Judge Blames 10-Year-Old Victim for Her Own Rape

Just when I think I've heard it all, along comes a British judge who blows my fucking mind once again with some of the most heinous rape apology swill I've yet heard, justifying the light sentence he gave to a 24-year-old man who twice raped a 10-year-old girl (and confessed to it) by explaining "she liked to dress provocatively." That's the judge saying that, mind you. The judge.

[The 10-year-old girl] was attacked in a park in South Oxfordshire by [Keith Fenn, 24] and his accomplice Darren Wright, 34, on October 14 last year. Fenn removed all her clothes and raped her, then Wright took her to his home and sexually assaulted her. Yet [Judge Julian Hall] said the case was exceptional because the "young woman" had been wearing a frilly bra and thong.

…The court heard that the girl regularly wore make-up, strappy tops and jeans. "It is quite clear she is a very disturbed child and a very needy child and she is a sexually precocious child. She liked to dress provocatively," the judge said. "Did she look like she was 10? Certainly not. She looked 16."

Judge Hall said he faced "a moral dilemma." So instead of the life sentence that Fenn faced, he instead gave him "concurrent two-year and 18-month sentences" which will leave him "free in just weeks after spending eight months in jail awaiting sentence." Fenn's accomplice is already free after having served eight months on remand.

If this decision wasn't bad enough, earlier this year, Judge Hall set free another pedophile, "telling him to give his victim money 'to buy a nice new bicycle'." It's time to get Judge Hall off the fucking bench. And maybe take a look at his recent internet searches, if you catch my meaning.

In good news, the Attorney General is considering an appeal of the sentence.

What I find most interesting about this particular bit of rape apology is how it manages to incorporate so many different aspects of apologia all at once, intersecting the notion that children can consent to sex with adults with the notion that women are seductresses whom men can't stop themselves from raping with the notion that a woman who dresses "provocatively" is giving tacit consent to every man who lays eyes upon her. It's the trifecta of rape apology!

I'm going to guess that no one who lingers around these parts would bother arguing that a 10-year-old child can consent to sex, and I'm further going to guess that I don't need to restate for the hundredth time or so what total horseshit the magical, mysterious, mighty power of uncovered meatdom theory of irresistable rape is. I will, however, repeat what I've said before about the whole "provocatively dressed" argument, since that one still seems to be frustratingly operative, even around here:

That attire can be a justification for sexual abuse is a disgusting suggestion, whether we're talking about a child or an adult victim... Time and again, in arguing this issue with people, my assertion that a woman's attire does not matter has been met with an eye roll or a snort or an exhortation to admit that a woman dressed "a certain way" probably wants to get laid, as if I am being deliberately obtuse about what message is typically being sent by a short skirt and a low-cut blouse. Of course I'm not ignorant of these particular cultural cues. I am, however, intractably resistant to the notion that a woman who wants to get laid is giving explicit consent to anyone who wants to fuck her. I have this crazy notion that a woman has a choice about who gets access to her body, and that men have to respect it. Zany! It's reminiscent of the scene that all of us have seen played out in bars, clubs, in the office, on the sidewalk, and in countless films in which a provocatively dressed woman refuses the advances of a man who then angrily demands to know why she's dressed "like she wants it" if she doesn't. Naturally, she may very well want "it," but perhaps not from him. The idea appears to be that any man should do—a sentiment also built into the attitude that a provocatively dressed woman shouldn't expect to have the right to choose with whom she has sex.

That, by the way, for any ethically retarded judges who happen to be reading this post, doesn't apply to 10-year-olds. Children can't consent to sex, no matter how old they look. Fuckhead.

[H/T to Lauredhel.]

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Jumpin' for Jesus

If I've said it once, I've said it a million times: The best way to praise God after you've been hung from trees and beaten by your parents, lost five of your siblings on a boat trip across the Pacific, been attacked by pirates, sent to Boat People's Camp, and adopted into a good Christian home where all traces of your heathen "Oriental" heritage are erased, is to jump rope.

Finally someone has listened to me.

Via. Thanks for Angelos for passing it on.
Transcript of Teh Nice Lady's introduction of the Chapman Brothers:

"You know, boys and girls, sometimes we think that things that happen in this country don't happen all over the world, but because of sin, they do. There's a word that we all know about: It's called child abuse. Now, child abuse means that you discipline your child unfairly. You know, the word of god says if you spare the rod, you'll spoil the child. You should spank your children. Children should be spanked so that they learn to obey. But to beat them is abuse, and it's wrong.

"And these children, when they were in Vietnam, their parents hung them from their wrists from trees and beat them. And they were very much abused by their family.

"There were 17 children in all in this family, and they made it on a boat to America. Twelve of them made it. The pirates came on the boat, and all they had was some gold, and so one of the girls stuck the gold ring under her tongue, and the pirates didn't get it. And when they got to the West Coast, they were able to use the gold and cash it in and go to a place where a lot of these boat people live in Texas.

"And my friend had a vision, and she saw these Oriental children coming to her, and she went to the camp, and she found out they needed a home and needed to be taken in, and she took them into her Christian home and adopted them, and these boys now jump rope for the glory of god to Christian music.

"Watch now as you see the Chapman Brothers do their jump rope routine to We Will Give Him Glory."

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Flippity Floppity Floo

White House Drops Vice President’s Dual-Role Argument as Moot:

The White House has dropped the argument that Vice President Dick Cheney’s dual role as president of the Senate meant that he could deny access to national archivists who oversee the handling of classified data in the executive branch.

Mr. Cheney’s office had said that his dual role meant that he was technically not part of the executive branch.

In interviews over the last two days, officials have said that while the vice president does, in fact, have the right of refusal, it is for the very opposite reason: He is not required to cooperate with National Archives officials seeking the data because he is a member of the executive branch, with power vested in him by the president.

Guh? Somebody get me a neck brace for this whiplash—stat!

Honestly! I know the Democrats don't have the votes to impeach the Maestros of Mendacity, but at a certain point, the Dems are just going to look like feckless assholes if they don't at least make a symbolic move in that direction anyway. Not that anyone at Dem Headquarters is asking my opinion, but, were they, I'd tell them to just draw up the goddamned paperwork and scream into every TV camera within a thousand yards that the Congressional GOP can't possibly claim to retain any shred of credibility if they don't support getting rid of these goons.

But I digress. I still haven't given you the punchline:

The internal dispute [over Cheney's Constitutional role], however, continues and has been referred to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.

Boom.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

She Soars with Healing in Her Wings, as the Land Beneath Her Sings

U.S. bald eagle numbers making recovery: "The American bald eagle, a national symbol once almost wiped out by hunters and DDT poisoning, has not only survived but is thriving. The Interior Department will announce on Thursday it is removing the majestic bird from the protection of the Endangered Species Act, capping a four-decade struggle for recovery." Huzzah!

Reached for comment, The Colbert Report's Stephen Colbert said:



And former Attorney General John Ashcroft said:



Let the eagle soar!!! Like she's never soared before!!!

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Gonzo's Got Killer Instincts

Culture of life, my fat white ass:

Paul K. Charlton, one of nine U.S. attorneys fired last year, told members of Congress yesterday that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has been overzealous in ordering federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty, including in an Arizona murder case in which no body had been recovered.

Justice Department officials had branded Charlton, the former U.S. attorney in Phoenix, disloyal because he opposed the death penalty in that case. But Charlton testified yesterday that Gonzales has been so eager to expand the use of capital punishment that the attorney general has been inattentive to the quality of evidence in some cases -- or the views of the prosecutors most familiar with them.

In one case involving a slain drug supplier whose body was never recovered, Gonzales did not even give Charlton—described by James Comey as "very experienced…smart, very honest and able"—the opportunity to discuss his death penalty recommendations, but instead sent a letter, "simply directing him to seek the death penalty."

Unsurprisingly, overrulings of federal prosecutors' recommendations against using the death penalty have risen during the Bush administration, and, although the overrulings became more frequent under former AG John Ashcroft, they "spiked in 2006, when the number of times Gonzales ordered prosecutors to seek the death penalty against their advice jumped to 21, from three in 2005."

I say "unsurprisingly," because George Bush was the killinest governor in the country while he (ceremoniously) ruled Texas; his state executed 131 prisoners during the five years of his governance, of every last one of whose guilt he was certain: "I'm confident that every person that has been put to death in Texas under my watch has been guilty of the crime charged, and has had full access to the courts." This bold assertion, despite the Chicago Tribune having published a report on an investigation of those 131 death cases that uncovered some alarming information.

In one-third of those cases, the report showed, the lawyer who represented the death penalty defendant at trial or on appeal had been or was later disbarred or otherwise sanctioned. In 40 cases the lawyers presented no evidence at all or only one witness at the sentencing phase of the trial.

In 29 cases, the prosecution used testimony from a psychiatrist who -- based on a hypothetical question about the defendant's past -- predicted he would commit future violence. Most of those psychiatrists testified without having examined the defendant: a practice condemned professionally as unethical.

Other witnesses included one who was temporarily released from a psychiatric ward to testify, a pathologist who had admitted faking autopsies and a judge who had been reprimanded for lying about his credentials.

Asked about the Tribune study, Governor Bush said, "We've adequately answered innocence or guilt" in every case. The defendants, he said, "had full access to a fair trial."

There are two ways of understanding that comment. Either Governor Bush was contemptuous of the facts or, on a matter of life and death, he did not care.

Enter Gonzo. Back in Texas, it was his job on execution day to "give Bush a summary of the case. The summary was the last information standing between an inmate and lethal injection."

Gonzales provided 57 summaries to Bush. Gonzales intended for the memos to be confidential, but author Alan Berlow obtained them under Texas public information law.

Berlow found that Gonzales routinely provided scant summaries to Bush. The summaries, according to Berlow, ''repeatedly failed to apprise the governor of crucial issues in the cases at hand: ineffective counsel, conflict of interest, mitigating evidence, even actual evidence of innocence.''

In one case, a mentally retarded man who had been found guilty of murder was executed despite the jury having never been told he was retarded because his "lawyers failed to find mental health experts" as part of his defense. "In his summary to Bush about [Terry Washington], Gonzales played up the murder and almost entirely omitted the evidence that cried out of a miscarriage of justice. Washington's final 30-page petition for clemency was centered on the issues of ineffective counsel and retardation. On execution day, all that Gonzales presented Bush was a three-page memo in which the only mention of the petition was that it had been rejected by the state Board of Pardons and Paroles." In another case, David Wayne Stoker was executed despite a key state witness having recanted, another witness having perjured him/herself in exchange for reduced charges on his/her own crimes, law enforcement officials having perjured themselves about that deal, and testimony from two unethical medical witnesses, one of whom "had lost his license years before for felony falsifications of evidence." Again, Gonzo left out all of these relevant details speaking to a possible wrongful conviction in his "execution-day memo to Bush."

Again and again, Gonzo failed utterly to convey mitigating factors to Bush when people's lives were on the line. Bush sent them all to their deaths.

So, reading that federal prosecutors have been routinely ordered, under the national leadership of this deadly duo, to seek the death penalty in spite of their recommendations against it doesn’t surprise me in the least. Nor, sadly, does the fact that neither the national news media nor the Democrats could be bothered to make some well-deserved noise about this intimate little death cult of two back when Gonzo was being put through a pathetically gentle ringer on his ascent to top lawman in the land.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Welcome to the Hurricane Party

Hello to all the Shakers joining us from the slowly but determinedly resurrecting Shakesville! As the note says, we'll soon be back with more vim and vinegar than ever, but in the interim, we've been having a hurricane party over here in the archives while the storm passes.

To those just catching up, we were hit with a denial of service attack, and we're in the process of moving to a dedicated server, which will give us the tools to create a well-protected and truly safe space. Donations are always hugely appreciated. (PayPal and Amazon links are in the righthand sidebar.)

Many thanks to those who have stuck with us, supported us, and encouraged us. Shakers, you're the greatest.

Onward, always...

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

Laugh-In

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Scared Shitless

[Cripes. Phil beat me to it!]

At left is a Massachusetts Douchy, which is a cross-breed of the North American Douchehound and former governors of Massachusetts:

The white Chevy station wagon with the wood paneling was overstuffed with suitcases, supplies, and sons when Mitt Romney climbed behind the wheel to begin the annual 12-hour family trek from Boston to Ontario.

As with most ventures in his life, he had left little to chance, mapping out the route and planning each stop.

…Before beginning the drive, Mitt Romney put Seamus, the family's hulking Irish setter, in a dog carrier and attached it to the station wagon's roof rack. He'd built a windshield for the carrier, to make the ride more comfortable for the dog.

Then Romney put his boys on notice: He would be making predetermined stops for gas, and that was it.

As the oldest son, Tagg Romney commandeered the way-back of the wagon, keeping his eyes fixed out the rear window, where he glimpsed the first sign of trouble. ''Dad!'' he yelled. ''Gross!'' A brown liquid was dripping down the back window, payback from an Irish setter who'd been riding on the roof in the wind for hours.

As the rest of the boys joined in the howls of disgust, Romney coolly pulled off the highway and into a service station. There, he borrowed a hose, washed down Seamus and the car, then hopped back onto the highway. It was a tiny preview of a trait he would grow famous for in business: emotion-free crisis management.

That's some serious presidential material right there, boy. In fact, I'm pretty sure the "emotion-free crisis management" that had a dog shitting itself at 65mph is precisely the same kind of "emotion-free crisis management" that has our wounded veterans convalescing in abject squalor at Walter Reed. You know—the "emotion-free crisis management" that means you don't have to concern yourself with the details of life forms you consider to be beneath you, like dogs and soldiers. And, oh I dunno, brown people, gays, and women.

Related: Ana Marie Cox's commentary on this one (via Atrios) is priceless.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Not fit to be elected dogcatcher, apparently

Unanswered Question #1: After hosing the dog shit off the car - and, uh, the dog - did Mitt Romney strap the poor pooch back on top of the station wagon to finish the drive from from Boston to frigging Ontario?

Unanswered Question #2: Was Romney a dog-hating, control-minded sociopath, or just too cheap to buy or rent an RV? After all, he'd known "only privilege."

Unanswered Question #3: Anybody think he's changed much since 1983?

(Via Atrios, and cross-posted.)

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Arf: Because What's a Virtual Hurricane Party Without a Douchehound? That's What I Always Say.

The North American Douchehound



The British Douchehound



As you can see, the main difference between the two is that the British Douchehound's unique markings give it the appearance of wearing a hugely douchy Union Jack bandana.

[If you're totally lost, read this thread.]

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Oval Office, Cheney's Office Subpoenaed

Fuuuuuuuck:

The Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's office Wednesday for documents relating to President Bush's warrant-free eavesdropping program.

Also named in subpoenas signed by committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., were the Justice Department and the National Security Council.

The committee wants documents that might shed light on internal squabbles within the administration over the legality of the program, said a congressional official speaking on condition of anonymity because the subpoenas had not been made public.

Meanwhile, Cheney's lawyer blinks.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

No-Trace Cheney

One of Dick Cheney's legacies -- and there have been so many -- is that when he does something like end-runs the president on a tax cut or overrides the Endangered Species Act, he leaves no evidence that he had anything to do with it.

Sue Ellen Wooldridge, the 19th-ranking Interior Department official, arrived at her desk in Room 6140 a few months after Inauguration Day 2001. A phone message awaited her.

"This is Dick Cheney," said the man on her voice mail, Wooldridge recalled in an interview. "I understand you are the person handling this Klamath situation. Please call me at -- hmm, I guess I don't know my own number. I'm over at the White House."

Wooldridge wrote off the message as a prank. It was not. Cheney had reached far down the chain of command, on so unexpected a point of vice presidential concern, because he had spotted a political threat arriving on Wooldridge's desk.

In Oregon, a battleground state that the Bush-Cheney ticket had lost by less than half of 1 percent, drought-stricken farmers and ranchers were about to be cut off from the irrigation water that kept their cropland and pastures green. Federal biologists said the Endangered Species Act left the government no choice: The survival of two imperiled species of fish was at stake.

Law and science seemed to be on the side of the fish. Then the vice president stepped in.

First Cheney looked for a way around the law, aides said. Next he set in motion a process to challenge the science protecting the fish, according to a former Oregon congressman who lobbied for the farmers.

Because of Cheney's intervention, the government reversed itself and let the water flow in time to save the 2002 growing season, declaring that there was no threat to the fish. What followed was the largest fish kill the West had ever seen, with tens of thousands of salmon rotting on the banks of the Klamath River.

Characteristically, Cheney left no tracks.

The Klamath case is one of many in which the vice president took on a decisive role to undercut long-standing environmental regulations for the benefit of business.

The thing I don't get about this case is why does Mr. Cheney feel as if he has to be so secretive about it? It's common knowledge that he and the business community don't like environmental protection laws -- which is ironic, since they're supposed to be "conservatives" and the idea behind the laws is to "conserve" the land. If Mr. Cheney and his big-business friends can make a legitimate case as to why the irrigation should have gone ahead -- that the farmland was more important than the fish -- let them make the case. But all this sneaking around automatically makes you wonder if they know they're doing something that is underhanded.

It also makes you wonder why someone like Dick Cheney, who seems so enamored of secrecy and back-room dealings, would choose to make a career in public service? It can't be the money; he probably made more in a month at Halliburton than he does in a year as the Veep, so it has to be the power trip. No corporate executive, no matter how much money they make, can pick up the phone and overturn a federal law to his friends' benefit and kill off a lot of fish in the process. The very nature of government is -- or at the least it should be -- that it is open to public inspection and scrutiny. Certainly there are things that need to be kept secret in terms of national security, but our form of democracy thrives best when it's done out in the open and honest disagreements between positions can be discussed, debated, and dealt with. Mr. Cheney, however, is like Dracula; he can't stand to be out in the light for fear of disappearing in a puff of smoke.

Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Quote Of The Day

The Preznit on Tony Blair:

"I've heard he's been called Bush's poodle. He's bigger than that."

Based on the working assumption that we're dealing with a toy poodle, I thought a Samoyed would work since it's definitely bigger than a poodle. I especially like this bit of info on the breed from the Westminster Kennel Club site:

The Samoyed, a working dog, is happiest when he has a job, even if it is just bringing in the daily paper.

What other breeds (bigger than a poodle) do you think would be appropriate?

[H/T to ThinkProgress]

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Fat a Greater Threat than Drug Abuse, Smoking, or Alcohol

So say 40.4% of people 18-24, according to The Brogan Survey. Asked to rank obesity, smoking, drugs and alcohol in order of perceived "greatest threat to public health," most people overall (38%) put drug abuse first and obesity (30.8%) second. But among the youngsters, fat was ranked number one.

Even if you believe obesity is a major health crisis, the idea that it might be greater than smoking -- let alone drugs or alcohol -- is stunningly wrong, and the degree of that misperception should serve as evidence that the War on Fat is way the fuck out of control.

And I say this as a brutally addicted smoker. I love to smoke (or my brain thinks I love to smoke, anyway, which amounts to the same thing). I smoke, and I smoke a lot, even though I'm well aware of the devastating consequences -- my mother died of a heart attack at 64, largely attributable to being a lifelong smoker. That's the power of denial, right there.

But you know what? You don't see me writing a blog called Smoky Prose, advocating for "smokers' rights" or "tobacco acceptance." You don't see me arguing until I'm blue in the face that the health risks of smoking are overblown. You don't see me complaining that cigarettes are taxed so heavily, I literally spend as much as the payment on a pretty decent car to smoke every month. I like that cigarettes are obscenely expensive, because it means a lot of teenagers can't afford to start, and that's a thought that makes me ecstatic. Did you know that very few people start smoking after the age of 18, and virtually no one does after the age of 24? That's because, once you get past that window of being young and stupid enough to assume you're invincible, and you won't get addicted, there is no way a reasonable person can convince herself that smoking is anything but the WORLD'S DUMBEST FUCKING IDEA. (I started at 14 and was hooked on a pack a day at 17.) Unlike fat, smoking is both deadly and disgusting.

Smoking kills more than 400,000 Americans a year, and unlike the 300,000 obesity-related deaths statistic that has been debunked a zillion times, that's not bullshit.

The risks of second-hand smoke aren't complete bullshit, either. Smoking puts the people you love at risk, which is a horrible thought for a smoker -- but again, there's the power of denial. There is no such thing as second-hand fat.

Being fat does not put tumors on your lungs. Putting food in your mouth does not carry a risk of later having to have parts of your mouth removed. Being fat does not endanger the people around you. Being fat does not steal your breath. (Yes, being very fat can make breathing more difficult, but rarely portable-oxygen-tank difficult. And if you see a fat person with a portable oxygen tank, that person is probably an ex-smoker.) Contrary to popular opinion, being fat does not stop your heart.

Smoking fucking kills people -- and in slow, excruciating ways. But 40% of 18-24-year-olds surveyed think fat people are a greater public health risk.

Hey there, mainstream media? JOKE'S OVER. Young people believe inhaling poison causes fewer problems than being fat. THIS IS NOT OKAY. And it's your fucking fault for regurgitating press releases from Big Pharma and weight loss companies; for repeating "obesity kills" ad nauseam without citing any source; for utterly failing to fact-check what you publish about fat; for ignoring mountains of research demonstrating that fat is both far more benign and far less controllable than most people believe; for acting as if dangerously underweight, coke-addicted young women with eating disorders are the picture of "good health"; for quoting "obesity experts" whose only training is in PR, or whose funding comes directly from corporations with a tremendous financial interest in promoting weight loss; for reporting that the American Academy of Pediatricians admits there is no evidence that "childhood obesity interventions" work, then says we can't wait for evidence, and not batting a goddamned eye; for continuing to call any research that says obesity does not kill and may even be prophylactic against certain diseases a "paradox" instead of the plain truth scientists have known about for decades; for choosing, at every possible opportunity, to exploit the public's baseless fears instead of correcting them.

This is what you've wrought: a generation that believes fat is more dangerous than smoking. Nice fucking job.

(Cross-posted to Shapely Prose.)

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Actual Headline

Giuliani Slams Bill Clinton on Terrorism—Seriously? Is this guy for real? I mean, this is the guy who insisted on, over the objections of the feds, locating NYC's emergency management headquarters on the Twin Towers campus after it'd sustained an attack in 1993. What could he possibly have to say about Clinton's record on terrorism?!

"Islamic terrorists killed more than 500 Americans before Sept. 11. Many people think the first attack on America was on Sept. 11, 2001. It was not. It was in 1993," said the former New York mayor.

ZOMG. You've got to be kidding me.

Giuliani argued that Clinton treated the World Trade Center bombing as a criminal act instead of a terrorist attack, calling it "a big mistake" that emboldened other strikes on the Khobar Towers housing complex in Saudi Arabia, in Kenya and Tanzania and later on the USS Cole while docked in Yemen in 2000.

Unlike, say, the Double Dog Dare of sticking New York's fucking emergency management headquarters in the same fucking place. Wow.

And, by the way, his inelegant extrication of "criminal act" from "terrorist attack," as if the two are mutually exclusive, is indisputable evidence that he will prosecute "the war on terror" in the same tyrannical, lawless, incendiary manner as the current White House occupant, in case there was anyone left who hadn't yet clacked onto the jackbooted thuggery underlying Giuliani's pretensions of martial dictatorship.

Meanwhile: Steve M. points out that Rudy just handed the Dems a lovely gift.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Elizabeth Edwards Smacks Down Ann Coulter

[Note: If you can't talk about this without referring to Ann Coulter as a tranny or otherwise making fun of her appearance, don't comment at all. 1. This is a safe space, and maligning Coulter by calling her a tranny is to suggest there's something inherently wrong with being transgendered/transsexual. That is not an assertion that is welcome in Shakesville. 2. The very issue that Edwards is talking about is hate speech. Two things discussed in the segment are Coulter calling John Edwards a "faggot" and referring to Hillary Clinton's "chubby legs." If you call Coulter a tranny or make fun of her appearance, how are you any better than she is? Just a friendly but firm reminder, as this has already come up in comments discussing this story.]

Go get her, Elizabeth.



Think Progress has the transcript. More at TPM Cafe.
Coulter really is a soulless beast, that she can sit there and say to the mother of the dead child, with regard to whom she once wrote that John Edwards drives around with a bumper sticker reading "Ask me about my son’s death in a horrific car accident," with a flippancy typically reserved for spoiled teens still certain of their invincibility, "This is now three years ago." Yeah, what a humorless feminazi Elizabeth Edwards is that she can't, after three long years, find the awesome humor in a joke about her dead son.

The game that Coulter is playing is completely typical of the defenders of hate speech, as well (and that goes for defenders of hate speech on either side of the aisle). Any suggestion that hate speech masks real issues that need our attention, or that there's nothing gained by being deliberately hurtful to individuals or whole groups forged by shared identity, is translated into "Censorship!" Coulter immediately takes Edwards' request that she not utilize hate speech and turns it into "The wife of a presidential candidate is asking me to stop speaking." Pathetic.

And, by the way, I'd like to point out to the vapors-getting, pearl-clutching, fainting couch-residing arbiters of civil discourse who haunt TIME's Swampland and the opinion pages of various black-and-white-and-read-all-overs that Ann Coulter never once used "the f-word" during her tirade against John Edwards' career as an attorney representing people like a little girl who had her insides ripped out by a defective pool drain. So huzzah for civil discourse!

Dipshits.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Question of the Day

Because Kona's head will explode without one...

To what song/artist do you listen most frequently when you're feeling happy? When you're feeling sad?

Mine, naturally, is the same in both cases. Mozza. Always Mozza.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Mr. Romney Deferred

From the Boston Globe:

As the Vietnam War raged in the 1960s, Mitt Romney received a deferment from the draft as a Mormon "minister of religion" for the duration of his missionary work in France, which lasted two and a half years.

Before and after his missionary deferment, Romney also received nearly three years of deferments for his academic studies. When his deferments ended and he became eligible for military service in 1970, he drew a high number in the annual lottery that determined which young men were drafted. His high number ensured he was not drafted into the military.

The deferments for Mormon missionaries became increasingly controversial in the late 1960s, especially in Utah, leading the Mormon Church and the government to limit the number of church missionaries who could put off their military service. That agreement called for each church ward, or church district, to designate one male every six months to be exempted from potential duty for the duration of his missionary work.

Romney's home state was Michigan, making his 4-D exemption as a missionary all but automatic because of the relatively small number of Mormon missionaries from that state. It might have been more difficult in Utah, where the huge Mormon population meant that there were sometimes more missionaries than available exemptions. Most missions lasted two and a half years, as Romney's did.

[...]

Romney, who has said he would have served if he had been drafted, shed some light on his view of the matter in a recent interview with the Globe.

"I really don’t recall thinking about political positions when I was knocking at the door in France" as a missionary, Romney said. "I was supportive of my country. I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam."

I don't have a problem with a church stepping in to exempt one -- or any -- of their members from serving in the military. In fact, the Religious Society of Friends -- the Quakers -- worked very hard on my behalf to keep me from being drafted. The difference, however, is that I applied as a Conscientious Objector and I told my draft board in no uncertain terms that I wasn't going to serve in the military. Period.

Mr. Romney and his church, however, decided to go another route. They made him a "minister of religion." That's fine; my understanding is that in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, every man is a minister. The other difference is that while the Quakers have a record of being against military service going back to their founding in the 17th century, the Mormons have been staunch supporters of the military. Many of our finest soldiers have been Mormons and I honor their service to the country as I would honor anyone who feels the call to serve in uniform. I may believe that war is not the answer to human conflict, but it is neither my place nor my duty to judge those who do.

What I do find disturbing is a lack of candor on the part of Mr. Romney. If he didn't want to serve, he could have made it clear to both his church and his draft board. But if he truly "longed...to be in Vietnam," one phone call would have taken care of that tout de suite, as the French say. Certainly the son of the governor of Michigan would have been able to have his voice heard, and if he felt that his missionary duties -- an important part in the Mormon life -- were more important than making himself available to the draft, I'm sure the people on both his draft board and in the state of Michigan -- especially the able-bodied men of draft age -- would have given him a fair hearing. I am sure the treatment he would have received either as a soldier or a missionary would have been legitimate and had nothing whatsoever to do with Mr. Romney's name or family. So why not just say so? They would have found a place on the troopship for him.

Besides, it was almost 40 years ago; no one cares about what one well-connected scion of a political family did or didn't do to fulfill his military obligation back then. I'm sure Mr. Romney has as reasonable and logical explanation for this, just as he has had for every other controversial issue that has come up in his campaign: his stand on gay marriage and gay rights, his views on reproductive choice, his life-long membership in the NRA, even one of his aide's propensity for impersonating a security officer to ban a reporter from a town meeting. I am sure that he has a very good answer, especially for the men and the families who served in his place.

And donkeys fly.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

fight Teh Gay with a Sharpie!

Well, that's what the superindendent of East Side High is doing. Student Andre Jackson paid for a full page for himself in the yearbook and included a picture of himself and his boyfriend smooching. The concern troll of a superintendent decided to bring out the Sharpie brigade (emphasis mine):

A photograph of an East Side High School student kissing his boyfriend was blacked out of every copy of the school's yearbook by Newark school officials who decided it was inappropriate.

[...]

But Newark Superintendent of Schools Marion Bolden called the photograph "illicit" and ordered it blacked out of the $85 yearbook before it was distributed to students at a banquet for graduating seniors Thursday.

"It looked provocative," she said. "If it was either heterosexual or gay, it should have been blacked out. It's how they posed for the picture."

Well, let's take a look-see at the picture, shall we?



"Illicit"? "Provocative"? Hmmm. Uh, that would be a NO.

So anyway, all these kids paid $85 (at least--more if they wanted their own space/page like Andre) and this is what they got:

Ripping the page out entirely was considered but, Bolden said, it was decided blacking it out with a marker would lessen the damage to the yearbooks.

[...]

While the students waited, staff members in another room blacked out the 4½-by-5-inch picture from approximately 230 books.

In case you're wondering, yes, pictures of hetero couples kissing are in the yearbook. Of course.

Also, one reason given for this crapfest was "the picture would be controversial and upsetting to parents". You know what? Those parents should have been told to kiss your ass. Well, perhaps a bit more politely in telling them about REALITY:

"Our students paid for their books and their personal pages. Also, our students DO live many different lives. I'm sorry you're upset and if the picture truly offends you, censor it from your OWN copy yourself."

But, no, you see. That would make sense and not require defacing all of the students' yearbooks that they paid $85 for. That also included pictures of hetero couples kissing.

The school should refund Andre his $150 for his page and the $85 for all the books they vandalized because they're utter jackasses and completely in the wrong.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Fun With Ethnocentrism!

Ah, the tricky problem of dealing with many languages… no wonder the Republicans want an “English Only” ballot:

Candidates Names are Tough in Chinese

Mitt Romney's been called many things as he runs for president, but chances are "Sticky Rice" isn't one of them.

That's how his name might be read on some ballots, according to state Secretary William Galvin.

Galvin says the federal Justice Department is pressuring Boston election officials to translate candidates' names into Chinese characters in precincts with prominent Chinese-speaking populations.

But there's more than a little lost in translation, according to Galvin.

Since there's no Chinese character for "Romney," translators have resorted to finding characters that most closely match the sound of each syllable in the name.

Do you think that Mitt Romney has any idea that “Sticky Rice” is slang for gay Asian males that are attracted to other Asian males?

You know, I bet he doesn’t.

Anyway, he got off easier than this guy:

But perhaps the most perplexing translation would be for Boston Mayor Thomas Menino's name, which could be read as "Sun Moon Rainbow Farmer" or "Imbecile," or "Barbarian Mud No Mind of His Own."

Can we just use the Chinese characters for “Imbecile” for all of the Republican candidates? I mean, it’s not like we have to differentiate between them; they’re all Bush Lite. Think of all the money we could save on ballots! Sounds like a sound conservative solution to me.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!