The Curse of "Freedom"

In a radio address today, President Bush said:

[T]he trend is clear: In the Middle East and throughout the world, freedom is on the march…

The women of Iraq might beg to differ (hat tip Green Knight):

The women at Nasar's beauty salon were Christian and Muslim, Sunni and Shiite, but they spoke with one voice on an issue that worries them all.

"I'm sure they will form an Islamic government and our freedom will be gone," Suzan Sarkon, 30, said as she settled in to get her long black hair trimmed. "We've never lived freely in Iraq, and now I think we never will."

This situation makes my blood boil. That the administration seeks to declare a victory of democracy in a country whose women are fearful that will never live freely is indicative of a sexism that knows no shame. Freedom means everyone. It is notable that in the same address, the president also stated, “Freedom is the birthright and deep desire of every human soul.” Every human soul. That means women, too, dammit.

As Iraq embarks on its uncertain journey toward crafting a new constitution, Iraqi women have perhaps more to win or lose in the process than anyone.

Since the election results were confirmed, many women have expressed deep concerns about the direction in which they see their country headed. A coalition of Islamist Shiite parties won the largest share of the seats in Iraq's new National Assembly. The parties have nominated an Islamic scholar to be prime minister, and though they insist they do not want to impose a religious government on Iraq, they have made it clear they expect Islam to feature in the new constitution.

[…]

At a minimum, that likely will mean applying Shariah [or Islamic law] to civil and family laws, according fewer rights to women than men in areas such as marriage, divorce and inheritance, said Joyce Wiley, an authority on Iraqi Shiites at the University of South Carolina. "I'm afraid it's not going to be very good for women," she said.

I am also curious as to how Christian and atheist Iraqis, of which there are a sizable number, can be considered “free” if they will be beholden to Shariah as well.

The marked increase in the number of women wearing head scarves these days is only the most outwardly visible sign of the creeping Islamization of society that has already taken place since the U.S. invasion, leaving many women living under a de facto form of Islamic rule, she said.

"There are armed men everywhere. If you go without the protection of the scarf, they can stop you and you may get assaulted," Mohammed said. "And there's pressure from husbands and fathers. Being good and chaste means you put a veil on. They tell you it's voluntary, but how can it be voluntary when there's that much pressure on you?"

The liberation promised by the U.S. invasion has so far eluded most Iraqi women. With gunmen roaming the streets and kidnappings a daily occurrence, protective fathers and anxious husbands keep their daughters and wives at home. Women have been targeted for failing to cover their heads and for expressing views such as those of Mohammed, who has received several death threats.

[…]

"If there is Islamic law, it will be worse," [Tara Husham, 22, whose Muslim father and Christian mother say she must be home by 5 p.m.] said. "Islamic law is very traditional--women must obey everything men say. It means democracy will be denied to us."

As she spoke, a figure cloaked in black entered the salon, striking a stark contrast with the other women dressed in jeans and tight sweaters.

Tearing off her head scarf and shaking loose her blond-streaked hair, Anwar Sobhi, 30, explained that she traveled from a neighborhood overrun by radical Sunni insurgents, where graffiti on the walls threatens death to women who don't cover their hair and where the beauty salons were forced to close months ago because they are deemed un-Islamic.

"Of course, I don't want to dress like this. ... I want to wear what I like," said Sobhi, who is Shiite. "When I was a child, my parents used to try to make me wear hijab to school, and when I got around the corner I would take it off. It was just like suffocation."

She only began covering up last month, after she was threatened by armed men.

"Where I live, not even one lady can go out without completely covering her hair," she said. "It's just too dangerous."

How is this freedom? This is abject oppression, right down to the very clothes against their skin. Is this the result for which we hoped when we set out to “liberate” Iraq—that its women would end up with fewer personal freedoms than before our arrival? The right to vote is a futile right indeed if one cannot even wear the clothes of one’s choosing when heading out to the voting booth.

"If George Bush thinks this is liberation, then he should make his own wife and daughters wear hijab," said Hanan Azzawi, 36, one of the salon's stylists.

No, if Bush thinks this is liberation, then he needs to get himself a fucking dictionary.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Spiders, Man

Mr. Shakes was sitting next to me as I was doing my blog rounds, and saw this picture at the Poor Man:


Camel spiders. Eugh.

Somehow he had missed seeing it when it was going around before. He has a wee bit of arachnophobia (if wee = massive).

“Ahhhhhh! What the fuck is that thing?! Those are the grossest fucking things I’ve ever seen in my life!”

And he’s eaten haggis.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

My Hero

That “old Arab,” Helen Thomas

I’ve always revered Helen Thomas, and today I dig her a little bit more (via WTF Is It Now??):

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer is on book tour.

Howard Kurtz writes: "Fleischer's book, 'Taking Heat,' is out today, and while his style isn't to smack people around, he is the first Bush administration insider to offer a sustained indictment of the media. White House correspondents, he says, are mostly liberal. Mostly negative. Mostly opposed to tax cuts. Mostly unwilling to give his president a break. Mostly interested in whipping up conflict. . . .

[…]

In the book, Fleischer criticizes Hearst columnist Helen Thomas for asking loaded questions. Here's what Thomas tells Kurtz:

"'The questions I asked should have been asked by 10 more reporters in the run-up to war, which proved that everything they said was not true.' She says Fleischer was not only a spokesman for the president but 'owed credibility to the American people. I'm sure he got mad at me. He had to defend what was indefensible, in my opinion.'"

Love her.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Terrorism 101

Remember Afghanistan? We had a war there once. Not too long ago, in fact. It was, as I recall, because the government was suspected of harboring this guy, who was responsible for the tragedy we call 9/11. Soon after toppling that evil regime and bringing democracy and freedom to the Afghanis, we all but left, because we had to move on to our next stop on the Freedom Express, Iraq. Here’s the problem (hat tip Crooks and Liars):

Afghan heroin production represents an "an enormous threat to world stability" and the country is "on the verge of becoming a narcotics state," the U.S. State Department said in a report released on Friday.

Despite steps by the Afghan government and foreign donors, the U.S. International Narcotics Control Strategy Report found the Afghan "narcotics situation continues to worsen" more than three years after U.S.-led forces toppled the Taliban regime.

[…]

The most dramatic conclusions in the report, an annual survey of the world drug trade, were about Afghanistan, where it praised U.S.-backed President Hamid Karzai's efforts, but said Afghan poppy cultivation more than tripled last year.

"Afghanistan's illicit opium/heroin production can be viewed, for all practical purposes, as the rough equivalent of world illicit heroin production, and it represents an enormous threat to world stability," it said.

The area devoted to poppy cultivation in Afghanistan rose to 206,700 hectares (509,050 acres) last year from 61,000 hectares (150,700 acres) in 2003. Citing International Monetary Fund estimates that drugs account for 40 percent to 60 percent of the Afghan economy, the report added: "Afghanistan is on the verge of becoming a narcotics state."

The report said Afghan political conditions improved last year, which included its October presidential election, but "criminal financiers and narcotics traffickers in and outside of Afghanistan take advantage of the ongoing instability."

What possibly could have been the cause of such ongoing instability? Might it have been this?

The high point of the American involvement in Afghanistan came in December of 2001, at a conference of various Afghan factions held in Bonn, when the Administration’s candidate, Hamid Karzai, was named chairman of the interim government. (His appointment as President was confirmed six months later at a carefully orchestrated Afghan tribal council, known as a Loya Jirga.) It was a significant achievement, but there were major flaws in the broader accord. There was no agreement on establishing an international police force, no procedures for collecting taxes, no strategy for disarming either the many militias or individual Afghans, and no resolution with the Taliban.

[...]

The Bush Administration, facing a major war in Iraq, seemed eager to put the war in Afghanistan behind it. In January of 2003, Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, made a fifteen-hour visit to Kabul and announced, “We’re clearly moving into a different phase, where our priority in Afghanistan is increasingly going to be stability and reconstruction. There’s no way to go too fast. Faster is better.” There was talk of improving security and rebuilding the Afghan National Army in time for Presidential and parliamentary elections, but little effort to provide the military and economic resources. “I don’t think the Administration understood about winning hearts and minds,” a former Administration official told me.

The results of the postwar neglect are stark. A leading scholar on Afghanistan, Barnett R. Rubin, wrote, in this month’s Current History, that Afghanistan today “does not have functioning state institutions. It has no genuine army or effective police. Its ramshackle provincial administration is barely in contact with, let alone obedient to, the central government. Most of the country’s meager tax revenue has been illegally taken over by local officials who are little more than warlords with official titles.” The goal of American policy in Afghanistan “was not to set up a better regime for the Afghan people,” Rubin wrote. “The goal instead was to get rid of the terrorist threat against America.”

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that a singular goal of getting rid of the terrorist threat against America was acceptable—that we had no further responsibility toward Afghanistan and that as long as the terrorist threat had been removed, the war was a success. Turns out, we failed on that front, too, because there are immutable and demonstrable links between the drug trade and terrorism, intersecting at three key points: money, tools of the trade, and geography.

Someone* once said: It's so important for Americans to know that the traffic in drugs finances the work of terror, sustaining terrorists, that terrorists use drug profits to fund their cells to commit acts of murder. If you quit drugs, you join the fight against terror in America. One might reasonably suggest, then, that quitting a country in which you’ve toppled the government and leaving it in a state of chaos, thereby rife with the opportunity for exploitation by drug traffickers and terrorists alike, is perhaps indicative of a significant contribution to terrorism.

How much longer will this kind of ignorant refusal to acknowledge the realities of our actions go on before we realize that we are our own worst enemy?

(Crossposted at Ezra Klein.)

* President George W. Bush (probably easily identifiable by the idiotic misstatement “if you quit drugs,” which should really have been something like, “if you quit paying attention to drugs”).

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Pass the Smokes

"Qutting smoking is easy. I've done it a thousand times." - Mark Twain

We lasted 3 days.

Link:

Probably the greatest barrier to quitting -- and the hardest for smokers to overcome -- is withdrawal. Withdrawal is the body's response to the physical need for nicotine and the psychological need or desire for a cigarette. Immediately after quitting, many smokers will experience headache and dizziness, coughing and sore throat, and hunger. These symptoms usually last a few days to a week. As cessation progresses, other symptoms can develop, including anger, frustration, irritability, difficulty in concentrating, impatience, insomnia, fatigue, and even intense anxiety and depression.

I've had every one of these symptoms. These have been the worst three days ever. I'm still determined to quit, but this wasn't it.

By the way, Mr. Shakes is sitting beside me smoking, and I still haven't had one yet. I give myself a matter of time before I cave, too.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Yeesh

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Girlzzz

Elayne Riggs has been doing a little contest of sorts to see which female bloggers are deserving of wider readership. Go on over and check out the existing list, and leave your favorites in comments. If nothing else, you’ll have the opportunity to check out quite a comprehensive list of female bloggers.

Day One

Day Two

Day Three

Day Four

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

A Must Read

Mahablog on the evil and inevitably social Darwinist realities of the new bankruptcy bill, Joe Biden’s ongoing identity crisis, and the possibility that the hubbub about Social Security is really just a red herring so that bullshit like this can get passed without much notice.

Go ahead, big dogs. Write a few more posts about Social Security. Rove needs some more blog porn to jerk off to while he manically laughs and plots your next distraction.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

We Turn Our Backs on Africa

Dear President Bush…

Please read the parable of the Good Samaritan. It’s about a man of a different background giving aid to someone who was left for dead. If you’ve already read it, please read it again, because I don’t think you understood it.

Sincerely,
Shakespeare’s Sister

The AIDS crisis in Africa has reached such shocking proportions that the lack of attention afforded this urgent tragedy by Western governments, including our own, compels us to question by what moral contortionism we have excused ourselves from intervening. How, exactly, do we justify showing this singular contempt for our African brothers and sisters? Via Pam:

More than 80 million Africans may die from AIDS by 2025, the United Nations said in a report released Friday, and infections could soar to 90 million -- or more than 10 percent of the continent's population -- if more isn't done soon to fight the disease.

More than 25 million African have been infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. UNAIDS estimated that nearly $200 billion is needed to save 16 million people from death and 43 million people from becoming infected, but donors have pledged nowhere near that amount.

In its report, "AIDS in Africa," the U.N. agency examines three potential scenarios for the continent in the next 20 years depending on the international community's response. The three scenarios include a best-case situation, a middle-case and a doomsday scenario. They all warn that the worst of the epidemic's impact is still to come. "There is no single policy prescription that will change the outcome of the epidemic," the report stated. "The death toll will continue to rise no matter what is done." Under the worst-case scenario, experts have plotted current policies and funding over the next two decades.

UNAIDS has reported that life expectancy in nine countries has dropped to below 40 because of the disease. There are already 11 million orphans because of AIDS, while 6,500 people are dying each day. In 2004, 3.1 million Africans were newly infected, the agency said.

"Never again," say our leaders when they visit Auschwitz. “Never again.”

Somber they remember the human toll of a madmen’s excesses, failing to see that a genocide of commission versus one of omission are of a distinction without a difference.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Martha Stewart’s Coming Home

Jill exactly articulates my feelings about Martha Stewart:

Martha Stewart may be the most polarizing figure of our time whose name is not George Walker Bush. Either you loved her or you hated her.

I always fell into the latter category. The last thing I, a mediocre housekeeper at best, wanted to hear was some multikazillionaire telling me to grow my own herbs…

But when Martha Stewart was convicted of refusing to acknowledge guilt in the timing of her sale of ImClone stock, at a time when Kenny-Boy Lay, Bernie Ebbers, Scott Sullivan, and the rest of the corporate crooks who caused hundreds of thousands of people to lose all of their retirement money, and in many cases, their jobs, it became clear that this was a Federal witch hunt against a relatively small player who just happened to be a Democrat....sort of like impeaching a Democratic president for a blowjob while a Republican president gets a free pass for lying to the American people to justify a war.

So today Martha Stewart goes home, and this former Martha-hater is cheering. I'm not the only one, either. Shares of Martha Stewart Omnimedia have been rallying of late, and rather than being a pariah, she will go back to running the company after her release from home confinement, AND she'll get her own version of The Apprentice. And there are a bunch of people like me, former Martha-haters, who are now cheering, "You go, girl!"

Dorothy Parker was right. Living well truly IS the best revenge.

Right on.

(Ten points to the person who can name the star of the obscure ’80s movie referenced in the title of this post and at least 2 other ’80s movies in which he starred.)

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Friday Limerick

If faith-based groups get things their way,
Discrimination will soon be okay.
They don’t want to be near
An atheist or queer,
Though still welcome is the fiend BTK.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Friday Bookishness

Today’s recommendation is Katherine Dunn’s Geek Love, which is one of my favorite books; I’ve read it at least 4 or 5 times. The story is about the Binewskis, Al and Crystal Lil, the proprietors of a failing traveling circus who have the great idea to save it by breeding their own freak show. Imbibing various drugs and chemicals, they end up with quite the litter of sideshow attractions. The story jumps back and forth between the Binewski children’s childhood and the present day, where one of the Binewskis is stalking her own long lost daughter.

And with all of that, I gave absolutely nothing away you don’t find out at the beginning of the book. There’s tons of great weird and creepy and disturbing and sad and sometimes quite touching stuff in this book. The main reason I’m recommending it, though (and for those who have read it, don’t give anything away!), is that I want new readers to answer this question:

Who do the Arturians remind you of?

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

A Consensus for Good Government

Digby has a great post about finding (perhaps, rediscovering) the American consensus, which is "the mainstream majority belief in liberalism that held that the government should actively expand 'to new frontiers' to promote the welfare of its citizens." His examination of the loss of the American consensus, and his call for liberals to find it again, dovetails nicely with my recent piece, A Liberal Argument, in which I suggested that we must somehow move voters beyond voting purely out of self-interest. Digby says:

The difference between Republicans and Democrats isn't about who cares more for the people. All politicians say they care about the people and the people are always justifiably skeptical. The difference between us is how we believe the good of the people is best achieved and liberals have a fundamentally different philosophy than the Republicans. Government is our preferred method to advance progressive ideals. Capitalism cannot substitute for a democratic government that answers to all the people. The invisible hand doesn’t give a shit if children starve or old people have to work until they are eighty or if half the country has to work at slave wages to support the other half. Only government can guarantee its citizens the equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We believe that progress toward that end requires that the government be active and engaged in delivering those things.

I said:

The way to get past that inequality is not to constantly try to reframe each argument individually, because there are some, like the example offered, that just aren’t ever going to be able to compete with the delicious simplicity and immediacy of the counterargument. Instead, we must lead the nation away from self-interest; we are all dependent upon each other in infinite ways and it is our obligation to remind the electorate of the importance of such interconnectedness. No man is an island. So said John Donne, and so should we say. We are in this thing together, and our policies are geared to ensure that no man is ever left adrift on his own, without a safety net, without the help he needs, without a community. To vote purely out of self-interest is to turn one’s back on the belief that there is a social conscience to be nurtured for the benefit of us all.

Just as capitalism cannot substitute for a democratic government that answers to all the people, a government that relieves itself of the obligation to ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by allowing a social Darwinist free-for-all among its masses isn’t exactly an appealing option, either. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it should be increasingly obvious to everyone by this point that as government shirks its duties, leaving industry to self-regulate, allowing religious groups to discriminate if it’s necessary for maintaining their identities, refusing to strengthen legal protections of groups targeted for hate crimes, encouraging citizens to patrol the borders, etc. etc. etc., that “the People” can’t handle the responsibility of picking up the government’s slack. Of course they can’t—the People are dicks.

We have always needed government for good reason, but without the American consensus, that there was once goodness in government is becoming ever more difficult to recall.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Friday Blogrolling

First up, some long overdue additions:

Corrente
Echidne of the Snakes
Francesca's Liberal Wingnut Corner
Pinko Feminist Hellcat
Worshipping at the Altar of Mediocrity…

Now that's a list that happens to include some mighty fine female bloggers, for any boys who claim they have trouble finding them. Ahem.

And now some more recent discoveries:

The Green Knight, who is just all kinds of good, and who deserves special recognition for such a lovely literary allusion in the name of his blog.

CommonSenseDesk, which combines good aggregation with concise commentary. From the Flattery Will Get You Everywhere files, CSD once suggested that Dr. Dean should be reading my blog, an assertion with which I totally agree, of course, but I never expected to get independent confirmation of such flagrant narcissism.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

The Immigrant Hunters

So the Department of Homeland Security is trying out a new method of tracking immigrants: ankle bracelets. You know, the electronic monitors that parolee sex offenders are often required to wear? Yeah, I know this sounds like a story from the Onion, but it’s not.

Francesca of Francesca’s Liberal Wingnut Corner, who, like me, is married to an immigrant, has the scoop, including her husband’s reaction. Mr. Shakes is too disgusted to even acknowledge it, I think. I’m just afraid they’re going to snatch him, tag him, and release him back into the wild too far from home, and he won’t be able to find his way back.

Go read Francesca’s post; it’s just unbelievable what’s going on in this country.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

#@!$%!!@@!###

IS IT JUST MY IMAGINATION OR HAS BLOGGER BEEN NOTHING BUT A PAIN IN THE MOTHERFUCKING ASS FOR DAYS???

I'M TRYING TO QUIT SMOKING HERE!!! I DON'T NEED THIS CRAP!!!

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Imagine How Diverse the Disciples Would Have Been if Jesus Hadn't Had to Worry About Federal Funding

“That’s right—compassion. Or as some of you liberal
traitors might call it—wanton discrimination.”

You know, I’m getting really fucking tired of this shit.

In case you didn’t think that there was enough reason to fear the Bushies if you’re a non-Christian, atheist, homosexual, or find yourself otherwise outside the realm of what’s acceptable among the churchly, here’s one more: if you happen to work for a federally funded faith-based organization, they’re now one step away from being able to legally fire your ass if you don’t agree with their religious beliefs.

The House on Wednesday approved a job-training bill that would allow faith-based organizations receiving federal funds to consider a person's religious beliefs in making employment decisions.

Under current law, religious groups that receive federal money for job-training programs must obey civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in hiring or firing.

Passage of the bill, on a largely party-line vote of 224-200, came a day after President Bush told a group of religious leaders that he would attempt to institute the faith-based employment policies through an executive order if Congress did not approve them this year.

So basically, even if the Senate sees fit to not pass this bit cynical and unconstitutional effort to do an end-run around civil rights guarantees, the president will step in and ramrod it through into being, anyway. What a democracy we’ve got! As Pam notes:

If Chimpy gets his hands on the Supreme Court vacancies, we might as well kiss our rights goodbye.

No shit.

In a statement Wednesday supporting the bill, the White House said, "Receipt of federal funds should not be conditioned on a faith-based organization's giving up a part of its religious identity and mission."

First of all, I question the motive of any religious group that has an identity and mission in direct conflict with civil rights guarantees. I also can’t imagine many people who disagree with the ideology of a faith-based group are applying to fill roles where ideological differences matter, but instead probably work in support positions. If a Sikh is comfortable working as an accountant for a Christian outreach group (for example), why should they be allowed to fire him? More importantly, why would they want to? It’s difficult to imagine how this bill is even useful, aside from legalizing any prejudice that can remotely be deemed rooted in religion. And ain’t that a slippery slope to start on.

Secondly, I’m getting pretty motherfucking sick of the word faith being used to disguise what is a strictly religious agenda. There are those of us who have faith (constantly challenged though it may be) in humankind, but not any god(s) to speak of, and we’re not going to get any kind of funding from the faith-based initiative. So let’s start by calling a spade a spade—this is law specifically designed to free religious groups to practice bigotry against those who disagree with them, without losing their federal funding.

Joe Conn, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the group was very disappointed with the results of Wednesday's vote but nonetheless hopeful.

"We are confident that the Senate will not go along with this, and ultimately it will not become law," Conn said. "President Bush has pushed this faith-based initiative for years now, but he hasn't been able to get it through Congress due to concerns over civil rights."

Come on, Senate Dems, do yer stuff! You gotta remember…the Jews, the queers, the godless heathens—we’re your people, and we’re counting on you.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Question

Excluding the Pres & VP, who is your least favorite person in the Bush administration and why?

(No fair saying, "Ann Coulter!" and making the case that she's part of an extension of the administration by virtue of the current media environment. We'll save who's your least favorite pundit and why? for another day.)

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Red State Values

Still welcome at church.



Dennis Rader, charged with 10 killings, also known by his self-created nickname BTK, which stands for Bind, Torture, Kill.

Not welcome to take communion at some churches.



John Kerry, Senator, Former Presidential Candidate, and War Hero, who believes in a woman’s right to choose.

Generally not welcomed by the church; recently deemed part of a “new ideology of evil” by the Pope.



Richard M. Raymen and Steven P. Hansen of Portland, Oregon, whose wedding picture was stolen by USA Next for use in a rightwing propaganda piece targeting AARP.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

The End of Political Blogging?

This is truly unbelievable:

In just a few months, [Bradley Smith, one of the six commissioners at the Federal Election Commission,] warns, bloggers and news organizations could risk the wrath of the federal government if they improperly link to a campaign's Web site. Even forwarding a political candidate's press release to a mailing list, depending on the details, could be punished by fines.

[…]

If Congress doesn't change the law, what kind of activities will the FEC have to target?

We're talking about any decision by an individual to put a link (to a political candidate) on their home page, set up a blog, send out mass e-mails, any kind of activity that can be done on the Internet.

Again, blogging could also get us into issues about online journals and non-online journals. Why should CNET get an exemption but not an informal blog? Why should Salon or Slate get an exemption? Should Nytimes.com and Opinionjournal.com get an exemption but not online sites, just because the newspapers have a print edition as well?

Why wouldn't the news exemption cover bloggers and online media?

Because the statute refers to periodicals or broadcast, and it's not clear the Internet is either of those. Second, because there's no standard for being a blogger, anyone can claim to be one, and we're back to the deregulated Internet that the judge objected to. Also I think some of my colleagues on the commission would be uncomfortable with that kind of blanket exemption.

So if you're using text that the campaign sends you, and you're reproducing it on your blog or forwarding it to a mailing list, you could be in trouble?

Yes. In fact, the regulations are very specific that reproducing a campaign's material is a reproduction for purpose of triggering the law. That'll count as an expenditure that counts against campaign finance law.

This is an incredible thicket. If someone else doesn't take action, for instance in Congress, we're running a real possibility of serious Internet regulation. It's going to be bizarre.

You’ll have to read the whole interview to get the full background and the breadth of what this means for political bloggers, but the thing that I find most distressing about all of this is that the internet, and specifically blogs, have become an important resource for people who want to educate themselves about politicians and their platforms during campaigns. Our electorate is ignorant enough as it is; do we need to close off such a valuable conduit of information because a link to Kerry’s website could be construed as coordinated communications? Honestly, this could severely damage the grassroots movement that has flourished on the internet. That wasn’t supposed to be the point of McCain-Feingold.

In as soon as a few months from now, any of us could risk being hit with fines if we “improperly link to a campaign’s website.”

Welcome to the new America, where if you’re not willfully ignorant, we’ll do our best to try to enforce it.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!