And while the context and degree are vastly different, are there not glimmers of such authoritarian tendencies in some of the lynch mob turn-it-on, turn-it-off threats against the NYT and other media for publishing the NSA domestic surveillance and Swift stories?

I don't think so. In Turkey, it's the goveernment that is wielding the heavy hand. In the US of A, it is the public. The "court of public opinion" isn't a real court, after all. They can't really send you to jail, only stop buying your product or not voting for you.

Heard anyone here make an argument about why such stories shouldn't be told, can't be told?

Of course -- because it "aids and abets the terrorists." You can always find individuals willing to neglect reason and logic for unswerving obedience to authority.

Mike, the government is indeed "wielding the heavy hand" here, or had you missed the posturing by both the Bush administration and the Republican Congress with respect to the New York Times, in particular?

Mike, the government is indeed "wielding the heavy hand" here, or had you missed the posturing by both the Bush administration and the Republican Congress with respect to the New York Times, in particular?
Posted by: PaulB

I've seen the bluster.

I am conflicted, in that I am against the use of a loophole to get around the FISA court, but I also have a real hard time with the publishing of state secrets by the NY Times (for example). I'm not sure who exactly nominated them as arbiters of what is and isn't appropriate for publication, and if I had it my way, they'd either have to publish everything they know (all classified stuff and their sources of it) or none of it. Cherry picking what to report? I don't trust them to be objective.

But that begs the question, who to provide oversight and balance the executive? Obviously the legislative branch should. Repubs are awful close to rubber stampers, but dems are getting briefed on this stuff too. Where are their voices? I'm waiting for hte next "profiles in courage" candidate to step up.

So what do you think would happen to a Turkish journalist if they spilled the beans on Turkey's deepest intelligence program on the front page of a Turkish paper? It would make anything we've done in the US look like a joke.

Click the link Mike -- It's not about "the court of public opinion".

As for NYT and WaPo stories, the scary thing to me isn't that they were secrets from the public. It's that they were secrets from the very elements of the justice department capable and authorized to review them.

Secrecy for the purpose of PR control (Turkey) or secrecy for the purpose of bypassing constitutional controls (Bush administration) do not belong in a free society.

> I'm not sure who exactly nominated them as arbiters of what is and isn't appropriate for publication

See Fathers, Founding.

"justice department" should read "judicial branch"

must find coffee

Cherry picking what to report? I don't trust them to be objective.

They aren't objective. They'll never be completely objective. But there's plenty of evidence that most of the biggest papers, at the least, value objectivity and attempt to consider the objective "right to know" value of the information to the US citizenhood as a whole.

More importantly, the media is regulated by the invisible hand of the market, meaning no two papers will have the same slant. So there won't ever be any sort of coordinated campaign to release information the way that there are often coordinated government camapaigns to deny information.

Yes, the Democrats have failed - failed terribly - in their oversight functions. What's a democrat to do about it? This only increases the important of the media, as one of several overlapping, redundant avenues of oversight.

Hmm...The symbiosis between authoritarian rulers and "independent" ultra-right-wing partisan groups who pursue maximalist government goals and silence opposition while maintaining plausible deniability for the government itself. Is this:

The "Black Hundreds" and their pogroms in Czarist Russia?

The "popular" calls for the editor of the NY Times to be sentenced to death for printing the truth about US intelligence agency crimes?

The "Unity of Jurists" suing journalists and novelists for telling the truth about Turkish treatment of Kurds and Armenians?

All of the above?

So what do you think would happen to a Turkish journalist if they spilled the beans on Turkey's deepest intelligence program on the front page of a Turkish paper?

The question is, what would happen to a Turkish journalist if they reported on a Turkish intelligence operation which the Turkish government had already announced publicly years earlier, but which had now become politically inconvenient for the government? The answer is, probably the same thing that happens to Russian journalists who report on publicly available but politically inconvenient information on how the Soviet fleet dumps nuclear poison into the ocean, and the same thing that conservatives want to do to American journalists who report publicly available information that makes the US military, intelligence agencies, or President look bad: they lock them up.

Click the link Mike -- It's not about "the court of public opinion".

I clicked it. As the article says, the target of the investigations also supplied info to a foreign country. The author of the article is drawing the conclusion that the press is an ultimate target. The article also quotes...

The government may keep secrets but, if it fails, the media, in the words of the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, "may publish what it knows."

My point is, if the newspaper knows it, I want to know it too. They should not get to decide what information is publishable (i.e., not secret enough) and what is in fact too secret. Just lay it all out there.

Brooksfoe
the same thing that conservatives want to do to American journalists who report publicly available information that makes the US military, intelligence agencies, or President look bad

Just "look bad"? These things are secret for a reason, not just for appearances sake. You can argue until the cows come home about the tradeoffs of free society versus intelligence gathering, and I'd bet about 100% would agree the sweet spot lies somewhere between totally free from any monitoring whatsoever and a big brother police state. But secrets are often secrets for good reason, and there are reasonable arguments for not spilling the beans on our intel gathering. At a minimum, it is doing the bad guy's work for them. The articles on gathering of financial information were gratuitous and unnecessary, I thought.

Gosh, you don't think journalists ever make their choices on what to print based on what will get them the Pulitzer and fame and fortune, do you?

RSM, what Turkey does with its whistleblowers isn't really relevant to the rest of your post. In this hypothetical of yours, is Turkey's deepest intelligence program also illegal? Because that's what NSA's secret wiretapping is.

As a member of the public, I have the right to know when my government is plotting against me. If sources are concealed, fine with me - it's terribly sad that doing one's civic duty means risking punishment. The government was free afterwards to prove the NYT wrong. You'll notice they never did.

As for objectivity, the Times warned the administration before publishing and have since run plenty of opinion pieces defending and/or giving cover to this spying as necessary to fight terrorism.

So your stance is a contradiction: You would prefer that the government not conduct secret and illegal spying but, if they do, you don't want anyone telling the public about it, especially not the NY Times, who can't be trusted.

are there not glimmers of such authoritarian tendencies in some of the lynch mob turn-it-on, turn-it-off threats against the NYT

Glimmers?

More like giant outfield lights.

Come on Mike, the court of Public Opinion? Are you saying that Bush speaking into the camera and saying that the NYT is essentially traitorous and should be punished, is not government interference? And who knows what they are doing behind the scenes to subvert a true ruling by the "court of public opinion"? Would you defend their handling of the Plame case the same way?

Hey, where's Nossel this morning?

I'm awaiting her post on how we should immediately nuke Iran because they test fired a Thaqeb missile today.

I dunno ... I tried hard to be fair to both of them, but am I the only one who's getting a distinct whiff of Useful Idiotism from the commentariat in Kevin's absence? First, it was Suzanne's hyperventilating over an Iranian heavy water plant -- as if it's tantamount to producing nuclear weapons. Now we have Laura's horrendous analogy between Turkish suppression of the press -- as if any of us here have the tiniest clue about internal Turkish politics -- and the Bush DoJ's attacks on the NYT.

It's almost as if Laura wrote the post, knew she was going to get flack from the regulars for pushing a MEMRI-like line (look, boys 'n' girls, another example of *Islamic repression* !), and so then appended the analogy to make common cause with lefties by denaturing the issue to a pure civil liberties concern.

All she's done is draw out the trolls ("No Laura, the leftists will *never* understand the implacable menace of Islamism unless you compare it to war against their beloved NYT") and open an area of discussion that can only take place -- absent Turkish experience -- on the most broad-brush theoretical level. Yes, Laura -- we all agree: Abusing journalists for publishing stuff is *baaaad*.

This is Democracy Arsenal's idea of looking "tough on terrorism?" Jesus ... might as well flip on Fox News.

Turkey is our ally. They're a secular state, with a very moderated Islamist president. Their secularism has been, since Ataturk, assured by an iron-fisted military. So it's either heavy-handed military-style statist repression -- or it's Sharia law.

Personally, given the whole thing in context, I'll take the former over the latter. If that means occasionally heavy handed repression of the press (or the jailing of Turkey's most famous author for bringing up the Armenian genocide), then, unfortunately, so be it.

I'd like the see the country in the EU. Let's hope that's motive enough to get the Turks to lighten up on their dissidents without a world of irrelevant faux-superior Western tut-tut-ing.

Bob

rmck1: Maybe Rozen associated Turkish press initimidation with American press intimidation because, as a liberal, she finds them both abhorant. That's how they are related in my mind.

I realize the world is complicated, and as you say, if the choice is between secular authoritarianism and sharia, well, what's a liberal to do? But pointing out Turkey's problems is not the same as "tut-tutting". Indeed, Turkey seems like the kind of country where freedom can take root--they've gone from militart dictatorship to democracy, and they elected an Islamic party without becoming Iran. Turkey's liberals are keeping up the pressure from inside (hence these trials and harrassments)--publicizing their efforts and their trials seems the least that freedom-minded people outside Turkey can do.

So your stance is a contradiction: You would prefer that the government not conduct secret and illegal spying but, if they do, you don't want anyone telling the public about it, especially not the NY Times, who can't be trusted.
Posted by: exasperanto

that's not what I said. to rehash, I would prefer that the democrats in congress properly provide oversight to the republican administration as the loyal opposition.

If some leaker tells the NY Times about it, I want to know *everything they have been told*, the unfiltered by their political worldview facts, not just what they deem is and isn't harmful to the US. They aren't qualified to make that assessment, and so should either say everything or say nothing.

Is Kemal Kerincsiz related to that famous Arab, Kemal Jockey?

BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA......

So it's either heavy-handed military-style statist repression -- or it's Sharia law.

Really? You really don't think that there are other possibilities?

TurcoPundit - 'Turkey related news, views, comments and analysis from all around the world'

baho:

In Istanbul, of course.

In rual Anatolia -- unfortunately, no.

Bob

Interesting.

http://uvgarden.blogspot.com

rmck1, the case you make against Laura Rozen seems to me to be stretched. You think she is using the analogy of prosecuting the NYT to invite a condemnation of Turkey and thus of the muslim world?

That's too complex and, I think, not what she is doing.

But you go on to defend Turkish oppression:

Their secularism has been, since Ataturk, assured by an iron-fisted military. So it's either heavy-handed military-style statist repression -- or it's Sharia law.

Personally, given the whole thing in context, I'll take the former over the latter. If that means occasionally heavy handed repression of the press (or the jailing of Turkey's most famous author for bringing up the Armenian genocide), then, unfortunately, so be it.

And then you say you'd like to see Turkey in the EU, because that might help reform them. These are extreme views for a liberal, and, by the way, they happen to be what the neocons also want (Bush has often said he wants Turkey in the EU -- as a Trojan horse, most likely).

Their secularism has been, since Ataturk, assured by an iron-fisted military. So it's either heavy-handed military-style statist repression -- or it's Sharia law.

In the Middle East and most of the Islamic world it's one or the other.

Ever talk to an Arab about Gandhi? To the extent they've heard of him at all the response will be a snort and a sneer.

From The Anatomy of Fascism,

"... a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."

I would prefer that the democrats in congress properly provide oversight to the republican administration as the loyal opposition.

When you are the minority party your ability to effect oversight is very limited. Bush does not share what he should with congress because the republicans will not call him on it. The democrats cannot force the issue because they are not in charge. If they had subpena power, things would be different.

From the linked article:

...the Espionage Act, which scholars note was enacted after Congress rejected language that would have punished newspapers for articles that, in the president's view, "might be useful to the enemy."

Laura, I’ve got this notion that republicans see GWB as a Daddy, not just a president. Thus, most of them are satisfied with “in the President’s view”. For most of us, he’s just a man we’ve hired to do a job, so, such a notion is out of the question.

They can't really send you to jail, only stop buying your product or not voting for you.

Tell it to the guy in jail awaiting trial for selling sat access to Al-Manar.

But that begs the question, who to provide oversight and balance the executive?

Citizens should be able to do this without any legal interference from any organization. It is the people's business and the people ought to be able to know and discuss what their government is doing.

that's not what I said. to rehash, I would prefer that the democrats in congress properly provide oversight to the republican administration as the loyal opposition.

Short Mike: I wish the rape victims would do their job and scream a bit more loudly.

In point of fact, the majority party in Congress wields oversight power, not the minority party. And the majority party has refused to provide any real oversights, as for example seen in the repeated squelching of investigations into the intelligence failures of Iraq or the NSA wiretapping. And when Democrats have screamed rape, they've been painted right here on this board as traitors, opportunists, and deranged Bush-haters.

You can't have it both ways. Place blame squarely where it lies in this matter -- with the perpetrators and not the victim. Hold the White House and the rubber stamp Republican Congress responsible for their own actions. Don't blame the neutered Democrats for not having the balls to do what by circumstance and law they cannot.

JS:

Well, honestly I was out of commission all Saturday with a 24hr cold/virus, and my first post was probably a little cranky, reflecting my stuffed head and nasal passages.

I don't substantially take it back, though. There are many issues with Turkey that are relevant to this blog: The growing conflict with Kurdistan, Turkey's problematic relationship to the EU, even their own way around Islamist "integralism" to a secular society as a potential model for other Muslim countries. But why focus on Turkish press suppresion, when press suppresion is endemic to so much of the world? The topic just doesn't seem to fit here, and the way Laura tried to link it to the usual concerns of this blog seemed forced.

YMMV, of course.

As for integration into the EU, I would think this would be every liberal's ambition for the country -- including of course liberals within Turkey. We surely need more models of how an Islamic society can fully integrate with the West.

Bob

Ishmael:

But, interesting enough ... not Mel Gibson :)

Bob

Ishmael:

Although your neo-nazi violence-advocating spam is doubtless in the crosshairs of Southern Poverty Law Center, Klanwatch and the FBI, you do perform the useful purpose of here of making it much more difficult for our trolls to argue that there's no analogue in the Christian world to Islamist extremism.

Replace YHWH with Allah, and otheriwse there is absolutely zero ideological daylight between you and Osama bin Laden.

Bob

Call him Queequeg.

nice article, thank you

Little Old Jim
When you are the minority party your ability to effect oversight is very limited. Bush does not share what he should with congress because the republicans will not call him on it. The democrats cannot force the issue because they are not in charge.

Windhorse
In point of fact, the majority party in Congress wields oversight power, not the minority party. And the majority party has refused to provide any real oversights, as for example seen in the repeated squelching of investigations into the intelligence failures of Iraq or the NSA wiretapping.

I'm talking about the initial breach of the secrets by the NY Times. Everything the NY Times spilled the beans on was known by Democrats in congress who had been briefed through the intelligence committee. Everything. If the offense was that egregious, if they truly thought this was a direct assault on the Constitution, they should have come forward in some manner, and it should have happened much sooner. Profiles in courage, and all that.

Ishamel:

You're a fucking racist, Dominionist TERRORIST lunatic. WTF do you think The Turner Diaries is about? Its most famous exponent is the man who perpretrated the second-largest TERRORIST attack on American soil -- Timothy McVeigh. Eric Rudolph is also a TERRORIST who was more than willing to kill innocents in Atlanta to protest abortion -- as if two wrongs ever make a right.

Your *cough* "morality" is utterly contemptible and thoroughly bin Ladenesque. You advocate total genocidal racial/religious war.

You sir, are a real and present danger to free peoples everywhere. And you are even scarier than bin Laden, because unlike radical Islamism your ideology can at make a pretense of being homegrown in Western nations.

You need to be on a terrorist watch list.

Bob

Uh-oh, looks like my replies are superflous, as Laura deleted all of that neo-nazi spam, plus "Ishmael's" little apologia ...

To be perfectly honest, I feel kind of ambivalent about that.

Bob

Ishmael,

You are advocating the death of Madonna. In my book, that is a heinous act of evil.

Michael:

No, actually, I was willing to cut Ishamel slack for that one :)

Although if you murdered Madonna's *producers* and *engineers* you'd doubtless do more good for the spirit of music by cutting out the cancer at its root :)

Bob

Come on!

Perhaps it is possible to appreciate someone on more than one level. As a gay man, I believe that it was Madonna that single-handedly made us cool and brought us into the spotlight during the wonderfully gay 90s.

Michael:

Oh come on ... more than ... who ... Judy Garland?

Speaking of gay men, have you ever read Michael Musto (La Dolce Musto) in The Village Voice on Madonna's early career?

She was completely selfish, moderately talented bitch who routinely used up other band's sound check times.

As a muscian and composer, I find the incessant digital doctoring of her voice to keep it in tune on recordings to be utterly contemptible.

You want gay icons, you have one helluva large assortment to choose from. Best pick among the genuinely meritorious.

Bob

There is a world of difference between a gay icon and a gay advocate. Madonna is the latter.

Judy Garland's death certainly had an impact on our lives, but I don't believe her gay friends were openly gay.

Familair with the question,"Are you a friend of Dorothy?"

Michael:

Gay icon vs gay advocate -- okay, good point. But Madonna was an "advocate" of mindless sex in general -- at least in the first phases of her superstardom.

As for Judy Garland, well, you're doubtless correct. That was an earlier time; being out of the closet could and did wreck careers.

I don't really have an axe to grind here as I'm a straight guy. I've just had a burning contempt for Madonna as part of my burning contempt for 80s club music in general. How many tunes of Madonna's has Miles Davis covered, compared to his poignant rendition of Cyndi Lauper's Time After Time? From a pure musical POV, Cyndi kicked Madonna's ass.

It's more a musician thing for me than anything else.

Bob

WEll, lumping gay sex in with mindless sex. How PC of you.

And being out STILL ruins careers, apparently. Times aren't that different in my opinion. You could count openly, publicly gay celebrities on two hands. Less if you don't count the lesbians who have always been more accepted because men don't find them threatening.

Even less if you leave out the brits.

Michael:

No, I'm being entirely consistent about what Madonna herself advocated.

Look, if you want to consider it liberating for a woman to sleep her way to the top -- you go right ahead. Many feminists stood in Madonna's corner on that one, too. Bizarrely.

But it's really a return to Mae West, and amounts to a disempowerment of women, because it amounts to sexual reductionism.

Biology ain't destiny, my friend. *That's* the true progressive position.

Bob

Michael:

Sadly enough, you're quite right about that one. Times are changing, but cultural evolution is a maddeningly slow process ...

Bob

Your understanding of Madonna and her career comes from a solidly sexist position, that's clear.

Who is it you think she slept with that got her to the top? Names, please.

Being sexy is not the same as sleeping your way to the top.

Madonna's sexiness was anything but mindless. I might even say it was extremely calculated.

Here we are more than 20 years later discussing her rise to the upper strasosphere of fame. She will be so happy.

Madonna's decision to embrace her sexuality as a part of her 'act' was a direct result of some in the media, men no doubt, who were trying to ruin her career by publishing nude photos of her. She did the smart thing and reacted in the opposite way that they expected and the decision just sealed her fame.

Clinton may have looked to Madonna for ideas on how to deal with his own scandal.

Michael:

Sexist? Moi? Oh please ...

You want the lowdown on how Madonna slept her way to the top, once again -- go check out the archives of La Dolce Musto. Musto was (is?) the gossip columnist for the Village Voice. Take his righteous word for it, not mine. I surely have better things to do with my memory than save spaces in it for Madonna trivia.

Maybe you don't get this as a gay man -- but I can assure you, none of my peers ever thought Madonna was any more than moderately attractive. And yes ... I've seen the pre-music career Playboy spread. This ain't exactly Jean Harlow, here ...

Madonna's *use* of sexuality was entirely calculated -- but her *message about* sexuality was, let's put it charitably, sexual anarchism. Many academic lefties found it a breath of fresh air in the cultural retrenchment and backlash against feminism that was going on simultaneous to the rise of Madonna as a pop star. That explains her cache among academic feminists. They saw Madonna as a personification of the Sexual Revolution that was undergoing furious cultural attack.

But that doesn't make *Madonna herself* any more worthy of commentary as a singer, composer or even -- ultimately -- as a cultural icon. Mickey Spillane was a cultural icon of the 50s, John Wayne of an earlier era. What makes these figures discussable has more to say about the cultural levers they were pulling than about themselves as artists. Absent genuine *talent*, what you're left with in Madonna Studies is commentaries on the time. And that's fine; I was an American Studies major and I read and wrote papers on all kinds of cheesy-ass pulp novels for that very reason.

The bitch is moderately attractive, moderately talented as a singer (her range his horrible), and she somehow managed to rise to superstardom in an economic regime that rewards something other than merit.

And that's her meaning to myself, who appreciates people who, you know, acutally *can* hit the high notes without the aid of digital processing.

And I'm entitled to my opinion without being called sexist for it.

Bob

Michael:

"men tried to ruin her career by publishing nude photos of her?"

What kind of *patronizing* garbage is THIS?

Like someone put a GUN TO HER HEAD and MADE her pose for Playboy?

Good lord, what grotesquely PC victimology ...

Bo

what's the deal with no opportunity to comment on Laura's last comment. Is this an intentional "oversight", or does she agree with republicans that there should be no oversight?

Little Ole Jim:

She also deleted Ishmael's utterly delete-worthy neo-nazi posts -- but this is something Kevin never managed to do when we were beseiged with the slim/watcher spam attacks.

I agree, it's kind of bothersome. Like sitting at Suzanne Nossel's feet because she was an acolyte of Holbrooke and Albright ...

And then she disallows comments because she's apparently too sensitive to endure the parting shots.

Whatever. *sigh*

Bob

Musto is a hack, bitchy jealous queen who would tear down his mother for a story. He deals in cheap gossip. Not a source I would ever site.

And you talk about Madonna's success as some kind of unexplainable phenomenon, hence I interpret it as sexist. How could this ugly, no talent chick be so famous? She must have fucked the right people. That's not sexist?

She is more than a singer, she is an entertainer. She sells albums and tickets. And for me, like I said initially, she was THE gay advocate in the early 90s. She made her back up dancers stars right along with her. She put them up on the big screen and made their lives just as important as her own. She did that. No one else.

rsm: that's what i figured you meant, but "come forward in some manner"? That's the problem. What manner. They just get stuck out there all alone and run out of steam. They have very little power.

Republican unwillingness to exercise oversight makes the Dems that much weaker.

She posed for the pictures when she was a struggling dancer in New York for a student photographer. The photos were not given to Playboy, they were searched for. And paid handsomely for. Madonna didn't see a dime from them.

So I guess I was right, Bob. You can't appreciate people on more than one level.

Women must be pretty if they can't sing.

Michael:

Look, the flipside of what you're saying is that, since Madonna *did* become incredibly famous, then she *must* also be beautiful and talented.

That's every bit as much of a tautology as what you're accusing me of.

I'm supposed to buy into how wonderful Madonna is because of, what ... the revenue she generates? Like who else ... the Olsen Twins?

Look, I came of age in the Frank Zappa era -- a guy, truly ugly as sin, who played mangled guitar, wrote dissonant and confusing music and yet managed to carve a niche for himself in the rock 'n' roll world while *winning the respect* of fellow musicians and composers. Frank broke molds; Madonna *never* did. She is entirely uninteresting as a singer and a composer, on the *merits* of those criteria. And I'm sure you could find quite a few gay studio musicians who would gladly assent to this evaluation even while cherishing what she meant to the early 90s gay community.

And disavow Musto with ad hominem attacks though you may -- it's still pretty much legendary among people who remember her in the late 70s and early 80s as a ruthless bitch who used *any* tool at her disposal to further her career.

Bob

Ok Bob, I'll just comment here, since I can't on her last post.

If she thinks Suzanne was treated poorly, I agree, but that post on the UN was sub-par. Gotta make your case. I'm not sure why she thought it was such a big deal and she (Suzanne) needs to tell me.

I'm very pro-UN and pro-Security Council in the sense of trying to make them work. What other mechanism do we have?

Also, there is no equivalence in the methods and effectiveness of Democrats and Republicans in making the most of the UN. The Dems believe in it and try to make it work, with some success. The Republicans, especially under Bush, are totally hostile and inept respectively when it come to the UN.

UN-wise:
Holbrooke good.
Suzanne good.
Clinton/Carter good.
Bush I mostly good.
Equivalence between Dems and Republicans? You got to be kidding.

I would love to continue the debate on Madonna's impact but it is going on 2:30am here in Deutschland and I must get some sleep.

The 'bitch'(no sexism there) will be around forever.
Those must have been some pretty important people she slept with.

My point about ticket sales was that she didn't sleep with everyone who ever bought her album or saw her in concert.

Michael:

Ask anyone who knows me, I am monumentally uninterested in porn, fashion magazines and generally in how celebrities look as opposed to what they create. I saw those pics inadvertently, when I was at a buddy's house.

I could frankly care less what Madonna or any other celebrity looks like, provided they have genuine talent. Only because Madonna is held up as an icon of sex appeal do I feel the need to issue snarky comments about her appearance. People who live by that sword had better be prepared to die by it.

But otherwise, as I have said -- my protests are as a person who appreciates artistry and creativity in music.

Madonna outsells Mozart. Does that tell you *anything* about the relative value of those artists?

I should surely think not.

Bob

Just because you dont see it doesnt mean it isnt there.

Good night Bob.

Michael:

Madonna will *not* be around as long as Mozart -- though The Beatles might well be. Madonna is very much a product of her particular moment in time and little else.

End of story.

Bob

Have to have the last word. One of those, eh?

Well, sorry, but Madonna is the most successsful and prolific female artist of all time. Deal with it.

And no I would not be happy if someone wanted Frank Zappa dead.

Michael:

Madonna has very little talent considering the position she's in.

See ... Meyerbeer and von Suppe were more famous than Beethoven in their day. But time has a way of culling out the wheat from the chaff. After millions of individual judgments by musicians, music teachers and lovers of music, it's quite clear that Beethoven blows his contemporaries out of the water.

And this happened by an entirely disinterested and ultimately democratic process. Not by the machinations of dukes, princes, popes and corporate media executives.

This cultural process is what virtually guarantees that Madonna will be studied in future generations as part of the cultural upheavals of the 80s and 90s, and not as a musical artist per se.

And no -- I wouldn't *literally* like to see her, or anybody, killed. I was just being facetious.

Bob

Getting back to Turkey . . . Pamuk's novel "Snow" is about all of this (sans Madonna)--censorship, miitary repression,isolation, and national identity. Travelling around Turkey one cannot help but be struck by the grip the military has on some areas of the country, and this has the unseen realm of influence too.
At the same time people are very proud of being "free.'
So many times I heard, "You know Bodrum? Bodrum is free." Substitute the speaker's home town and I heard this at least a dozen times in two weeks.
They are a wonderful people, but struggling under economic and political hardships. One starts to wonder how far behind we are . . . or ahead.

Cassandro:

Or what the effect would have been if Turkey had chosen something other than militarism when it became a modern nation in the aftermath of the Ottoman Empire.

Bob

I guess this Ishmael is for real. I wondered earlier if it was satire.
Although it seems too obvious for comment, the entire take of what he puts forth is antithetical to the words of Christ. Unless one sees poverty of spirit, meekness, a thirst for righteousness, and above all the spirit of the PEACEMAKER, the spirit of God and the kingdom of heaven are not present. Speaking of meekness, it has to be of the right kind: not Caspar Milquetoast; when he says take the slap on the right cheek it means one has slapped you with the back of their right hand, as would be the case in his day; turning the other cheek means to insist on being treated as an equal, if slapped, then slapped with the open hand. This is but one example of reading Scripture out of ignorance of context. Another is the earlier quotation of "sell your cloak to buy a sword;' just after this, being told there is one sword for the group, Jesus says one is enough. Mysterious, yes.
Supportive of aryannation nonsense, no.

Ishamel:

Since they're still allowing you to repost your boilerplate
here, I'm going to repost this from earlier in the thread:

You're a fucking racist, Dominionist TERRORIST lunatic. WTF do you
think The Turner Diaries is about? Its most famous exponent is the man
who perpretrated the second-largest TERRORIST attack on American soil
-- Timothy McVeigh. Eric Rudolph is also a TERRORIST who was more than
willing to kill innocents in Atlanta to protest abortion -- as if two
wrongs ever make a right.

Your *cough* "morality" is utterly contemptible and thoroughly bin
Ladenesque. You advocate total genocidal racial/religious war.

You sir, are a real and present danger to free peoples everywhere. And
you are even scarier than bin Laden, because unlike radical Islamism
your ideology can at least make a pretense of being homegrown in
Western nations.

You need to be on a terrorist watch list.

Bob

Bob,

I can't believe you actually read enough of Ishmael to see that he commented on Madonna. I had to do forensics on this thread to figure out how you guys got stuck on that.

Kylie Minogue, now there's a gay icon.

Red State Mike:

I've never even heard of Kylie Minoque :)

Actually, it wasn't me who pulled out Madonna -- though I did read -- with increasing horror -- about four of the boilerplate posts.

The guy's apparently British -- WTF is he doing posting this stuff on an American website?

Although, let me tell you ... if this guy isn't merely one lone fruitcake and represents any kind of of a following in Britian -- then Blair truly has more to worry about than those enclaves of unassimilated Muslims we've all been reading about ...

The Turner Diaries, my good Jesus Christ.

Bob

British maniac converts to Islam,

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2149297,00.html

cld:

How about "Christian maniac joins Army of God?"

Bob

Or even "Chinese maniac posts random numbers on American website" :)

Bob

I never I thought I would post this, but this Ishmael character has me wishing slim/watcher was still around this blog.

Sheesh - who let the nutbird cockroaches in?

Kevin - time to spray some Raid around here....

Joe Bob:

Laura already did upthread.

Apparently it's not a very long-acting spray ...

Bob

Nope ... apparently Laura's there on spam patrol (Hi, Laura!). Both the Chinese crap and the recent Ishael posts with the lists of hate sites are now gone.

Thanks, Laura :)

Bob

bob,

Well, those are good, but in this case it was a British maniac who converted to Islam, an increasing phenomenon among neo-nazis who are frustrated they aren't getting anywhere.

cld:

If the guy is a lunatic, then his motives are eccentric and ungeneralizable. It's like "British fruitcake thinks he's Napoleon" or something.

Radical Islam and neonazism are two decidedly distinct ideologies. Despite the mutual Jew-hating, you can't advocate Christian Identity and/or Aryan racial conspiracy theories and a Universal Caliphate simultaneously.

Put some white skinheads in prison, and maybe with the right influences in that kind of desperate environment you'll get a few Muslim converts along the way. But to say that neonazis would try in some kind of systematic way to use radical Islam as a way to ultimately further their true ends beggars belief.

Bob

Laura, I'm quoting this post knowing full well that you might decide
to delete it, as you deleted the original. I am quoting it, however
because I think it is *extremely* important to recognize that the
threat of terrorism comes not merely from radical Islamists. We
never heard enough about the anthrax attack -- and perhaps the fact
that it appeared to come from a homegrown anti-government group (and
was directed at Democrats in Congress) had something to do with that.

Ishmael:

> rmck1, we currently have following of 112 active members,we meet
> in private residences for Bible study and training in Ju-jutsu.
> So we are growing very healthly and will soon be ready to bring
> the next stages of our mission into fruition.

First off, I hope you realize that you're posting on a site
populated by garden-variety American liberals and progressives
who find any form of religious extremism abhorrent in the strongest
imaginable terms. You're also quite clearly hinting at some
future action that may well include -- if your other posts
are to be taken at face value -- violence. You've issued
unambiguous death threats against public figures.

In other words, you're sitting here blithely talking about
committing some future act of religious terrorism. I don't
know if this in itself is illegal in your country, but you can
rest assured that the administrator of this blog has your IP
address and will release it to the authorities if need be.

> We enjoy alot of support for loyalist factions in Northern
> Ireland and 17 of our members are ex-U.D.A and orange-lodge men.

Oh lovely. Orange terrorists.

See, cld -- this is precisely why this form of homegrown neofascism
is not sympatico with Islamist extremism. You'd expect ex-IRA members
to be sympathetic to that (as they support the Palestinian cause),
and if some of them are, you'd also expect a civil war between
these sorts just as assuredly as you saw one in Northern Ireland.

Bob

Joe Bob Briggs: "Is Kemal Kerincsiz related to that famous Arab, Kemal Jockey? BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA......"

Isn't your sister Alcia Enhelbich, GOP candidate for Congress in your district?

Donald from Hawaii:

Droll :)

Bob

Red State Mike: "Kylie Minogue, now there's a gay icon."

She most certainly is. And for a supposed red-state inhabitant, you know way too much about gay icons. Better watch out, because before you even realize it you'll be hanging a David Hockney painting in your living room.

Donald from Hawaii:

Not to even mention the Keith Haring icon wallpaper :)

Bob

The bitch is...

And I'm entitled to my opinion without being called sexist for it.

Bob

Calling any woman a bitch makes you a sexist asshole and a misogynist.

Reprobate:

Just like that, huh.

So, you'll take an epithet like that, directed at a hugely famous public figure, and extrapolate out from it irregardless of the content of all my other posts.

That's what you call linguistic fascism, pal.

You (and I) of course can call George Bush every ugly name and accuse him of every unproved slanderous activity in the book. See, that's perfectly fair because George Bush is a *public figure*. In America, libel law defaults to the defendant to prove damages.

Well, let Madonna prove damages from my calling her a bitch.

It's much more likely, of course, that she'd simply be flattered :)

Bob

Reprobate:

It's also highly amusing to watch someone attack someone else for namecalling by namecalling in return.

Kind of a built-in reductio ad absurdum regardless of the content or accuracy of the charges :)

Bob

rmck1 (Bob): "I came of age in the Frank Zappa era -- a guy, truly ugly as sin, who played mangled guitar, wrote dissonant and confusing music and yet managed to carve a niche for himself in the rock 'n' roll world while *winning the respect* of fellow musicians and composers. Frank broke molds; Madonna *never* did. She is entirely uninteresting as a singer and a composer, on the *merits* of those criteria. And I'm sure you could find quite a few gay studio musicians who would gladly assent to this evaluation even while cherishing what she meant to the early 90s gay community."

I agree. I'm speculating here, but I think Madonna's and Frank Zappa's base appeal to their legions of fans -- gay, straight, bisexual, transgender, or just stoned and passing through -- is that neither of them made any apologies for themselves, their "art", and the respective lives they chose to lead. And since neither ever hurt anyone, why should they?

I find that inherent essence of free spirit to be very admirable, even intoxicating, even as their respective musical catalogs really do nothing for me.

defaults to the defendant = defaults to the plaintiff

Donald from Hawaii:

Well, I think that's no doubt why a cultural commentator (and fellow Italian blistering iconoclast) like Camille Paglia went into raptures over both of them.

The thing was, Zappa was challenging *musical* orthodoxy -- a much more difficult trick to do than merely thumbing one's nose at social convention -- especially during a time when thumbing one's nose at social convention was entirely too easy to do, as Madonna's Regean-era cultural context was a *reaction* against a previously established cultural freedom. Lenny Bruce doing his routines in the 50s and early 60s was a much more dangerous artist in that respect than, say, Eddie Murphy.

Zappa also did it with consummate technical skill as a producer -- giving them *just enough* rock 'n' roll or whatever style of pop/rock he was working with before klunking the listener over the head with his demented and utterly unique musical eccentricities ...

In that way, Frank Zappa educated untold numbers of rock music listeners and got them out of their ruts.

Bob

Donald from Hawaii:

I guess on a more superficial and cultural (as opposed to musical) level, what's always bugged me about Madonna's public image -- especially the early versions of it -- is that it harkened back to an older stereotype of femininity that had already been done to death -- and in that sense, Madonna-as-feminist-icon truly makes no sense.

We've already had the sex bomb, the femme fatale, the "material girl" done by Hollywood in spades by the early 60s. Isn't Madonna reducing it all to boom-boom sexuality just a tad bit ... reactionary?

Well of course Madonna was solidly in control of her destiny in ways that Mae West, Jean Harlow, Marlene Dietrich or Marilyn Monroe manifestly weren't -- and therein the feminist encomiums rested. Supposedly, this spoke to the liberation of the postfeminist woman *freely choosing* to be a sex object.

This also struck me as a gigantic rationalization.

Isn't reducing one's image to an object of sexual gratification and nothing more (because it surely wasn't about her modest talents as a singer-songwriter) precisely the turn to dehumanization?

Bob

Still going on about Madonna?

She does have that affect.

'Isn't reducing one's image to an object of sexual gratification and nothing more (because it surely wasn't about her modest talents as a singer-songwriter) precisely the turn to dehumanization?

Bob'

You see what you want to see, Bob.

Maybe we should change the subject?

Frank Zappa; musical genius or freak with good connections? Discuss.

Michael:

Well, that's just me; I'm a freakazoid that way about things I find interesting -- and I find the gap between Madonna's fame and her talent immeasurably telling about what remains of our musical culture. But you should see me over on the sci-fi thread :)

I don't believe it's all a matter of "seeing what we want to see." That's relativism. There's a reason Beethoven and Mozart are remembered, as no doubt there are reasons that The Beatles will be remembered -- and these reasons go right down to the chord progressions, harmonies and melodies they used. A consensus develops over time, but it's not based on a single vote -- a snapshot at any one given point in time. Musical merit is culturally conditioned, but it's not, ultimately, a popularity contest -- except over such a broad stretch of time that the idea of fashion drops out of the equation.

I'm not exactly sure why you're so resistant to my ideas about Madonna. I think Donald from Hawaii gets this; it's entirely possible to cherish her meaning for and contribution to the gay subculture of the 90s while simultaneously not regarding her too highly as a singer or composer. What's wrong with the idea of Madonna as High Camp? -- you know, something completely trashy, tawdry and culturally valueless, yet treasured for being so?

Cuz she sure as *hell* ain't Maria Callas. Or even Barbra Striesand, for that matter.

Bob

Michael:

*Zappa* had connections? Who knew? He was a lower-middle-class DoD brat who spent his adolescence moving around the Mojave Desert.

Everything he ever got from the recording industry he had to pry from the cold, near-dead hands of some cigar-chomping record company executive.

Bob

Well Bob,

In order to buy your arguements, I must first agree that you have some expertise on the subject, which I am not convinced of.

In my opinion, it all comes down to a matter of taste, nothing more. She is not your cup of tea. Fair enough.

But it seems like it truly burns you up that the woman is a success, for whatever reasons she is a success, femme fatale, camp diva or calculating bitch, or heaven forbid an accomplished musician.

I do however find it typical that a man would hold these opinions about her and it doesn't surprise me at all. I like the music. I think it's great. She has something to say and she says it. No apologies.

Bravo Madonna.(also a lower-middle class kid living on the streets of New York doing what it takes to be a recording success.)

Red State Mike: "Kylie Minogue, now there's a gay icon."

She most certainly is. And for a supposed red-state inhabitant, you know way too much about gay icons. Better watch out, because before you even realize it you'll be hanging a David Hockney painting in your living room.
Posted by: Donald from Hawaii

That's what I get for watching "E!". I have a velvet painting of dogs playing poker, though. I'm safe.

Actually, since this thread is Turkey-related, I'll tell a story. Our Aircraft Carrier, the USS America, pulled in to Ismir along the Turkish coast. After spending a day and a half wandering the bazaares, buying cheap copies of albums on cassette, and eating the local food (I paid for that one later) I was heading back to the ship. A local entrepreneur was near the pier, selling velvet paintings. He was pushing one that had an 18 wheeler ranging across the american southwest, with a ghost image of a pony express rider going alongside.

"Ten dollars! Beautiful painting!"

I had no money whatsoever, so I lowballed him off the bottom. "I'll give you a buck."

"Five dollars!"

"Nope."

"OK, one dollar."

So now I had to stand there and wait for someone to walk by that I knew, so I could borrow a dollar and buy my painting. And I still have it.

Red State Mike:

That's a fucking great story, man :) The Lexus and the Olive Tree, indeed ...

Michael:

Expertise in *what*? Music? I told you I compose. You ever seen me analyze a chord progression? :)

In gay subculture? A little. I spent most of the 80s working professionally for left-wing social change groups. Couldn't possibly avoid occasionally hanging in the odd gay bar or taking in the odd Holly Near club performance.

Your view -- and sorry, but I will *not* be gentle -- is quintessential postmodern horseshit. By your calculus Madonna is more significant than Mozart because she moves more product.

Well ... phooey on that. If you can't intuitively grasp why, it's truly your loss.

Since you have nothing resembling an argument, and since you lack the grace to simply accept the olive branch originally offered by Donald from Hawaii (Madonna is significant for any number of reasons in gay subculture but still kinda sucks in purely musical terms), naturally you attempt to boil it down into crude ad-hominem PC buzzowords.

Oh I'm a sexist. Oh, fuck off, bitch :)

You ever heard Joanne Brackeen or Marilyn Crispell play the piano?

Of course not. That would, umm, qualify as appreciating music.

*making universally-recognized hand gesture signifying masturbation*

Bob

Michael:

Yeah ... sleeping her way into recording contracts.

Frank Zappa kept his whoring around strictly to reading fakebooks to play lounge music.

Bob

Michael:

You know what bothers me about this? Why I get steamed enough at this discussion to start hurling invective?

Because there's something truly soul-rending to somebody who genuinely loves art when "success" becomes more important than anything else. Not what it is that allowed one to make it. Simply making it, in itself, is the only thing that counts. The ends not only justify the means, they completely *subsume* the means.

Madonna is a huge worldwide success -- all discussion stops. Which is the equivalent of saying that a Big Mac is the world's most perfect food, because look at all those *billions* served.

It completely dessicates all the intrinsic value out of artwork. You claim you "like it." How do I know you genuinely understand it -- or like it for some other reason than that you merely associate it with all the good times you had at all those clubs in the 90s?

Can you separate your personal experiences from the music itself?

If you can't, then it's truly pointless to try to have this discussion.

Bob

"If you can't, then it's truly pointless to try to have this discussion."

It is. So give the obsessive, self absorbed crap a fucking rest already.

Art matters.

Bob

And granted, I was being pretty self-absorbed and obsessive about it.

Which is, coincedentally enough, the critical charge that dogged Zappa his whole career.

I feel no great guilt, though, in trashing a cultural icon like Madonna -- regardless of what getting a little obsessed about it makes me look like now and again.

Bob

People, please ignore Ishmael, he is a dangerous fanatic. He was in an article not so long ago with Neil Horsely, I'm almost sure it's the same guy.He was arrested for trying to fight his way into an abortion clinic with a machete.
Please read the following article and see exactly what these people stand for ;

Theocracy Article
The following article was originally published in EIDOS (Everyone Is Doing Outrageous Sex), in the Spring, 1998 issue. EIDOS publisher Brenda Loew, sexual freedom/anti-censorship activist and past clinic defender sought a comprehensive article on the theocratic threat in North America, which would be aimed at her regular readership. The article, written in Autumn, 1997, was one of the cover features and was published in its entirety, including all of the quotes from extremists. Pleasant dreams!

THEOCRACY AND SEXUAL FREEDOM

by Bob Rowell

After ten years on the front lines of defending abortion clinics, the threat of theocracy is visibly real to me. Could any type of dictatorship prevail in America? Absolutely yes! The extremely conservative and vicious factions of American Christianity gained influence and trampled on many of our rights because millions of people remained unaware and passive. Although there is a strong tendency in the media to exaggerate its size, the Religious Right continues to push this nation further towards theocracy.

What is theocracy? Simply stated, it is a dictatorship by a governing entity of religious leaders. Iran is probably the most familiar theocracy today. An Islamic government replaced an equally horrifying regime and implemented their own system of execution, torture, outlawing entire Islamic sects, and denying freedom through public policies. People who visit Iran are not likely to remember it as a partying environment. It is truly unnerving that Christian extremists in America would model numerous components of their own agenda and tactics from the Iranian theocracy.

In America, we are, at least in theory, a democratic and pluralistic nation. The separation of church and state was established as a constitutional protection against abuses of power. In the 1950's, a trend began to escalate that would subject our diverse nation to move in a direction of officially becoming a "Christian Nation." It was in this time-period that In God We Trust was added to US currency, and religious artifacts were increasingly a part of public, neutral facilities. This trend seemed harmless until the late 1970s. After Anita Bryant lead an anti-gay campaign in Florida, Reverend Jerry Falwell saw the media exposure and political climate as an opportunity to organize a movement of fundamentalist extremists, hence the birth of the Moral Majority.

The saturation of publicity for the Moral Majority occurred simultaneously with the rise of Ronald Reagan. When Reagan became the US President, his administration maintained a strong, reciprocal relationship with the Religious Right. Conservative religious groups, TV evangelists, and Reagan himself, learned the power of using inflammatory rhetoric and pushing the buttons of bigotry and hysteria. The Religious Right leaders were enjoying new heights of power and wealth. Their impact was evident by the behavior of their followers. Although their leaders spoke of numerous issues, the flocks of the Religious Right were the most obviously zealous outside of abortion clinics. Although ordinary picketing was the norm in the 1970s, clinics experienced the advent of an era where intense screaming, blockades, invasions, assaults, threats, and eventually terrorism, became the new by-products of the tone and rhetoric of Religious Right leadership. Such leadership has long had an immeasurable impact on its followers, who are used to unquestioning, religious submission.

Anti-choice violence increased dramatically in the early 1980s. There were movement leaders who denounced violence, but even some of those statements were made by people who proved to have the ability to exhibit irrational behavior. The various strains of the Religious Right, including the violent attack dog types, were undeterred largely because there was little resistance. Further, the perpetrators of violence at the clinics and elsewhere, were used to getting away with their actions. The Reagan Administration and Justice Department officials (notably under the leadership of Ed Meese) made no secret that Religious Right violence was neither a significant issue, nor worthy of being declared terrorism. As clinic bombings escalated, and when a doctor and his wife were abducted by the Army of God for three weeks (in 1982), we were not supposed to believe that terrorism was occurring in America. Needless to say, few people had any problem acknowledging that the Islamic Ji-Had (whose name translates to "Army of God") and Hamas perpetrated terrorism when they performed comparable acts. As the Religious Rights grew, the tone and rhetoric consistently moved in a theocratic direction.

Although the many targets of theocrats are compartmentalized, we are one in the minds of those who believe we should be imprisoned, or in some cases, stoned to death. We are all the same enemy, and as such, declared by Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and similar religious leaders to be agents of their favorite fantasy cartoon character Satan. Unmarried, sexually active straight people, sexual freedom advocates, anti-censorship organizations, providers of birth control and abortion services, the gay community, safer-sex educators, and even non-repressive school boards and public libraries are the primary targets of the current wave of Religious Right organizers.

Is it human nature to be an obsessed power freak? I would argue that the answer is no. We have a natural inclination towards freedom, compassion and desire. However, human consciousness becomes fundamentally corrupted when one seeks to control others. Sexual repression is a classic tendency of political and religious authoritarians. The brutality and backlash against the counter-culture of the 1960s illuminated the mentality behind such ugliness. Happy, positive, free, sexually expressive people are a sharp contrast to head-bowed, solemn, self-doubting submissives (not the role-playing kind!), who merely work, consume products, and unquestioningly serve the interests of the wealthiest and most powerful. The repression of sexuality is fundamental to breaking individuality. Authoritarians seem to vary between overly repressed sexual dysfunctionaries to hypocrites who cannot resolve their internal love/hate relationship with sexuality. That, of course, would not deter such a person from subjecting common people to networks of repressive, hysterical power freaks. However, sexuality need not only be repressed by others. The religious and cultural conditioning of most people deeply programs a strong tendency for sexual guilt. Women are especially raised in such a manner, in most cultures. Through conditioned sexual guilt, most individuals can implement such repression upon themselves.

The magnitude of Victorianism and sexual guilt in segments of American culture is astounding. The stigma attached to erotic entertainment and sexual behaviors seems worse in the 1990s. The labels..."you're a slut...you're a pervert...you're a fag.." are more severe than if you were a violent criminal. The theocrats of today are the ultimate perpetrators of those tendencies. If you look at someone and feel sexual desire, then that's all you could possibly be feeling! If you are sexually expressive or fighting for sexual freedom, then that's all there is to your being! It is still taboo to be open about your sexuality. The 'family-values' Republicans, political consultants, and evangelists decry sexuality (outside of straight, Christian marriage, of course), then anxiously hide their own behaviors. Sexuality need not be scandalous!

Perceiving pregnancy to be punishment for sexuality is an extension of the same conditioned guilt. When birth control and abortion were newly accessible legally, conservative churches lamented that there would be more sexual activity than ever before. Sex without punishment is a disturbing thought to them.

"It's very healthy for a young girl to be deterred from promiscuity by fear of contracting a painful, incurable disease, or cervical cancer, or sterility, or the likelihood of giving birth to a dead, blind, or brain damaged baby (even ten years later when she may be happily married)."
-Phyllis Schlafly, President, Eagle Forum

Sexual repression is at the root of the movement towards theocracy. Hysteria over birth control, abortion, gays, and even language and images, reveal the connectedness of religious extremism and sexual issues. How extreme are the forces of theocracy?

"[Christian fundamentalists must] take dominion over the US...[abolish democracy] which is actually heresy...[establish a theocratic republic] under biblical law...True to the letter of Old Testament law, homosexuals, adulterers, blasphemers, astrologers, [and for such offenses as] abortion, heresy, apostasy...will be executed."
-Rousas John Rushdoony, President, Chalcedon Foundation, in Christianity Today, Democracy as Heresy, February 20, 1987.

"...we will see the beginning of massive killing of abortionists and their staffs. In time the killing, in protection of the innocent, will begin to spill over into the killing of the police and military who attempt to protect them...members of Planned Parenthood, and other pro-abortion/choice organizations will be sought and terminated as vermin are terminated."
-Father David Trosch, Director, Life Enterprises Unlimited,
Letter to Members of Congress, dated July 16, 1994.

"What should we do? We should do what thousands of people across this nation are doing. We should be forming militias...There are plans of resistance being made...Churches can form militia days and teach their men how to fight...This Christmas, I want you to do the most loving thing...buy each of your children an SKS rifle and 500 rounds of ammunition..."
-Reverend Matthew Trewhella, Director, Missionaries to the
Preborn, addressing the Wisconsin Convention of the US Taxpayers Party, May 27-29, 1994.

The most common targets of theocratic violence are abortion clinics and people associated with them. Twelve shooting incidents and over one hundred bombings have proven the violent factions of the anti-choice movement to be the number-one perpetrators of terrorism in North America. Doctors, clinic staff, security personnel, and escorts have long been subjected to harassment, stalking, assaults, death threats and bomb threats. For years, Operation Rescue attempted to craft an image of being a peaceful organization that practices "civil disobedience." In reality, they were modeled after the racist segregationists of the early 1960s, who also broke laws to fight against the rights of others. Operation Rescue was anything but peaceful. Clinic staffs, escorts, patients, and police had experienced countless assaults since the earliest days of these blockades.

As the blockades and rhetoric of the anti-choice movement intensified in the late 1980s, other influences became increasingly prominent. Advocates of Christian Reconstructionism not only had an audience with the extremists on the front lines, they were provided with opportunities to promote their ideas in Fundamentalist Journal, published by Jerry Falwell, and on James Dobson's Focus on the Family radio program. Christian Reconstructionism stands for a theocratic government that is comparable to the leadership of Iran. Proponents call for harsh penalties for those deemed insufficiently Christian, and there are now eighteen commonly agreed non-violent, victimless 'offenses' for which one would be judged as warranting execution. Similarly, a resurgence of the Phineas Priesthood has occurred. This revival of the Dark Ages is smaller than the movement for Reconstructionism and strongly influenced by the militia movement. Several extremists who self-identify as Phineas Priests have been apprehended for a range of violent crimes, including bank robberies.

Amazingly, the most vocal advocates of violence have gone so far as to threaten public officials in pursuit of their goals, and got away with it! Father David Trosch has long been a representative of organizations that support the killing of people associated with abortion clinics. His letter to members of Congress, sent in July, 1994, proclaimed his views on the killing of clinic personnel, pro-choice advocacy organizations, police and military persons who intervene, and even the President, Attorney General, and justices of the US Supreme Court. He not only got away with these threats legally, he has never been defrocked or excommunicated by the Catholic Church for his public pro-violence positions. He was even received at the Vatican in July, 1994, with a 20-member delegation, to seek the excommunication of pro-choice Catholic politicians in the US. It is interesting how the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has such a high level of tolerance for violent anti-choice people, as well as for the thousands of priests who have sexually abused children; while they have historically banished the Liberation Theologians of Central America and heavily censured pro-choice church officials in the US.

In recent years, there has also been a significant level of overlap between proponents of anti-choice violence and right-wing militias. Fundamentalist and anti-choice literature increasingly became common at militia gatherings, while terrorism manuals and militia literature grew in popularity at events organized by the American Coalition of Life Activists and similar organizations. There are extensive similarities in not only the tactical content, but also the rhetoric, in the manuals issued by the Army of God, as well as the Michigan Militia. Individuals and groups from the white supremacist movement have been a key component of the militia movement since it's inception. Today, a variety of far-right fringe groups have found a home and base for coalition-building in the militias. There are several organizations in which there is a substantial crossover between anti-choice extremists, militias, and white supremacist individuals and groups. Some such crossover organizations include: US Taxpayers Party, Missionaries to the Preborn, 10th Amendment Militia, Michigan Militia, Reformation Lutheran Church (Bowie, Maryland), Chalcedon Foundation, Institute for Christian Economics, American Coalition of Life Activists, Advocates for Life Ministries, and the Conservative Caucus.

Although clinic bombings are nothing new, the January, 1997 bombings at a clinic in Atlanta were unique and comparable to similar acts by militia-related groups. A second bomb exploded 45 minutes after the first, in the dumpster of the same clinic. It was obviously intended to harm law enforcement personnel and federal investigators who arrived at the scene. 7 individuals, including fire fighters, were injured. A few weeks later, a gay bar was bombed, also in Atlanta. Last summer, investigators announced that both bombings were made from the same materials as those used in the Olympic Park bombing of 1996, in Atlanta. Recently, a suspect in the shootings of 2 police officers in Atlanta has become a suspect for all 3 bombings. The Army of God claimed credit for the clinic and gay bar bombings. Whether or not that is true is only speculative at this point, but the acts were reflective of the rhetorical trends of the current wave of theocratic extremists. The acts were also consistent with the Army of God's history.

In the early 1990s, a small, obscure organization known as the US Taxpayers Party, founded by Howard Phillips, began to attract prominent anti-choice extremists and a variety of crossover individuals. Several leaders from the Rescue movement became state and national leaders in the Party, including Randall Terry, Reverend Matthew Trewhella, Reverend Joseph Foreman, Joseph Slovenec, Lowell Patterson, Reverend Michael Bray, and David Shedlock. It also included Rescue veteran Monica Miller, who was recently charged for locking her small children in their car - with the windows tightly closed, on a brutally hot day - while she shopped. Another anti-choice extremist to become prominent in the Party was Julie Makimaa, who was also the Founder of Fortress International which fights for the "rights of unborn babies conceived in sexual assault." Many folks who monitor theocratic and other far-right groups agree that the US Taxpayers Party is one of the most significant crossover organizations at present. Although many of their statements are too extreme to generate support from the mainstream, even in these conservative times, they do seem to be an increasing influence in the more accessible and popular conservative religious organizations.

A more secretive organization of the Religious Right is called the Council on National Policy (CNP). Founded in 1981 by John Birch Society leaders William Cies and the late Rep. Larry McDonald (R-GA), the CNP became a significant organization for Radical Right campaigns, strategies, and long-term planning. Early CNP leadership included Reagan Administration operatives, Christian Right election strategists, pro-apartheid activists, and organizers for the support network of the Central American contras. Current membership includes: Reverend Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Rousas John Rushdoony, Reverend D. James Kennedy (Coral Ridge Ministries, Florida), Paul Weyrich (Free Congress Foundation and National Empowerment Television), Gary North (Institute for Christian Economics, which advocates for Christian Reconstructionism and a new system of slavery), Phyllis Schlafly (Eagle Forum), Reverend Donald Wildmon (American Family Association), James Dobson (Focus on the Family), Reverend Lou Sheldon (Traditional Values Coalition), Richard DeVos (Co-owner of Amway Corporation), Nancy DeMoss (Arthur S. DeMoss Foundation), Jeffrey Coors (Coors Foundation; Free Congress Foundation), Howard Phillips (US Taxpayers Party; Conservative Caucus), Nelson Bunker Hunt (Texas oil tycoon; National Council of the John Birch Society), Richard Schoff (former Indiana Ku Klux Klan leader; owner of Lincoln Log Homes in North Carolina; funder of Conservative Caucus), Richard Wirthlin (prominent Republican pollster), and Reagan-era criminals Oliver North and Edwin Meese. CNP has an agenda that is disturbingly similar to those of the more obvious extremists, as well as actual links.

The Christian Coalition operates somewhat differently. Former Executive Director Ralph Reed did Pat Robertson's bidding, but implemented what Reed referred to as a "stealth" strategy. That translated into hiding the extremism of Religious Right candidates, as well as the Christian Coalition, behind an image of being a defensive, moderate, mainstream organization that only seeks to influence policies on selected issues. The Christian Coalition found itself with legal problems with the Federal Election Commission due to their overt campaigning for specific candidates, in violation of their tax-exempt, non-profit status. While Reed attempted to create a moderate image for the Christian Coalition, Pat Robertson continued to appear on television speaking his thinly-veiled anti-Semitism and End-Times rhetoric, comparable to both Reconstructionists, as well as the Heaven's Gate cult. Robertson has also been under investigation for alleged use of non-profit funds for the benefit of his for-profit broadcasting empire, as well as his diamond investments in the nation formerly known as Zaire (renamed Congo).

James Dobson, Founder of Focus on the Family, runs an organization that is substantially larger than the Christian Coalition, and seeks to influence public policy through massive political organizing. Dobson was recently exposed in a book entitled James Dobson's War on America, by Gil Alexander-Moegerle, who was an original and long-term leader in Focus on the Family. Dobson tends to change his public self-identity to suit each situation or legal crisis. He has presented himself as an apolitical, religious leader who simply wants to help families; then presented himself as a political leader whose religious leanings are separate from his mission. Dobson still focuses on issues, but ultimately believes in establishing a theocratic state. He is notorious for attacking fellow religious leaders who disagree with him, as well as individuals in his own organization for differences of views or making personal decisions which he objects to (e.g. divorce).

Several leaders of the Religious Right have endorsed the Promise Keepers, including Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson. Promise Keepers Founder Bill McCartney spoke at rallies organized by Operation Rescue and other extremist organizations. So far, the Promise Keepers' leaders have managed to sustain a public image that they are merely an organization that deals solely with the personal affairs of the men they attract. Interestingly, the "accountability teams" concept is remarkably similar to the "shephards" of the Reconstructionists who advocate forming small groups within the organization, so that each member can be accountable to a local leader for all personal decisions, including those pertaining to finances and relationships. Promise Keepers is currently enjoying a wave of media coverage that does not even question their links to the Religious Right.

When the 104th Congress emerged in 1994, under the leadership of Newt Gingrich, much of the agenda of the Religious Right was embraced by a substantial number of policy makers. Some of the ideas that were mostly advocated in the most extreme organizations can now be elevated to prominence via the Newt Congress. Having a President with a strong tendency towards spinelessness, leaves little room for reassurance. We are now in a time when all of our worst fears are closer than ever to being actualized. It is urgent that we monitor the relationship between the Religious Right and the Newt Congress, as well as being consistent advocates for freedom and justice. There is a genuine need to take stock of what we're up against.

Most of the leaders of the Religious Right continue the pattern of demonizing those they seek to attack. The successful formula of crusading against a perceived enemy continues to be effective for organizing and raising funds. Such leaders seemed to learn one of the lessons of the Cold War: that fighting the enemy can justify nearly anything. The Pentagon and military strategists were highly successful at maintaining extremely high publicly-funded budgets by sustaining a climate of fear and hysteria. By generating fear of a perceived threat, funding and public support were guaranteed to remain high. Under Reagan, such a phenomenon escalated dramatically, and future generations will pay the consequences of such economic recklessness for decades to come. Reagan did somehow have an incredible talent for being able to deceive large numbers of the American public.

It is more challenging today to be as successful at demonizing intended enemies. Mainstream America is not likely to get hysterical over gays or erotic film stars...or at least to levels that match the Cold War, or Desert Storm. Even though there is a strong tendency in the media to be soft on the Religious Right, Pat Buchanan's "cultural war" and James Dobson's "civil war of values" are not likely to generate as much excitement. Most of the impact of such demonization is going to be within their own flocks and people who are vulnerable to extremists and/or cult-like religious concepts. However, if most people who value freedom are passive, these shock troops can maximize their impact without ever becoming a majority of Americans.

The demonization of people in the abortion field is even less likely. There has long been a consistent majority of Americans who believe in the right to privacy and freedom of choice. The anti-choice movement has never been able to generate massive support for their message, despite their fake clinics and the saturation of lies and myths that they have perpetrated. Their movement has been further weakened by the murders that have been perpetrated by anti-choice terrorists.

Today, Operation Rescue is much smaller and less effective. Their "rescues" rarely attract significant numbers. They have had to resort to bizarre propaganda campaigns outside of high schools, and silly poster tours, where they display enlarged, grotesque fetus posters prepared by their art departments. In the summer of 1997, there was attempt to reactivate "rescues" by organizing a series of rallies and blockades in Dayton, Ohio. Their efforts were quite impotent. The blockades were marginally effective, most patients obtained an abortion on the same day or rescheduled shortly thereafter, local pro-choice activists mobilized and staged Abortion Providers Appreciation events, and the primary target of Operation Rescue, a doctor who performs late-term abortions, was not in any way deterred by their activities.

Even though the anti-choice movement and the remainder of the Religious Right has failed to become adequately united, the same can be said of advocates for choice. As the late anarchist Emma Goldman wisely observed early this century, people who struggle for freedom and justice are usually compartmentalized. We frequently are either limited to our own primary issue of concern, or simply lack the vision to truly advocate for a free and just world. The pro-choice movement has even greater obstacles. Throughout history, people have had a tendency to emulate their oppressors. Colonized people deeply adopted the religion of their conquerers, some minority sects in Iran have attempted to be the most fervent proponents of the prevailing Islamic power-holders, ad infinitum. The pro-choice movement doesn't seem to go quite that far, but there is a strong inhibition to criticize the religious hierarchies that perpetrate the holy war against abortion rights. There is a continued taboo in the mainstream pro-choice movement against responding to the Pope, or even the evangelists who are at the core of all that we're up against. Further, the mainstream movement has it's own organizational agendas, as well as struggles with freedom issues. The mainstream women's movement is largely dominated by leaders who have their own variation of sexual repression. Erotic entertainment, for example, is erroneously blamed for the perpetration of violence against women. People in the sex industry and alternative lifestyles scenes can find themselves judged harshly by such leaders and those who have a strong tendency to follow them (usually in the larger organizations). Views to the contrary can simply be dismissed as anti-feminist, or 'backlash.' The New Victorians by Rene Denfeld, and Whores and Other Feminists , edited by Jill Nagle, offer insightful discussion on this subject. Additionally, there are tendencies in the pro-choice movement to establish organizational monopolies and create an authoritarian leadership that can mandate passivity at clinics, even when it is inappropriate and/or dangerous.

Incredibly, a majority of the people of prominence in the pro-choice movement have consistently written Bill Baird out of history. In addition to being one of the most courageous and articulate spokespersons in the movement, he has won three Supreme Court cases for abortion rights. In 1972, the Baird vs. Eisenstadt decision, which legalized birth control access for non-married people, largely established the precedent, language, and political climate that made the 1973 Roe vs. Wade victory (legalizing abortion) possible. Most books about abortion, that were written from a pro-choice perspective, either omit Baird vs. Eisenstadt, or acknowledge it in a paragraph, or as a footnote! The discrimination and hostility that Baird has endured, from his own side, throughout his nearly 35 years of front lines activism, has been unconscionable. Fortunately, there has been recent conciliatory acts from sectors of the mainstream pro-choice movement. Additionally, a book publishing company, as well as film producers, are in the preliminary stages of ensuring that his story is recorded.

Another factor that keeps the targets of the Religious Right compartmentalized is a tendency in the sexual freedom scene to be passive and apolitical. The time to decide that one values his/her rights is not when they have already become lost. Similarly, people tend to feel that the rights of those whose sexual orientation is different than their own is not an issue of concern. The 'family-values' Republicans and Religious Right leaders who want to generate hysteria and pass anti-gay legislation are the same people who want to involve themselves in everyone's video/record/CD collections, libraries, and the lifestyles of straights. They hate Nina Hartley as much as they hate Ellen Degeneres.

The threat of censorship, including of the internet, will continue despite recent victories. The variations of the threats of the Religious Right reveal that we do not have the luxury of isolationism. Although the opposition is not completely unified, many segments are willing to look past their differences, organize, infiltrate school boards, write letters and guest opinions to the media, and pressure policy makers to push their agenda. The variety of people and organizations that oppose the Religious Right are still too fragmented and detached from each other to implement a permanent resistance.

The Newt Congress has reached new highs in working in the interests of the Religious Right. Amendments have been added to legislation and budgets to further the agenda of theocratic groups. One example is the attachments to funding allocation bills. After all the cuts in human services programs, Congress has been consistently attempting to pass funding bills with attachments that allow some of the remaining monies to be allocated to church groups. Effected programs include substance abuse treatment, mental health, welfare and other survival programs. So if you are downsized and your life bottoms out and you lose access to relief programs...you may be receiving your final bread crumbs from a proselytizing member of an evangelical church! Obviously, that would be a gross violation of the US Constitution and in contrast with all standards of diversity, ethics, and peoples' choices, rights, and dignity. We can find ourselves severely bullied by extremist policy makers, almost as much as by the theocratic spokespersons.

It is sad to hear epithets (regarding race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) that fuel the old 'divide and conquer' problem from people who should know better. The lesson from the McCarthy-era is that we can find ourselves facing destroyed careers, media demonization, legal battles, imprisonment, and even violence, when we decide that it is not worthwhile to stop people who want to destroy the foundation of what's left of democracy and diversity (or even the illusion of such ideals).

Resisting such abuse is not simply dreary defense. It can be almost as much fun as defying the taboos established by authoritarians and the forces of sexual repression. Creativity and satire can provide unlimited entertainment to the troops on the front lines. Numerous clinic defenders on the east coast, usually unaffiliated with the big organizations, can deliver rousing choruses of Monty Python's Every Sperm is Sacred, and there have been parties to remember after some key victories. Whatever one's talents or interests, there is an immediate need for expressive, analytical, humorous or serious-toned public opposition to the forces of theocracy. There is also a need to make every possible effort to look past differences with those in other communities and concentrate on the people who actually are jeopardizing your freedom. If one cannot work with others to stop a common bully, s/he can at least refrain from fueling the fires of bigotry and intolerance, that are ignited by the Religious Right. By not judging others whose lifestyle could be labeled 'weird,' we defy the value-system of the control freaks. If by some unexpected evolutionary step forward, freedom-loving people, in significant numbers, found a way to work together to stop the rise of theocracy, we could move mountains. We could not only stop negativity, but could also build real support systems, friendships, cultural and recreational diversity, standards of ethics, and explore new and fun means of consented pleasures.

Special thanks for research information to: Front Lines Research (a project of Planned Parenthood), Body Politic Magazine, Church and State Magazine, and South Jersey Clinic Defense Coalition archives.

Bob Rowell is a Co-coordinator of South Jersey Clinic Defense Coalition. SJCDC can be reached at: PO Box 493, Collingswood, NJ 08108. Tel: (856) 858-6745. E-mail: quayle@sjcdc.org. Web: http://www.sjcdc.org/
____________________________________________________________

"We need to preach the law and we need to say unashamedly that our goal is a Christian Nation...We can't have it both ways. Either God had called us to extend his law over all the earth, or he hasn't...[God] has called us to extend his law to unbelievers...My friends, America is going to enter the next millennium in convulsions. We are going to see turmoil and disruption that will make the civil war look civil. It's going to be a horrifying time and it's the judgment of God."
-Randall Terry, US Taxpayers Party, Founder of Operation Rescue, addressing the Human Life International Conference, April, 1994.

"Abortionists should be put to death. They are murderers."
-Jeffrey Baker, 10th Amendment Militia, addressing the Wisconsin Convention of the US Taxpayers Party, May 27-29, 1994.

"We are no longer working to preserve the status quo. We are radicals, working to overturn the present power structure of this country."
-Paul Weyrich, Free Congress Foundation, National Empowerment Television, in John S. Soloma's book, Ominous Politics: The New Conservative Labyrith, Hill and Wang, 1984.p.49.

"Any action that is necessary to defend innocent unborn life is justified...[violence against law enforcement officers guarding clinics is justified] because they are guilty of making sure children are murdered."
-Donna Bray, Defenders of the Defenders of Life, in the Philadelphia Inquirer, January 1, 1995.

"It would be a good thing for an abortionist to repent. But in as much as he is unrepentant and continuing in his deeds, it is a good thing that one be terminated."
-Reverend Michael Bray, Pastor, Reformation Lutheran Church, Project Rescue Maryland.

In response to the two murders at clinics in Brookline, Massachusettes (12/30/94):
"This is going to be, hopefully, the beginning of the war, and we'll win because we're right and we'll once again have godly laws in our land. Everybody that's ever had an abortion or had helped someone get an abortion should be dead, if they haven't repented...[referring to Shannon Lowney, murdered receptionist] There was blood on her hands...John Salvi deserves a medal. He's a hero."
-Andrew Cabot, Missionaries to the Preborn, Massachusettes Citizens for Life, in the New Hampshire Sunday News, January 1, 1995.

"[A] tiger in India...starts attacking and killing and eating human beings, you have to go and take it out...Well, what you have in the case of an abortionist is somebody who is in the midst of a very complex medical field, and they've just gotten a taste of human blood, that's all..."
-Joseph Foreman, American Coalition of Life Activists, Operation Rescue, in a WVCY radio broadcast, January 27, 1993.

"How effective has imprecatory prayer been?...Sometime Tuesday night of Wednesday morning [Dr. Milton] Tarver had a severe stroke...At press time, Tarver is confined to an invalid care unit. He is not expected to return to his profession."
-Gary McCullough, American Coalition of Life Activists, Prisoners of Christ, in Life Advocate, July, 1994.

"I think he's [President Clinton] probably in harm's way by acknowledging and endorsing the killing...it would probably be to me more justifiable to assassinate the Supreme Court judges."
-C. Roy McMillan, American Coalition of Life Activists, in the transcript from an unaired segment of TV Nation, December 28, 1995.

"For those who say I can't impose my morality on others, I say just watch me."
-Joseph Scheidler, Executive Director, Pro-Life Action League.

"We are totally opposed to abortion under any circumstaces. We are also opposed to abortificient drugs and chemicals like the Pill and the IUD, and we are also opposed to all forms of birth control with the exception of natural family planning."
-Judie Brown, President, American Life League.

Resist, Expose, or stop immediately every public school or group sex education program, no matter what it is called, or how it is diffused into the curriculum."
-Father Paul Marx (who has an extensive history of anti- Semitism), President, Human Life International.

"I don't think we should punish the criminal [a rapist] by killing his child."
-Dr. John Willke, Past President, National Right to Life Committee.

"I don't think Christians should use birth control. You consummate your marriage as often as you like--and if you have babies, you have babies."
-Randall Terry, US Taxpayers Party, Founder of Operation Rescue.

For instance, several years ago we tracked down a twelve-year-old girl who was going to have an abortion, so that we could talk her out of it. Talking a woman out of having an abortion is not news. But tracking her down by using a private detective is."
-Joseph Scheidler, Executive Director, Pro-Life Action League.

"Meanwhile, let it be clear what we do: we fight contraception-sterilization-abortion on six continents..."
-Father Paul Marx, President, Human Life International.

In solicitation of letters on behalf of anti-choice murderer Paul Hill:
"Paul Hill was called to abort the abortionist...And his blood will be upon those authorities which participate in this unjust execution...It is our duty at this hour to write to the Florida State Office of Executive Clemency...And as we acknowledge no wrong in Paul's service, clemency is an inaccurate word to describe the relief we seek. (It is for these reasons, I am confident, that Paul has had no zeal to pursue pardons. To seek pardon is - even if only implicitly - to admit wrongdoing. He will have nothing to do with such falsehood.)...We can sully ourselves by asking rulers to extend mercy as they understand it even when we know we ought to ask as well that they repent and award him honors...We can implore the powers to show mercy, even if they are confused and exchange the truth for a lie. Speak to them in their own language...May our Lord, who is rich in mercy, grant you time and zeal to write requests for our brother's life..."
-Reverend Michael Bray, Pastor, Reformation Lutheran Church, Project Rescue Maryland, in his website entitled Capitol Area Christian News, written July, 1997.

Bob your totally right, they are terrorists and we need to sit up and listen.

Ishmael:

It's true, of course. You could be mentally ill or a poseur of some sort.

The only thing I'm fairly *convinced* of is that no Pure Vessel of the Almighty would *ever* make so many typos and botch so much simple sentence structure.

It's like imagining Jesus with a major stutter or something :)

Bob

Liza, watch out for Fair Use law. Quote some of the article and point to the rest. To do otherwise is copyright violation.

"And granted, I was being pretty self-absorbed and obsessive about it.

Which is, coincedentally enough, the critical charge that dogged Zappa his whole career."

Clearly, you're a misunderstood, under-appreciated genius. Have you considered moving to Montana to raise a crop of dental floss?

I'm pluckin' the ol' dental floss
That's growing on the prairie

Pluckin' the floss
I've plucked all-day-and-all-night-and-all-after-noon

And I'm ride, ridin' a small, tiny hoss
His name is MIGHTY LITTLE
He's a good hoss, even though

He's-a-bit-dink-y-to-strap-a-big-sad-dle-and-blan-ket-on, anyway
He's-a-bit-dink-y-to-strap-a-big-sad-dle-and-blan-ket-on, anyway

Anyway ...

I'm pluckin' the ol' dental floss
Even if you think it's silly folks

I-don't-care-if-you-think-it's-silly-folks
I-don't-care-if-you-think-it's-silly-folks

-FZ

Can you believe that Tina Turner and the Ikettes sung that (and all the background vocals) on the record?

Frank: He was buns up, kneelin'

Ikettes: BUNS UP

Bob

Ishmael:

You're not any ex-Muslim, bro.

More like an old codger with arthritic fingers who's incapable of twisting off the top of a jar of mayonnaise, let alone capable of unleashing some kind of Christian Reconstruction armed revolution.

Bob

If 23 constitutes being ''an old codger'', I'm guilty as charged.
As for the jar of mayonnaise comment, it's rich coming from a lilly livered,sissy liberal like yourself.

Liza:

Mike's right about the insanely long crosspost. Even if there aren't copyright issues -- please find a way to link the text. It's extraordinarily annoying to wade through something that long.

I think the info's quite out of date, at least for America. There used to be a lot of visible radical right agitation during the Clinton years, but that changed after the OKC atrocity. The militia movement, for instance, pretty much fell off the radar screen. No DIY "patriot" wanted to be associated with mass murdering children.

Since Bush has taken over, there haven't been nearly as many clinic incidents as well. That may be either because the Bush DoJ is not pushing prosecutions, or the movement has been corralled by the more mainstream leaders of the Christian Right, who feel free to criticize their extremists now that they have an ear (and the short hairs) of those in government.

And if the latter is true, it serves as an object lesson in how to control extremism by allowing their more mainstream political flanks to attain some degree of power -- so that they, once enfranchised, have an incentive now to smack down their whackos.

Bob

Ishmael:

You realize, of course, that I have exactly zero reason to take anything you say at face value.

"Ex-Muslim" my left butt cheek.

Bob

Ishmael:

"lily-livered, sissy liberal"

Oh yeah. That's *really* the rhetoric of a would-be terrorist.

That string of epithets would be considered lame by our lamest trolls.

Bob

At no point did I claim to have been a muslim, what are you talking about ?
I was born in Egypt as a coptic Christian.Get your facts straight please.
plus I'v said all along that I'm not a terrorist.

Ishmael:

A Coptic Christian? That's fascinating. You know, the Copts don't have an easy time of it in Egyptian society. I think they're better off in Syria, but I could be mistaken on that.

So we have this perpetually minority sect in Muslim societies, older by a long shot, of course than Islam -- never in recent history a dominant player like the Maronites in Lebanon -- producing an exponent who travels to Britain, learned English and absorbs all this very American-specific neo-nazi / racialist hate literature ... Boy your buddies must just *adore* your skin color, eh? :):):)

It's *almost* slightly more believable than that you're a former Muslim :)

And whether or not you "are" a terrorist -- you pass around links to websites that advocate terrorism.

So your distinction there is rather treading the jesuitical.

Bob

Bob, Bob, Bob.

Alright. I'm going to give you a concession. Ready?

Madonna is no Mozart. There I said it.

Now, about this little business of comparing a pop star to Mozart. Is that really fair?

How about comparing Madonna to any other pop star or a female pop star would be an even better place to start.

Or how about we start at the beginning which is to say that I merely was pointing out that Madonna has contributed a lot more to society than a few catchy tunes and that those who don't agree that she is a positive contributor to society might have a dash of misogyny in their blood. Jealous much?

And yes, love her or hate her, we will be talking about her well after she's gone. Maybe not for your obsessive reasons, but she will be on our lips.

This all started because some skinhead had her on a hit-list, followed by your snarky remark that you agreed she should be killed for being a no-talent, ugly, slutty bitch. I tried to point out how Madonna has done more for me personally than any of the musicians you have named since.

Then your back-pedalling started and what we have left is enough evidence to show that you are a self-absorbed sexist and a musical elitist to boot.

But it's been fun though.

Do you think Zappa ever sucked a cock to get a gig? or bent over for a contract? Never!!!

Madonna, probably.

That is the sexism I was talking about. And you own it Bob.

I'm not Jewish,that's all the christian fundamentalist care about. Go to www.holywar.org to see the evils of the zionists

All of you religious zealots are dangerous.

Hello!! ET? We are ready for contact. Show these stone-age losers that there is more to this life than what happen on Earth 2000 years ago.

Michael Buchanan:

> Madonna is no Mozart. There I said it.

See that? Wasn't so hard, was it :)

> Now, about this little business of comparing a pop star to
> Mozart. Is that really fair?

Of course not. It only becomes relevant at all when you start
reducing the whole thing down to personal taste. It's not about
personal taste (even my own). It's about objective criteria
that determines what is and is not a good singer or musician
(composer is a little harder, but there are criteria there, too).
Take that slippery slope as far as it goes, and the only thing that
retains value as a metric is product sales. And that's nihilism.

If Madonna is "no Mozart" and yet she moves vastly more CDs than
he does (Pink Floyd does as well, for that matter), then you need
an understanding of why this is so -- and why these musical values
which evidently do not correlate with product sales are important.

> How about comparing Madonna to any other pop star or a
> female pop star would be an even better place to start.

And that's the really sad part. Just about any female pop
star, including your garden-variety aspiring chorine on (and
off) Broadway, has a wider range and better pitch accuracy
than she. And that's just an objective, measurable fact.

It's not just that Madonna is "less good" than this or that
other. This has nothing to do with genre preference, either.
It's that Madonna is "positively bad." Ask her engineers.

> Or how about we start at the beginning which is to say that
> I merely was pointing out that Madonna has contributed a lot
> more to society than a few catchy tunes and that those who
> don't agree that she is a positive contributor to society
> might have a dash of misogyny in their blood. Jealous much?

Well this is some pretty sloppy reasoning, isn't it? I never said a
word agin her place in the gay pantheon (advocate *or* icon), and in
fact suggested that it isn't at all mutually exclusive that she could
be a star in your firmament while having a truly crappy instrument
(which is what professional singers call their vocal abilities).

Where you get misogyny out of this is anybody's guess, bro.

> And yes, love her or hate her, we will be talking
> about her well after she's gone. Maybe not for your
> obsessive reasons, but she will be on our lips.

Oh sure, we'll be talking about *her*. We'll be talking about what
her place in the culture meant for this that and the other thing.
That's all fine fodder for CultStuds, and I was a CultStud major.

We just won't be talking about her music the way
we'd talk about singers who can, you know, genuinely
hold a tune for more than a few bars at a time.

> This all started because some skinhead had her on a hit-list,
> followed by your snarky remark that you agreed she should be
> killed for being a no-talent, ugly, slutty bitch.

I kept my initial snark quite restricted to her voice --
and actually suggested that it is her producers and
engineers who are really the ones who ought to be shot :)

> I tried to point out how Madonna has done more for me
> personally than any of the musicians you have named since.

Well that's fine, but now you're attempting to privilege
*your* subjectivity. See, the trick with talking about
music (and so very few know it) is to separate out your
personal preferences and experiences with the music from the
music itself. Madonna could have done all kinds of wonderful
things for you while *still* having a wretched, digitally
doctored voice. These things are hardly mutually exclusive.

Otherwise, it's like insisting that Judy
Garland didn't have a drug and alcohoi problem.

> Then your back-pedalling started

Hey, *you* were the one who admitted that Madonna is no Mozart :)

You know where I get this all from? Her engineers. She's
notorious for doing a huge number of takes on a chorus and then
having her engineer select the best one and splice it all through
a song. She also often has to have her pitch digitally corrected.

Them's the facts, Michael.

> and what we have left is enough evidence
> to show that you are a self-absorbed

I'll cop to that :)

> sexist

Ever hear Lindsay Cooper play the bassoon? Dagmar Krause sing?
Susan Smith or Barbara Thompson play the saxophone? Not to mention,
you know, Joanne Brackeen (one of my all-time favorite jazz pianists)
or Marilyn Crispell. Or sheesh, Cassandra Wilson, for that matter.

> and a musical elitist to boot.

I have a storehouse of knowledge that you don't.
Somebody stop me before I attempt to share it again :)

> But it's been fun though.

I think I'd prefer to call it "alternative."

Bob

You must be a lonely, lonely man.

Madonna is no Mozart was hardly an admission of anything significant.

It's like saying George Bush is no Churchill. No one ever said he was and no one ever could with a straight face.

I just don't think she deserves your scorn. And maybe you don't think she deserves my money, but guess what? She will always get it, unless of course she pulls a Donna Summers and turns her back on the community that supported her every step of the way.

Madonna is more than music. She is a movement.

Michael:

Yo cats, yo yo
Yo Chooch, way to go
YOU IS DEAD but you don't know
Hey let's scarf, man, where's the blow?

Grab your fiddle, grab your bow
Place some [..] on your holes
Watch your watch, play a little flat
Make the session go overtime, that's where it's at

Saxophone, clarinet
How many doubles can you get?
Special rules allow the way
For you to maximize your pay

Yo, girl, Arlens -- what's the dif?
Who's the service that you're with?
As long as you can suck the butt
of the contractor who calls your up.

Your career could take a thud
Unless you kneel and scarf his pud
And when those dates come rollin' in
You can wipe your lips and flash a grin

That tells them all at the jingle date
That you ejoyed what you just ate

Mmmm-mmm, dog food
Hemhorroid creme, but the bread's so good
New RV and leisure suit
Hey -- I play SHIT, but I LOVE THAT LOOT !

You have made it, you are cool
You've been to the Berklee School
You give clinics on the side

Music had DIED

And no-o-o-o-o-bo-d-d-y-y-y ...

Cri-eh-i-eh-i-eh-i-eh-i-eh-i-eh-i-ed

YO, CATS, YO YO
YO, CHOOCH, WAY TO GO

YOU ... IS DEAD.

Hey! Have a nice one, guy!

-Frank Zappa, "Yo, Cats."

Bob

So, think Zappa ever sucked a cock for a gig?

Probably.

Michael:

Madonna is a movement. That's fine. I have no objection to that, and certainly none to wherever you'd like to spend your money.

Personally, I like to try to separate out the artist from art and pay more attention to what's created than the whole scene that surrounds it.

And that's just, as I said in the beginning, a typical musician's orientation.

Bob

As a straight guy, I don't expect you to ever understand.

Michael:

No, but he was doubtless "bent over" metaphorically speaking in dozens of less-than-dignified ways by record companies and A&R personnel.

Like the time they took a razor blade to the master of "We're Only In It For The Money" because some demented producer thought the line "And I still remember Mamma with her apron and her pad" (this described a waitress) referred to a *sanitary napkin*.

Or how about being at the Newport Jazz Festival and having to beg the promoter for a $10 advance so his band could eat that day? Or the countless times that the Verve warehouse "lost" thousands of pressings that went out -- so they could short Zappa on his royalties?

The list is endless and ubiquitous for male and female artist alike.

Bob

How hungry was he?

Michael:

I think if we were both opera fans we'd have an easier time finding common ground on this :)

Bob

No doubt.

Michael:

That's where all the melodramatic side stuff utterly *merges* with the artistry in this completely appropriate, organic way.

I've never been much of a big fan of bel canto singing, though. Just a personal preference.

Bob

I believe you could compare the world of opera with the modern creation of video stars.

Madonna is a video star. And a damn good one, in my humble opinion.

Have you guys ever heard of email? It's handy when you feel the urge to take over a thread for your off-topic self-indulgence.

Please, you have something to say about Turkish journalist?

Let's hear it.

Absolutely -- let the topicality begin !

Heh.

Bob

I can't beLIEVE these two ! Taking over a perfectly good thread that NOBODY ELSE WAS USING and .... *soiling* all that *pristine* blank space!

Kevin really needs to do something about this.

Everyone Else's Common Ground:

I agree. 'Bob' is an especially bad offender. And such a pseudo-intellectual windbag of a troll.

Come on. Be fair. It takes two to tango.

And who exactly is "chaser"?

Heh.

Hey, you wanna *really* get your panties in a bunch over my insufferable pretentiousness (and all the horrible, horrible dialogue it provokes), go check out the Science Fiction thread :)

Oh, the humanity ...

Bob

Michael:

While I appreciate your fair-mindedness, bro -- I'm afraid it won't do any good.

I've been crowned Undisputed King Pompous in these parts.

Let them have their jealous little frenzies about it :)

Bob

Yeah, you can have that title.

免费铃声下载 手机铃声免费下载 mp3铃声 免费手机铃声 mp3铃声下载 三星手机铃声 三星铃声 诺基亚铃声 诺基亚手机铃声 移动铃声下载 nokia铃声 波导手机铃声 手机游戏免费下载 免费手机游戏 手机小游戏 诺基亚手机游戏 三星手机游戏下载 nokia手机游戏 摩托罗拉手机游戏 手机小电影 mp4手机电影下载 手机看电影 免费手机电影 手机视频下载 nec手机铃声 联想手机铃声 摩托罗拉铃声 amr铃声 手机彩铃下载 移动彩铃 免费彩铃 炫铃 移动炫铃 手机酷铃 手机电影 夏新手机铃声 联通铃声下载 联通手机铃声 联通彩铃下载 联通炫铃下载 特效铃声 midi铃声 和弦铃声 搞笑铃声 原唱铃声 mid铃声 cect手机铃声 和炫和旋铃声 海尔手机铃声 索爱手机铃声 飞利浦手机铃声 康佳手机铃声 真人真唱铃声 mmf铃声下载 lg手机铃声 诺基亚手机铃声 短信铃声 来电铃声 西门子铃声 小灵通铃声下载 tcl手机铃声 手机图片 手机铃音 手机动画 图铃下载 手机游戏 手机炫铃下载 手机彩信 手机铃声图片 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 免费性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 免费电影下载 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 强奸电影 美女祼体图片 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 激情图片 激情小电影 性感美女图片 漂亮妹妹图片 做爱图片 美少女图片 日本av女优 情色电影 同志电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 写真电影 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱视频 偷拍图片 美眉图片 泳装美女 美女内裤 性爱贴图 情趣内衣图片 性生活图片 作爱图片 艳情小说 性交姿势 做爱电影 性福联盟 人体摄影 明星裸照 裸女图片 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦小说 强暴电影 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 妓女日记 写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书 舒淇写真 美女脱衣图片 裸体女人图片 人体写真 女性手淫电影 美女波霸 美女淫水 阴户阴道阴毛屁股 美女图库 口交肛交图片

Ishmael:

> I'm not Jewish,that's all the christian fundamentalist care about.

Sure they do, "Ishmael." Sure they do. I'll tell you something that
you *are*, though. A wog. A dusky-skinned native of the colonial
hinterland. And so you emigrated from Egypt to Britain and are
associating with ... who now? "Christian fundamentalists" with an
affinity for ... let's see: The Aryan Nations. The Turner Diaries.
Christian Identity. The core ideology of white skinheads and
neo-nazis. Oh, RaHoWa. RaHoWa indeed, you little brown woggy.

You think your new "friends" *respect* you? You think they're doing
anything but *using* you, tolerating you as long as you do their
bidding, but all the while waiting around for an opportunity to stick
the knife in your back, just as assuredly as Hitler did to the Slavs?

You're a different *race*, pal. You're a SEMITE.
Embrace the ideology as fervently as you wish, but
you'll *always* be a contemptible outsider to them.

You're pathetic, really. Like a Jewish kapo in a concentration camp.

> Go to www.holywar.org to see the evils of the zionists

I don't need to go to some race-bate fruitcake site to have
a cogent critique of the Israeli government, thanks much.

All you do, of course, is make rational critiques of Zionism
that much more difficult by giving the Israelis justification
to say "see, our critics are religiously crazed anti-semites!"

Nice work there, wog-boy.

Bob

糠尿病 - 糠尿病, 金属探测仪 - 金属探测仪, 上海月饼 - 上海月饼, 高压清洗机 - 高压清洗机, 往复泵 - 往复泵, 试压泵 - 试压泵, 足球比分 - 足球比分, plastic chain - plastic chain, 金属探测器 - 金属探测器, plastic chain - plastic chain, 废品回收 - 废品回收, 反应釜 - 反应釜, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 白小姐 - 白小姐, 天线宝宝 - 天线宝宝, 白小姐 - 白小姐, 白小姐 - 白小姐, 香港六合彩公司 - 香港六合彩公司, 现场比分 - 现场比分, 在线比分 - 在线比分, 六合彩一字解特码 - 六合彩一字解特码, 六合彩特码 - 六合彩特码, 月饼 - 月饼, 双色球 - 双色球, 中国福利彩票 - 中国福利彩票, 福彩3D - 福彩3D, 窃听器 - 窃听器, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 窃听器 - 窃听器, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 窃听器 - 窃听器, 福彩3D - 福彩3D, 超声波清洗机 - 超声波清洗机, 打折机票 - 打折机票, 安检门 - 安检门, 金属探测器 - 金属探测器, 热熔胶 - 热熔胶, 滤布 - 滤布, 阳澄湖大闸蟹 - 阳澄湖大闸蟹, 工程机械 - 工程机械, 散热器 - 散热器, 十字绣 - 十字绣, 筛网 - 筛网, 租车 - 租车, 体育彩票 - 体育彩票, 曾道人 - 曾道人, 天线宝宝 - 天线宝宝, 肾亏 - 肾亏, 安利 - 安利, 散热器 - 散热器, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 福彩3D - 福彩3D, 双色球 - 双色球, 福彩3D - 福彩3D, 西装 - 西装, 二手挖掘机 - 二手挖掘机, 工程机械 - 工程机械, 中国福利彩票 - 中国福利彩票, 中国福利彩票 - 中国福利彩票, 福彩3D - 福彩3D, 窃听器 - 窃听器, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 福彩3D - 福彩3D, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 福彩3D - 福彩3D, 中彩网 - 中彩网, 彩票 - 彩票, 福利彩票 - 福利彩票, 中国福利彩票 - 中国福利彩票, 窃听器 - 窃听器, 小游戏 - 小游戏, 香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩, 上海笔记本维修 - 上海笔记本维修, 月饼 - 月饼, 脱磁器 - 脱磁器, 注册公司 - 注册公司, 中国福利彩票 - 中国福利彩票, 双色球 - 双色球, 机柜 - 机柜, 福彩3D - 福彩3D, 散热器 - 散热器, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 中国福利彩票 - 中国福利彩票, 中国福利彩票 - 中国福利彩票, 中彩网 - 中彩网, 六合彩 - 六合彩, GPS - GPS, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 轴承 - 轴承, 中国福利彩票 - 中国福利彩票, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 窃听器 - 窃听器, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩, 香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 拓展 - 拓展, china bronze statues - china bronze statues, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 搬场 - 搬场, 窃听器 - 窃听器, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 上海机票 - 上海机票, 上海旅游 - 上海旅游, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 一滴血检查仪 - 一滴血检查仪, 搬家 - 搬家, 条形码打印机 - 条形码打印机, 搬家 - 搬家, 条码打印机 - 条码打印机, 条形码打印机 - 条形码打印机, 香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩, 香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩, 汽车租赁 - 汽车租赁, 标记机/打标机 - 标记机/打标机, 月饼 - 月饼, 办公用品 - 办公用品, 香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩, 搬家 - 搬家, 冷库 - 冷库, 搬家 - 搬家, 搬场 - 搬场, 搬家 - 搬家, 美容美发培训学校 - 美容美发培训学校, 水箱 - 水箱, 检针器 - 检针器, 金属软管 - 金属软管, 反应锅/反应釜 - 反应锅/反应釜, 市场调研 - 市场调研, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 水箱 - 水箱, 六合彩 - 六合彩, China Marketing Research - China Marketing Research, 市场调查 - 市场调查, China Market Research - China Market Research, 投影机灯泡 - 投影机灯泡, 市场调研 - 市场调研, 藏獒 - 藏獒, 挖掘机 - 挖掘机, 门禁 - 门禁, 粮食仪器 - 粮食仪器, 上海搬家公司 - 上海搬家公司, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 搬场 - 搬场, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 包装设计 - 包装设计, 搬场公司 - 搬场公司, 国际机票 - 国际机票, 漆包线 - 漆包线, 搬家 - 搬家, 减速机 - 减速机, 鞋垫 - 鞋垫, 活塞环 - 活塞环, 对讲机 - 对讲机, 太阳能热水器 - 太阳能热水器, 废水处理 - 废水处理, 螺旋藻 - 螺旋藻, 玻璃钢 - 玻璃钢, 量热仪 - 量热仪, 高压柱塞泵 - 高压柱塞泵, 试验设备 - 试验设备,

婚纱摄影 婚纱影楼 非油品 中石化 网页制作 网页设计 网站建设\ 网站制作 网站设计 设计 北京网站设计 网站推广 北京网站推广 北京网站制作 北京网页设计 北京网站建设 网站优化 yahoo竞价 google推广 google排名 google优化 双线空间 ＰＨＰ空间 ＡＳＰ空间 网站空间 虚拟主机 域名注册 法语 钟表 塔钟 钟表 家用中央空调 格力中央空调 助听器 助听器 助听器 发电机 发电机组 柴油发电机 发电设备 发电机出租 康明斯 发电机 发电机组 柴油发电机 发电设备 发电机出租 康明斯 法国留学 法语培训 进口轴承 skf轴承 nsk轴承 轴承 进口轴承 skf轴承 fag轴承 轴承\ 轴承 进口轴承 进口轴承 直线轴承 skf轴承 nsk轴承 北京装饰|装修 家装|家庭装饰 办公室装饰|装饰公司 装修公司|工装装潢 装饰装修|北京装饰公司 家居装修|室内装修 房屋装修|家庭装修公司 装修设计|室内装潢 家居装潢|家庭装潢 装潢设计|室内装潢设计 充气床 充气用品 充气游泳池 野营用品 户外用品 充气船 气垫床 钓鱼船 帐篷 户外帐篷 瑞士军刀 intex充气床| 中央吸尘 家用中央吸尘 商业中央吸尘 吸尘器 中央吸尘系统 工业吸尘 风灶清洗 通风清洗 中央空调管道清洗 机器人管道清洗 管道清洗机器人 机器人清洗 检测机器人 吸尘机 别墅吸尘 宾馆吸尘| 网站建设 网站制作 网页设计 网页制作 网络推广 网站优化 网站推广 GOOGLE优化 进口轴承|nsk轴承|skf轴承 充气床|充气用品|充气游泳池|野营用品|户外用品|充气船|气垫床|钓鱼船|帐篷|户外帐篷|瑞士军刀| 北京酒店 上海酒店 广州酒店 长沙酒店 张家界酒店 南京酒店 深圳酒店 天津酒店 重庆酒店 昆明酒店 桂林酒店 井冈山酒店 酒店 西藏酒店 宾馆 宾馆预定 杭州酒店 北京酒店 上海酒店 广州酒店 长沙酒店 张家界酒店 南京酒店 深圳酒店 天津酒店 重庆酒店 昆明酒店 桂林酒店 井冈山酒店 网站制作 网站策划 网页美工设计 网站设计方案 网站建设公司 网站制作公司 网站推广公司 网页设计公司 网站设计公司