Announcing: The New Lady Chatterley Boudoir Blog!!!

OK…just for those of you who may be more interested in the more erotic thoughts that may get into my brain, I have decided to create a new, more adult blog for that very purpose.

The Lady Chatterley Boudoir Blog is based on the many erotic groups that I have maintained over the years over at Yahoo! and MSN; it will be focused mainly on the subject of sex and sexual desire and how it constructs, destructs, reconstructs, and basically obsesses us — but mostly, it will be a tribute to the basic radical notion that "Sex is pretty damn nice, and pleasure is good for you."

Naturally, because of the subject matter involved — and my own really dirty mind..heheh — this blog will NOT be for the faint of heart, the prudish, or the antiporn feminists or fundamentalists out there.  It will occasionally venture into the explicit, the graphic, and even the kinky side of sexuality; and no holds will be barred in either content or language. (Naturally, since it will be an ADULT-oriented blog, all the usual NSFW disclaimers apply…though I will do my best to keep it from becoming a beacon for the usual sex spammers and spambots (comment moderation will be fully loaded, so don’t even think about it).

All of the usual suspects and freaks are invited to join along and give whatever feedback or comments you wish, as always.

Here’s the addy in case you want to see the initial construction:

http://ajk-redgarterclub.net/Lady_C_Boudoir_Blog/

Remember, it will be ADULTS ONLY and you will have to get approved from me to join in.

 

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

First some good news on the sex war front:

Judge strikes down ’98 law aimed at online porn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

An Open Letter On The Wheelock Anti-Porn Conference

I originally wanted to post this earlier this morning when I first discovered it –both over at Faith’s Feminist Nation blog and as a comment here over at the Robert Jensen post….but I had some technical difficulties with WordPress that I only recently — like a few minutes ago — was able to resolve by updating to the latest version (2.1.2). Oh, well…better late than never.

Jill Brenneman, who posted the original, can be reached at her Sex Workers’ Outreach Project-East website or through her email at jbrenneman at thestormproject dot org. Her outreach is deeply appreciated.

 

Letter to the Editor Regarding Feminist Anti-Porn Conference

We read the agenda and overview for the “Pornography and Pop Culture: Reframing Theory, Re-Thinking Activism” Conference, which is scheduled from March 23-25, 2007 at Wheelock College in Boston. We are deeply concerned by the rigid ways in which the complex issues of feminism and pornography are portrayed. In the broader society as well as within academic and feminist frameworks, there is a lot of disagreement about the extent to which pornography reflects and promotes sexism and violence.

Though this conference is about pornography, none of the presenters on the agenda are performers in the pornography industry. Various important voices are excluded from the list of presenters, such as sex workers, feminists and scholars with opposing views about pornography, and advocates for the legitimization of consensual sex work.

Furthermore, the genre called “feminist pornography” is not included on the agenda. This genre of pornography is inspired by feminist principles, such as gender equality, bodily freedom, and mutual sexual pleasure. Women play a major role in producing this genre of pornography, so this genre is not produced just by men for a predominately male target audience.

We realize that various types of activism occurs on college campuses and encourage this, but there is a difference between a group using a college simply as a venue for activism and a college actually presenting a conference on a controversial issue, such as pornography, in a very biased manner. Because the website to this feminist anti-pornography conference has a Wheelock College domain name ( http://www.wheelock.edu/ppc/index.asp ) and no organization(s) is listed as the official presenter(s) of the conference, it seems like the College is presenting this conference rather than only serving as a venue for the conference. Since Wheelock College is a College rather than an anti-sex work organization, we contend that conferences such as this one must be more balanced in the name of academic integrity.

Though the organizers and presenters of this conference have the right to their perceptions, it is important to understand that their attitudes toward pornography do not reflect the views of all sex workers, feminists, and scholars.

In Solidarity,

Jill Brenneman, Sex Workers Outreach Project-East, Coordinator

Danielle L. Brodnick, M.A. Gender and Cultural Studies

Aster of San Francisco

Gennifer Hirano, Sex Workers Outreach Project-Los Angeles

Stacey Swimme, Desiree Alliance, Sex Workers Outreach Project-Arizona

Susan Lopez, MSC, Assistant Director-Desiree Alliance; Founder-Sin City Alternative Professionals Association

Kitten Infinite, Sex Workers Outreach Project-Chicago

Averen Ipsen, Ph.D., Lecturer in Interdisciplinary Studies, UC-Berkeley

Melissa Gira, St. James Infirmary

Holly Pottle, M.A. Sociology

Jessica Land, Sex Workers Outreach Project-East

Ricci J. Levy, Executive Director, The Woodhull Freedom Foundation

Priscilla Alexander, Director of Research and Evaluation-Frost’D

Beatriz Mercado, Clinical Pharmacist-Chile, South America, SWOP East Latin American Advisor

Katherine DePasquale, SWOP East Board of Directors

Carol Queen, Ph.D., Staff Sexologist-Good Vibrations

Aimee M. Patton, B.A. Sociology, SFSU

Carol Leigh, BAYSWAN/COYOTE

Vanessa A. Forro, LSW, Cleveland, Ohio

Serena Toxicat

Crystal Jackson, Graduate Student-Sociology and Women’s Studies, University of Nevada-Las Vegas; Desiree Alliance

Caitlin Ryerson, Pro Se Lawyer

 

“Abu-Attorneygate”: The Obscenity Angle (Instant Linkage)

Later on when I’m back from work, I’ll riff further on this…but for now, please feel free to use the following linkage for background:

Max Blumenthal (The Nation): The Porn Plot Against Prosecutors (A nice and juicy investigative story about one angle of Abu Gonzales’ attempted purge of US Attorneys for insufficient loyalty to right-wingnut activism….ahhh, I mean, not being "loyal Bushies": the plot against two attorneys for not going far enough to prosecute certain porn)

Matt Kernes (Adult Video News Online): Attorney Says Justice Department Sold Same ‘Obscene’ Material As His Client: A bit of further detail into the firing of one particular attorney, along with details on the particular case (caution, link is OK, but may further link to NSFW material)

Not that the other angles (protecting AbuG’s snooping on American citizens; covering the ass of Repub crooks like Abramoff and Cunningham and DeLay; trumping up charges of Democratic "voting fraud") aren’t as important….but you know kow people tend to react more to sex scandals, ehhh???

As I said..more on this later.

 

MoveOn.Org: The Liberal Wing of the DLC?!?!?!

Funny how "moderate" Democrats tend to act like….you know, "moderate" Democrats when faced with genuine Left opposition.  It’s not so funny, though, when putatively "liberal" groups start triangulating.

Richard over at American Leftist has a series of posts about the mendacity of the group MoveOn.org when it comes to attempting to neuter opposition to the dead-center politics of "mainstream" Democrats…especially on the issue of the Iraq War. It seems that the "centrists"  — led by Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel, the head of the House Democratic Caucus  — are attempting to nuke more liberal and substansial legislation to cut funding and force withdrawal of troops from Iraq, as well as prevent substansial opposition to any prospective invasion of Iran. To that end, Emanuel has been using both his power of the purse to threaten more liberal members with loss of funding for pet funding projects in their districts….and the pressure tactics have generally succeeded in intimidating most Democrats into submission…but with some notable and courageous exceptions (original citation from politico.com; emphasis added by Richard):

The most outspoken critics of the $124 billion wartime spending bill in the House are facing withering support in their fight to defeat it.

California Democratic Reps. Maxine Waters and Lynn Woolsey said that many of their liberal colleagues were caving under pressure from Democratic leaders who, according to at least one congressman, have threatened to block requests for new funds for his district.

They also cited MoveOn.org’s endorsement of the measure Monday as a blow to their efforts.

"For people who are undecided and looking for a reason to vote for the supplemental, MoveOn is going to make a difference, providing instant cover for these members," Woolsey said.

"In six months, I fear they will be really sorry because the president isn’t going to do what they want," she added, referring to waivers in the bill that allow the president to circumvent certain requirements.

"The supplemental" is a reference to a massive supplemental spending bill that is now being debated in Congress which includes, among other things, continued funding for the war in Iraq at the present levels, and would allow Dubya "flexibility" (read, a blank check) to circumvent rules and requirements and benchmarks. Most of the antiwar liberals wanted originally wanted to use the supplemental to cut off funding and place restrictions ultimately leading to a withdrawal of troops….but that grates in the side of "centrists" like Emanuel who really aren’t so opposed to the war in Iraq and invading Iran as they envy Dubya’s management of the war (and the largesse).

Where does MoveOn,org get into this:  Well, read on:

"MoveOn put out a dishonest poll that did not offer its members a real choice to end the war, and now the peace movement is lobbying activists to reform MoveOn or drop off its list," David Swanson, a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, said in an e-mail to The Politico. "I unsubscribed from MoveOn this morning."

In the poll, MoveOn.org gave its members a choice of supporting, opposing or being "not sure" of the plan proposed by the Democratic leadership, according to an e-mail sent to members Sunday by MoveOn.org official Eli Pariser.

It did not mention a more aggressive withdrawal proposal backed by Woolsey, Waters and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.).

Pariser said MoveOn.org had held out as long as possible before backing the leadership proposal.

"We were basically declining to take a position as long as we could to strengthen the hand of the progressives. We did the poll at the last time we felt we could have an impact on the final vote."

He said he would support the progressive proposal if it came to a vote. "We’ll encourage people to vote for that and for the supplemental," he said. "We are trying to end the war. That’s the mandate."

Yeah, right…."end the war" by supporting a bill that allows the President to ignore its key restrictions, and keep the money flowing.

Of course, the bill will still probably be vetoed by Bush and attacked by Repubs as "typical liberal cut-and-run"…but, you know, we just gotta win back those good old "swing voters" and NASCAR dads who might be swayed by Karl Rove’s attack ads, do we?? And how in the hell does undercutting Waters and Lee (who, last time I saw opinion polls, represented the view of the overwhelming majority of public opinion) "strengthen progressives"….by feeding them to the lions???

Richard says all that is needed to say about this, so I’ll just quote him verbatum:

First things first: Eli Pariser, go fuck yourself.

Now, with that out of the way, let’s acknowledge the enormity of what the House Democrats are about to do. They are going to give Bush a blank check to continue the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, with cosmetic timetables for withdrawal designed to deceive the public into believing that they oppose Bush’s policy. They have provided funding for military operations that can be expanded into an attack upon Iran, as they stripped the bill of language that would have required congressional approval.

In effect, as noted here last week and recognized by Pat Buchanan today, they have green lighted such an attack by adopting a Zionist exemption to the requirement that Congress declare war. In the post-9/11 world, the passage of this bill exposes bipartisan support for overt military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and, probably, Iran, with covert operations in Lebanon and Palestine. In short, US war from the beaches of Beirut to the border of Pakistan (and, possibly, even beyond, into the tribal regions of Pakistan itself).

[…quotes from military generals who oppose escalation snipped, see the original article…]

But people like Nancy Pelosi, Rahm Emanuel, Eli Pariser, and others in the leadership of MoveON.org, such as Joan Blades, could care less. Self-assured in the belief that they will not personally experience the consequences, they reduce the death and destruction associated with these current and probable future conflicts to political opportunism. Death, torture, brain injuries, loss of limbs, sexual assault, post-traumatic stress, that’s for Iraqis, Afghans and enlistees in the Marines, the Army and the Guard, while they fantasize about exploiting the victimization of others for electoral success and the joys of patronage.

As for MoveON.org itself, perhaps it is time to consider public confrontation and humiliation. The next time we learn of a purported MoveON.org antiwar event, like a vigil, or other such cynical nonsense, we might want to stop by and tell the participants, politely, of course, that we know that they, and the organization that they have affiliated themselves with, are the worst sort of hypocrites, professing a morality that conceals the most crass self-interest.

Public confrontation and humiliation…..and, perhaps, a REAL Left independent political party which isn’t controlled by corporate war profiteers or right-wing Likud Lobby fascists or "centrist" shysters.

In an earlier post, Richard channels an essay from CounterPunch depictiing the ill tactics of MoveOn to further rip them an new orfice (my apologies for the full quotation, but the entire quote is worth viewing):

For the introductory post on this subject, go here, just down below. Now, here’s more, from Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber over at Counterpunch:

On Sunday, MoveOn distributed a survey asking its members to vote on three options: support the Pelosi bill [the supplemental]; oppose it; or "not sure." MoveOn’s Eli Pariser described the survey in an email as an opportunity for members to participate in "a big decision coming up this week. … MoveOn is a member-directed organization – we believe that all of us, together, are smarter than any one of us." In fact, however, MoveOn’s survey was designed to conceal from its members the option of supporting the stronger anti-war amendment put forth by the Congressional Progressive Caucus.  [The Lee/Waters amendments]

There are, of course, other ways of running a survey. When TrueMajority.org recently surveyed its members about the best way forward, they offered three choices: the Lee plan, the Pelosi plan, and the option of demanding that Congress reject any further war funding, period. Only 24 percent of TrueMajority’s members supported the Pelosi plan – which appears to be the reason why MoveOn’s survey gave their members no choice but the Pelosi plan.

Even MoveOn’s rules for the war’s fourth-anniversary candlelight vigils expressly exclude anything specifically aimed at ending it. "There are many ways to commemorate the war anniversary – but MoveOn and other coalition members are coming together around solemn candlelight vigils," explains their website. "Events other than vigils that honor the sacrifice of our servicemen and women and their families will not be publicly posted here."

The fascinating aspect of this kind of message board control and survey manipulation, which, by the way, is nothing new, is the extent to which it creates the illusion that MoveON.org is an organization that makes decisions according to a process of grassroots consensus.

In fact, MoveON.org, to cite Noam Chomsky, manufactures consent within the boundaries established by Pariser, Joan Blades and their allies within the Democratic Party. It is the political equivalent of an astroturf group, a fake grassroots organization created by a corporate lobbyist or public relations firm to create the impression that the agenda of their client has broad based public support. One wonders the extent to MoveON.org has engaged in similar survey practices on issues such as health care (has MoveON.org surveyed its members about the suitability of a single payer system?) and media consolidation to align its grassroots base with the carefully calibrated policy decisions of the Democrats.

It is especially ironic, because liberals, as a means of concealing their inability to participate in any movement that supports the Palestinians, consistently reviles ANSWER for being a hierarchical organization that makes decisions and imposes them upon participants according to a vanguardist Marxist-Leninist model. Or, to put it more bluntly, ANSWER is Stalinist.

Yet, with MoveON.org, Pariser, Blades and the Democrats have implemented a Marxist-Leninist approach to political organization that has been far more effective than ANSWER could ever imagine. MoveON.org is basically the liberal wing of the Democratic Leadership Council, making sure that liberals, if they were so inclined, do not wander too far away from the pro-war, pro-business platform of the party. Just remember, when the attack upon Iran happens, MoveON.org played an important role in manufacturing liberal consent to finance it.

Actually, that would be kinda unfair to most Marxist-Leninsts…at least they oppose the war on fundamental principle.

Ahhh, the wonders of "lesser evil" politics….

The Wingnut Abyss Revealed: TownPrivvy “Defends” ‘Da Coultergeist

WOW…just when you think that the loony Right couldn’t sink any lower, you find this attempt at "humor" in defending Ann Coulter’s "faggot" smack against John Edwards over at Townhall.com. I will not give them the privilege of linkage, but will rather post the entire article here, just to share the love.

How to bomb a gay bath house

By Mike S. Adams
Wednesday, March 14, 2007

I’ve been thinking about Ann Coulter a lot lately – a real shocker, I know – and I think I’ve finally found a way to get her out of the hot water she’s in over her recent outing of John Edwards. Before I reveal just what she ought to do, I have an obligation to tell her what not to do – especially since she’s getting such bad advice from other conservatives.

The first thing Ann should not do is heed calls that she apologize for using the term “faggot.” The last time I heard that word, I was helping move a friend into his new house in downtown Wilmington. The next door neighbor, who happened to be gay, had us over to grab something to eat and drink.

When someone asked our host the name of the style he used to decorate the living room, his reply was “Early 20th Century Colonial Faggot.” He made the joke partially because he had a few too many drinks before his guests arrived. But he also did it because many homosexuals have never really aspired to the goal of making everyone feel as comfortable as they feel they have a right to feel at all times.

A friend of mine – one who “came out of the closet” over a decade ago – often used the term “faggot” when he was angry at someone. He used the term long after he decided he was gay. But it never occurred to anyone within earshot that a word banning ritual or forced apology was in order.

Put simply, it is permissible for heterosexuals to use the term “faggot” because so many homosexuals use it all the time. The only rebuttal I’ve heard is that the same cannot be said with regard to the use of the “n-word.” This is an unspeakable insult to black people. Gay persecution does not rival black persecution in the annals (I could not find a better word to insert here) of American history. Any assertion to the contrary is simply too queer to take seriously.

Speaking of the term “queer,” Ann should realize that the term “faggot” will soon be deemed acceptable for everyone’s use in the eyes of the diversity movement. Recall that the term “queer” was once acceptable in America – certainly you remember playing “smear the queer” in grade school. After years of banning the term, the Diversity Offices are now establishing “Queer Resource Centers” on college campuses. And they let you call them that even if you aren’t a queer.

Before long, the executives of Diversity Incorporated – the people who really run this country – will again let us use the term “faggot.” The switch will be necessary because a) Diversity Incorporated makes all of its money on diversity training classes (read: shakedown seminars) in corporate America, and b) these classes are nothing more than a recitation of currently banned words and ideas. (Hence the need to constantly update the list even if it means regressing and calling it “progress”.)

Perhaps the most compelling reason for Ann to refrain from issuing an apology is that it might send the message that homosexuality is somehow “wrong.” Those saying that the implication that Edwards is a homosexual is “defamatory” are suggesting that homosexuality is “bad.” This flies in the face of the teachings of the official religion of the Diversity Movement, which is, of course, moral relativism.

Every time I get into a discussion about homosexuality I am accused of being “secretly gay.” When the accuser is strait, he shows how much he secretly hates homosexuals. When the accuser is gay, he shows how much he secretly hates himself. Ann should not mimic this hatred by apologizing for something Leftists do regularly and unapologetically.

But enough about what Ann ought not to do. Here’s what she should do immediately:

1. Start a website called “Global War on Fags” today.

2. Begin writing essays calling for the cleansing and purification of society via the mass murder of homosexuals.

3. Distribute videos on the website showing the actual murders of homosexuals.

4. Circulate instructions on how to bomb gay bath houses in San Francisco.

5. Circulate a “battle dispatch” to give people specific information on America’s most notorious bath houses.

6. Apply for a job at Kent State University.

At first, the cries for Ann Coulter’s imprisonment will be loud. But once Kent State gets wind of the story (and possession of her job application) a happy ending will soon be in sight (not incite). In fact, I predict that Ann will soon be a professor at Kent State University with good retirement benefits, a health plan, and tenure.

The current Coulter controversy provides more than a good job opportunity for Ann Coulter. It gives Kent State a chance to show its dedication to the First Amendment, not just Muslim extremism.

Oh, so much asshattery in one righteous pile of dung…when I get back from work, I’ll give this fool a proper beatdown.  Suffice it to say for now, though, that comparing the victims of the 1971 Kent State massacre (peaceful protestors who were actually protesting a war) with KKK/Neo-Nazi antigay haters bombing gay bathhouses is, to say the least, a bit of a stretch…like Shaq or Kareem or MJ attempting to throw down a monster dunk on a 50′ rim….even with the assistance of Looney Tunes magic animation tricks. Besides, what can al Qaeda do that Operation Rescue and the Christian Identity/Militia folks (like Tim McVeigh) haven’t already done??

As I said…more later when I get back.

 

The Fine Art of Propaganda: FUX Snooze Distorts “Indonesia Playboy” Conviction

Ahhhh, the fine art of right-wing propaganda…..sometimes they try to pound you with the hammer; other times they try a more subtle approach. This next story is probably more of the latter.

Everyone knows about the right-wing distortion box also know as the FOX News Channel (or, as my cyberfriend ‘Bina Becker so obtusely calls them, "FUX Snooze"), and their continuous attempt to lay it out for all things right(-wing) and proper(ly reactionary) and American (especially the native, rich, White kind…non-wingnutters need not apply).You also know how much they really love to hate Muslims….not just the more extreme fundamentalists who bomb American buildings, but all Muslims who supposedly are so jealous and hateful of  "our way of life".  Most of this is in the more direct form of the proficient pontificating of FOX’s main hitmen (Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Tony Snow (just before he moved his propaganda agency over to the White House and became Dubya’s press secretary), Brit Hume, and John Gibson, among others); but sometimes it shows up in even the most conspicious places.

For example: dig this recent story about all the brohaha over an obscenity conviction in Indonesia that was posted to the FOXNews.com website:

Playboy Editor in Indonesia Found Guilty; Protesters Call for Death Sentence

JAKARTA, Indonesia — 

The editor of Playboy magazine in Indonesia was found guilty and faces a two-year jail term for violating moral norms by publishing pornographic images and stories, while protesters called for him to be hanged.

 

More than 150 members of the Indonesian People Forum said Erwin Arnada should die for his crimes, chanting "hang him, hang him," according to a Reuters report.

"He was found guilty for violating moral norm that spark people unrest," Prosecutor Resni Muchtar said during a hearing in South Jakarta District Court Tuesday, the Post reported. He said the maximum punishment was two years and eight months.

Arnada manned the magazine, famous around the world for publishing racy shots of scantily clad, if clad at all, women.

The Indonesian edition of the magazine, however, did not feature nudity and was not as risque as other magazines on sale in Indonesia.

The magazine’s first edition sparked protests in Indonesia last April although it had no nudity and less flesh visible in the issue than many other magazines on sale in the world’s most populous Muslim country.

Indonesia, BTW, is 90% Muslim in its population…a fact that probably didn’t escape the copy editor which posted this story, I figure.

Sounds like an open and cut case of baiting Muslims for their extremism in erotica, right?? I mean, you do know that no Christian in this country would EVER even think of going so far as to prosecute and convict people for publishing scantily-clad women in bikinis??  Or even nude photos, right??

Ahhh…but you miss the rest of the story. The above article hinted to a Reuters report that quoted the "150 protestors" calling for Mr. Amada to be hung for "inciting lust"..but somehow forgot to add a link to that article. (Reuters must be one of them baaaaad "far-left loony outfits", I guess.) But fear not, Clones; I went to my trusty Google Search and managed to find the original article they wrote…and needless to say, it strikes a bit different tone:

Two-year jail sought for Playboy Indonesia editor

Tue Mar 13, 2007 1:52 AM ET

JAKARTA (Reuters) – Prosecutors on Tuesday demanded a Jakarta court punish the editor of Playboy Indonesia with a two-year jail term for distributing indecent pictures to the public and making money from them.

The magazine’s first edition sparked protests in Indonesia last April although it had no nudity and less flesh visible in the issue than many other magazines on sale in the world’s most populous Muslim country.

Editor-in-chief Erwin Arnada has argued Playboy Indonesia was good for developing a pluralistic society in the country, but the prosecution and Islamic hardliners who have regularly attended his trial since late last year said he had "harmed the nation’s morals".

"The pictures selected by the defendant were improper for publication because they violated decency and aroused lust," prosecutor Resni Muchtar told the South Jakarta court.

More than 100 Muslim protesters in the courtroom criticized the prosecution for being soft, shouting "Hang him, Hang him".

Radical cleric Abu Bakar Bashir, who spent time in jail for the deadly 2002 Bali bombings before being acquitted by the Supreme Court, also attended the trial.

"The prosecution’s demand does not match the damage that Playboy has inflicted. We want the judges to give the defendant a heavier sentence," he told reporters.

Under Indonesian laws, sentencing demands from the prosecution serve as strong advice to judges who can hand down harsher sentences or dismiss the case altogether.

[…] [Full article linked at title]

 OK…so Indonesia has its own brand of fundamentalist extremists who would hang people for "inducing lust"….like Christianity doesn’t have its own loonies???  Some of whom actually sit in the highest offices of the land here in the US of A?? But…its all about them Mooooslems, I guess.

Not also how FUX manages to get the numbers wrong….probably a real reason why they didn’t explicitly link the Reuters’ article, too.

Now, to be fair to FUX Snooze, they did manage to link a similar article on the Indonesian Playboy dispute from an outfit called AsiaMedia.com…which operates out of the UCLA Asia Institute; they quoted the Jakara Post online newspaper articles themselves. (Of course, a rich, right-wing outfit like FOX News can’t afford to actually have news bureaus in Indonesia, so relying on second-hand news sources I guess does them fine, I reckon.)  

All I want to know is this: How in the holy hell can the folks who watch FOX News (most of them probably hate porn with a passion in public (while their husbands and boyfriends surf the Internet for it in the background); comprehend this dissonance of philosophy?? I mean, how can you say on the one hand that porn is bad, bad, bad and those who consume it should be at least sent to the nearest "addiction" center for immediate treatment, if not jailed…and on the other hand, pillory other cultures for doing just about what you’d like to do??  Oh, I forgot already, silly me….it’s all because of the Moooooooslems and their innate hatred of America; nothing we have done (invading and occupying Iraq on false circumstances; backing to the hilt Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians; showering Israel with tons of nukes while threatening to invade Iran for one nuclear plant; all that notwithstanding) would ever justify such deep loathing and hatred, right???

OK..my brain’s starting to hurt, and I have to go to work soon..I think that I’ll just leave it at that and let you think on that.

 

Another Day, Another Meme: “Five Questions”

2)First off, here’s the rules, as sent to me by Renegade Evolution:

1) Solicit an interview through another blogger’s comment section.
2) Said blogger sends you five questions of varying intimacy for you to answer.
3) You answer them in your blog (with proper credit and linkage).
4) You then solicit others if they want to be interviewed.
5) If they do, then you must send them five Q’s for them to answer….and so on.

And now….the Henchwoman’s High Five, along with my responses:

1)  Aside from Nina [Hartley], who are your favorite porn stars?

I have to break it down into subcategories, since there are so many women I adore:
Hardcore Pros (besides Nina): Vicky Vette, Avy Scott, Heather Hunter, Shayla LaVeaux, Rebecca Lord, Kylie Irleand, Ava Devine, Desiree Cousteau, Gina Lynn, Vanessa del Rio, Bethany Sweet, Cara Lott, Sativa Rose
Hardcore SemiPro/Amateurs: Bridgett Lee, Naughty Allie, Nikki Jackson, Rebecca Jessop, Jan Burton
Softcore Pros: Shauna O’Brien, Kira Reed, Julie Strain, Monique Parent 

2) As a kid, you wanted to grow up to be a….?

First a policeman; then, when I got deep into music, a band director.

3) What is one of your role models?

Nelson Mandela….gotta admire someone willing to suffer so much personally to liberate an entire nation.

4) Favorite band/artist?

I was raised on 70s funk and "The Elements" (Earth, Wind, & Fire)…but my heart and soul gotta stick with Olivia [Newton-John].  

5) You seem to love the drumline action…do you play?

Sadly, no….I was actually more of a woodwind specialist in college, and I never quite made it to get my degree for whatever reason.  Still, I’m big on marching bands (especially the high-stepping "showbands") and I just like d-lines that can execute and entertain.

——————————————————————————-

All right….who wants to play along??  As Beyonce would say: "To the left, to the left….."

 

This Blog Is Now A No-Prude Zone!!

If I could find a way to put this on the sidebar, this would be my new theme photo for the blog….except perhaps with a dog replacing the ferret (Sorry, Paul):

 

Much love to Susie Bright for granting me permission to repost that effin’ brilliant motto…and by all means, do take a visit over at her kick-ass blog and venture in on the spicy debate she’s having right now on the issue of tagging "suggestive" content as "NFSW" (Not Safe For Work).  She sees it as more of the same old sexual censorship; many commenters tend to disagree and defend it under the guise of protecting workers from getting fired for sexual harrassment. Just read and decide for yourself.

 

 

The Descending Spiral of “The Centrifuge”: Bill O’Reilly Shows His Compassion Again

WOW…the crackups and meltdowns of the Right-Wing Noise Machine continues.

So….a house in New York City populated with a family of 20 imimigrants burns down.  Eight children and one adult are killed in an instant.  Investigations reveal that the landlord of the domicile deliberately packed this unfortunate family in unsafe and dangerous conditions merely to collect the rent, and then simply abandoned them.

You would think that even the likes of Bill O’Reilly would show even a bit of mercy and thought for the family shaken by this tragedy.

As is the usual with BillO, though, you’d be thinking wrong.

You see, the family just so happens to be Black African immigrants….and that is more than enough for O’Reilly to lay out the good old "illegal aliens" card (also good for "Mexican", "Muslim" and other communities of color that can be exploited by fascist wingnutters like BillO for ratings and profits).

Some nice quotes, courtesy of those "far-left loonies" known as Media Matters:

[This from BillO’s The O’Reilly Factor program of March 8th (boldface emphasis in original)]

O’REILLY: In the "Unresolved Problem" segment tonight, a new tactic by the pro-amnesty, open-border crowd: using children to demand sanctuary for illegal aliens.

In New York City, eight children were killed last night after a fire broke out in the Bronx. Twenty-two people were living in just two apartments, 17 of them children.

Those involved are from the West African nation of Mali and may be illegal aliens. The city of New York is a sanctuary city and does not give out that information.

Four New York City firefighters were hurt trying to save people in the blaze.

Yeah, you can surely feel the love iminating from BillO….eight children are dead, but let’s go right to the "sanctuary for "illegal aliens" card from the jump.  I wonder if he would be so "compassionate" if the victims were Black Americans or Latino citizens….or wealthy Asians on the corporate payroll.

The very next day (March 9th) on the same program, O’Reilly follows the right hook with the far-right uppercut:

O’REILLY: And then there is that terrible fire here in New York City, where eight children were killed, children of parents born in Mali, West Africa. Because New York is a sanctuary city that protects illegal aliens, The Factor cannot confirm whether or not all these children were in the USA legally.

What we can confirm is that 17 children were living in a rowhouse, along with five adults, that one of the men in the house had two wives — one upstairs, one downstairs — and that living conditions were chaotic and dangerous.

After our report last night, I received this letter from [viewer] in Houston. "O’Reilly, it was despicable to hear you question the status of those children. I was a big fan of yours but I’ll never watch you again and urge others who feel compassion for immigrants not to watch you as well."

OK, [viewer], but here’s the no-spin truth, so listen up. Your so-called compassion helped kill those children. They should have never been in that circumstance. If the authorities had investigated as they should have, those kids might be alive right now, legal or not.

It is against the law to overcrowd a dwelling. It is against the law to have two wives. If any one of those people were here illegally, that is another infraction. But New York City looks the other way. It doesn’t want to know.

It is people like you, [viewer], who promote that kind of chaos in the name of compassion, who look the other way while poor workers and children are exploited by greedy landlords and businesses because you don’t like the immigration laws.

Yeah, it’s great to be compassionate sitting at home watching the tube. But for decades, our government has allowed people from all over the world to walk in here without supervision. That’s why these children are dead — because their chaotic situation was ignored by New York City authorities.

Of course, we must hold the landlords or the owners of the buliding responisble for the tragedy of this family, sayeth BillO….right after we first smack down them "compassionate" liberals and "far-left loonies" for allowing these evil aliens to come here in the first place. After all, it would be so much better to have deported their sorry Black African asses for not being rich White contributors to the proper right-wing causes…..errrrrrr, I mean, for not going through the proper channels to get here legally….BEFORE such a tragedy happens…right, Mr. O’Reilly???

And oh, how touching is this newly found respect of BillO for "poor workers and children exploited by greedy landlords and businesses"….doesn’t he know that the latter is, you know, the primary base of the Republican Party and the "conservative" movement that you claim to represent??? 

Anyways…later on in the program, BillO gets a bit tiffy with Geraldo Rivera, who manages the small shred of common decency left in his heart to call O’Reilly out on his "compassion"; which illicits this interesting exchange:

O’REILLY: I’m basically saying that we must get this situation of illegal immigration under control. The chaos is killing children. Go.

RIVERA: I think to draw — to make the connection between illegal immigration and that horrific fire in the Bronx two days ago is an injustice to the victims of that fire. Why did they die?

There’s no code violations that they found. There were no required, you know — everything in the building so far —

O’REILLY: Twenty-two people in the house.

RIVERA: There were two batteries missing in the fire alarm.

O’REILLY: Twenty-two people in a house.

RIVERA: But, Bill, the status of the immigration is not relevant.

My legal nanny has children in school with three of those victims. It is the human cause. And if you —

O’REILLY: This is what you missed. I’m going to give you the last word. But this is what you missed. This is a sanctuary city. That means the authorities do not ask any questions about anybody’s status or anybody’s condition.

RIVERA: Bill, they’re dead children, for God’s sake, they’re dead children.

O’REILLY: If they had been American children —

RIVERA: They’d still be dead children. It would still be heartbreaking.

O’REILLY: No, the authorities would have gone in and checked them out.

RIVERA: No, please. That’s not so.

O’REILLY: Yes, it is.

RIVERA: You don’t know that to be a fact.

O’REILLY: Yes, I do.

RIVERA: You don’t —

O’REILLY: You know it is.

RIVERA: — there are little babies dead. There are people — mothers throwing babies out the window. They’re dying. Falling onto the — you’ve got to be compassionate, brother. You’ve got to be compassionate.

O’REILLY: Twenty-two people in a rowhouse. They don’t let people do that.

RIVERA: You gotta take a step back and say, "Wait a second, this isn’t about illegal immigration. This is about the human cost of a terrible tragedy."

O’REILLY: This is about a system —

RIVERA: Those firemen were crying. They were crying because the babies died.

O’REILLY: Four of the firemen were almost killed.

RIVERA: That’s right.

O’REILLY: And that situation never should have existed. Never.

RIVERA: Please, I’ve covered poverty in this country for 35 years. I’ve seen legal poor people living under conditions far more squalid than that. That was a working family at a good school. You’ve gotta divorce their status from their victimization.

O’REILLY: They have to be supervised. And they weren’t.

 Anyone wants to bet that the four firemen who BillO is praising happen to be White?? I mean, I guess that it’s more important to him that four White firemen be prevented from injury than the fate of 18 Black immigrants holed up in a hellish situation be "supervised" for their legal citizen status and tagged as "illegal aliens" to be deported….all in the name of saving their lives, I would venture.

Man.  That must be one cold, cold heart that beats within Bill O’Reilly’s body.  Either that, or he’s simply a serial racist and an uptown Klansman who hides his hood and robe inside his Armani suit.  Probably a bit of both.

Nice going, FUX Snooze….the depths you sink to continue to amaze me.  Between O’Reilly, Coulter, Hannity and Jabba the Fat-Ass Limbaugh, that should produce enough density to power a black hole..or a hundred.

And BTW, this just in….Scooter Libby was still found guilty of four counts of perjury and obstruction of justice…some rumors aside.  Nice try, though.