Posted in my guestbook this morning by a spambot:

A great site where one can enjoy the thought of a great mind long departed. Cheers for the good work!

Funny, I’ve been called anti-Semitic, a “fundie hater,” intolerant, and an idiot, but dead? That’s a new one. (And if this is Heaven, I’m glad I didn’t waste my short life beatin’ the Bible.)

Creepiest. Headlines. Ever. 
 

Bin Laden ‘likes hugs not kisses’
 
Sen. Clinton Says Rove Obsesses About Her

 
Yup, you read ‘em right. Osama is a regular huggy bear, and Hillary gives Rove a raging hard-on. 
 
Just in case you’re still dry-heave free, read on for the sordid details.
 
First up, from the BBC:
 

Australia’s "Jihad Jack", convicted of receiving funds from al-Qaeda, says Osama Bin Laden does not like being kissed but is happy to be hugged.
 
Joseph "Jack" Thomas, who met Bin Laden three times in Afghanistan, discussed the al-Qaeda leader’s preferences in an interview broadcast after his trial. […]
 
Thomas said he once shook hands with Bin Laden at an al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan.
 
Bin Laden was "very polite and humble and shy. He didn’t like too many kisses… he didn’t mind being hugged but kisses he didn’t like and he just seemed to float… across the floor," Thomas told ABC.

 
And the AP:
 

Reacting to a new book quoting Karl Rove as saying she will be the 2008 Democratic nominee for president, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that President Bush’s chief political strategist "spends a lot of time obsessing about me." […]
 
"Karl Rove is a brilliant strategist. So, if I were thinking about this," she told WROW-AM radio in Albany, "I’d say, why are they spending so much time talking about me?"

 
Apparently dear Karl hasn’t yet realized that Hillary’s sour mug is where erections go to shrivel and die.
 
 

 
 
Sweet Jeebus, I can feel my junk recoiling in horror, and I don’t even have any man parts!
 

I can’t pimp The Beast’s Special Blasphemy Issue enough. If you haven’t yet, go give it a look-see.

Mmmm, sacrilicious!
 
 

 
 
Teh fine print:
Cartoon copyright The Beast, 2006.
Image available at BuffaloBeast.com.
 
 
Smite Me?
 
 

I already expounded this subject to near-death the other day, but seeing how it’s a) still an international issue; b) still an issue that’s pissing me the fuck off; and c) an issue that’s been the subject of several recent editorials of interest, I think an additional post is in order. Especially since very few liberals / progressives / lefties have come forward with reasonable anaylses - this alone seems excuse enough to highlight some of the more level-headed responses to the ongoing Danish/Muslim cartoon “row” (oh, how I love that word - thank you, BBC!).

So, on with the excerpts.

From The Beast’s February 15 Special Blasphemy issue (see Laugh Riot: Defending the World from Parody, by Allan Uthman):

What’s remarkable to me is not that cooler Islamic heads might be hesitant to open their mouths, but the near total capitulation of the “free” press here in the West to the intimidation of fringe lunatics. The disingenuous excuse offered by both print and TV outlets is that they’re refraining from displaying the cartoons out of “respect for the religion.” […]

I’ll admit it: I have no respect for religion. I think they’re all fundamentally insane. I respect any person’s right to think insane thoughts, but not to commit insane acts. Fantasize about shooting up your workplace all you want, but if you bring a Glock to work, here’s hoping the security guard takes you down first. The people burning embassies, and those offering money for the murder of cartoonists, deserve no respect at all.

Neither does the editorial reaction to all of this in the American press. Conservatives are taking a break from vilifying anybody to the left of Joe Lieberman as Maoist traitors, and are suddenly free speech advocates, railing against religious intolerance (on the other hand, I haven’t seen any turban-bombs lately in the Wall Street Journal or the Weekly Standard). But that’s to be expected. Serve Ann Coulter an excuse to stir up hatred for foreigners, and she’ll ace it every time.

Particularly disappointing, however, is the stereotypically weak reaction of the left. Many of the same people who condemn domestic Christian intolerance in no uncertain terms are having trouble recognizing it abroad. […]

Freedom of speech is not a guideline or a suggestion. It is not the freedom to say things that don’t upset people—there’s no need for a constitutional amendment ensuring that. It is nothing less than the freedom to be arrogant, disrespectful assholes, or it isn’t anything at all. Suggesting that the press shares blame in this is self-castrating cowardice, or at best a reflexive reaction to the Right’s sudden embrace of the first amendment. To make the obvious comparison yet again, if Pat Robertson’s followers were destroying property and advocating the assassination of cartoonists over some similar disparagement of Jesus, I doubt that the Nation’s editors would be so understanding.

We don’t need to be more sensitive to their culture, not this time. Freedom of expression is so clearly a better value than faith-based murder that there’s no debate to be had about it. There are legitimate responses to the offense—peaceful demonstrations, for instance, or boycotts….But for crying out loud, you can’t excuse encouraging murder. Asinine religious crap is asinine religious crap, no matter which culture excretes it. Murderous fanatics are to be ridiculed, shamed and subdued—not consoled.

So-called ‘liberal defector’ Christopher Hitchens also takes the American press and government to task for failing to defend our Danish allies.

In a recent Slate article (Stand up for Denmark!: Why are we not defending our ally?), he writes:

And there remains the question of Denmark: a small democracy, which resisted Hitler bravely and protected its Jews as well as itself. Denmark is a fellow member of NATO and a country that sends its soldiers to help in the defense and reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan. And what is its reward from Washington? Not a word of solidarity, but instead some creepy words of apology to those who have attacked its freedom, its trade, its citizens, and its embassies. For shame.

Additionally, Hitchens points to the lasting effects of our collective cowardice and capitulation:

The silky ones may be more of a problem in the long term than the flagrantly vicious and crazy ones. Within a short while—this is a warning—the shady term “Islamophobia” is going to be smuggled through our customs. Anyone accused of it will be politely but firmly instructed to shut up, and to forfeit the constitutional right to criticize religion. By definition, anyone accused in this way will also be implicitly guilty. Thus the “soft” censorship will triumph, not from any merit in its argument, but from its association with the “hard” censorship that we have seen being imposed over the past weeks.

Hitchens also authored an equally fabulous essay in the beginning of February, Cartoon Debate: The case for mocking religion. It’s well worth an in-depth read, but just in case I’ve already given y’all too much reading material, this paragraph cuts through the BS rather succinctly (well, for Hitchens, that is):

Islam makes very large claims for itself. In its art, there is a prejudice against representing the human form at all. The prohibition on picturing the prophet—who was only another male mammal—is apparently absolute. So is the prohibition on pork or alcohol or, in some Muslim societies, music or dancing. Very well then, let a good Muslim abstain rigorously from all these. But if he claims the right to make me abstain as well, he offers the clearest possible warning and proof of an aggressive intent. This current uneasy coexistence is only an interlude, he seems to say. For the moment, all I can do is claim to possess absolute truth and demand absolute immunity from criticism. But in the future, you will do what I say and you will do it on pain of death.

I refuse to be spoken to in that tone of voice, which as it happens I chance to find “offensive.” (By the way, hasn’t the word “offensive” become really offensive lately?)

Well worth a read, indeed.

It’s worth noting, too, that Hitchens comes off as much more liberal than your average Neocon-slash-Bush lapdog; more liberal, even, than most self-proclaimed liberal pundits whose knee-jerk reaction is to side with misogynist, fundie rioters over insincere, suddenly-free-speech-lovin’ Repubes. Just because they’re Muslim zealots, as opposed to evangelical ones.

*Sigh*

Guess I’m just a girl in need of a party.

“This brain tumor of yours is happening at a really bad time for me; I’ve got a lot going on at work right now.”

This and other hilarious-but-only-because-it-didn’t-happen-to-me breakup lines available at Salon.com’s weekly Table Talk forum.

Because Shane & I were supposed to knock off early this afternoon to catch a 4:35 showing of Underworld: Evolution, followed by dinner at an Italian eatery, but an unnamed “dickless wonder” (Shane’s phrase) foiled our plans. Jackass.
 
The Ninth Carnival of Feminists is up at Mind the Gap! I’ve only had a chance to skim it so far, but it looks like some yummy brain food. If you missed my favorite edition - Number Seven - backtrack and check it out at Feministe (the topic was women and pop culture, which is as good as it gets). Maybe I’ll sit back on my lazy arse long enough to whip up a contribution. One of these days. 
 
On a similar note, March 8 is Blog Against Sexism Day. Details at Vegan Kid (I loves the vegans!).
 
Via Pandagon, the Coolest! Hard Drives! Ever! And if you like Legos or gay cowboys, also see Daniel Brown’s rendition of Brokeback Mountain - Lego style.
 
Also found while blog-surfing - The Beast’s newest issue, chock full of blasphemy and - yes - lots of cartoons! Sa-weet. Just the thing to cheer this heathen up. I have no friggin’ clue why it isn’t already there, but I’m adding The Beast to my Bloglines feeds right now.
 
I’ve had this link on hold for awhile - Nerve.com’s The New Radicals Issue, which features interviews with “50 artists, actors, authors, activists and icons who are making the world a more stimulating place.” Picks range from the dubious (Kelly Rippa - whaaaa?) to the inspired (Chinese journalist and blogger Li Li). Save this one for tomorrow - it’s the perfect 3-o’clock-on-Friday-afternoon reading material.
 
Now on to trivial news (anything more will make my brain ache, I’m afraid). 
 
Apparently the same opportunistic pigs that distributed Paris Hilton’s sex tape, have gotten their grubby paws on another celeb’s home movies. Kid Rock is suing Red Light District over a sex tape starring Robert Ritchie (Rock’s real name - can you really blame him for the lame stage name?), as well as “Christian” “rocker” Scott Stapp and four unnamed strippers. Oh, what a nice, God-fearing young man! I bet Stapp was just trying to help them find Jesus. A saint, that one.
 
Elsewhere in the court system, one Casey Hicks is threatening The Smoking Gun with a lawsuit if they don’t remove her mug shot from their site. The photo, which is publicly available elsewhere (as in the Florida Department of Corrections’ own web site), was included in TSG’s “Foxy Felons” series. While Hicks’ shot is more attractive than most, you can’t help but think that she’s giving herself a bit too much credit by claiming that the photo has become masturbatory material for TSG fans. With mountains of skankalicious porn to be had on the interweb, horny 16-year-olds can certainly do better than Hicks’ grainy, fully-clothed pose. Not to mention, when you sell drugs to an undercover officer - well, don’t act shocked when you’re arrested, booked, and publicly outed. Like, duh. Either way, I encourage readers to show their support for the good folks at TSG by hopping on over there, post-haste, and cranking one out while leering at Hicks’ photo. It’s only fair.
 
And kids, tell your parents (and Hillary Clinton, censorshipper extraordinaire) - Jesus ♥ Xbox’s! Our Lord recently appeared to some loser geek on the packaging of his Xbox360; in order to show his appreciation, the geek promptly turned around and put Jeebus up for sale on eBay. Bidding started at 1 cent, but eventually reached $3350. Shockingly (because, really, who in their right mind would pay more than three grand for a stained box?), $3350 failed to meet the auction’s reserve price! Well, no one ever said that Godbaggers were reasonable folks. Read more on Wired.com.
 
Speaking of ‘tards - a bunch of ‘em are all up in arms over the casting of Daniel Craig to play 007 in the newest James Bond movie. They even have a web site set up - www.craignotbond.com. The panty-twisted pisspots ask, “How can a short, blond actor with the rough face of a professional boxer and a penchant for playing killers, cranks, cads and gigolos pull off the role of a tall, dark, handsome and suave secret agent?…This is what happens when you lose touch with public opinion. By casting Craig, Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson have proven once and for all that they care little for the opinions of Bond fans.” Oh, boo-fucking-hoo, guys. Really, you couldn’t find a more pressing issue to tackle? Like, I dunno, genocide, gay marriage, illegal wiretapping, or abortion? Oy vey. 
 

Heathens and skeptics, take note: on March 17, DefCon will launch a book club, which will give DefCon supporters the opportunity to chat with members of the DefCon advisory board about their published works. Each month will feature a different board member and his or her book.
 
Kicking off the series is Esther Kaplan, author of With God on Their Side: How Christian Fundamentalists Trampled Science, Policy, and Democracy in George W. Bush’s White House. April will bring Isaac Kramnick (Godless Constitution: A Moral Defense of the Secular State), while Michelle Goldberg (Kingdom Coming) is slated to speak in May.
 
I’m taking this as an excuse to cram yet more reading into my schedule - after all, I gotta get it done by the deadline if I want to learn anything, right?  Of course, I’m still a cheapskate, so I have to wait for my copy of With God on Their Side to arrive at the library.
 
I haven’t been able to find details on their site yet (the book club announcement was in a recent e-newsletter), but my bet for a relevant site update would be their reading list or blog.

Yesterday I alluded to a few new features that I’ll be adding to the site in the upcoming months. Well, here’s the first post in what I hope will be an ongoing series. Smite Me! will serve up a weekly helping of blasphemous imagery, starting of course with the now infamous Danish cartoons. I say “of course” because the whole ridiculous “cartoon row” is my impetus for starting the Smite Me! series. Allow me to explain.
 
As a liberal, I think my take on the cartoons and the subsequent rioting should be obvious; however, I’m more than a bit dismayed to see liberal bloggers, for the most part, siding with the rioters vs. the cartoonists and newspapers. Why should I expect a different response, you ask? Well, two reasons: freedom of speech and secularism, both of which liberals should support wholeheartedly.
 
Unfortunately, libs have mostly backed the rioters, on the grounds that the cartoons were racist and - although the papers are well within their right to do so - it is nonetheless irresponsible for them to publish such antagonizing and insulting images.   My objections to this approach are two-fold.
 
Firstly, the cartoons attacked Muhammad, an Islamic prophet. Islam is a religion, not a race. While many Muslims are Arabs, membership in this racial/ethnic group is by no means a prerequisite to practicing the religion, no more so than is being Italian a precondition to belonging to the Catholic faith. Taken at face value, the cartoons clearly derided Islam and Muslims, not Arabs. You can accuse the cartoonists and papers of being anti-Islam or even anti-theist, but not racist. At least not with absolute certainty. 
 
Even so, the cartoonists’ and/or papers’ underlying intentions could have very well been to insult Arabs as an ethnic group, as many Arabs are Muslim. To the extent that the cartoons were meant to insult Arabs as a race, they (Arabs) certainly have my sympathies. Racism - disliking and/or discriminating against a racial group simply for how they look or what they are - is abhorrent. However, I will still defend the cartoonists’ and papers’ right to create and publish racist images, commentary, etc., because one person’s right to free speech trumps another’s “right” not to be offended. After all, every form of speech will prove offensive to someone; unless we all become shut-ins and never communicate with one another, we will, at some point or another, offend others. Hell, even the mere existence of some groups of people is offensive to other groups. If, for example, the most extreme fundies (Christian and Muslim alike) had their way, we’d summarily execute gays, as allowing them to live would be an affront to God. 
 
That’s why I ♥ the ACLU, even though they’ve shared their bed with the KKK and NAMBLA. As much as I abhor both groups, they still have a right to think and say what they want, as repugnant and hateful as it may be. If we start trying to regulate thoughts and opinions, there’s no telling where it would stop. Before you know it, the government will be assigning us breeding partners and confiscating all non-approved literature. Think 1984.
 
In this particular case, the issue of racism is moot anyhow. Unless the Western media has all their reporting ass-backwards, the protestors themselves are not rioting because they find the cartoons racist; they’re upset because images of Muhammad - even benign ones - are blasphemous. That’s a big fucking difference. Rather than calling for respect as a racial group, Muslims expect non-believers to adhere to their own silly superstitious beliefs. That’s called a theocracy, people, and it’s wrong no matter the religion or the crusaders, be it Muslim rioters or our own fundie president.
 
I’m really sick (to the point of actual physical nausea!) of hearing liberals excuse and even justify intolerant and fanatical behavior with cries of multiculturalism and moral relativism - just because the offending group is a minority and/or oppressed. Muslims who demand that infidels never, ever scribble a sketch of Muhammad - and putting a bounty on the head of anyone who does so - is no better than Catholics who attempt to limit everyone’s access to contraception, just because their religion looks down on family planning and responsible reproduction. (Not to mention churches that are allowed to ignore zoning laws, thus infringing on their neighbor’s property rights, or Christian “Scientists” who sacrifice their children for their own cockamamie beliefs, etc., etc., etc. - you get the idea.) I don’t give a fuck if Muslim immigrants are treated poorly in European countries; I don’t care if they aren’t allowed to wear their burqas to school and have a hard time finding work. While such discrimination is deplorable, in no way does it give them the right to demand that everyone, everywhere, the world over, follow their religious edicts. Period.
 
Now, don’t get me wrong: as much as I will defend the papers’ right to publish the cartoons, I’ll also support Arabs’ and Muslims’ right to protest the cartoons, whether it’s because they find them racially or religiously insulting. Muslims are well within their right to voice their objections to the papers, to take to the streets in peaceful protests, and to boycott the offending publications or even their home countries. But their actions have clearly crossed the line; protestors have destroyed the property of both businesses and governments - with no regard for their targets’ actual involvement in the cartoons’ publication, mind you. At least forty people have died, and the cartoonists have been the subject of public death threats. And these actions are by no means restricted to a small minority of Musl