RYAN

Ryan Larkin (1943 – 2007) was a Canadian animator, artist, and sculptor who rose to fame with the psychedelic 1969 Oscar-nominated short Walking and the acclaimed Street Musique (1972). He was the subject of this Oscar-winning film, Ryan.

At the National Film Board of Canada (NFB), Ryan learned animation techniques from the ground-breaking and award-winning animator, Norman McLaren.

In recent years, Ryan was plagued by a downward spiral of drug abuse, alcoholism and homelessness, but found himself back in the limelight when a 14-minute computer-animated documentary on his life, Ryan by fellow Canadian animator Chris Landreth. Ryan died of lung cancer in 2007.

STOP SADISTIC AND SEXIST CYBER-BULLYING … NOW!

Internet predators and trolls are known to have a callous disregard for fellow human beings. They troll for sport, amusement, and narcissistic gratification. They use these forums as billboards for graffiti, name-calling, off-topic rants, taunts, and the cyberspace equivalent of road rage. Some predators sink to the level of sadism.

One of our beloved writers, Shaw Kenawe of Progressive Eruptions, has just been diagnosed with cancer. This is her second bout in as many years. She survived a previous bout … without health insurance.

Not merely this recurrence, Shaw has suffered other setbacks as well. Earlier this year, her sister passed away. She worries about another family member who is gravely ill. All told, this has been a very tough year for Shaw.

Understandably, she supports healthcare reform among other liberal causes … sentiments that have turned her into a magnet for attacks by right wing predators. Not just any attack, but low, vile, cowardly, sexist attacks such as this from a blogger who calls himself bluepitbull:

Friday, October 2, 2009
Progressive Eruptions, the reality

I've finally figured it out. I thought there was much more to Progressive Eruptions. Perhaps hallucinogens and Pink floyd. But here it is:

Progressive Eruptions is one natural, eternal orgasm for Shaw Kenawe dedicated to obama. Her obsession with him and her apologies are indicative of this …

She would be all over Barney Frank (she loves the accent), but I think she still has enough of an attachment to the real world to know that she is not his type.

Posted by bluepitbull at 3:25 PM

Whether or not bluepitbull knows about her travails is quite beside the point. Any would-be cyber-bully or troll would be wiser to think before they flame. Bloggers are not nameless, faceless objects for shameless stereotyping, but caring people who live, work, pay taxes, contribute to the common good, and suffer the same problems of living as the rest of humanity … regardless of party, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.

Bluepitbull is not merely a predator, but a serial predator. He has subjected Shaw to a pervasive pattern of harassment here, here, and here. How low can a he go!

So bluepitbull, unmanly coward that you are, the time is long overdue to clean up your act, apologize to Shaw, and stop the sadistic and sexist cyber-bullying … NOW!

And please, everyone who visits, leave a kind word of support for Shaw and best wishes for her recovery.

AND NOW THE GOOD FROM POLAND!

While a rather bad Pole is hogging all the headlines, I want to take a moment to draw attention to a good man of Poland who is much more worthy of some media attention.

Marek Edelman, 23 years old at the time, was the last surviving leader of the ill-fated 1943 uprising in the Warsaw ghetto against the Nazis. It would be the first civilian armed resistance against the Nazis and while they were ultimately defeated, the resistance fighters were able to inflict heavy losses on Hitler’s army. Most of the leaders of the revolt were rounded up and committed suicide rather than wait for whatever the soldiers had in store for them.

Edelman with a small group of other fighters managed to use the sewer system to get to the other side of the city and then organized resistance units while hiding from the Germans. He spent the war years being quite the thorn in Hitler’s side.

Edelman became a cardiologist after the war and his wife became a pediatrician. She took their son and immigrated to France following the communist backed anti-Semitic purges of 1968. But Edelman himself refused to leave his homeland preferring to stay and continue the fight for freedom for Poland.

Edelman spent his life fighting for human dignity and freedom and against communism and I’m glad he lived long enough to see Poland regain its sovereignty. He died Friday at his home from natural causes; he was 90 years old.

“Man is evil, by nature man is a beast," he said. Therefore people "have to be educated from childhood, from kindergarten, that there should be no hatred."

Can you imagine this statement coming from a man who had suffered so much? He understood that sometimes you have to fight, but the goal should always peace.

Dobranoc, Pan Edelman, may you live in memory forever. A true Mensch.

"Sex," Fame, and Polish (but not only) Hypocrisy

I try to stay away from celebrities and tawdriness as much as possible, mainly because of my pretentious and uppity elitism, but also, to a lesser extent, because the affairs of celebrities are supremely boring.

This case, however, is irresistible for its strange twists and turns, as well as a whiff of both Polishness and uppity elitism with its abominable hypocrisy. I'm talking of course about the saga of Polish director Roman Polanski, who was finally arrested in Switzerland on Saturday and faces extradition to USA. Or maybe not, as his lawyer vows to fight it.

For those who live underwater and away from mass media, a brief recap of Polanski's situation: in 1977 he drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl, and was able to plead guilty to a lesser charge of unlawful sexual intercourse. Afterward, the judge in his case, one Laurence Rittenband, allegedly reneged on his plea deal, which scared Polanski enough to flee to the welcoming bosom of Mother Europe. Polanski was on the run from justice for over 30 years. For more background on Polanski's case, see this.

What's surprising, among many surprises here, is that he periodically lived in Switzerland, undisturbed by authorities, so questions are being raised about the timing of his arrest. Some clear-eyed observers even suggested that this is a gesture of good will on the part of the Swiss, intended to placate Americans angry about Switzerland giving financial shelter to our domestic financial terrorists whiz kids. A strange coincidence no.1: Polanski's arrest came two days after the death of Susan Atkins, who murdered his second wife, Sharon Tate, during a Manson-led and inspired drunken orgy in 1969. A strange coincidence no.2: one day before Polanski's arrest, Poland adopted a new tough law requiring castration for pedophiles (more about it later).

Polanski's arrest has ignited an international debate again, and many law experts and film buffs have weighed in with sympathetic opinions, hoping his case will be dismissed. Among those pleading for leniency is his victim, now 45-year-old Samantha Geimer (previously Gailey), who settled with Polanski, years after her rape, for somewhere around a quarter of a million dollars for "emotional distress." Geimer has asked numerous times for the case against Polanski to be dropped, saying that dredging it up causes her undue stress and pain.

But Polanski never really admitted to his crime, claiming both that the victim lied to him about her age and that the "sex" was consensual. Of course he never expressed any remorse. In fact, he has absolved himself of responsibility, as seen in the footage of the documentary about him, where he says, defiantly, I like young women, let me put it this way. I think most of men do.

Maybe. But a 13-year-old girl is not a woman, not psychologically, and certainly not legally. Polanski knew this very well when he drugged and raped Samantha. He was 44 at the time and very much attracted to young teenage girls. This is what Samantha looked like as a teen (left).

As to consensual, a 44-year-old man who drugs a 13-year-old (or anyone, for that matter) and forces himself on her, while she is crying and protesting, can hardly make this claim. See this for a transcript of Samantha's testimony in court.

It is not unreasonable to suspect that Gailey was not the only child who fell victim to Polanski's forbidden urges. Pedophiles are not reformable, and are known to be repeat offenders. Not long after his escape to Europe, Polanski was photographed parading around in company of very young, likely underage, females.

Another twisted aside: Polanski's wife, French actress Emmanuele Seigner, is younger than his victim. Seigner (below right, with Polanski in Paris, 2007) was an adult of the ripe age of 23 when they married. Polanski was 56. They have two children together, a son and a daughter.

The documentary I mention above, Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, directed by Marina Zenovich, paints an extremely sympathetic portrait of Polanski as a victim of miscarried justice. While Zenovich seemingly acknowledges the awfulness of his crime, she is clearly in awe of Polanski's talent and less than objective in her assessment. She calls him misunderstood and endlessly fascinating.

As Bill Wyman of Salon.com writes, In "Wanted and Desired," Zenovich casts Polanski, whose face repeatedly fills the screen with a Byronic luminosity, as a tragic figure, a child survivor of the Holocaust haunted by the murder of his wife, the actress Sharon Tate, at the hands of the Manson family. His friends are uniformly supportive: "This is somebody who could not be a rapist!" one exclaims.

When interviewed about the movie, Zenovich made this strange statement: If it was a violent rape I wouldn't have made this film. She added that it was a tragedy for all involved. It's not for me to judge.

I am dumbfounded. So, say, if knives, ropes, and swinging fists were used, it would have been a reprehensible rape for Ms. Zenovich, enough so that she would not make an apologetic movie about the perp. But since it was only alcohol and drugs, it was acceptable enough? Besides, how was it a tragedy for all involved? And how is it not for her to judge? She is deluding herself if she thinks that she is not offering a judgment by showing such a one-sided portrayal of the story. This is as an advanced and incurable case of celebritis as I have seen.

But of course Zenovich is not alone in putting lipstick on this particularly ugly pig. During a discussion about the case on The View, Whoopi Goldberg said this:

I know it wasn't rape-rape. I think it was something else, but I don't think it was rape-rape.

Boy, I tell ya... And people wonder why Janes and Joes Schmoes don't trust and don't like the Hollywood types. The gulf between the librul, rotten-to-the-core Hollywood and non-nonsense Main Street has just widened with the Polanski's case, probably to unbridgeable proportions.

To put things in perspective for Ms. Zenovich, Ms. Goldberg, and other celebrity-stricken Polanski's defenders, let's recall what the man did exactly:

(...) Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her… Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let’s take a moment to recall that according to the victim’s grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, “No,” then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.

I dunno, to me it sounds and looks like rape-rape.

The bizarre, if not downright psychopathic, reaction of the political and artistic elites to Polanski's arrest continues. The French are up in arms:

French foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner (co-founder of Doctors without Borders, EM) and Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand both sharply criticised US and Swiss authorities over the arrest, which came as the Franco-Polish director arrived in Zurich to receive an award.(...) Mr Mitterrand said on Sunday that Polanski, director of Rosemary's Baby and an Oscar winner for The Pianist, had been "thrown to the lions over an ancient affair that doesn't make any sense." To jail him, he added, was "absolutely dreadful." Mr Kouchner said: "This affair is frankly a bit sinister ... Here is a man of such talent, recognised worldwide, recognised especially in the country where he was arrested. This is not nice at all."

Huh? I'm as uppity an elitist as they come, so I can tell you what's absolutely dreadful, sinister, and not nice at all: drugging and raping kids (or anyone, for that matter), and not feeling any remorse for it, that's what.

But of course the French (who may have other motives for defending Polanski) are not alone. The film community (which has been silent about many pressing issues facing our nation), has spoken loudly and clearly on behalf of the pedophile and law-evading fugitive.

As Reuters reports, the Zurich Film Festival jury accused Switzerland of "philistine collusion" with U.S. authorities and wore red badges reading "Free Polanski," and Debra Winger, president of the Festival, which was to give Polanski an honorary award, said the following: We hope today this latest order will be dropped. It is based on a three-decade-old case that is all but dead but for minor technicalities.

Whoa. One would think Polanski is some human rights advocate, imprisoned for standing up for the voiceless and dispossessed. A Gandhi, almost. So let's just remind ourselves, again, before we start shedding tears here, that he is an unrepentant pedophile, who drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl and then ran from justice.

Joining Polanski's apologists are other Hollywood (and not only) big names, who have prepared a petition demanding his release. The petition is signed, so far, by 138 celebrities and industry people, including Woody Allen (now there is a surprise), Harvey Weinstein, Pedro Almodovar, Martin Scorsese, Monica Bellucci, Tilda Swinton, David Lynch, Jonathan Demme, John Landis, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, Wim Wender, Salman Rushdie, Bernard-Henri Levy, Milan Kundera, Isabelle Huppert, Diane von Furstenberg, and is backed by France's Societe des Auteurs et Compositeurs Dramatiques (Society of Dramatic Authors and Composers). It states, in part:

"It seems inadmissible (...) that an international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers, is used by the police to apprehend him. (...) The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance ... opens the way for actions of which no one can know the effects."

Sigh. Actions of which no one can know the effects? Folks, the guy drugged and raped a 13-year-old and then fled the country to avoid prison. He should be held responsible for his crime, period. What mysterious effects do you have in mind? Unless by this you mean that predators and criminals cannot hide in supposedly neutral places and evade the law forever. But that should be no mystery to you or anyone, I hope.

Meanwhile, Harvey Weinstein is trying to recruit more supporters for Polanski. As his company told CNN, We are calling every filmmaker we can to help fix this terrible situation.

Again, and I know I repeat myself and bore you to death, the only terrible situation here is that an admitted and unrepentant pedophile has been on the run for over 30 years, enjoying freedom, fame and wealth, and abusing who knows how many other victims. Was Mr. Weinstein trying to fix that in the past 30 years? No, I didn't think so.

One of the many bizarre twists of this case is the fact that Mia Farrow, who starred in Polanski's Rosemary's Baby, and years later accused her own long-time boyfriend, Woody Allen, of sexually abusing their adopted children, has consistently defended Polanski in the media.

But wait, there is more.

Joan Shore, co-founder of Women Overseas for Equality(!) and a Polanski fan, wrote a blog post for HuffPo titled, Polanski's Arrest: Shame on the Swiss -- read it, it's a full-blown apologia for the perp and a classic example of blaming the victim.

Another HuffPo blogger, writer and film critic John Farr wrote a post titled, Leniency for Polanski. In it, he argues, unbelievably, but predictably, that Polanski should be forgiven because 1. he is a genius, 2. he's suffered so much in his life, 3. his victim wants him released; 4. he's paid for his crime (no explanation how), and 5. he is reformed (i.e., is married and with no other accusations of abuse -- as if that ever mattered in cases of pedophiles). Oh, and 6. it was a long time ago.

Under the onslaught of critical comments from HuffPo's readers, Farr has revised some of his most egregious statements already, including one about "seduction" that supposedly took place on that fateful day in 1977.

Perhaps the most mind-boggling, to me, reactions to Polanski's arrest have come from the Polish political and artistic circles. Polish politicians have spoken on Polanski's behalf:

Poland and France intend to make a joint appeal to Switzerland and the United States to have Polanski released from his detention, Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski told the Polish news agency PAP. Sikorski said he and French counterpart Bernard Kouchner also plan to ask Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to offer Polanski clemency.

A semi-relevant aside: Radek Sikorski is a Polish neocon, who worked, for years, for American Enterprise Institute and The National Review. He is married to American journalist, Anne Applebaum, who penned an impassioned piece in defense of Polanski for The Washington Post. It is relevant to mention it since neocons tend to be socially conservative and one would expect them to condemn a child rape and its perpetrator. One would be wrong.

Among Polish luminaries speaking out in Polanski's defense is film director Krzysztof Zanussi, who called Polanski's rape victim a "young prostitute," and Polanski, a victim of a sinister plot concocted by the "prostitute" and her mother to extort money from him. In a Polish TV talk show, Zanussi said the following (translation mine):

Zanussi: If (Polanski) were not so famous, the fact that over thirty years ago in Los Angeles, which is a city of particularly loose morals, he used services of some underage prostitute, because that's what it likely was...

Interrupted by a female journalist, Monika Olejnik: No, no. This was a 13-year-old girl, she was not a prostitute. It was not for money, so it was not prostitution.

Zanussi: In this world, there are many things that are done not for money but for fame, for career. (...) I know (Polanski) as a man who escaped the ghetto, who is tragic and has those "dark chapters" in his life. I think if he were not famous, this matter would not have had any traction today. (...) I don't believe in the victim's innocence. She does not appear to have been there by accident. In this circle of people, who would do anything for career and money, it seems that the intent of the mother, who was involved in it, was an attempt at blackmailing Polanski. At taking anything from him that he could give. And he did not give it, and that was his mistake. He could have paid them off and he didn't. Maybe he was too proud for it, too Polish.

Holy crap... First of all, there isn't anything "Polish" about this behavior, I just have to say this. At least I hope there isn't -- because if that's Polish, then Poles are screwed (no pun whatsoever).
(Another aside: I can tell you from personal experience of having grown up in Poland that there is -- or was, back in my day -- a pedophile on every street corner. And those who do not operate on street corners can be found in doctors' offices, schools, churches, and in any other place frequented by young people. Yes, I'm talking about the abusers in position of authority, who remain as untouchable as their victims stay nameless, bearing silent scars for a long time, if not forever.)

Second, it is painfully obvious that Zanussi, who, btw, is one of the most renowned and respected Polish film directors, has no clue about details of the Polanski's case (at least I hope so, because if he does know the details and still says these things, it makes matters worse). That does not stop him from offering his unequivocal defense of his friend and smearing the reputation of his child-victim. That's not Polish, any of it.

But then one wouldn't know it perusing Polish media. For Zanussi is not alone in his ignorant and harmful defense of the famous pedophile. A well-known Polish actress, Dorota Stalinska, said this (translation mine):

First of all, it was not rape, but consensual sex with an underage girl. We know that a 13-year-old girl may look 20. I have a 20-year-old son. He could tell you how 13-year-old girls behave and how they provoke and jump into beds not only of 20-year-olds, but of 40-year-olds. 13-year-old girls seduce grown men. It's the same in Poland and everywhere else. Zanussi is right.

And then there is Lech Wałęsa -- you may remember him as the founder of Solidarity, the first president of post-socialist Poland, and the Nobel Peace Prize winner. Wałęsa too defends Polanski:

(Polanski) is a great person, he's done so much for Poland and the world. He also could have sinned. Make sure he really did sin. If he did, you can forgive him this one. I will do everything I can to defend him. (...) I am his friend.

How Christian, to forgive the sinner and forget the victim. Ugh.

This is disheartening. I can see that not much has changed in Poland in matters of sexual abuse and treatment of the victims. In these respects, Polish social mores, if not the law, are still in the Middle Ages.

This quote, however, really takes my cake:

Polanski has already "atoned for the sins of his young years," Jacek Bromski, head of the Polish Filmmakers Association, told The AP. "He has paid for it by not being able to enter the U.S. and in his professional life he has paid for it by not being able to make films in Hollywood."

Um... You're kidding, right? Not being able to make films in Hollywood is the heart-breaking punishment for child rape and 30+ years of evading justice?

But, wait, it gets stranger yet.

The day before Polanski's arrest, Poland approved a law making chemical castration mandatory for pedophiles in some cases, sparking criticism from human rights groups. Under the law, sponsored by Poland's center-right government, pedophiles convicted of raping children under the age of 15 years or a close relative would have to undergo chemical therapy on their release from prison.

"The purpose of this action is to improve the mental health of the convict, to lower his libido and thereby to reduce the risk of another crime being committed by the same person," the government said in a statement.

Prime Minister Donald Tusk said late last year he wanted obligatory castration for pedophiles, whom he branded 'degenerates'. Tusk said he did not believe "one can use the term 'human' for such individuals, such creatures.Therefore I don't think protection of human rights should refer to these kind of events.".

So there we have it, a curious -- or not -- double standard. Pedophiles are considered degenerates in Poland now, undeserving of human rights. Except when they are famous filmmakers with powerful friends, that is.

An inescapable lesson from Polanski's saga so far: if you are going to rape a child, don't be a plumber or auto mechanic; be famous and rich. Then justice will be slow and lenient for you, and people will forgive your crime. Nah, they'll be clamoring to speak out in your defense.

P.S. In yet another strange twist to this already twisted story, one of the defense witnesses in Polanski's case, interviewed by Zenovich for her documentary, recanted his statement regarding Judge Rittenband.

Cross-posted at The Middle of Nowhere.

THE GRAND INSURRECTION PARTY AND THE POLITICS OF TREASON

When does political hyperbole rise to the level of treason? That is my question for today.

First, it started with the Birthers, those who sought to undermine the legitimacy of a newly elected President with fabricated conspiracy theories about the authenticity of his birth certificate and the legality of his presidency.

Next came the Tea Baggers, followed by the town hall hooligans, followed by gun-toting thugs at presidential rallies, followed by GOP Congressman Joe Wilson’s outburst of “Liar!” before a special session of Congress, followed by GOP Congresswomen Michelle Bachmann calling for armed resistance against Obama’s legislative agenda, followed by GOP Congressman Trent Franks threatening a Birther lawsuit against Obama and calling him an “enemy of humanity,” followed by GOP Governor Rick Perry calling for Texas to secede from the union, followed by Newsmax columnist John Perry dreaming of a military coup against President Obama, followed by a FaceBook poll asking: “Should Obama be killed?” Get the picture! A daily diet of demonization and vituperation.

For months, we have heard the repeating rhythms of Obama the Communist, Obama the Socialist, Obama the Islamofascist, Obama the Jihadist … and the steady and relentless drumbeats of a GOP run amuck driving us towards civil disorder and insurrection.

There was a time when the party out of power was termed the Loyal Opposition. We called them “loyal” because there was always a tacit assumption that the losing party would accept the results of a fair and decisive election, would always accede to the will of the people, would recognize traditional standards of civility and protocol, and always play by the rules. No longer.

The party out of power has devolved from the Loyal Opposition Party to the "Grand Obstructionist Party" to the "Oppositional-Defiant Party,” and now the “Grand Insurrection Party.” The time-honored art of political compromise and consensus is dead. The GOP has opted out of participatory democracy.

Samuel Johnson once said: “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” Your humble Octopus disagrees. The U.S. Constitution affords plenty of mud-wiggle room for scoundrels. If patriotism is the first refuge, the First Amendment is the next, where cowards assert their bigotry and stupidity by saying anything they want under Constitutional protection, or so they think. The Second Amendment offers yet another refuge: When reason and civil discourse fail, the malcontents and misfits of the GOP invoke this Amendment to incite others to violence by proxy, or so they think. The fear-mongering, hate-mongering scoundrels of the GOP overlook a fundamental point.

We have the same rights. We won the last two elections. We have a mandate to reverse the failed policies of the GOP whether they like it or not. With each passing day, the GOP has pushed political discourse beyond the fringes of civilization, and the time is long overdue to hold them accountable before more people get killed. I will defend my politics, my principles, and my person with words as I must and with arms (all 8 of them) if necessary. Octopus hath spoken.

The Coulter Lesson

For years we leftward leaning folk have been lining the pockets of Ann Coulter. Yes we have. Let's not make the same mistake again by lining Sarah Palin's pockets as well.

AC is a mouthpiece. She holds no political office. Her only power (and source of wealth) is her mouth and the people who hire her to speak with it. Currently this is also true of the GOVERNOR WHO QUIT. She is also nothing but a hired mouthpiece with little to say of worth.

AC has made a bloody fortune by writing books about liberals who attack her. Yeah - it can pretty much be watered down to those simple terms. She self-righteously whines about how we whine about how mean she is. She scoffs. She mocks. We get mad. We yell & call her names. She gets asked back on talk shows to talk about the LOUD liberals complaining about her, she mocks, she smirks ad infinitum.

We leftward leaning folk VALIDATE her every time we mention her name. Every time we buy one of her books to rip her to shreds. Every time we even mention her books. She has the last LUCRATIVE laugh ripping us to shreds in turn in her next book! She loves us! We are fodder for her greedy egocentric appetite. If we would just IGNORE her she just might no longer be all that controversial. It takes two sides to spin a controversy and we continually play into her game like suckers.

S. Palin is on course do just the same thing. The title of her forthcoming book says it all - I refuse to actually name it - it deserves no such validation from me. You can bet that her publisher is COUNTING on we hotheads on the left EMBOLDENING SP to her followers by attacking her book. Just like AC. And an emboldened martyr sells books and speeches to her MANY faithful followers.

Let's not make her a martyr like AC - which is precisely what AC has always counted her riches on - our allowing her to play victim by our attacking of her.

So let's just pretend that SP hasn't written a book. OK? Let's be mute on the subject. Entirely. Let's refuse to be suckers this time. She's spoiling for a fight but who says we have to play? Sure some of her followers will buy it. And they'll try to needle us with what she says in it, they'll try to provoke a heated response. So let's NOT give it to them. Let's make SP sell her book (and her speaking engagements) on the merits (?!) of what it/she says and NOT on the merits of its author's self-manufactured martyrdom.

Democratic Hall of Shame

Two amendments proposing a public option were shot down in the Senate Finance Committee today: the first amendment was crafted by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and rejected in a 15-8 vote (five Democrats joined all the Republicans), and the second one, by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), was killed by a vote of 13-10, with three Democrats joining the Republicans.

Here they are, the Infamous Five (really GOPers in sheep's clothing):

Sen. Max Bupkus Baucus (D-Mont.):



Sens. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.):


Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.):


Sen. Kent Clueless Conrad (D-N.D.):



and Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.):


As HuffPo reports, there were predictable eruptions of idiocy during SFC's deliberations:

Republican senators argued that the public option would bankrupt the country and lead to a single-payer system.* "Government is not a competitor. Government is a predator," said Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa).

Yet the GOP also defended Medicare, which Democrats took pains to point out was a government-run plan.

Sen. Rockefeller is not daunted by today's defeat. As he told HuffPo, "The public option is on the march," a view echoed by Robert Reich in his recent blog post.

So let's do our civic duty and deluge our representatives' offices, again, with e-mails, phone calls and faxes, to make sure that PO stays alive and we won't have to resort to a single prayer option for our health care needs.

*And it's a bad thing...?

Cross-posted at The Middle of Nowhere.

Best Blogger

In case anyone hasn't heard, GottaLaff at The Political Carnival has been recognized on CNN for breaking news about a Facebook poll, said polls being on the question of whether the nation's first black president should be assassinated. That's why I'm giving her a Best Blogger nod. She's done a lot to mainstream the progressive 'sphere.

Granted that the subject matter is all kinds of awful. If you read this post yesterday, then you know how angry the poll makes me.

But have you looked at the poll? The options are...well...read for yourself:

A) Yes

B) Maybe

C) If he cuts my health care

D) No

The only correct answer, of course, is E) WHY THE FRAKKING HADES WOULD YOU ASK ME THAT?! But I digress.

D is all the way at the end, making it the least-likely random choice. Anyone eager to answer "yes" gets the option first. Those smart enough not to click while Teh Silent Unmarked Helicopters™ circle are given a chance to hint their true feelings. Then there's a chance for someone to voice a specific beef with Obama's agenda before you choose the only nearly-correct answer in the poll.

Hypothesis: this is a poll designed to learn the cumulative total of Stupid, Wacky, and Crazy on Facebook.

Opinions?

WE WANT YOUR NATIONAL TREASURE!

Pope Benedict XVI travelled to Prague, Czech Republic this week to try to revitalize (drum up business) for the Church which lost most of its vast influence under the communist regime. After years of communist rule, the Czech Republic remains a largely secular society. In fact, many Czechs thought his trip irrelevant while some were downright hostile.

Why the hostility? Well, it seems that since the fall of communism in the Czech Republic, the Vatican has had an ongoing battle to reclaim St Vitus Cathedral. I had the rare honor to stand within the walls of this cathedral back in the 1970s and I hope to do it again in the spring.


St Vitus is more than just a large elaborate piece of architecture; it is a national treasure. Surrounded by Prague Castle, St Vitus is the final resting place for many Bohemian kings and Czech patron saints, including St Wenceslaus. Kings and queens were coroneted there and the cathedral is now home to the crown jewels.

Many Czechs believe the Vatican is more interested in property than people’s souls and I tend to agree when it comes to the acquisition of St Vitus. The rich history of the Czech people lives and breathes within the walls of the cathedral and the castle and should be entrusted to no one BUT the Czech people.

Satan Lives In Alabama

Those of you who know me from Osborne Ink are aware that I blog too much already, but this land-bound writer cannot resist the siren song of the (O)CT(O)PUS. This being my first post for The Swash Zone, I suppose an introduction and mission statement is in order.

Beginning with the personal: I discovered my liberalism on the day in 1980 that my third-grade teacher Mrs. Huffington (an ironic name) took my incomplete pencil-drawing of a dragon and destroyed it amid senile mutterings of Satanic influence. My inspiration -- a deluxe vinyl LP of Rankin-Bass' The Hobbit, including storybook -- was confiscated for a day. Mrs. Huffington's proud ignorance -- indeed, one could call it arrogance -- also led her to dispatch the classroom's sole Jehovah's witness to the office every day so she could lead the room in the Pledge of Allegiance.

When my father was informed, his reaction was as near to ballistic as I have ever seen from a northeastern liberal. This gentle soul, later ordained an Episcopal deacon and deeply involved in prison ministry programs, tore the flabby educator a new metaphorical orifice.

This incident, like many others, made it difficult for me or my family to maintain a social circle outside of the small academe of Northwest Alabama. We were transplants from the north -- and from a way of thinking that clashed with southern culture.

My family hails from both sides of the Mason-Dixon line; my maternal ancestors escaped Savannah ahead of Sherman's army, resettling in Missouri and then New England. But my paternal line is of pure Yankee extraction, including one of the early presidents of Harvard. I am the direct descendant of men who fought the bloody British at Bunker Hill and invented American higher education.

From an early age, then, I felt called to rebel against the tyranny of Teh Stupid™. As the 1980s progressed, Mrs. Huffington's attitudes were endemic to Alabama and the conservative movement as a whole. The voices raised in opposition to Harry Potter books today come from the same people who picketed The Last Temptation of Christ in 1987 and sued the state to have my American history textbook replaced with a more "Christian-friendly" (read: less informative) one.

Before I was even old enough to vote, I was rebelling through action and opinion. My first letter to the editor was published two years before I had a driver's license. One year later, mine was the second signature establishing the Alabama chapter of the ACLU -- right below my father's. Needless to say, I became inured to the harshest criticisms long ago.

While it may seem a myopic product of a provincial life, the sum total of my experiences has led me to form an Alabama Theory of Wingnuttery™. To wit:

All wingnuttery originates in Alabama.

Indeed, a strong case can be made that no original wingnuttery has been formulated outside the state of Alabama in over a century. Every John Bircher tract, every Phyllis Schlafly speech, every Michelle Malkin blog post has a prologue in this state. Could I only share a scrapbook of op-ed clippings with you, you'd find that the teabaggery of August is perfectly predicted by stupidity published in 1989.

I live on top of the epicenter of all wingnuttery.

Dangerous? Perhaps. Perhaps my presence here is a karmic punishment. Because this is the second thing you must know about Alabama: one cannot escape it. Like a black hole, Alabama exerts its own special force on sons and daughters. Many friends have noted that as far as we can get away (as far as the other side of the world) Alabama inevitably sucks us back in. It isn't that we want to return, but that we find ourselves back in the very towns where, as teenagers, we plotted escape.

Wingnuttery produces its own gravity.

It has mass. Like the black hole at the center of a galaxy, it is the circling drain-hole of rational thinking. It is a malevolent intention dressed up in the lamb's skin of piety. It seeks to turn us all into illiterate peasants reciting Bible verses that we don't understand. Wingnuttery is worse than mere evil: it is malignant, aggressive, and aimed directly at the foundations of scientific civilization. It is, in a word, Satanic.

Satan lives in Alabama. I live in hell.

They say the devil hides in the details; the state constitution here is the longest legal document in the world. Longer than Moby Dick and the King James Bible put together. Written with the intention of denying education to black children, today it manages only to accomplish the mission of centralizing all decisions in the state capitol where our legislature meets for 30 days a year. Establishing the most regressive tax system in America, our state constitution has been amended more than 800 times.

And there you have it. I make these claims not from ego, but from the sad horror of Dante.