In defense of trolls?

Not me. I think they’re a notch below gnomes, and most of you know how I feel about gnomes.

But WaPo has an interesting take on why anonymous posting on blogs might make sense:

I believe that it is useful to be reminded bluntly that the dark forces are out there and that it is too easy to forget that truth by imposing rules that obscure it…Too many of us like to think that we have made great progress in human relations and that little remains to be done. Unmoderated comments provide an antidote to such ridiculous conclusions.

Surely that was quite evident with the vitriol posted by anonymous commenters posting unverifyable rants against Culinary Communion and its owners.

I’m not sure I agree with the defense of giving the trolls a public forum, though. I’d actually prefer they just quietly sit in their dirty little hovels keeping their lousiness to themselves. But then again, if Glenn Beck gets a TV show, maybe a nasty twerp like “tm” desserves a voice.

But not here.

Lest you think the right isn’t racist

Some rightwing nutjob I’d never heard of convinced Dunkin Donuts to pull an ad featuring Rachel Ray. Not because it featured Rachel Ray (which is a perfectly valid reason not to show an ad), but because she was wearing a scarf which said nutjob thought seemed reminiscent of something some Muslims might wear, and was therefore, somehow, supporting terrorism. (insert sounds of disbelief here)

And the DD, whose donut I have always adored, caved.

Here’s the money quote from the nutjob:

“It’s refreshing to see an American company show sensitivity to the concerns of Americans opposed to Islamic jihad and its apologists. Too many of them bend over backward in the direction of anti-American political correctness…. Fashion statements may seem insignificant, but when they lead to the mainstreaming of violence — unintentionally or not — they matter. Ignorance is no longer an excuse. In post-9/11 America, vigilance must never go out of style.”

So, in addition to not eating my favorite donuts or buying their admittedly good coffee, from tomorrow on, I will be wearing a hejab. Because fashion statements may seem insignificant, but they can lead to mainstreaming perfectly reasonable cultural values and traditions that pose no threat to a post-9/11 America other than challenging ignorance and racism.

I’m actually quite interested if you all think that my quiet protest is going to offend Muslims (which is certianly not my intention). I have tremendous respect for what the hejab represents, in that I believe it is about keeping women from being objectified by society. You might well have a different impression, and I don’t mind offending anyone who has an issue with Islam, but I don’t want to offend anyone of the Islamic faith.

Study: P2P effect on legal music sales “not statistically distinguishable from zero”

Little of my day is spent watching TV or even reading online now because of the obscene amounts of time I spend without an internet connection. But when I do manage a few minutes of spare time and a WIFI connection, my Google homepage is customized with all kinds of RSS feeds. When I got to my homepage, this JUMPED out at me from Slashdot. Having watched the RIAA cry for many years now and try and convict everyone from an 80 y/o grandfather to a 9 y/o girl, I wonder what their motivation truly is. What is the possibility that this could finally open the RIAA’s beady little eyes (with green dollar signs) to the fact that the reason their cd’s aren’t selling/shipping is cause they put out crap?

More unbelievable hypocrisy

I just read this article in the NY Times and it made me audibly gasp.  I just can’t wrap my mind around how this president can say he supports life–more than the rest of us mind you–, and then do this.  The “this” I refer to is a new Medicaid policy where newborns born in this country (and thus, under our Constitution, citizens) are being made to apply for benefits by showing a birth certificate before receiving care.  For the past 22 years the policy (and the law) have been that an infant born to illigal immigrants in this country is automatically covered. 

The last time I went to the ER a lady came in to admitting in labor and they just sent her on up to maternity–no questions asked.  Even though I was terribly weak, I thought to myself “Thank God we are getting right on this.”  No matter how you feel about immigration, I would hope that simple kindness, simple humanity, would tell you that this was not the time for politics or for paperwork.  It is a baby coming into the world.  That trumps everything.  I don’t care if it is Eva Braun having a baby, a woman in labor deserves kindness. 

And once that baby, a U.S. citizen, is born, that baby deserves health care.  Where exactly does it get us to deny that baby care?  Hmm, let’s not treat a condition for the first three months and let’s see if it gets less expensive to treat–not likely.  These babies are citizens, so it will wind up that they are eligible for coverage, so why make it more expensive to treat them?  (Wait, I know, we are hoping that the parents will take them “back where they belong” instead of applying.  Or maybe we can get lucky and they will all die before the paperwork goes through.)

This is vindictive, cruel and short-sighted.  Not to mention directly contrary to federal law.  How can they keep getting away with this sort of thing while proclaiming their goodness, righteousness, and moral superiority?  How can Kerry’s misspeaking be bigger news than deliberate cruelty and mind-blowing hypocricy?  Why are Americans swallowing this?

et tu, mickey mouse?

Hey nonfamosi,

ABC is planning on showing a “documentary” on Sunday night called “Path to 9/11” which is apparently just more Bush administration propaganda, this time blaming Clinton for the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. The democrats, bless ’em, have a petition going to send off to Disney to say this is most definitely not cool, and violates the responsibility to the public. Please send off a note too.

Do any of you know how to find out who ABC’s Sunday night sponsors are. It might be worth letting them know that some of us would hold them responsible for airing bullshit like this that panders to the Lying Bastard in Chief and his jihad to take the middle east, one oil-producing nation at a time. I smell a boycott in the air.

Skinheads in Uniform

The New York Times reports on the incredibly important work being done by the Southern Poverty Law Center to uncover a fairly terrifying upsurge in neo-Nazi and skinhead infiltration of the military. The Army cracked down on this after being embarrassed by revelations about Timothy McVeigh’s white-supremacist conversion while in the Army. But you know, the Oklahoma City bombing is so ’90s and we need every solider we can get–except “teh gay,” of course. So recruiters under pressure to meet their quotas are just smiling and nodding while homegrown terror groups build a fifth column inside the military.

A decade after the Pentagon declared a zero-tolerance policy for racist hate groups, recruiting shortfalls caused by the war in Iraq have allowed “large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists” to infiltrate the military, according to a watchdog organization.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks racist and right-wing militia groups, estimated that the numbers could run into the thousands, citing interviews with Defense Department investigators and reports and postings on racist Web sites and magazines.

…The report cited accounts by neo-Nazis of their infiltration of the military, including a discussion on the white supremacist Web site Stormfront. “There are others among you in the forces,” one participant wrote. “You are never alone.”

An article in the National Alliance magazine Resistance urged skinheads to join the Army and insist on being assigned to light infantry units.

The Southern Poverty Law Center identified the author as Steven Barry, who it said was a former Special Forces officer who was the alliance’s “military unit coordinator.”

“Light infantry is your branch of choice because the coming race war and the ethnic cleansing to follow will be very much an infantryman’s war,” he wrote. “It will be house-to-house, neighborhood-by-neighborhood until your town or city is cleared and the alien races are driven into the countryside where they can be hunted down and ‘cleansed.’ ”

He concluded: “As a professional soldier, my goal is to fill the ranks of the United States Army with skinheads. As street brawlers, you will be useless in the coming race war. As trained infantrymen, you will join the ranks of the Aryan warrior brotherhood.”

This is not pretend, not made up, and these people are serious. In a climate where mainstream Republicans are demonizing and dehumanizing immigrants and gays in violent terms, these fringe groups are more empowered to act. Maybe it’s just the time I spent in the wreckage of the Murrah Building, but I’m a lot more scared of these people than I am of Zarqawi and bin Laden. I’d rather fight Whitey at home than fight Jihadis over there.

Senate abdicates its responsibility

When the president starts spying on his citizens without having to demonstrate to anyone that it’s legitimate, what would you expect the legislature to do? I’ll give you a hint: remember, the whole idea of checks and balances built into the three branches of government?


Well, that’s ok. Neither does the legislature.

When the president breaks the law and spies on Americans, apparently the legislature’s job is to do absolutely nothing.

  • Would someone please give W a blowjob so we can impeach the fucker. Since apparently serious crimes aren’t enough to do that.
  • Would someone please tell all those conservatives who railed against the Soviets’ spying on their own citizens during the Cold War and are now not worried about W doing it that they’re big fat stupid hypocrites.
  • Does anyone else feel a bit like the Seahawks at the Superbowl? We could be winning this thing, but the refs keep making dirty calls.
  • Why does the Senate hate America?
  • I’m going to cry now.

You have: Tea. No tea.

Ah, what a sweet case of cognitive dissonance. What’s a good fundie to do, when an evangelical film company produces a Bible-thumpin’ film about missionaries converting an Ecuadorean tribe to Christianity, but the lead actor is openly gay? On the one hand, you have the president of a Baptist Seminary slyly suggesting that firebombing the production company wouldn’t be a bad idea (gee, how Christian of him!). And on the other hand, you have Focus on the Family coming out with this perfectly reasonable statement (I thought I’d never see the day!):

Do we at Focus feel compelled to check on the sexual history of everyone in a movie? Did they have a D.U.I.? Did they pay their taxes?”

How’s a good Christianist supposed to make sense of all of this?

Tim Eyman is a big fat idiot–and a bigot

In case you missed it, Tim Eyman, our statewide superhero for selfish anti-community, anti-transit, anti-tax irritations has broadened his horizons and is now also a full-on crusader for bigotry.

Yep, Tim and his crew of ignorant little creeps want to try get an iniative on the ballot to undo the anti-discrimination billl that finally passed the state legislature last week.

Of course, the thing is, in reading his diatribe, it’s clear that not only is he a bigot, but an enormously stupid one at that. What’s his rationale for opposing the law? That preferential treatment for a class of citizens is wrong. Uhm? Right. Which is why the law is good. Remember, it undoes the preferential treatment that straight people had under the law before, and now provides equal protection.

I’d like to propose an initiative for the ballot as well–that for the good of the people, Tim Eyman be banished to one of the Aleutian Islands. Or, it might be just as satisfying to kick that bastard in the nuts.