A threat greater than the homosexuals

Dr. Benjamin A. Soria
Superintendent, Yakima County School District

Dear Dr. Soria,

I know you're going to catch a lot of heat for canceling A. C. Davis High's production of The Laramie Project. Godless promoters of tolerance will certainly point out that there is nothing in the script that anyone would find offensive, but that is a lie. The play is a brutal indictment of one of our most effective tools for enforcing cultural conformity--the use of violence against those who would corrupt our culture by acting on their in-born attraction to those of their own gender. The Laramie Project demeans our long tradition of encouraging homophobia. It flings mud upon the Jackboots of Righteousness we've shined so lovingly for generations. What could be more offensive than that?

But the play is the least of the problems emanating from A.C. Davis High School. The greatest threat to our values stands in the school's courtyard. I'm referring to the statue of the Yakima County School District's most infamous student, Justice William O. Douglas Jr. Its presence mocks every value in which we believe. To stand before it is to stand before some demonic apparition whose long-ago-uttered words continue to reverberate off the courtyard's walls. Indeed, Douglas seems to speak through his bronzed likeness, reminding us:

Literature should not be suppressed merely because it offends the moral code of the censor.

and

Free speech is not to be regulated like diseased cattle and impure butter. The audience that hissed yesterday may applaud today, even for the same performance.

and most importantly,

As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there's a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.

The statue represents a bygone era, a time when men like William O' Douglas were cheered for such hedonistic ideas as the right to voice unpopular ideas and to be the person you are rather than who others compel you to be. As such, the statue must be brought down. It must be brought down in a very public way through a well-managed photo op involving flags, military vehicles, and cheering crowds of patriots. That way, the citizens of Yakima will know that the dark days of Justice Douglas' mockery are finally behind us.

I'd be glad to help in any way I can.

Heterosexually yours,

Gen. JC Christian, patriot

Note to readers: I hope you'll join me in writing Dr. Soria.

Update: Here's a site created by the Davis students who are protesting the decision.

He does it again

Olbermann's subversion continues.



I suspect the French will continue to encourage this kind of treachery by thanking him and buying his book.

And those who dislike Amazon will probably purchase his treasonous screed from SeattleDan's and SeattleTammy's Jackson Street Books by calling (206) 324-7000 or by emailing them here.

Collectors Item

This National Republican Campaign Committee giveaway item for House Page Orientation Week provides answers to a couple of my questions about what the French are calling "Predatorgate." First, I think I finally understand what Mark Foley meant when he told that boy, "get a ruler and measure it for me."

And second, this is the best evidence yet, that Speaker Hastert is telling the truth. He knew nothing. No man, let alone a Speaker of the House of Representatives, would allow the printing of something showing him losing this kind of contest.

Rep. Reynolds, on the other hand may be exaggerating a bit. He's getting awfully close to that mythical "super soldier" mark promoted by feminists to make men feel inadequate.

Gridlock Doc ain't a whore; he's just stupid

Doc Hastings
US House of Representatives (R-WA)

Dear Doc,

A lot of people were worried when you took over the helm of the Ethics Committee. Tom Delay was under state and federal investigation for corruption at the time, and the names of other GOP congressmen, like Ney, Doolittle, Pombo, Cunningham, and Harris were popping up in investigations as well. Everybody was wondering what you'd do. Would you launch ethics investigations against them, or would you ignore their crimes in a Predatorgate-like display of craven partisanship.

How did you respond? You launched an investigation against Demoslamunist Rep. Jim McDermott for releasing a tape of a phone call in 1994--a tape in which Newt Gingrich and Rep. John Boehner are caught plotting to subvert an ethics investigation against Gingrich.

You'd think that'd be enough work for an ethics committee during a session, but now you're catching criticism for doing too little. People wonder how Ney and DeLay could be indicted and Cunningham convicted without an ethics investigation against them being initiated. Indeed, the Olympian editorializes:

Rep. Doc Hastings, a Republican from Eastern Washington, should be ashamed of himself for allowing the House ethics committee he chairs to turn into a dysfunctional joke. It is an embarrassment to the state, to the country and even to the Republican Party that swept to power on the promise of clean government.

How do you respond to something like that? It makes you look like little more than the Dennis Hastert's toady, and the way things are going for him lately, it's not a good idea for you to allow that perception to linger.

You need to change your image, immediately. There isn't a lot of time for you to do that before election day, so it's probably best for you to promote another impression people already have about you. That is that you're a dullard, a very stupid man, or as The Daily Astorian put it:

There is no difficulty, however, in concluding that Republican leaders in the U.S. House are culpable and negligent in ignoring Foley's actions after they learned of them months ago. It is illuminating to consider for a moment how House Speaker Dennis Hastert and his peers would have responded if Foley was a Democrat. It doesn't take a crystal ball to know a Democrat would have been instantly tarred and feathered.

Largely to make certain it was neutered on behalf of since-disgraced GOP leader Tom DeLay, the House Ethics Committee was placed under the chairmanship of Doc Hastings, a dull Washington state congressman whose main qualification for the job seems to be belief in the philosophy espoused by Hogan's Heroes character Sgt. Hans Schultz: 'I hear nothing, I see nothing, I know nothing!'

The Daily Astorian isn't alone in thinking that you're slow-witted. Your ignorance is legendary throughout the state. I've even heard that your own staff has nicknamed you "The Idiot."

You have to run with it. It's the best explanation you have for your lethargic leadership of the Ethics Committee. Get some ads touting your stupidity up on the air, right away. The first one could show you sitting in front of a TV, drool dripping slowly from your lips as you blankly stare at a wrestling program. The only sound is the wrestling commentary. Fade to black, and the words "Doc Hastings: He's not a whore; he's just stupid" appear on the screen. You could follow that up with a second ad showing you picking up unidentifiable objects off of the ground, sniffing them, and then eating them.

Please let me know if I can do anything to help.

Heterosexually yours,

Gen. JC Christian, patriot

Elsewhere: Hastings's opponent discusses Predatorgate.

Betraying the victim's identity

I hope my men and not-men will support the patriotic betrayer by posting in his comments. He's the very model of GOP predatory values.

To whom am I referring? I won't link directly to "Wild Bill's" post or blog, but this comment gives you a good feel for what he wrote.

Apparently, Wild Bill betrayed the wrong guy. Some might criticize him for that, but I think it demonstrates the kind of competence we've come to expect from the leadership of our Grand Old Party. Wild Bill is going places.

Foley clogs the tubes

Sen. Ted Stevens
United States Senate

Dear Sen. Stevens,

I heard something very disturbing today. Apparently, newly-former congressman Mark Foley committed some kind of unnatural sexual act with the internets during a vote on the Emergency War Time Supplemental Appropriation Bill. I have no idea how he did it, but given that the internets are simply a bunch of tubes, he had to have had his pants down around his ankles. Think about it. He either sent his little predator on a spelunking mission into the tubes or the tubes spelunked him. Either way, his pants were down.

Now where were Speaker Hastert, Majority Leader Boehner, Ethics Chair Hastings, and RNCC Chair Reynolds when all this was going on. There's no way they missed it. I mean, there's a guy, pants down to his ankles, going to town with the internets' tubes right there on the House floor. They had to see it.

My guess is that they chose to ignore it. Most people wouldn't blame them for that, because most people don't understand the internets tubes. They see a guy boinking them and they shrug it off as a little naughtiness, or they blame the internets for seducing the poor guy.

But Hastert, Boehner, Hastings, and Reynolds should know better. They should know that when a Congressman has his way with the internets, he's going to climax eventually, and that's going to clog up the tubes and prevent the rest of us from getting our email. And it doesn't matter if Foley was uploading. There will still be a lot of vomit and tears clogging up the tubes. At least I think that'd be the case. I can't think of a reason why the internets would react to sex any differently than our wives.

Inasmuch as the House is a wreck right now, I hope you and your colleagues in the Senate will investigate this. We can't have Congressmen plugging up our tubes, even if they are Republican.

Heterosexually yours,

Gen. JC Christian, patriot.

Note: Yes, Sen. Stevens is wearing an Incredible Hulk tie. He wore it the last time ANWR came up vote as a warning to those who would dare thwart his will. Rumor has it that after the bill failed, he grew big, turned green, and beat 15 staffers to death with an internets tube.

Dr. Dobson and Crazy Mitt

Dr. James Dobson
Focus on the Family

Dear Dr. Dobson,

Thank you for finally saying what we've all been thinking. There is no way Christians will vote for Mitt Romney in 2008. He's a Mormon, a cultist who rejects such certainties as the mingling of men and dinosaurs in the time of Genesis but embraces the ridiculous notion that the ancestors of the Sioux were tapir-riding Jews. Sure Romney and his co-religionists may believe, as we do, that our Lord Jesus conquered death, but, darn it, they do proxy baptisms and marriages for the dead. That's just too freaking weird.

Heterosexually yours,

Gen. JC Christian, patriot

p.s. I think Mitt is a attractive too (in a very heterosexual kind of way, mind you).

The gift that keeps on giving

I don't see them in our comments yet, but my referral logs indicate that one of America's finest Keyboard Warriors* is sending us an infusion of patriots via a link to americanspectator.org, a url awarded to the General by an unknown soldier.

This isn't the first time we've been so blessed, but it never fails to put a smile on this old warrior's face.

* It's a blog called From on High. You'll have to cut and paste the url (I suspect they have referral logs too): http://blogfromonhigh.blogspot.com/2006/06/quote-of-day.html

Update: Hmmm. The post is from June. I guess his readers are slow.

Rep. Shimkus, Chair of the Leisure Suit Caucus

Rep. John Shimkus
US House of Representatives (R-IL)

Dear Rep. Shimkus,

Take a deep breath and relax. I know things look bad for you now, but it's going to be okay. You just have to remember that even though you procured pages for Mark Foley after you were warned of his predatory nature, Speaker Hastert was okay with it.

Indeed, the Speaker, after discussing Foley's page problem with you, Rep. Reynolds, Majority Leader Boehner and former House Clerk Jeff Trandahl, declared "Mission Accomplished" on the PR front. That's why the Speaker and the Majority Leader didn't lift a finger to stop you from holding a slave auction where eager young pages could bid for dream date with Foley. The House Republican Caucus had already "turned the corner" in its battle to suppress negative news about one of its members.

You have nothing to worry about. You were only doing your job as Chair of the Page Board, ensuring that the pages serviced every Republican member's needs. You did it well. Your friends in the caucus will remember that.

Heterosexually yours,

Gen. JC Christian, patriot

Elsewhere: Carl writes a letter to House Ethics Chair Doc Hastings.

My Crusade

A number of you've written, asking me about the combat I faced in Iraq. I want everyone to know I'm all right, although I did bruise my index finger when I hit the send key to email my likeness into battle.

I'm very pleased with the results. The people of Sadr City now understand that we are Christian warriors fighting a holy crusade.

Hopefully, my heroism will prod John Hinderaker's likeness to do its duty.



Helmet tips to readers Michael, Steve O, the Bride and somebody else I'm missing.

Lieberman's Lightbulb Ad 2.0

Lafayette's laughing at Sen. Lieberman's lightbulb ad. He says it's a terrible waste of money. Although I hate to admit it, I think he's right. Sen. Lieberman should have capitalized on his recent vote for torture and gone with my version.

See for yourself. Here's the ad they're running.

And here's my version:



Elsewhere: I do like Sen. Lieberman's new signs.

Exchanging Chains for Liberty: We Must Abandon the Old Standards and Create New Lines Between Good and Evil

_{Image © Austin Cline
Click for full-sized Image}

Where should we draw the line between good and evil? Between legal and illegal? These are difficult questions which occupy every society and no final answers are ever really developed. Nevertheless, the nature of the debate and the means by which different lines are drawn can be as informative about the morals of a society as the answers themselves. In America today there is an intense debate over where to draw the lines around torture: is it moral or immoral to torture and abuse detainees in order to obtain information about possible terrorist plans?

One might expect Christians to stand up and forcefully oppose any efforts to legalize or authorize the use of torture, even as a “necessary evil” in the pursuit of some vital goal. Some are in fact doing exactly this, but not all. The most conservative Christians in America are instead lending their full support to the Bush administration’s agenda of creating new methods of extracting information from an unknown number of current and future detainees. The Rev. Louis P. Sheldon of the True Values Coalition, for example, has openly stated that the “lines must be redrawn” and that we must “redefine” how America deals with terrorism detainees.

If we’re going to be fully honest, though, he and other Christian Nationalists aren’t so much seeking “new” lines as the resurrection of very old lines. The ability of the state to arbitrarily arrest, detain, and torture citizens isn’t very far back in history in the West — and it still exists in other parts of the world. America and Europe had finally moved beyond such barbarism, but conservative evangelical Christians are on the forefront of efforts to drag us all kicking and screaming back into the 12th century.

Christianity has a long history with torture, and on both sides of the red-hot poker. The earliest Christians were often victims of torture at the hands of hostile authorities. Christian tradition has it that not only Jesus but many of his apostles were killed in the process of horrible torture. Once Christianity became the joined with the state, Christians themselves were administering the torture — often against other Christians who failed to adhere to orthodoxy, but also against Jews, Muslims, and others. Thus the “new” lines and standards are really just old ones being introduced again long after we thought we had gotten rid of them.

Naturally these new “lines” benefit those who already have power and are detrimental to those who are generally lacking in power. This isn’t a coincidence — the purpose of redrawing the lines in the first place is to enable those with power to more effectively control those without power. Protecting people from greater dangers may be a side benefit or it may simply be a convenient excuse. This is how politics has proceeded in widely divergent cultures and societies all around the world. Whenever religion is joined with political power, it typically provides moral cover even if its own moral principles condemns what’s happening.

Conservative evangelical Christians typically condemn liberals for their “relativistic” morality and how their moral standards keep shifting to accommodate new situations. Here, though, we find those same Christians advocating new and shifting moral standards rather than upholding traditional or absolute moral injunctions against torture and abuse. This contradiction should be a surprise, but it isn’t. Why? I believe that there is a common underlying factor which unites all of their positions: fear.

Fear of moral chaos drives their insistence on a single, absolute, objective moral standard derived from the Bible. Fear of losing their social, political, and cultural power drives every facet of their “Culture Wars” — decency in media, Christmas conflicts, prayer in school, and so forth. Fear of terrorism and terrorist acts drives their belief that traditional standards of justice and moral decency must be dispensed with as part of an effort to do everything possible to prevent terrorist acts. It may difficult to comprehend how people could be that afraid, given the circumstances, but you must remember that their entire religious and political agenda is already ruled by fear.

When fear becomes the basis for everything else a person does, it’s easy to give in to new fears promoted by religious and political leaders. Fear becomes a way of life and the filter through which everything else is interpreted. Fear rules the Right in America today and it’s quickly becoming a hysterical sort of fear that drowns out all reason. This is not a debate which can be won through reasoned discussion.

We must counter their fears with messages of optimism and confidence. We must encourage people to stand tall and take charge despite the dangers rather than duck and hide, letting the power-hungry authoritarians take control with false promises of protection and safety. Americans won’t be free unless they are worthy of freedom. This means not purchasing liberty through putting chains on others, victory through the torture of suspects, or safety through authoritarian measures.

This poster is, obviously, an amalgam of several source images. Jesus tied to the column comes from one of the panels of the 1524 painting The Passion of Christ by Hans Holbein the Younger. Uncle Sam’s head is from a World War I poster promoting the alliance between America and Britannia. The body is from a World War I poster created by Belgian artist Louis Raemaekers and originally depicted a German. Both the cleaver and the crown of thorns were added in by me.

Last week I promised more variety in the sorts of things I would post. Except for the mid-day bonus sermon, it doesn't look like I managed to deliver. I apologize for that — I really did intend to post entirely different sorts of things today and even had them ready, but political events overtook my intentions and I didn't feel comfortable with not commenting on things I was reading. I'll do better in the future, really. Until then, don't forget my gallery of Christian Right Propaganda Posters. I add a couple of new ones every week (not always on the last page of the gallery — if I like them enough, I move them to the first gallery page so more people will see them).

Faith-Based Protection from Sexual Predators: Can You Trust Your Children with Republicans? (Bonus Sermon)

_{Image © Austin Cline
Original Poster: University of Georgia
Click for full-sized Image}

I hope no one minds an extra mid-day sermon — I still have something prepared for this evening that shouldn’t be bumped because it’s relevant to recent events, but even more recent events make this one relevant as well. At this rate it will quickly get to the point where I just can’t keep up and my copy of Photoshop will explode.

Leaders of the Christian Right act like they and their subcontractors in the Republican Party are the only line of defense between decent, God-fearing parents and the moral destruction of America’s youth. Every other week another self-proclaimed guardian of morality or childhood offers up a new infringement on civil rights with the excuse that it’s necessary to protect us, and especially our children, from homosexuality, pornography, sex, contraceptives, abortion, drugs, alcohol, internet predators, teen pregnancy, developing hairy palms, paper cuts, and so forth.

Now we learn that Mark Foley, a Republican Congressman from Florida, was exchanging sexual emails and instant messages with past and current Congressional pages even while they were still teenagers. If this were a fictional story created to teach a lesson about being careful with investing too much trust in moralizing politicians, people would probably dismiss it as too contrived to be believable. He’s a conservative politician who has gotten a lot of milage out of emphasizing his conservative “moral values” and his efforts to promote conservative religious beliefs through national legislation. As Faithful Democrats notes, Foley has claimed: “At Sacred Heart, I was taught how to be a better citizen because of their focus on discipline and moral values,” and in 2004 he was given a 84% rating from the Christian Coalition.

If that weren’t bad enough, he was placed in a leadership position by the Republican Party to “protect” children from sexual predators. Foley served as chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children where in 2002 he introduced a bill to outlaw websites hosting sexually suggestive images of preteen kids.

Still not bad enough? The House Republican leadership knew about this for almost a year without ever doing anything. When it turned out that he might be one of the people children need to be protected from, they obligingly refused to act. They even went so far as to hide the allegations from the Democrat who assisted with managing the House pages. This behavior by the Republican leadership was so outrageous that it may negatively impact the careers of several politicians — as well it should.

Where are the denunciations from the Christian Right — the people who did so much to support Foley and the Republican leadership in the past? It should be noted Mark Foley, a bachelor and devout Catholic, has been rumored to be gay or bisexual but he has denounced these reports as “revolting” and insisted that his sexual orientation wasn’t important. All of this should be more than enough to attract nasty commentary from the Christian Right, but people who were quick with vicious attacks on Bill Clinton for his dalliance with a female of legal age have been remarkably reticent when it comes to a male Christian Congressman’s behavior towards underage males.

Quis Custodiet Custodes Ipsos: Who Watches the Watchers? That phrase comes easily to mind, but I’m not sure how appropriate it is. To me, it has always implied that the Watchers at least deserve their authority to begin with and simply need to be monitored because they are just as fallible as the rest of us. No one can be trusted with absolute power and authority, so everyone with power over us needs to be subject to independent checks. In this case, though, I don’t think that the Watchers ever deserved any of their authority over us; so it’s not that they were improperly watched over, but that they were inappropriately placed in positions of power from the start.

What will it take for people to realize this, though?

This image is based on a World War I poster telling soldiers that boys “will look up to you” and that you should “tell them what it means to be an American soldier.” Who tells applicants what they may have to endure as Congressional pages?

Could You Become an Unlawful Enemy Combatant? You Have Rights at the Whim of President Bush

_{Image © Austin Cline
Click for full-sized Image}

The right of habeas corpus is one of the oldest and most basic rights in the West. Habeas corpus is a Latin phrase meaning roughly “you must have the body” and means that those who have power over the physical persons of prisoners are required to bring them before an independent judge for the purpose of evaluating whether their detention is just. To put it simply, the right of habeas corpus is the right of each person to not be subject to arbitrary, unreviewable arrest, detention, or imprisonment. It is the right of each person to have an independent, impartial judge examine their case and determine whether the law allows for their continued detention or if the law requires that their freedom be restored to them.

In practice, this “Great Writ” is an important check against authoritarian, totalitarian, and dictatorial state power. Unless the courts themselves are completely subverted, they are able to prevent the state from arbitrarily imprisoning people without sound legal grounds. Without it, the state never has to justify its actions or tactics — it can simply act at will. Political leaders with a more authoritarian inclination have long worked to undermine the right of habeas corpus because they don’t like being expected to justify their actions or simply believe that their authority places them above such requirements. Either way, they believe that they should be above the law, above critical questioning, and above having to justify any of their decisions.

This is a fundamentally anti-democratic perspective because democracy is based upon the principle that political leaders are answerable to the people and subject to the same laws as everyone else. When politicians are unwilling to make a case for their actions in a court of law, they also can’t be expected to make a genuine case for their actions in the court of public opinion. They may pretend to do so and insist that they are acting justly, but they can’t be expected to fully disclose what they are doing, how they are doing it, and what they are really accomplishing. Secrecy goes hand-in-hand with opposition to the principle of habeas corpus: just as political leaders are unwilling to reveal to an independent court whom they have detained and why, they are also unwilling to reveal to the general public what they are doing and why.

Habeas corpus is not a principle which should be treated casually. It’s an integral part of the foundation of a free, democratic society in which sovereignty rests with the people and the power of the state is limited. Unfortunately, it is precisely this right which President Bush, his sycophantic Republican fluffers, and the timid Vichy Democrats have so perilously damaged. They wish to deny to suspects detained in the War on Terror a right to have their imprisonment evaluated by independent courts. Why? If someone’s detention is justified, it should be possible to establish that in a neutral court. Otherwise, the person shouldn’t be detained in the first place.

As many have noted, there is nothing about Bush’s new Enabling Act which seriously limits the president’s power to detain people at will. If the president labels someone an “unlawful combatant,” they can be imprisoned without trial, without review, and indefinitely. The designation can be applied to anyone, any time, anywhere — even American citizens — and that status also lies outside judicial review. Even the law itself will be difficult to impossible to get before a court to rule on its constitutionality. Habeas corpus is a limit on arbitrary, dictatorial state power and the Congress has removed it in a manner that opens up a door that should have forever remained shut. They have authorized the president to imprison people permanently, without trial or review. How is that not the basis for tyranny?

Conservatives have traditionally insisted that the Constitution doesn’t create or grant rights, but instead guarantees rights that are a gift from God. President Bush sometimes continues to mouth these phrases, but it’s clear that this is nothing but rhetoric because now these same conservatives are treating constitutional rights as something which the government can arbitrarily withdraw at will. Isn’t that interesting?

We’re not talking about a bit of legal posturing here. The right to be free from arbitrary state power, wielded without the possibility of review or challenge, is a basic moral right due to all human beings. It’s not something that any government can justifiably ignore or deny either to their own citizens or to the citizens of another nation. It is owed to people not by virtue of their citizenship or even their “good conduct” in following the law; instead, it is due to them as human beings worthy of the same dignity and respect we all demand for ourselves. No state that denies people this is worthy of anyone’s allegiance or blood.

This image is based on a World War II poster encouraging people to donate money to aid Allied prisoners of war. How ironic that America once insisted that its own citizens be treated with the dignity and humanity it is so eager to deny to those it seeks to imprison today.

You can see many more posters I’ve created in this gallery on my site, including some new ones since last week: Christian Right Propaganda Posters

The General ♥ Mark and thingwarbler

...in a heterosexual and Ofjoshua approved kind of way.

Thanks to thingwarbler for sending me the Cowboy Junkies CD. They're from Canada, where everyone's a foreigner, but I'll pretend they're from Tupelo.

And thanks to Mark for sending the Trailer Park Boys DVDs. I almost blew the DVDs up, because the show's produced and broadcast from "Tupelo". We can't be too careful.

Seriously, thanks to you both. I love the CD and DVDs.