Here are a couple more photos of art. I like art that you can live with, or that makes a statement about its natural or human surroundings -- or provokes thought about both. (Right now I am wondering about band width!)

Still life with heads and fruit:

Crab hanging on sun:

Hey folks, today's the day the year takes a leap. Can't the crab hang on the sun once every four years?

Now that I have had a day or so to mull over the Howard Stern controversy, I realize I didn't fully express my concerns. I previously posted about my fear of what I call "quasi-governmental censorship", and Glenn Reynolds was kind enough to link to it. But right now, that post is so far down on my blog that it wouldn't do to call this an "UPDATE."

But speaking of updates, I note that Jeff Jarvis recently warned that some of the same people who want Howard Stern off the air also want the FCC to have jurisdiction over the Internet, and I still think this is an issue which should be of concern to bloggers.

[ED NOTE (at the risk of redundancy): Especially censored bloggers!]

Now, what follows is more personal.

I still haven't had a chance to talk -- really talk -- about Howard Stern. But I want to give it a stab, because I have been listening to the guy for ten years now, and this blog is as good a place as any to share my personal thoughts, as well as my feelings.

When I first started listening to the Howard Stern Show, I thought the guy was an annoying jerk. I had read and heard condemnation of him by numerous voices on the left and the right, and I thought, "Well, I'll just put up with him for awhile, and maybe I'll gain some sort of insight into what the fuss is all about."

After about a week, I began to realize that this was an intelligent sensitive guy, even a gentleman. (Many a laugh has greeted me when I have used that word to describe Howard Stern, but I mean it from the bottom of my heart.) He is a social critic who makes fun of everything and everyone, but most of all he makes fun of his own audience and listeners -- sparing no one.

Then there's Robin Quivers. When I first heard her, I envisioned a heavyset blonde woman -- a stereotype of one of one of R. Crumb's muscular Amazon girls. I was stunned to learn she was black, and this intrigued me more. I kept listening. I love imitations and irreverence, and I heard both every day.

His show starts at 6:00 am, and I am a late-night person, which made listening a bit inconvenient. To kill two birds with one stone, I thought, "Why not use Howard Stern as an alarm clock?"

My bedroom radio had a built-in timer, which I set to wake me up to Howard Stern each morning when his show started. I soon learned that I was not the only one to do this, because just before starting the program, he'd always play some sort of musical prelude which seemed perfectly appropriate to that sleepy, REM-dream-state I'd be in. Sometimes he'd even play this surreal, dreamy, 1960s sci-fi type, trance music -- the stuff which typified many a movie "flashback" (or "memory regression") segment. This was great -- and it didn't matter whether I slept through it or incorporated it into my dreams.

Eventually, I would wake up, and almost always in a great mood.

A great mood.

Was I alone in this?

Far from it. I hadn't noticed it before, but I started to notice that many of the delivery guys -- you know, ordinary working-class men who had to get up way early in the morning and perform the sort of drudgery which the economy (and the country) needs to function -- would be listening to Howard Stern!

I am a morning runner, and I can't tell you how many times I would hear bits of Howard Stern coming from the Pepsi delivery trucks, the Budweiser delivery trucks, construction sites.

These guys looked as if listening to Howard made their jobs easier! Easier to get to work, and easier to work when you get there! Running with a radio headset on, I'd sometimes hear an "echo" -- and I'd loosen the headphone, and there'd be some worker or group of workers, usually smiling, getting through the hardest part of the day.

Can this be measured in dollars? It might be difficult, and it might require some serious studies by economists, but I have long argued that Howard Stern is a boon to the national economy, and I think I am right.

The more I listened, the more I came to love that show. I found that many white collar guys listened to him too, and then the more I asked around, the more I heard that women also listened to Howard Stern!

Imagine that! Women listening to this misfit misogynist trash talk guy! What continues to amazes me is that the women who like Howard Stern are a cut above; they tend to be smarter, more cynical (the healthy kind), and above all they have enough of a sense of humor to appreciate that Howard is intelligent and poking fun at all human foibles (not the least of which are his own). Even his braggadocio is deliberately ridiculous. His lies about serving in Vietnam, his endless declarations that he is the greatest "KING OF ALL RADIO," the nonsense about his being "half Jewish and half Italian" -- these are the kind of things which the clueless might take literally. And that fact alone -- that the clueless take him seriously -- is a very important part of the humor.

It's tough to explain this to anyone who is not a regular listener. Yet these are the people who most hate him.

An example from (very) personal experience. My mother, who died four years ago, was intuitive enough to quickly grasp Howard surreal ridiculousness after listening to him a couple of times in the car when I drove her around. I remember one time my mom and I listened to "the news" (this is when Robin, a former radio news reporter, reads the news and plays straight man to Howard's embellishments). Robin reported a story of a man-eating tiger in India -- preying upon local villagers while Hindu officials debated what should be done while the carnage went on. (After all, you can't just kill a tiger in India!) They played this totally inappropriate sitar music while Howard waxed philosophically.... and my mom was reduced to hysterics. When she got home, she told her husband (my stuffy stepfather, whose sense of humor definitely did not include Howard Stern) how hilarious she'd found this unfairly vilified man, Howard Stern. My stepfather grunted with a suppressed look of pain, as if having abdominal cramps, and I sensed he was waiting for my mom to leave the room. She did, and then came the ultimatum:

"Eric, I DO NOT WANT YOUR MOTHER LISTENING TO THAT MAN!"

Quite naively, I posited gently that I thought it my mother's business who she listened to, and, well, I merely added another reason for the man to detest me.

Not fair, but that's the way it is with Howard Stern.

I used to become enraged whenever I would hear people tear into Howard, and I would ask them if they ever heard him. The usual reply was that they had not and never would.

Not fair -- and who cares?

I noticed that the leftists hated Howard for being sexist and right wing, while the right wing hated him for being vulgar and left wing (guess they also hated the long hair on a 40 year old), while many of the rest of the clueless just hated him because they were told to.

What upset me the most was hearing moral conservatives repeatedly invoking Howard Stern's name (almost by rote, to be taken for granted) as an example of All That Is Wrong.

He is not.

For me, Howard Stern makes my days just a little bit better. You can argue about the First Amendment all you want, but the bottom line for me is a quality of life issue. I would occasionally tell people that if they didn't like him they could simply turn their radios off -- or twist the dial to another station, but I soon realized this was a silly argument to raise with people who never had listened to him and never would.

Therein lies the problem. They don't want merely the right to turn their dials or turn the radios off; they want ME to be unable to turn the dial to Howard Stern.

Again, not fair.

Without Howard Stern, life in the United States would be grimmer, less pleasant. Meaner. More sour. Guys arriving to work angrier. Less productivity at job sites.

Whose business is this? Freedom -- to listen whatever the hell you want -- should be everybody's business, but instead the system tends to default to whomever is the best organized with the biggest ax to grind.

And many people have been grinding their axes to use against Howard Stern for many years. I couldn't even begin to list the people who've been trying to get him off the air.

Well, since this is a long post, I might as well give it a try.

Here's a partial list:

Sheesh! This gets tedious.

But there are a lot of people out there who don't want me listening to Howard Stern. And I freely admit, they have every right to try to stop me.

So how come I'm not working my butt off trying to get their programming off the air?

Because it wouldn't be fair.

Freedom -- to listen to what you want to hear on the radio -- strikes me as more fair than limiting that freedom.

UPDATE: James Lileks (a blogger I greatly respect) in my opinion did not fully understand the dynamics involved behind the colloquy he discusses here:

The driver had Stern on. He was talking to a caller who was born and raised in Nigeria – she spoke impeccable English with that lovely African flavor. She wasn’t pleased about something he said; he let her go on for a while, then cut in and asked her if she’d ever ate a monkey. She was stunned – how do you reply to something like that? He went on to note that a lot of people in Africa ate monkeys, and perhaps that’s where AIDS came from. And so on.
(Via Glenn Reynolds.)

As an example, listen to THIS. The caller sounds angry, but is just plain hamming it up. If you think it's hurtful, all I can say is you are mistaken. It is comedy and it is art.

Like many of the ostensibly hostile callers, that "Nigerian" woman was on the air more than once. Similarly, religious people call to scream at Howard, and he obliges by putting them on the air. Who is being exploited?

Is anyone made to call in, get past the screeners and wait to talk to Howard Stern on the air? I know what that show is about and if I called and got through, it would be expected that I'd give my best effort at radio buffoonery. I'd probably do my damnedest to make the most out of the inevitable "insults."

I am sorry to see comedy taken so deadly seriously.

(Although in fairness many would think I should be ashamed to have such bad taste.....)

UPDATE: Doc Searls thinks that the future for people who want to be able to select what they want to hear is the Internet:

My own take is that the FCC is working, unintentionally but very effectively, with the giant broadcasters to stifle free speech; and this is one more shovel of dirt on the coffin of Broadcasting as Usual, which will be replaced by the Net, one way or another. (Via Jeff Jarvis.)

Why are people always saying that God hates something?

And why does it always have to be about sex?

(You can't judge a book by its cover, but because Amazon failed to include a photo, here it is, in the interest of full and complete accuracy.)

Well, I don't care what God hates; I refuse to toe the line!

(For this inspirational Sunday idea, I am indebted to Glenn Reynolds.)

MORE: Excerpts from an interview with the artist, Robert Williams (which may -- repeat may -- shed some light on a cultural three-way between artistic expression, the right, and the left):

Goblin: Why do you think bohemians are attracted to lower art forms such as graffiti art, tattoo art, poster art, etc. Are they more valid or is it just easier to make money that way.

Williams: What do you call a bohemian? That's a pretty loose term, it's like Beatnik. There's a lot of different ways of saying it, bohemians are from Bohemia, a bunch of people in the left bank of France. Frederick The Great had one of his top regiments made out of artists who were bohemians who turned centuries later into one of the leading regiments of the Nazi army. You won't hear that anywhere else. "La Boheme " is a classic story of bohemians then and bohemians now. If you're poor and you need romance in your life to justify being a jack-off then you're a bohemian. Then when you get a little money in your life and get a cleaner house then your bohemian life gets behind you.

....

Goblin: That sounds great. But do you think the religious right is the big threat right now to freedom of expression?

Williams: I think it all exists to the point now that it is a valid resistance. Let me explain that. Jesse Helms did more to support the arts than anybody. He caused so much right wing stink, and he was an old grumpy man griping about pornography. He was an easy target. Here's an old Christian fart saying "that stuff's terrible." But he's a harmless turd.

Don't get me wrong, you can still get in trouble. If you do an album cover with a dick on it you're still going to have the PMRC get a hold of you and give you a hard time, but by and large those rough days are over. My biggest problem is with people that are politically correct. I am increasingly policing myself not to draw minorities and be careful about the way I represent women. I'm very careful because I know I'm going to get in trouble with these people. The art world is just filled with sensitive leftists.

Goblin: Do you think they're the new fascists?

Williams: They certainly are. The Right Wing is funny now, and I'm afraid no one really has a good take on it. It's been beaten down into the form of fanaticism and you're getting glimpses of it through these survivalists. They used to be outspoken and you could see what they're doing but I think they're beaten back. When I moved to LA it had a Nazi fascist police department that made my life miserable. They had a chief of police that was like a dictator -- he died in office! When he died he had such a fascist machine in the police department they had to take the head of every department and move him over one department to break up the power. They used to be the rated fifth biggest army in the world. Now they're so beaten back and wimpy and whiny if they're going down the street and they see something wrong they will not stop unless they are called.

THE SEWER WIDENS: When artists (which I believe Howard Stern is) are allowed to discuss politics, trouble soon follows. Last year the FCC dared to allow Howard Stern to air an interview with Arnold Schwarzenegger without providing equal time to the "other side." Critics responded by calling for "housecleaning at the FCC":

“This shows how out of touch the Commission is and how beholden it is to the conglomerates that are serving up garbage on the nation’s airwaves,” said Robert Knight, director of CWA’s Culture and Family Institute.

“The FCC’s lack of enforcement of broadcast decency laws has allowed our nation’s airwaves to become virtual sewers,” Knight said. “This ruling widens the sewer tap into our already troubled political process. It really is time for a housecleaning at the FCC."

UPDATE: A big welcome to all visitors from InstaPundit! And my deepest thanks to Glenn Reynolds for linking to this post (which I thought was about shrimp, but which grew larger and larger until I almost thought it was about, um, taste, or ART, or even Culture, or maybe even POLITICS.)

But I will say this: just as Franklin Delano Roosevelt drew the line when they attacked his dog Fala, I will defend my right to eat shrimp -- whenever, wherever, however!

(Tongue in cheek, of course.....)

Bloggers I greatly respect have offered differing opinions about "The Passion."

Donald Sensing, more of an expert on Christianity than anyone I can think of in the Blogosphere, after noting numerous inaccuracies in the film, finally concludes with this:

I was filled with a deep sadness - indeed, shame - at the profound deficiency of my own discipleship. Gibson has said that the movie's answer to the question, "Who killed Jesus?" is, "We all did." That is not what I felt at the end. Instead, I felt a deep sense of having betrayed the great trust given me by Christ, a enormous awareness of my own sin and sinfulness and my total reliance on God's gracious mercy.

Here's Andrew Sullivan:

Gibson does nothing to mitigate the dangerous anti-Semitic elements of the story and goes some way toward exaggerating and highlighting them. To my mind, that is categorically unforgivable. Anti-Semitism is the original sin of Christianity. Far from expiating it, this movie clearly enjoys taunting those Catholics as well as Jews who are determined to confront that legacy. In that sense alone, it is a deeply immoral work of art.

Here's Roger L. Simon:

Beneath Mr. Gibson’s insouciant exterior beats a heart all right, but it’s not a brave one. It’s the heart of a ruthless, unforgiving man. He has made one of the most violent exercises in sadism ever put on a movie screen and, unconsciously, the greatest advertisement for atheism I have ever seen. If “The Passion of The Christ” is about religion… any religion… I want no part of it. And I don’t think anybody should. Instead of adapting one of the magnificent spiritual works of world literature, the Gospels, Mr. Gibson has tossed them aside and made two hours of virtually unremitting gore, taking the “Son of Man,” ripping him, shredding him, flaying him, smashing him, bashing him, beating him, mauling him, hammering nails in him, and then starting all over again. And again. And then again. No known human being—of divine origin or not—would have survived even a fiftieth of this. It’s the theatrical equivalent of ten years of root canal work.

....was it anti-Semitic? Of course, but what do you expect from a film that treats the whole subject so brainlessly? I think it’s anti-human as well.

Believe me, I understand why, and I think I understand Roger's feelings about the film (at least I hope I do).

Politically (and this stuff has become political as hell!), Gibson would do well to tell the world he is not an anti-Semite, and not just in a general sense; I think he'd be well advised to state clearly whether or not he wants the Catholic Church to return to its pre-Vatican II policy of anti-Semitism, and whether he agrees with the disgraceful positions taken by his father.

Gibson would also do well to remember that anti-Catholic sentiment can take on a life of its own just as much as anti-Jewish or anti-homosexual sentiment. Here's an anti-Catholic Protestant fundamentalist site which believes "The Passion" violates the Second Commandment ("a two-hour stream of images graven in celluloid at the rate of 24 frames per second"...." thousands of graven images and likenesses of God's Son") and concludes it is the work of the devil:

The Jesus of the movie is not the Jesus of the Bible. The Jesus of the movie is not the Jesus of God. You are going to the devil to get a view of Jesus, and you will not undo the damage easily. The Jesus you see is that which Satan wants you to see. He does not want you to see the Jesus before Whom he trembled, and by Whom he will soon be cast into hell.

You will put your trust in another Jesus, another gospel, and another spirit, all of which are false (II Cor 11:1-4,13-15). You will think you know Jesus, when you do not. You will think you know how He thinks of you, but you will not. You will be deceived into confidence of your relationship with Him, without a true basis for that confidence. One day soon you will be very surprised!

Or am I once again engaged in moral relativism?

If I am slouching towards moral relativism, I might as well pose another morally relativistic question. Much has been made of whether or not Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic, whether he is homophobic, whether his father is anti-Semitic, etc.

I think it is important to judge the film for what it is, as opposed to who made it, who paid for it, who promotes it, and what their motivations might be.

My question is, would it make any difference had this film been produced and directed by a known, unabashed anti-Semite? If so, then why?

Would it have made any difference had the film been made in Syria or Lebanon, by a Jew-hating Muslim director?

I don't know, but it is becoming more and more of a struggle to separate the messenger from the message.

Speaking of "messengers," there was a film I very much enjoyed called "The Lion in the Desert," -- a biography of Libyan guerilla leader Omar Mukhtar, who fought the Italian fascist occupation forces in the 1920s. I was told that the film was "propaganda" because of the background of the director (Syrian-born Mustapha Akkad) and its funding:

Akkad again faced a somewhat hostile American public because the movie had been funded by Libyan leader Mu’ammar al-Quaddafi, who like Khomeini, was viewed with scrutiny in the West. The movie stared Anthony Quinn as Mukhtar, Oliver Reed as General Gratsiani, the officer in charge of crushing the Libyan revolution, and Rod Steiger as Benito Mussolini.

I am going to watch "The Passion" tonight (at least I think I will, if I can find anyone who'll see it with me...), and I am wondering whether I have any moral right to see it and judge it as a work of art or not.

In the interest of full disclosure, I enjoyed Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" -- which of course was made as the purest form of Nazi propaganda.

It never made me a Nazi!

MORE ON RIEFENSTAHL: Ah, old memories! Years ago I saw Triumph of the Will in a theater in San Francisco, where two clueless American guys were seated with their dates in the row in front of me. The film didn't even have subtitles, which in some respects made it boring. To the guys -- but NOT to their dates! The latter consisted of two cute German girls, who'd obviously never seen the film before, and were in a state of what can only be called shock and awe. Their dates (obviously interested more in scoring with the girls than seeing long speeches by Hitler, Himmler, Streicher, et al.) were trying to drag them away, but the girls were imploring, begging, eyes-wide-open at the screen, to let them stay and watch. I have never seen any two people pay such rapt attention to any film as those girls.

This was around 1980. At the time, it occurred to me that the film had been censored, and in Germany they would not have been allowed to see it.

Not a good thing. Even propaganda is part of history.

So is art.

ADDITIONAL NOTE RE PONTIUS PILATE: The available historical record regarding Pontius Pilate is sketchy and contradictory. Depending on which sources one chooses to believe, a case can just as easily be made for a ruthless and tryannical Pilate as for a waffling politician who wanted to avoid trouble. It is interesting to note that as the early church grew, Pilate's image seems have been cleaned up to the point that he was actually canonized by the Coptic and Ethiopian churches!

It may well be impossible to ever know the actual historical facts.

My thanks to Sandefur's Freespace for linking to this excellent discussion (which provided the link above). Superb work -- especially for a film considered "better seen than reviewed."

Of course, I was too late to make it to the film tonight, so I can do neither!

Here's a real treat for people who enjoy contemplating hypocrisy in its various dimensions.

A champion of Berkeley rent control was ordered last week to pay his former tenants more than $100,000 in restitution by the very rent board he campaigned to create.
By a unanimous vote, the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board found that Michael Berkowitz, a paid aide to Councilmember Maudelle Shirek, had willfully misrepresented his residency status at his 2820 Derby St. property to skirt rent control. Berkowitz also works in a second position as chief of information services and neighborhood planning for the City of San Francisco.

The award reflects the total amount Berkowitz overcharged his tenants each month since 1992.

Asked to comment at a city council meeting several days after the Rent Stabilization Board’s decision, Shirek said she had not heard about the case against her aide.

Berkowitz says he made no intentional attempt to avoid rent control.

“I made a mistake. I thought I was covered, but it was not willful or malicious or anything like that,” he told the rent board. He added in an interview Wednesday he was unsure if he would appeal the decision to the Alameda County Superior Court.

Berkowitz dinged by the Rent Board? It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

Welcome to the club, Mike!

NOTE: It is unusual for the far left (which runs the Rent Board) to treat one of their own this way, and an informant tells me that Berkowitz must have committed some sort of unknown crime. As my friend observed:

Berkowitz must have been on "the outs" with the rads for reasons unknown to me. That happens. Sometimes, they turn on their own. They are all paranoid and are always on the lookout for enemy agents within, like FBI moles in the Communist Party back in the 1950s.
I have known some old Reds who got ostracized, and never found out why.

Might Maudelle be thinking about getting a new aide?

Friday is always Online Test Day at Classical Values, and I try not to disappoint. Not sure how to characterize today's theme, but the omens seem to be along the lines of cartoons....

and RULES.....

___________________________________

The first test I found via Glenn Reynolds, who linked to something he called "frightening." The link indeed led to what is a truly frightening picture of Ralph Nader, directly followed by a link to "What lesser-known Simpsons character are you?" revealing at last for all the world that I am Krusty the Clown!

What lesser-known Simpsons character are you?
Brought to you by the good folks at sacwriters.com.

Naturally, I couldn't stop there. I don't know much about Krusty, but I did discover the following quote:

"A joke, ah...oh....ok! A man walks into a bar with a small piano, and a twelve inch pianist.....whooaaa hooaaa...I can't tell that one!!...huh huh huh huh huh!" (when Marge asked Krusty to tell a joke at Selma and SSB's wedding)

___________________________________

Next, Ordinary Galoot kindly supplemented these results with another test -- "Which Peanuts Character are You?" -- and my results were pleasing:

You are Pig Pen!


Which Peanuts Character are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

I don't mind being Pig Pen at all.

Actually, there was also a real-life rock star named Pig Pen I always admired. Considered by many to be the original founder of the Grateful Dead (called the Warlocks in their first incarnation), Pig Pen was the band's lead vocalist in the band back in the days when I first became a Deadhead. The guy had a truly remarkable personality, and I think it is no understatement to call him the most cosmic drunk who ever lived. In those days, the band and the audience tended to be on LSD, but Pig Pen only took acid a few times and didn't especially like the stuff; instead he indulged in the drug of choice of that gravity-defying god, Bacchus. Either because of or in spite of his juicing, Pig Pen was every bit as in touch with that indescribable extraterrestrial energy which seemed to possess everyone. If anything he seemed more versed in it -- even the anchor of it. I really couldn't call him a "leader" because the whole thing was total anarchy in those days. No security, no clear delineation between audience and stage, anyone could go anywhere and wander about. Just pure, spontaneous, magic. Pig Pen was highly intuitive, self-effacing, utterly charming, exuding what Jerry Garcia called a "pixyish sense of humor." His down-to-earth aura served as an anchor between a bottom-line reality and the incredible chaos of infinity upon which everyone -- band members and audience -- reflected in awe. Without judging or owning or controlling. I was in my mid teens, and I'll never forget those experiences.

So, for today, Pig Pen lives!

(At least he does for the purposes of this post. I'm delighted to have any excuse to breathe some life into this truly remarkable personality. And for a limited time only, you can stream a good Pig Pen song, here.)

I suppose I could also say "Pig Pen rules!"

_____________________________________

Which leads me to my last test.

RULES!

Dave Tepper offered what has to be the oddest test I have yet found in the Blogosphere, "Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Are You?

My results?

YOU ARE RULE 8(a)!

You are Rule 8, the most laid back of all the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While your
forefather in the Federal Rules may have been a
stickler for details and particularity, you
have clearly rebelled by being pleasant and
easy-going. Rule 8 only requires that a
plaintiff provide a short and plain statement
of a claim on which a court can grant relief.
While there is much to be lauded in your
approach, your good nature sometimes gets you
in trouble, and you often have to rely on your
good friend, Rule 56, to bail you out.


Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

Wish they had a picture, but what the heck.

Will this do?

More on free speech.

In numerous essays, I have argued that sex has become political, as has religion, which is increasingly a highly political voice against sex.

What this means is that sex and pornography can no longer been seen solely as "appealing to prurient interests." Sex, pornography, and obscenity are now in the realm of political acts. In this new era, censorship of sex and pornography increasingly touch on the essence of free speech -- which, traditionally, is the right to discuss politics.

If sexual issues are now politics, then they are also protected free speech!

Howard Stern was not censored for being pornographic, but for talking about inflammatory subjects. Watermelons, sex, and and the n-word. These are clearly political topics involving popular culture, and sexual and racial stereotypes.

What is inflammatory? Anything someone doesn't like? Does anyone know anymore? Things have gotten to the point where satire -- discussion of the topics themselves -- is censorable. But the right to talk about these things is free speech.

I don't think people realize that what I warned about with blog censorship is part and parcel of a movement which uses sex as a foot-in-the-door. First it's sex, then it's talking about sex, then it's having opinions which might be deemed "offensive."

Read what Rush Limbaugh, of all people, had to say today:

'I'VE NEVER HEARD HOWARD STERN. BUT WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GETS INVOLVED IN THIS, I GET A LITTLE FRIGHTENED.

'IF WE ARE GOING TO SIT BY AND LET THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GET INVOLVED IN THIS, IF THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO 'CENSOR' WHAT THEY THINK IS RIGHT AND WRONG... WHAT HAPPENS IF A WHOLE BUNCH OF JOHN KERRYS, OR TERRY MCAULIFFES START RUNNING THIS COUNTRY. AND DECIDE CONSERVATIVE VIEWS ARE LEADING TO VIOLENCE?

'I AM IN THE FREE SPEECH BUSINESS. ITS ONE THING FOR A COMPANY TO DETERMINE IF THEY ARE GOING TO BE PARTY TO IT. ITS ANOTHER THING FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO DO IT.'

Bottom line: when Rush Limbaugh goes to bat for Howard Stern, you know something is very, very wrong.

UPDATE: While I see Glenn Reynolds' point about hypocrisy (free speech is the same for Stern, Schlessinger, or Savage), satire is not the same thing as actual bigotry. If Michael Savage uses the word "fag" the word has a very different meaning than when Stern uses it. I can't stand Savage, but I would not support FCC censorship of him.

There is a big difference between Howard Stern joking about killing Jews, and Ernst Zundel doing the same thing. The former might be considered in bad taste -- and maybe hurtful to certain people's feelings -- but the latter is true hate speech. Not that the government has any business regulating either, but there's still a distinction.

There is also such a thing as quasi-governmental censorship. I've seen it at work for years.....

MORE: A case for complete deregulation of broadcasting? I have long felt that federal regulation of the airwaves was unconstitutional anyway. What bothers the hell out of me is to have other people tell me what I can and cannot hear, and what web pages I can and cannot visit. I would like to make up my own mind without having these choices made for me by corporate cowards intimidated by government agencies. In the case of Howard Stern, the recent decision by Clear Channel came right on the heels of angry testimony before Congress and ominous threats by guys like Michael Powell at the FCC. True, the government did not take him off the air, so there's no "state action." But without the FCC and the Congressional hearings, I seriously doubt the company would have taken the same action. Organized letter writing campaigns by angry listeners, threats to boycott the show -- that's one thing. If advertisers pull their spots, and local stations decide to cancel, that is not state-sponsored censorship. But when Congressional and FCC bullying is followed by an abrupt turnaround in corporate policy, well, that's close enough to "state action" for me to sound off in return.

I think this corporate decision sucks, and I think government pressure was behind it. I think it was about as "voluntary" as the kind of "voluntary compliance" people give the IRS.

Precisely what I mean by "quasi-governmental censorship."

(Perhaps I should have said "incidents of censorship.")

IN THE INTEREST OF FULL DISCLOSURE: It is only fair for me to point out that I have been a daily listener to Howard Stern (and G. Gordon Liddy) since 1994, and, much as I try to be logical, I may be influenced by my bias. I first saw the heavy hand of government influence radio companies in 1995 when Bill Clinton singled out Liddy by name as having been somehow responsible for the Oklahoma City blast (a connection never explained). Following this a number of stations dropped his show. Now, Bill Clinton did not order him off the air, so there was technically no "state action." Cass Sunstein thought that taking Liddy off the air after the Clinton remarks was "not a threat to free speech but an exercise of civic duties." I disagree vehemently. Like Virginia Postrel and Dave Kopel, I dislike seeing the government and its officials behave this way, and I will always condemn it when I see it.

AND HERE'S MORE:

It was the second time in two weeks that the House Energy and Commerce telecommunications subcommittee queried broadcasters about indecency. The first hearing came on the heels of the notorious Super Bowl halftime show that ended with singer Justin Timberlake exposing Janet Jackson's right breast to 90 million viewers

"Networks are being proactive in the efforts to clean up the airwaves," said subcommittee chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., who has sponsored legislation to increase the maximum fine for indecency from $27,500 to $275,000.

Several broadcasters endorsed the higher fines. John Hogan, president Clear Channel Radio, said the move would "serve as a 'shot across the bow' of the industry, putting us all on notice that Congress and the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) are serious about cleaning up the airwaves." (Vid Drudge.)

THANK YOU GLENN REYNOLDS: And a warm WELCOME to all readers who came here from InstaPundit!! (Who is more correct in his legal analysis than I am -- and who is absolutely right in saying that Jeff Jarvis rules!)

AND EVEN MORE: Glenn Reynolds links to this report by Howard Kurtz, and asks a good question:

Why is this different from what happened to The Greaseman, which didn't produce any clucking about censorship? Er, except that Stern hasn't lost his job. Oh, and there's a Republican in the White House now.

Never a stranger to controversy, Tracht was fired in 1999:

....[I]n February of 1999, while working at WARW-FM, he made a racially insensitive comment relating the music of hip-hop artist Lauren Hill to the dragging death of Dennis Byrd, the top news story of the day. After a listener called in to the show and complained on the air, word quickly spread of what Grease had said. He was suspended later that day, and then fired the next day. Grease went on numerous TV & radio talk shows to apologize for the incident in hopes of regaining his good reputation, with the help of boxing promoter Rock Newman at his side in support of his long-time friend. Among the TV shows Grease appeared on are ABC Nightline with Ted Koppel, BET Tonight with Tavis Smiley and MSNBC Equal Time with Ollie North. On the latter show, Ollie displayed results of an Internet poll asking "Do you accept the Greaseman's apology?" which showed that 63% of those surveyed answered "Yes".

I did not like seeing what happened to the Greaseman, but I wasn't blogging.

For what it's worth I condemn what happened to him, just as I condemn Stern's treatment.

Doug Tracht is still on the air. On his flagship Washington DC station listeners can hear him on the Internet, and here are some more:

In the wake of national hysteria induced by the glimpse of a mammary organ at the Superbowl, a pontificating and sanctimonious company called "Clear Channel Communications" has taken Howard Stern off the air in a number of cities. Fortunately not Philadelphia or San Francisco. Jeff Jarvis offers some thoughts on what this means, and what you can do about it.

: The more I think about this, the more enraged I get. One tit flopped out and the government -- the Bush administration -- can't wait to play to its far-right fringe and censor speech and intimidate speech and chill speech. How dare they? This is not the role we expect of our government. We don't need a nanny.
Let's hear a little liberartarian outrage at government meddling in our lives and our speech.
Let's hear a little conservative outrage at government growing beyond its bounds.
Let's hear a little liberal outrage at goverment stiffling free spech.
I don't give a damn whether you like or despise Howard Stern; that's beside the point. If you're American, you cherish free speech and you should be appalled at what is happening to it. This is not coming from media consolidation. This is coming from government intimidation.
F Michael Powell. F the FCC. F Clear Channel.
Defend Howard Stern. Or lose your own rights to say what you want where and when you want to say it.

: I know that many constituencies want to tell Clear Channel to f off. Here's where and how.

If I want to be "protected" I'll turn my dial. But how do I protect myself from this?

In case anyone failed to notice, there's already one company working hard to protect Internet users from blogs.....

These days, the politically organized religious right and gay activists don't seem to get along that well. Not only is it all but impossible for friendships to develop between these two groups, but even dialogue is impossible.

Each one of these groups tends to believe that the others are:

Is humor possible, or are things too far gone?

When I was in college, there was a lot of good natured banter between religious fundamentalists and gay activists (if anyone is interested, I used to harass the evangelists, who would harangue in return!), and I was thinking that maybe the "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" program could find a young, single, male, anti-homosexual activist from the religious right who otherwise fills their bill and possibly do a total makeover!

Surely, somewhere out there, some lonely young member of the antigay religious right finds himself in need of a date but has the usual problems: terrible wardrobe, bad haircut, grooming problems, tacky living space -- you know -- the whole host of problems that the show specializes in "treating."

In return for consenting to be a guest on the show, the evangelist would be allowed by the Queer Eye folks a full segment in which he could try to convert them, yell at them, attempt to cure them -- whatever it might take to save them from the sin of homosexuality.

Depending on how this went, the episode might be high camp, and it could also serve as a reminder that we are all human.

Even if the guy told the Queer Eye people that they were all a bunch of miserable sinners destined for Hell, he could nonetheless thank them for helping him out, and, well, I don't see why any of it would be inconsistent with Christianity. Or free speech for that matter....

I mean, Jesus hung out with bad people like tax collectors, prostitutes and lepers, didn't he?

It would generate big ratings, and might even spawn a new series.

Too Christian?

Too un-Christian?

The audience could vote and decide!

NOTE: At least one Christian blogger (in Australia; fancy that, mates!) has been thinking along similar lines:

I've heard a lot of people here complaining about the show on talk back radio. Some are Christians ringing up to share their moral views, others are average Joe conservative Aussies who don't want their kids to see it and others just think its dumb.

I don't think its the most amazing show on TV at the moment - I find the stars of the show mildly amusing - I'm a bit over all the sexual innuendo already (I can't imagine how they will keep finding suggestive gay jokes for a whole season) - it is all a bit superficial at times - but I will admit I've learnt one or two things about what's lacking in my wardrobe!

But the thing that caught my attention the most was a statement made in the first week by one of the stars. To paraphrase him he said:

'We just want to help this guy reach his potential.... to be the man he has the potential to be.'

It strikes me that although he went about it very differently, Jesus actually spoke of something very similar when he said 'I've come that they may have life'. (Jn 10:10) As I look at his ministry this is what he did - he drew people into life itself. Sometimes he does it in a very quick yet tangible way as he touches someone who has been lame for life and other times he lives with them for years, challenging attitudes, teaching and encouraging them to grow.

Jesus was on about helping people to reach their potential. His make over was generally a lot more comprehensive than the fab 5, but he was in the life giving business and as his Body so should we be.

(Original inspiration from Citizen Smash, via Glenn Reynolds.)

The 75th Carnival of the Vanities is up at Da Goddess's incredible blog! The posts are all enveloped in a collection of lingerie, and I was tickled pink to see mine billed as "straight thoughts for the queer guy."

The posts are all great, but I was appalled and fixated by one post about an odious plan to tax owners of more than one car in Berkeley, my home for 30 plus years. A perfect example of what I love about the Blogosphere!

Read them all!

Be sure to read this week's Bonfire of the Vanities, hosted by The Argus (a great blog, which, by the way, is run by a latent lesbian). Among other things, dramaqueen links to free psychological testing (which I am afraid to take), and Ghost of a flea offers a picture that should tantalize men, women, and wannabes of either sex.... And in a post with great national portent, The Smarter Cop analyzes John Kerry's hand signals.

They're all great; be sure to read them!

Long trip to New Jersey in the snow!

Puff says it's time to crash:

I am on the road in New Jersey, and thus cannot with ease create links. But here I am sitting in a parking lot, so I thought I -- oh screw it!

..........

I'm home now, sitting on the toilet! What could be more personal, more intimate, than that? How invasive blogging has become in my life!

I mean, really!

But I will say this: moblogging from the toilet beats moblogging from a New Jersey parking lot, all things considered.....

Hope that's not moral relativism!

In my last post, I only touched on communitarian thinking because in the context of the FMA, it gets complicated.

The debate over same-sex marriage is hopelessly fraught with communitarian reasoning, which, to my mind, is based on unsupported premises on both sides.

First of all, marriage in the purest sense is not an individual right. It involves the surrender of an individual right in favor of a union between two people. Once married, the two people no longer have the full individual rights they once enjoyed. (There's a lot of law, religion, and philosophy behind this, but even if readers want to stick to the practical, just ask anyone who's married if you doubt me!)

Now, while I would tend to see the union as that of two individuals, who should not have to answer to anyone save themselves, many people would disagree, arguing that married people are part of some sort of "community" which is formed by an "institution" of married couples. With the advent of the FMA, this has heated up. Communitarians on the heterosexual, opposite-sex side of the debate tend to argue that the institution of marriage is the backbone of society, while gay communitarians and their supporters often seem to agree with this point, only arguing that same-sex couples must be included within this "institution."

Identity politics often substitutes for reason, and gay politicians often speak of a "gay community" as some sort of definable, if not monolithic, entity.

I have often asked people to define "gay community" and I have never heard an answer which makes sense. When I am with my friends, I don't think of them as gay or straight, but as friends. I don't divide them up into groups that way, and it wouldn't make sense if I did. Where is this "gay community" I keep reading about in the press? Is it the people who drink in gay bars and maybe hang out, maybe look for someone to take home? I don't drink in bars, and so I really can't see that as any sort of community to which I belong. I used to work in the gay bath business (I managed two of them -- starting one of them up), and while it offered what many would call a community service, that community consisted largely of people who wanted to have sex and leave. So, for the purposes of drinking, maybe hanging out while drinking, or having sex, baths and bars are communities.

There are also "gay neighborhoods" in various cities, and people of similar tastes do live in them. This could be called a "gay community" -- but it could also be called a gay ghetto. I never felt any particular need to live in San Francisco's Castro district, but I would go there occasionally. It never felt like "my" community. Frankly, I always felt more at home in Berkeley or in the Haight Ashbury, because people didn't seem as worried about who wanted to do what with their dick. Just more live and let live, but with zero intolerance. I don't see anything wrong with that. While I have run into more than my share of intolerant types (including people really bothered by homosexuality) I have to say that in the gay neighborhoods, people seemed more concerned with my sexuality than in the live-and-let-live, bohemian-style neighborhoods.

While it is true that with a group of other people I tried to create a community of mostly gay friends, we were not the "gay community" but rather a gay community which shared a similar (mostly anarchistic) outlook. If anything, most of my friends found the Castro scene a tad annoying. Too many fresh-from-Nebraska, newly "out" conformist types trying to define themselves by fitting into someone's idea of what gay identity politics should be. I have no objection to anyone doing that, either. What I dislike is when they tell me what I should do.

In short, I am extremely distrustful of all communitarian thinking.

And I think the FMA is a massive, central-government-sponsored attempt to induce comformity to communitarian thinking. I said before that I think the president is making a big mistake in supporting it, and I sincerely hope it fails.

That the Constitution -- once created to protect people from the tyranny of the federal government -- could contain language making "incidents of marriage" a new suspect category (that's what it does, folks!), is to me a quantum leap in communitarian thinking.

Not marriage! Incidents of marriage!

Not just gays. Not just members of the same sex. All people who don't marry will see their private relationships placed in a suspect category by the Constitution.

Fortunately, the fact that the Amendment's scope dwarfs a mere ban on same-sex marriages will help ensure its defeat. However, the scope of the Amendment is still not widely known, as the drafters are engaged in a massive deception calculated to reassure the general public that the text does not say what it says.

To my mind, the deception is even worse than the language itself. (Not a new topic at all; interested readers can read my previous posts here, here, and here.)

I hope Americans are not so stupid as to fall for what strikes me, simply, as (attempted) communitarian tyranny.

Incidentally, my "incidents" are my own business.

I wouldn't want to have an incident at my own blog!

UPDATE: Might the ostensible purpose of stopping "same sex marriage" be a semi "false flag operation"? Might the following scenario be the real enemy?

Devero and More, who have never been married, are part of a growing number of people who are living together out of wedlock, either as an alternative or precursor to marriage.

Whether you call it shacking up, living in sin or cohabitation, being an unmarried couple has become a societal norm.

"Codes are being broken," said Chris Ponticelli, assistant professor of sociology at the University of South Florida. "It's not taboo anymore."

Researchers attribute much of the increase to the consequences of a liberated society.

There's a wider acceptance of cohabitation. Women no longer rely on men and marriage for financial security. And many couples fear divorce and view living together as a better, safer option.

"The concept of that piece of paper keeping couples together, they don't believe it anymore," Ponticelli said. "We all know someone who has been divorced. It's a sticky thing to go through."

Nationally, new U.S. census figures show the number of unmarried couples increased 72 percent from 3.1-million households in 1990 to 5.5-million in 2000. In Florida, the number of unmarried households increased 77 percent in the last decade.

In Hillsborough County, the number of unmarried families increased 73 percent to 26,314, making it the fourth largest population of cohabiting couples in the state, with Monroe County taking the lead.

Unmarried households, including same-sex partnerships, represented 6.7 percent of all households in the county, up from 4.6 percent in 1990. The largest grouping in Hillsborough was married families, at 47.7 percent, followed by singles, at 26.9 percent.

Some conservatives equate the boom in cohabitation to serious societal ills.

"Marriage is the foundation of the family," said Bridget Maher, marriage and family policy analyst at the conservative Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. "If we have strong and healthy marriages, we'll have a stronger society."

Kevin Miller, a minister at Idlewild Baptist Church, said few people seem willing to stand up and do what's right, putting their spiritual lives at risk.

Social engineering is abhorrent enough. But the deliberate use of the Constitution for such Orwellian purposes as forcing people to marry each other is far worse. Considering the original purpose of the Constitution as a bastion against tyranny, I think the Amendment borders on being unconscionable.

(The Machiavellian in me does not blame them for trying to conceal their goals, of course....)

UPDATE: Unlike this morning, there is quite a fuss now about whether the president in fact supports the Musgrave "incidents" language.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush believes that amendment legislation submitted by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., meets his principles in protecting the "sanctity of marriage" between men and women. But Bush did not specifically embrace any particular legislation.

I am too. It's tough to write long arguments based on constantly-changing "facts" -- and I have seen and heard the Musgrave language all day.

(My arguments against the Musgrave language remain the same, though.)

MORE: The New York Times is finally discussing the "ambiguities" of the Musgrave language!

Here's a story which isn't going to go away, nor should it.

The right to arms is constitutionally guaranteed. The right to keep and bear your homosexual marriage is not. Of course, I wonder what the opinions of gay gun nuts are on the issue?

I am a gun owner and I live a gun owner life style.

I don't know if I was born with a tendency to be this way, or if it was an acquired disposition. All I know is, I don't see why I should be forced to change. Truth be known, I like owning guns, and am happy with who I am. I hope I suffer no repercussions by "coming out of the safe," but I just can't hide the truth any longer.

We gun owners have been living and working among you. Our kids go to school with yours. We may be your doctor, or minister, or your child's teacher. We may even work in city administration, or the courts, or on the police force. And we are sick of being abused for simply being who we are, all because of hoplophobic prejudice and fear. We don't see any reason why we should have to put up with it any more.

Which brings me back to my dilemma and the reason I am writing you.

You have shown progressive thinking and tolerance for that which the majority condemns. So I was thinking of coming up to San Francisco and exercising my right to keep and bear arms, maybe showing up at City Hall with a state-banned AR-15 and a couple 30-round magazines, and also carrying several pistols concealed without a permit.

Once again, guns and gays.

To me, this is not "apples and oranges." It's a fundamental issue of freedom, of privacy, of a right to live your life as you see fit.

If there is no right to self defense, then I submit the right to privacy is meaningless.

As I said in July, "No matter what you're allowed do inside your home, it ain't much of a castle if you can't defend it!"

Some of this may have to do with the managerial class mentality (via Glenn Reynolds):

since managing a society is conceived as an intricate undertaking, naturally it is seen as requiring specialized training. That means the willing hands will be in school for awhile. The managerial class is large. It includes not just elected and appointed officialdom, but the class of civil servants and, around them, the advocacy groups and journals of opinion. The longer anyone spends in post-secondary education, particularly in the departments dedicated to training "the leaders of tomorrow" - political science, administration, education and the other humanities departments that even Chad Orzel's letter concedes skew left politically - the more likely they are to know, like and identify with the trainees. Shared circumstance becomes shared values - that would seem to be the very meaning of class consciousness.

I am as against gun control as I am penis control, and I see no contradiction at all, but let me take a stab at analyzing two comments, by the same source: this one

I do feel compelled to point out that it would awfully difficult for somebody to kill me with their homosexuality, so it's not exactly a valid comparison...

Constitutionality and current law aside, it's very difficult to argue that homosexuality poses anywhere near the sort of public safety risk that guns potentially could. And whether or not they do a good job of it, protecting public safety is a valid function of government. That, to me, is where the comparison falls flat.

The homosexual life is a violent one. Many common homosexual acts themselves do violence to the body. Beyond that, sado-masochism, the intentional infliction of pain for perverse sexual gratification, is very popular in the homosexual community. And even the homosexuals have begun to admit that there is a disproportionate amount of “domestic violence” in their communities, violence directed inward.

Unfortunately, the homosexual community also projects violence outward, as any dispassionate study of history and current events reveals. For instance, considering the small percentage of the world’s population which claims to be homosexual at any given time, the incidence of members of that community committing rape culminating in murder is shocking!

Of course, the most famous historical example of such sodomite violence is the Genesis account of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. The “gay” inhabitants of Sodom were determined to break down Lot’s door, rape his angelic guests, and apparently kill Lot. “. . . Now will we deal worse with thee, than with them . . .” (Genesis 19:9). Divine intervention saved the day in that case. We in New Sodom must also pray for God’s assistance as the sodomites in our culture break down one institutional and legal door after another.

In Judges, Chapter 19, we see the sodomite Benjaminites take out their rage on a female concubine, abusing her to death, after they are denied an opportunity to sodomize a man sojourning in their land.

The ruthless and brutal Spartan Army was a sodomite army. The Spanish explorer Cortez wrote that the blood-encrusted Aztec priests who spent their days brutally murdering human sacrifices to the Aztec gods were sodomites who found time to engage in a few other pursuits such as cannibalism.

Authors Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams, sourcing a vast number of historical documents and eye witness accounts, have documented what William Shirer, author of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, earlier confirmed--that homosexuals were at the center of Hitler’s rise to power and in many cases even served as sadistic death camp guards. By the way, one of the most well-known leaders of the American Nazi Party, Frank Collin, was a homosexual who preferred teenage boys.

Now let us further consider the connection between homosexuality and murder. I am speaking here, not of murderous heads of state and their deputies, but of individuals who personally murdered victims with their own hands. The examples given also delete the class of baby-killers known as abortionists, a disproportionate number of which are also homosexual or bisexual.

If you accept the usual liberal public health arguments (such as applied to guns), these are all legitimate public health arguments for regulating homosexual anal sex--even if the law is overbroad, affecting the relatively small percentage of gay men who are in permanent, mutually monogamous relationships. After all, liberals don't mind that many gun control laws are even more overbroad, impacting the vast majority of gun owners who will never misuse a gun.

I don't care what liberals or conservatives mind, nor do I care how many foolish people die because of stupidity; I oppose such restrictions on personal autonomy as a threat to human freedom.

To those possessed of the regulatory mindset, though, they are an argument for repressive laws. The argument that "homosexuality kills" is about as logical and persuasive as the argument that "guns kill."

Which is to say, NOT AT ALL!

Initially, I was quite puzzled by this report about the deportation of Palestinian democracy activist Issam Abu Issa. I like to think that our government would support freedom-loving Arabs, especially those in dialogue with such figures as Natan Sharansky. A few choice excerpts:

Mr. Abu Issa’s experience is par for the course when it comes to the way America treats profreedom, Western-oriented Arabs.

Whenever these rare leaders happen upon the scene America bends over backward to throw sticks in their wheels. And with Mr. Abu Issa, America has again turned its back on a friend and inexplicably refused to support a courageous supporter of liberty.

....What does a banking dispute between Messrs. Arafat and Abu Issa have to do with his admissibility to America? And why would America want to side with Mr. Arafat anyway?

I first met Mr. Abu Issa at this time last year, when he came to Washington, D.C., to address the Hudson Institute on democratizing the Palestinian Authority.

I interviewed him beforehand for a profile in this newspaper, and came away quite impressed with his intelligence and political acumen.

At the Hudson Institute, Mr. Abu Issa gave a passionate speech to a roomful of curious onlookers on the need for a Palestinian state based on democracy, freedom, and human rights. Many jaws dropped when he began quoting verbatim from Natan Sharansky.

What other Palestinian leader would mention Mr. Sharansky’s name in a public address, let alone quote him?

.....Iran’s mullahs and assorted defenders of the old Arab order are funneling resources to bolster their preferred dogs in the fight — and rest assured, they are not secular democrats, nor are they friends of America.

Two conclusions can be drawn from these cases.

First, if you’re an Arab who believes in democracy, you had better think twice about a career in banking.

Second, and certainly more sadly, America won’t be there standing by your side in times of need.

(Via Glenn Reynolds.)

Because Arafat is seen as "our guy," that's why.

Just as the CIA failed to forestall fatal terrorist attacks on US embassies in Nairobi and Daar es Salaam in 1998, it failed again to prevent the bombing of American guided missile destroyer USS Cole in Aden harbor last month.

In the two intervening years between those two strikes, the mechanism Tenet fashioned to coordinate Israeli-Palestinian security efforts to prevent terror outbreaks, missed more often than it hit the mark

A key to its success was the US spymaster’s bond of trust with Yasser Arafat. Tenet often spoke highly to officials in Washington about his warm relations with Palestinian leader, saying in effect: Just leave him to me, if you have any problems. Not only Clinton, but Netanyahu and Barak did exactly that, gambling their own policies on this friendship.

In actual fact, the Palestinian leader double-crossed his American friend, using that trust and the sham operation of Tenet’s anti-terrorist mechanism to conceal his preparations for the “Al Aksa Intifada”, a violent firestorm that finally burnt that mechanism to a cinder.

Arafat not only duped George Tenet, the man, but also his proud organization, the CIA, inflicting untold damage to America’s standing in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf.

Chief Palestinian Negotiator Saeb Erakat welcomed Cheney's remarks and said he hoped a deal could be struck soon to implement the Tenet plan.

"We don't have to reinvent anything. Tenet is Tenet. It's very well specified. What's needed now is the timeline and the mechanisms to implement and the periods," said Erakat. "And I hope that we can conclude this as soon as possible."

The Tenet plan, proposed last year, calls for negotiating a cease-fire and urges Israeli and Palestinian security organizations to reaffirm commitments to agreements contained in the Mitchell report.

That was in 2002 (after September 11), when CNN characterized the Arafat-Tenet alliance as "encouraging."

Hey, there's also the Saudi plan!

"We" need "stability." "We" need to back our "allies."

Even when they're undermining Iraq?

We (meaning Tenet) even appear to be giving Arafat regular intelligence briefings.

So he can help "fight terrorism."

Jim Hoagland offers a similar insight:

The Bush administration now faces an acute dilemma in unraveling the confusion and complexities created by U.S. intelligence taking on responsibilities that are deeply operational and political. Operating under an intelligence "finding" signed by President Clinton, the CIA has helped train and equip Yasser Arafat's security forces.

HipperCritical links to a tantalizing article in The New Republic which may shed light -- although I'm too cheap to pay for it. Plus, I suspect it would only confirm what none of us want to know about. But here's a sneaky excerpt, quoted by the very leftie Nation:

"the Agency's reluctance to confront Saddam dates back to the aftermath of the Gulf war, when the CIA grew opposed to assisting the Kurdish and Shia rebellions against the dictator."

Besides, presidents who dare to cross the CIA tend historically to have a bad time of things.

So, while I agree with Glenn Reynolds that pro-democracy Arabs deserve better treatment by the U.S., it doesn't appear likely that they're going to get it.

And it doesn't matter who is elected in the Fall. Tenet isn't going anywhere.

Here's a good argument against criminalizing simple possession of things:

SOUTH HAVEN — An assistant high school principal is being investigated after police say he admitted to planting marijuana in a student’s locker.

Police say Pat Conroy told them earlier this month that he placed the marijuana in the male student’s locker at South Haven High School last year because he suspected the student was a drug dealer. Conroy told police he was trying to get the boy expelled.

But the plan failed because a police drug dog didn’t find the contraband during a school search, according to The Herald-Palladium of St. Joseph.

The Van Buren County prosecutor’s office is reviewing the case to see if the assistant principal could be charged with possession of marijuana.

Conroy said he had “lost his perspective” and had done something “stupid, arrogant and unethical,” according to a police report. But he stressed to police that he planted evidence only once.

(Via Drudge)

The problem with laws criminalizing possession of things is that there is no practical way to defend oneself against possession. Possession is the crime. Anyone can break into anyone's home, and plant drugs, kiddie porn, or anything else, then phone in an anonymous tip.

For that matter, anyone can put things on your hard drive....

The legal system has reached the point that, in the words of at least one law professor, "Criminal law professors traditionally open their classes by announcing to their students that every one of them is a felon."

That's a hell of a way to get people to respect the law who in theory are supposed to be doing that.

But, I guess, these days, students learn disrespect for law long before they get to law school.....

Has anti-Bush hatred become mainstream?

Here's a local (Philadelphia) man -- with an anything-but-local message:

Mark Aronchick, a prominent Philadelphia lawyer and Democratic fund-raiser, shares the intensity. Talking about Bush, he could barely sit still:

"I haven't seen this kind of anger and disdain directed at a president since the worst days of Richard Nixon. Bush is playing to base fears. He has a contemptible pseudosincerity. Our anger is that fundamental. It is primal. These are evil forces we're up against. I'm 54 years old, a mature person, and I mean what I'm saying - there's a heart of darkness. And they're getting away with it."

Remaining calm and logical is becoming more and more of a challenge.

Still, I want to return to Kerry and the revisitation of Vietnam, because I think that by focusing on the details of wartime service alone, people miss asking a more relevant question Kerry seems hell-bent to avoid: who did the most for the enemy?

What I see evolving is an election year chickenhawk campaign theme.

'How dare you question me. I was in Vietnam!'

...."I don't know what it is about what these Republicans who didn't serve in any war have against those of us who are Democrats who did."

Let's take, um, Gus Hall and George Lincoln Rockwell. The former headed the Communist Party, USA, while the latter headed the American Nazi Party. Both served in World War II; Hall in the Navy, and Rockwell too (the latter distinguishing himself as a fighter pilot).

Clearly, Hall and Rockwell would be more entitled to serve in the government, or to comment on foreign policy, than any of the "chickenhawks" Kerry complains of.

Hey let's do a chickenhawk count!

In the United States Senate, 19 Republicans are veterans, while only 17 Democrats are.

In the House, there are 57 Republican veterans to 43 Democrats.

Simple math. If you disallow all non-veterans from voting, then the Republicans would have an even bigger margin of control than they do now.

So why are Kerry and the Democrats pushing this chickenhawk nonsense anyway? I think it's a loser, and it's another reason I'd prefer Edwards to Kerry.

At least then I wouldn't have to hear a warmed-over "Ich bin ein Hanoier" speech.

UPDATE: More Hanoiances from Kerry here in that bastion of right-wing extremism, The Village Voice:

....[Kerry] wanted to clear a path to normalization of relations with Hanoi. In any other context, that would have been an honorable goal. But getting at the truth of the unaccounted for P.O.W.'s and M.I.A.'s (Missing In Action) was the main obstacle to normalization—and therefore in conflict with his real intent and plan of action.

Kerry denied back then that he disguised his real goal, contending that he supported normalization only as a way to learn more about the missing men. But almost nothing has emerged about these prisoners since diplomatic and economic relations were restored in 1995, and thus it would appear—as most realists expected—that Kerry's explanation was hollow.

ANOTHER TELLING OBSERVATION:

What I think the Bushies are doing now is hitting Kerry with a low level of negatives. My crystal ball tells me that they have something on him, and are waiting to spring it until after the conventions, when it really makes a difference. Once the Democrats lock into Kerry [if they do], then the Bushies hit, and hit hard. (Via Glenn Reynolds.)

Now it's my turn to stick up for a White House intern whose local-boy-makes-good story is being largely ignored!

And right here in his hometown at that!

Take a close look at this photograph (it's from the front page of the Philadelphia Inquirer, February 21, 2004):

The second guy from the left is Michael Marcavage, a man whose talent I spotted myself, and recognized in this very blog (when no one else cared)!

If you don't believe me, just read about him (and how he made Steven Malcolm Anderson almost sympathetic to Bush) here -- and if you want to verify he's the guy in the picture, just click on the links. (Here's a really cool photo I missed!)

I had to lovingly scan it myself, because even though it was on the front page of yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer, it appeared nowhere on line. Not only that, but the story caption is deceptive in the extreme. Marcavage's name is not given (although his organization "Repent America" is), and the "story" which readers are referred to as being on page A4 makes no mention of Marcavage whatsoever.

That really sucks, especially because the guy's a national celebrity now. Why, in addition to numerous other anti-homo-related arrests, his rap sheet has now managed to log a very prestigious arrest in San Francisco itself -- the sodomite capitol of the world!

Oughta be very proud. Certainly, there is no shortage of stories reporting the arrest. Why, the press in Kansas City is talking about him! (If you don't wanna subscribe, here's the Google cache version....)

Even the WorldNetDaily picked up the story.

Not bad for a Clinton White House intern!

Why is the lad being ignored in his hometown?

I don't know, but I have tried to do my job!

I also want to why they're ignoring (well, not everybody; at least Alan Colmes knows talent when he sees it) a man who additionally devotes himself to attacking President Bush for "promoting evil and openly supporting wickedness" -- and whose website is:

dedicated to providing up-to-date factual news information tracking the president's anti-Christian and ungodly behavior"

I thought "Bush is evil" was the whole theme meme!

ADDITIONAL NOTE: According to the WorldNetDaily story above, the sinister San Francisco sodomites even refused Marcavage his constitutionally protected right to be arrested on "TV"! (For the sake of decency, I have to assume that WorldNetDaily meant "television." Otherwise, their "TV request" should never have found its