs some of my favorite shows, but I don't respect this bowing to Islamic extremists. Nobody wants a repeat of the 2005 violence, but this paranoia puts our art, our entertainment, and our culture in the hands of a few religious nuts. There's nothing funny about that.

If the media keeps wussing out like this, then (I hate to drag out this old line) "the terrorists have already won."

Curses

With all the shit that's wrong with California, I'm thrilled to know our lawmakers are concentrating on what really matters:

The state Assembly passed a resolution Thursday that would establish the first week of March as "Cuss Free Week" throughout the state. If approved by the Senate next week, the measure would take effect immediately.

The resolution includes no enforcement mechanism and is simply meant to promote greater harmony and connectedness, said Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, a Democrat from La Canada Flintridge and co-author of the measure.

I'll try to work a few more swear words into my posts this week because nothing makes me say "what the fuck" more than somebody telling me not to say "what the fuck."

We're All Marxists Now

Imagine a world without the Internet...


I'm scaring myself and it's not even Halloween yet! Of course, nobody is talking about closing down the Internet, but what does seriously disturb me is Glenn Beck whining against net neutrality.

On his show yesterday, the lachrymose Fox pundit equated net neutrality with a Marxist takeover of the Internet. Yep. The Marxists are coming and they will stifle creativity, hurt competition, and control Internet content. As usual, Beck has it precisely backwards. Net neutrality is about maintaining a free and open marketplace:

The principle of net neutrality is about keeping the hands of several powerful network operators – AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast – off the Internet, preventing them from taking steps to change the basic open nature of the Net that has led to its success. Net neutrality keeps the Internet as a free and open marketplace, so that a small number of telephone and cable monopolies can’t choke off competition and innovation.

Net neutrality was a founding principle of the Internet, and was the law of the land until 2005. The courts and the regulators changed the rules in 2005 when they eliminated the nondiscrimination requirements that had applied for decades to phone service and, up to that point, to most residential Internet access. Implementing net neutrality is a return to the basic principles that make the Internet work for consumers and innovators.

Maybe Beck doesn't understand the word "neutrality." Maybe Beck doesn't understand the Internet. I know he doesn't understand freedom. But most likely Beck completely understands that he is working for those astroturf groups who will profit from a choked off Internet.

The odd thing about this issue is that it cannot be summed up as "big business versus the little guy." The opponents of net neutrality are mostly telecommunications companies such as AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner.

But the supporters include many big tech companies as well as small businesses and not-for-profit organizations. Hell, even the Christian Coalition of America is a supporter. But now, according to Beck, they all share the common bond of Marxism.

And why? Here are the FCC rules everybody is fussing about:

• Consumers are entitled to access any legal Internet content
• Consumers are entitled to use any Internet applications or services
• Consumers are entitled to connect to any devices that won't harm the network
• The same rules apply to cable/DSL and wireless Internet
• Internet providers can't block or slow competitors' online services

Wow! They took that right out of the Communist Manifesto!

Corporate Supremacy

I think I know what has been missing from this country for the last three weeks -- satire. So, with open arms, I welcome back the Daily Show and The Colbert Report after a short (yet way too long) break.

And wow, Colbert tackled a big subject last night -- corporations. "Corporations do everything people do except breathe, die and go to jail for dumping 1.3 million pounds of PCBs in the Hudson River."

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Let Freedom Ka-Ching
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Protests

The birth of corporate supremacy was, in truth, illegitimate, carrying no force of law. But like any good lie, repeat it enough times and everybody believes it.

Our founding fathers did not like the idea of corporations. Remember, it was corporate tea that they dumped into Boston Harbor in protest against huge tax cuts for the British East India Company. Ironically, this point is lost on the teabaggers, but I digress.

The little lie that roared is now going to the Supreme Court. The case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission challenges the restrictions on political speech by corporations.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Jeffrey Toobin
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Protests

I can see how corporations are viewed as "super persons." They are immortal and have tons of money they can use to influence the democratic process. But limiting corporate freedom of speech would also apply to unions, the latest Michael Moore movie, my favorite commentators on MSNBC, and also Comedy Central.

The Supreme Court decision isn't in yet, but I just get this strange feeling that we're screwed.

Death of The Town Hall

In 1943, American artist Norman Rockwell produced a series of oil paintings depicting The Four Freedoms: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship, Freedom From Want and Freedom From Fear. At the time, tyranny ruled over Western Europe, and the paintings served as a reminder of our motivation for fighting in World War II.

Right now, we need a reminder of a different sort, but it can be found in that same iconic Freedom of Speech painting. The scene is a local town hall meeting where one working man speaks and his neighbors calmly listen. I get the sense that they don't necessarily agree with the nervous speaker, but apparently they don't scream or yell or wave their fists. Nobody is full of rage. They listen respectfully because they might actually learn something. And besides, everybody wants the same respect when it's their turn to speak.

That's been the tradition in this country since about 1600... until last week, of course, when the teabaggers were whipped into a frenzy by their astroturf overlords. As I've stated before, these protesters do not make up a grassroots coalition of "regular Americans." The movement was manufactured by slick, conservative, well-funded, lobbyist-run think tanks called Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works with the purpose of denouncing taxation (with representation).

However, the teabaggers didn't go away after tax day. The lobbyists now have a fanatical list of grunts at their disposal, and they intend to use them to shout down any intelligent debate about other pressing issues like health care reform and clean energy. Think Progress has a leaked teabagger memo describing harassment strategies for town hall meetings. Suggestions include "artificially inflate your numbers", "be disruptive early and often", and (the most revealing one) "Try To 'Rattle Him,' Not Have An Intelligent Debate."

That says it all. They are firmly against intelligent debate. And they are proving they are against any intelligent debate. One moment of complete absurdity happened at a Town Hall event hosted by Texas Rep. Gene Green:

During the town hall, one conservative activist turns to his fellow attendees and asks them to raise their hands if they “oppose any form of socialized or government-run health care.” Almost all the hands shot up. Rep Green quickly turned the question on the audience and asked, “How many of you have Medicare?” Nearly half the attendees raised their hands, failing to note the irony.

But other protests have been more disturbing. In Maryland, a protester hung a Democrat Rep. in effigy. That is a clear threat.

And the only recourse at these meetings may be to arrest for disorderly conduct. We certainly can't afford to tolerate those who endeavor to silence their opponents. It's mob rule. All Republicans need to denounce these tactics or risk closing down our system of government.

But I almost forgot that they want President Obama to fail, and they want our country to fail. I guess America never was as idyllic as a Norman Rockwell painting. I wonder how Rockwell would have painted a teabagger?

Playing the Martyr

"Well, I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage, and you know what, in my country and in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be between a man and a woman." — Carrie Prejean

There is nothing particularly shocking about these comments made by Carrie Prejean, whose official title is now "Miss California who is against gay marriage, does soft porn, has breast implants, and has shirked her duties with the Miss Universe Organization but was pardoned by Donald Trump and his penis." However, I have a few comments to make anyway...

Of course, she can have her "honest belief" about gay marriage. That's fine, and she doesn't need to apologize, but don't tell me not to judge her. She was in a beauty pageant parading across the damn stage begging us to judge her. That's the whole point of these events!

But even though I'm judging her, I won't call her a "dumb bitch" like others have done. No, she's not a dumb bitch just shameless, opportunistic and completely unquestioning. "Americans are able to choose" she says? No they're not. If you're gay you can't choose to get married in most states. That's what this whole controversy is about! No wonder the religious right has adopted her as an icon. She can now team up with Sarah Palin, Joe the Fake Plumber, and Jonathan Krohn. Start printing the bumper stickers now!

Oh, and I'll also add the word "bigot." If you want to deny civil rights to a group of people, then you're a bigot. It's that simple. No offense, Miss Prejean.

Prejean and Trump held a press conference today which added a whole new level of offense and martyrdom. "This should not happen in America. It undermines the Constitutional rights for which my grandfather fought for," Miss Prejean whinged! What? What part shouldn't happen? What part did she not predict? That she'd put her crown in jeopardy by breaking her contract and becoming an advocate for the National Organization of Marriage?

Or did she think that free speech only applied to her? That only she could express herself, and nobody else would ever express disapproval of her? Yes, that's the nature of free speech. You get to say what you want, and others can say what they want too.

Finally, what the hell does Miss California do? Oh, here's the ironic answer: "Our specific platform is all about diversity and embracing what is so unique about California."

I've got a better idea. If we're ever invaded by space aliens, Miss Prejean, as a representative of the Miss Universe Organization, should be the one to greet our intergalactic invaders first. Let's hope they're not gay.

WTF!

When I read the news, I said "oh shit!" Senator Robert Ford (D-SC) is hoping to outlaw lewd language and is pushing for a bill which would make it a felony, punishable by up to a $5,000 fine or 5 years in prison, to use profane language in any public place. The bill would also make it a felony to make material of a "profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious, or indecent nature" available to the public.

So here we have another politician out to destroy the First Amendment... he shouldn't even be allowed near our nation's capital. But I'm not going to rant about freedom of speech or even about the record number of people we already have in prison which is costing state governments nearly $50 billion a year and the federal government $5 billion more. Nope, I'm not going to talk about that.

I'm just going to mention how absurd it must be to bring a profanity case before the court. How many dozens of times do the lawyers, witnesses, jury and judge have to speak or hear the "bad word" during the course of the trial? And when it's all over, do all participants have to go to jail? I think it would only be fair...

These illogical laws are as good as anything the Communists ever legislated. Here is a classic Russian joke:

A judge walks out of his chambers laughing his head off. A colleague approaches him and asks why he is laughing. "I just heard the funniest joke in the world!" "Well, go ahead, tell me!" says the other judge. "I can't - I just gave a guy ten years for it!"

Pretty soon we can make that joke our own!

Nailin' Palin

Oh, no! Not another Sarah Palin post! I'll try to be brief. Yesterday a Quebec comedy duo notorious for prank calls to celebrities reached Sarah Palin, convincing the Republican vice-presidential nominee that she was speaking with French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Hilarity ensued (if video doesn't show, click here... or if you simply can't stand that shrill voice, read the transcript here):



I'm not going to criticize her for falling for a prank. Hell, I fell for at least one good one in my younger years (maybe that will be a blog post for another day). But what irks me about her conversation with the impostor Sarkozy is her girlish laughter. I imagine that I sounded that way when I was 14 and talking to a cute boy. I've since learned to control myself, and I would hope a VP candidate could also learn to behave a little more appropriately...

Oh, who am I kidding? I'm talking about a ditsy woman with superstitious beliefs and a gross and shamelessly erroneous interpretation of the First Amendment:

Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said.

Glenn Greenwald comments on this profound ignorance:

The First Amendment is actually not that complicated. It can be read from start to finish in about 10 seconds. It bars the Government from abridging free speech rights. It doesn't have anything to do with whether you're free to say things without being criticized, or whether you can comment on blogs without being edited, or whether people can bar you from their private planes because they don't like what you've said.

If anything, Palin has this exactly backwards, since one thing that the First Amendment does actually guarantee is a free press. Thus, when the press criticizes a political candidate and a Governor such as Palin, that is a classic example of First Amendment rights being exercised, not abridged.

You can listen to Palin's comment here, but it's painful... and I'm not talking about the pitch this time.