IN VIEW OF ANOTHER ROUND OF SHARPLY COLD WINTER WEATHER (THE WIND CHILLS IN PARTICULAR) UP HERE in the Minnwissippi region as is home to Your Correspondent, he may be found once again in his flat trying to stay sane, and then some, with this his weblog.

For which your support would be greatly appreciated, both fiscally (as in the online shopping and Virtual Tip Jar) and morally (as in any one of the four categories in the Blogger's Choice Awards which this blog has been nominated).

Not to mention the recommendation of this blog to your friends across the Information Stuporbahn.

This blog's been up for just over a month now, and with over 300 hits ascribed to it (per SiteMeter.com) since launch, such can be considered a good start. More, however, can be done ... and you, the visitor, can make it possible.

But don't tell me to "get a REAL job," please; I'm too emotionally unstable to be considered fit for more conventional lines of work, understand. Even if you have the idea that my employment would be enough to "learn when to keep your [N4BSK]ing mouth shut."

*************

THERE IS NO JOY TODAY @ 1211 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS IN NEW YORK, boys and girls: Fox Noise's preferred and desired choice as successor to His Fraudulency in the role of "Prophet, Seer and Revelator," by name of Rudy Giuliani, a/k/a "America's Mayor" (which, by itself, was getting rather hackneyed thanks to overuse on Faux's part), has decided to give up on any chance of seeking the GOP nomination in the Twin Cities for Indecision 2008.

And so the paranoia can be said to start--a paranoia which, like that which Edgar Allen Poe documented in his short story "The Fall of the House of Usher" (if you still remember that short story), may only be its own undoing. Eric Boehlert of Media Matters for America explaineth:

My guess is that Fox News guru Roger Ailes has been reaching for the Tums more often than usual early in the New Year, and there are lots of reasons for the hovering angst.

Let's take an extended multiple choice quiz. Right now, which of the following topics is likely causing the discomfort inside Ailes' Fox News empire?

A) CNN's resurgence as the go-to cable destination for election coverage.
B) The incredible shrinking candidacy of Fox News' favored son, Rudy Giuliani.
C) The still-standing candidacy of Fox News nemesis and well-funded, anti-war GOP candidate Rep. Ron Paul.
D) The Democratic candidates' blanket refusal to debate on Fox News during the primary season.
E) Host Bill O'Reilly being so desperate for an interview from a Democratic contender that he had to schlep all the way to New Hampshire, where he shoved an aide to Sen. Barack Obama and then had to be calmed down by Secret Service agents.
F) Former Fox News architect and Ailes confidante Dan Cooper posting chapters from his a wildly unflattering tell-all book about his old boss. ("The best thing that ever happened to Roger Ailes was 9/11.")
G) The fledgling Fox Business Network, whose anemic ratings are in danger of being surpassed by some large city public access channels.
H) Host John Gibson's recent heartless attacks on actor Heath Ledger, just hours after the young actor was found dead.
I) Fox News reporter Major Garrett botching his "exclusive" that Paul Begala and James Carville were going to join Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign, and then refusing to correct the record.

I'd say it's A, B, C, D, E, F, and G. (I doubt Gibson's grave-dancing or Garrett's whopper caused Ailes a moment's concern.)

Bottom line is that Fox News is in for a very rough 2008. And the umbrella reason for that is quite simple: Eight years ago the all-news cable channel went all-in on the presidency of George Bush and became a broadcast partner with the White House. Proof of that was on display Sunday night, January 27, during Fox News' prime-time, "Fighting to the Finish," an "historic documentary" on the final year of Bush's presidency. Filmed in HD and featuring "unprecedented access," according to the Fox News press release, the show was pure propaganda. (I must have missed Fox News' "Fighting to the Finish" special back in 2000, chronicling the conclusion of President Bill Clinton's second term and his "extraordinarily consequential tenure.")

The point is that Fox News years ago made an obvious decision to appeal almost exclusively to Republican viewers. The good news then for Fox News was that it succeeded. The bad news now for Fox News is that it succeeded.

Meaning, when the GOP catches a cold, everybody at Fox News gets sick. As blogger Logan Murphy put it at Crooks and Liars, "Watching FOXNews getting their comeuppance has been fun to watch. They made their bed, now they're having to lie in it and it's not too comfortable."

The most obvious signs of Fox News' downturn have been the cable ratings for the big primary and caucus votes this year, as well as the high-profile debates. With this election season generating unprecedented voter and viewer interest, Fox News' rating bumps to date have remained underwhelming, to say the least.

For instance, on the night of the big New Hampshire primary, CNN, which habitually trails behind Fox News in the prime-time race, attracted nearly 250,000 more viewers than its top competitor, marking a changing-of-the-guard of sorts.

The turnaround was striking when you consider that in 2004, even with no Republicans running against Bush, Fox News was still able to draw 200,000 more viewers than CNN on the night of the New Hampshire Democratic primary. Yet in 2008, with a very competitive GOP field, CNN was the ratings winner from New Hampshire.

And just look at the ratings for January 19, which featured returns from the Nevada caucus coming in during the late afternoon, and then fresh returns from the South Carolina Republican primary being posted during prime time that night. In the past, Fox News would have absolutely owned that night of coverage, as conservative news junkies flocked to their home team--Fox News--to see the results. But no more. CNN grabbed nearly just as many prime-time viewers for the Republican South Carolina returns as did Fox News.

The problem for Fox News is that it's the Democratic race that's creating most of the excitement, yet Fox News has been forced to mostly watch the race from the sidelines. That's because last winter, after Fox News tried to smear Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) for purportedly attending a radical Muslim school as a child, liberal bloggers launched an initiative to get Democratic candidates to boycott a debate co-sponsored by Fox News and the Nevada Democratic Party. (The boycott, powered by Foxattacks.com, was later extended to any and all Fox News debates.)

The point of the online crusade was not to simply embarrass Fox News or rattle Nevada Democrats for being out of touch with the grassroots masses that distrusted and despised Fox News. The point, instead, was to begin chipping away, in a serious, consistent method, at Fox News' reputation. To spell out that Fox News was nothing more than a Republican mouthpiece and that Democrats need not engage with the News Corp. giant.

The lack of Democratic debates for Fox News has meant a huge setback for the news organization from a ratings perspective. Just look at the grand slam CNN hit last week when, on January 21, it broadcast the much-talked-about Democratic debate from South Carolina. The CNN event not only creamed Fox News in the ratings, nearly tripling its audience that night, but the debate set a new cable news mark for the most viewers ever to watch a primary debate.

In fact, of the 10 most-watched debates this election season, Fox has aired just two, compared to CNN's five. Of the 10 most-watched debates, six have featured Democrats; four Republicans.

CNN is virtually guaranteed another monster ratings win this week with a pair of high-profile debates staged in California--the Republicans on Wednesday night and Democrats on Thursday.

No wonder CNN's so giddy these days. Here's the spin CNN president Jonathan Klein put out following its New Hampshire ratings win: "There's a freshness and exuberance to our coverage that the others just aren't matching. ... Fox almost seems downright despondent in their coverage."

So I'm not the only one who feels like Fox News coverage, especially of the Republican field, often feels like a televised wake. Or maybe that's just been Fox News' collective, subconscious mourning of the Giuliani campaign.

After all, Sean Hannity serves as Fox News' official ambassador to the Giuliani campaign; a campaign that Ailes and Fox News were hoping to ride back into the White House. Yet despite showering Giuliani with all kinds of laudatory coverage, both Hannity and Ailes have been powerless, as they've watched Giuliani's rudderless campaign go nowhere for months.

Even an all-out Fox News marketing blitz to label Giuliani "America's Mayor" never got traction. In fact, it ranked right up there with the launch of New Coke, in terms of branding success. (Watch this clip to see the Fox News absurdity up-close.)

In the meantime, the rise of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and especially Mike Huckabee, with his populist streak, has caused all sorts of consternation at Fox News. Even the conservative Weekly Standard took noticed [sic]. The magazine recently wrote that "A lot of conservatives have problems with both Huckabee and McCain. Last night on Fox, for example, Sean Hannity could barely conceal his distaste for both pols."

And don't even mention Ron Paul's name to the folks at Fox News, who have stepped outside their role as journalists to try to kneecap the anti-war GOP candidate. The most blatant slap came right before the New Hampshire primary, when Fox News refused to include Paul in a televised GOP debate, despite the fact that just days earlier Paul grabbed 10 percent of the vote in the Iowa caucus, nearly doubling the tally Giuliani posted.

Paul's Republican supporters became so incensed by the snub that they literally chased Sean Hannity through the New Hampshire night chanting "Fox News sucks!" and captured the scene in a homemade clip that really has to be seen to be believed. (To recap New Hampshire for Fox News: Hannity was pursued by a Republican mob, O'Reilly got into a shoving match with an Obama aide, and CNN grabbed more viewers. Now that's a week to remember!)

Oh, and we can't forget the wildly hyped launch of the Fox Business Network, which, News Corp. execs bragged, would dethrone longtime cable business news champ CNBC. Of course, that might happen one day. But the early ratings for Fox Business Network have been unbelievably weak.

After two months on the air, Fox Business Network, available in 30 million homes, was attracting, on average, just 6,300 viewers on any given weekday, according to Nielsen Media Research. That was good for a nearly invisible .05 rating. (By comparison, CNBC during that period was attracting 265,000 viewers.)

Making matters worse for Ailes was the fact that on January 22, as fears mounted about a possible global financial crisis, CNBC posted its best ratings in seven years, attracting 401,000 viewers that day.

The hurdle for Fox Business Network has always been simple: Why would investors and day traders in search of reliable business information turn from CNBC over to the Fox brand, which is so well-known for passing along one-sided information? News Corp. always assumed Fox News would help launch the business channel. But Fox News is taken seriously by so few people, it may be hurting the business launch.

After all, Fox News continues to embarrass itself with a type of journalism that nobody else in the industry would dare call professional. And for proof of that look no further than Major Garrett, who is supposed to be one of the channel's nonpartisan, serious journalists. He landed a recent scoop about how former advisers to Bill Clinton, Paul Begala and James Carville, were getting set to join Hillary Clinton's campaign.

Carville immediately shot the story down, telling Talking Points Memo's Greg Sargent that very same day, "Fox was, is and will continue to be an asinine and ignorant network. I have not spoken to anyone in the Clinton campaign about this. I'm not getting back into domestic political consulting."

Begala did Carville one better and directly emailed Garrett to deny the story--a story Garrett never bothered trying to check with Begala or Carville before it was broadcast. Garrett's response to Begala's blanket denial? Garrett told the Democratic operative that he would take his denial "under advisement." [Emphasis added.]

Garrett then went back on the air and repeated the same story, and added the fact that Begala had been on a conference call the day before with Clinton advisers, which was also false. And no, despite his earlier email exchange with Begala, Garrett never bothered to try to confirm the conference call story with him before reporting it on Fox News.

On his Fox News blog, Garrett did acknowledge the Begala email and claimed he'd be updating the fast-moving story soon--which, he told readers, would likely be confirmed the next day when the Clinton campaign made the Begala/Carville announcement. But the next day when the story imploded, Garrett simply ignored the embarrassing gaffe.

Recounting the whole Kafka-esque charade at the Huffington Post, Begala wrote, "I've never had a more surrealistic day. If this is what one of Fox's best and most respected reporters is doing, what are the hacks up to?"

They're watching CNN capture the campaign ratings crown.

UPDATE: Fresh Nielsen numbers show Fox News' ratings woes continued over the weekend. During Saturday night's 8-10 p.m. ET coverage of the Democrats' South Carolina primary results, Fox News not only got trounced by CNN among viewers 25-54, but lost to MSNBC as well.

After all, I've never trusted Fox Noise as a credible source for news and information, let alone prolefeed tending on occasion to curiosa. 

SO MUCH FOR IRAQ ESSENTIALLY REMAINING AN AMERICAN PROTECTORATE FOR THE NEXT CENTURY: Kristina Borjesson recently produced an interesting item for BuzzFlash as questions the authenticity and sincerity of the continued stream of "bin-Laden Tapes" coming on an almost regular basis from the presumptive al-Qaeda leader since the Unfortunate Events of 9/11, all designed with no other purpose than to "keep people scared" for the sake of True Patriot Love in All Thy Sons Command as conservative articles of faith hold dear for National Unity and Cohesion.

As there are numerous interesting points so addressed throughout, I feel it best to share with you the same in its entirety, with emphasis added:

Late in December 2007, The Associated Press reporter Salah Nasrawi wrote a story about a Bin Laden audiotape that had just been released. Headlined "Bin Laden Threatens Israel, Warns Iraqis," Nasrawi's piece details Osama's dire threats to expand al Qaeda's jihad in Israel and to "liberate Palestine, the whole of Palestine from the (Jordan) river to the sea," threatening "blood for blood, destruction for destruction."

Then, 11 paragraphs down, Nasrawi writes: "The authenticity of the tape could not be independently confirmed. But the voice resembled that of bin Laden. The tape was posted on an Islamic militant Web site where al-Qaida's media arm, Al-Sahab, issues the group's messages."

If the tape can't be vetted, it shouldn't be used. That's Journalism 101. At the very least, the fact that it can't be authenticated should be mentioned in the story's title and continuously mentioned throughout the story as the quotes are being used. Worse, all the mainstream TV outlets picked up on Nasrawi's story and liberally quoted "bin Laden" without bothering to use the word "purported" or another adjective indicating they had no proof it was Bin Laden on the tape. Collectively, what these journalists are doing is worse than outright lying to the public. They are literally helping dangerous people with deadly hidden agendas create a virtual reality by unquestioningly conveying their messages.

Nasrawi didn't just bury the authentication problem in his story. He also referred to earlier, equally questionable "bin Laden" communiqués. "The tape was the fifth message released by bin Laden this year, a flurry of activity after he went more than a year without issuing any tapes. The messages began with a Sept. 8 video that showed bin Laden for the first time in nearly three years. The other messages this year have been audiotapes."

Reporting on unauthenticated bin Laden tapes as if they were real is, shamefully, getting to be an old practice. In November 2002, a "bin Laden" audiotape surfaced and a senior State Department official explained to CNN that the voice on the tape was indeed Bin Laden's, but that "we don't know yet whether anybody put it together, spliced or computer-generated it."

Just how could "anybody" computer-generate bin Laden's voice and create an entire bogus statement?

On February 1, 1999, William Arkin, writing for washingtonpost.com, described a voice-morphing technology that government scientists at Los Alamos laboratory in New Mexico had developed.

"By taking just a 10-minute digital recording of Steiner's [Gen. Carl W. Steiner, former Commander-in-chief, U.S. Special Operations] voice, scientist George Papcun is able, in near real time, to clone speech patterns and develop an accurate facsimile," Arkin wrote. "To refine their method, they took various high quality recordings of generals and experimented with creating fake statements. One of the most memorable is Colin Powell stating, "I am being treated well by my captors."

Arkin also indicated that morphing was not limited to audio, and could be used for some very interesting and disturbing purposes: "Digital morphing--voice, video, and photo--has come of age, available for use in psychological operations. PSYOPS, as the military calls it, seek to exploit human vulnerabilities in enemy governments, militaries and populations to pursue national and battlefield objectives."

Arkin's article inspired me to dig a little more into the bin Laden tapes.

I decided to compare this video of Osama that al Jazeera released on December 27, 2001 with other Bin Laden videos. The December 27 video is not dated, but it provides an up-close, in-focus look at the guy we all recognize as Osama from many previous photos. Now (dear reader, you're going to have to do a little work here), compare that to a tape that the U.S. government released on December 13, 2001 [see CNN footage in "Loose Change" documentary at 1:14:25 into the program]. The tape, ostensibly shot on November 9, 2001, is of very poor quality--dark and out of focus with fuzzy audio. One can't positively ID the man who is supposed to be Osama in this tape. And curiously, this alleged bin Laden is seen writing with his right hand. According to the FBI, bin Laden is left-handed.

In the November 9 tape, the purported bin Laden says things such as, "We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower," and "Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for." He also says that, "Mohammed Atta was in charge of the group."

When the U.S. State Department released the tape, one BBC reporter prudently used quotation marks in this headline, "Tape 'proves bin Laden's Guilt'," before quoting President Bush and then-British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw saying that the tape was proof of Osama's guilt. "But the BBC's Middle East correspondent, Frank Gardner," adds the BBC reporter, "says that at street level in the Arab world, many believe the tape is a fake, a PR gimmick dreamed up by the US administration. And the defence minister of the ousted Taleban [sic] regime in Afghanistan told the BBC that he was doubtful about its authenticity, saying it was unlikely that Bin Laden would have been naïve enough to say such things on a recording."

It is hard to imagine a mainstream American TV reporter calling a former Taliban defense minister for a comment on anything. Yet running to President Bush for the truth hasn't always worked out for certain high-profile journalists either.

Unlike the BBC, CNN expressed no doubts about the December 27 tape's authenticity: "Osama bin Laden recounts with delight the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States as he talks with associates on a videotape released Thursday by the Bush administration." And further down, this: "The Bush administration hopes the tape will convince skeptics, particularly in the Muslim and Arab worlds, of Bin Laden's complicity in the attacks."

A few months earlier--six days after 9/11 to be exact--CNN reported that Bin Laden had sent a statement to Al Jazeera denying that he had been involved: "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it... I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons." [September 17, 2001].

The FBI says it has no hard evidence that Bin Laden participated in 9/11. That's what the FBI's Rex Tomb told Muckraker Report's Ed Haas. The FBI doesn't want Osama for 9/11. They want him in connection with the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, which killed more than two hundred people.

Turning back to those tapes one last time, there are other troublesome videos, including two mentioned in an October 29, 2007 MSNBC story, "Was Bin Laden's Last Video Faked?". The story has to do with two videos, one released on September 7, 2007 and another released about three years earlier on October 29, 2004. Oddly, the man in both (fuzzy, of course) tapes looks exactly the same--sitting in front of the same background and wearing the same clothes--except that in the later one, the purported Osama's beard appears younger with a beard that seems to have been dyed black. Experts are asked for their opinions and they can't say for sure what exactly is up with the tapes. Then the requisite "senior US intelligence officer" is asked the requisite question about the October 2007 tape's authenticity and the officer gives the requisite response, saying he "believes" the tape is new, but he can't discuss why. Another "even more senior intelligence officer" says he doesn't think the black beard in the new tape is fake, but again, he won't say why. I think it's time reporters stop giving passes to sources such as these. If they can't back up their statements, don't quote them. The secrecy and lack of transparency everywhere in government have reached absurd levels and journalists should fight both hard at every turn. In this case, find other, better sources that are willing to talk. They exist.

MSNBC does get points for raising the question. But excellent journalism would involve pursuing the matter until definitive answers on the provenance and authenticity of the tapes were found.

These details boil down to two things. One, all the unauthenticated audiotapes and fuzzy videos look and sound suspicious. Two, there hasn't been any clear, up-close, "look at me, I'm alive" videos of Bin Laden for years. The journalism community would do well to wonder why--and then move forward aggressively from there. The American public needs to know what's going on here.

And while they're at it, America's journalists should take a good hard look at Mr. Gadahn and his recent tape encouraging al Qaeda sympathizers to greet President Bush in the Middle East with "bombs and booby-trapped vehicles." Mr. Gadahn's real name is Adam Pearlman and he's a young Jewish man from California. Frankly, I'm not buying Pearlman's shtick or his videotapes.

Pearlman is straight out of central casting with the usual sketchy background for characters who aren't what they purport to be. He should be investigated very, very closely, as should the provenance of his tapes.

For one, don't expect Fox Noise to anything about these Amazing Revelations, obviously enough: They're already in cahoots with the GOP to the point of their being considered as outright "singers" in the propaganda department ("Whose bread I eat, his song I sing," as it were), yet fail to acknowledge as much to viewers; can you say "conflict of interest," boys and girls?

IF THERE'S ONE THING WHICH CELLULAR PHONE COMPANIES ENJOY ALL THE MORE, it's nothing more than keeping their customers in outright enslavement, using the aura of low prices and "value for money" to cover up the fact that it's you who's actually paying the bill in the end.

The same set of circumstances, as it were, as explains the deceptive aura of broadcast TV being FreeVee in effect: It's our purchases of advertised products as covers the costs of what appears to be FreeVee.

In the case of cell phones, the Dirty Little Secret happens to be in the form of what's called a "SIM card"--a microchip of sorts as is programmed to deliberately enslave you and your cellphone service for as long as you're contracted to them.

Because appearences can be deceiving--and because it's your cell phone and your money (as the Zealots and True Believers of hyperconservatism are forever saying--especially so the latter), besides--the good people @ SharperImage.com (as are proudly affiliate with this weblog) have what may be the ideal answer as empowers you, the American cellphone user, with serious freedom of choice when it comes to who you want to have as your cellphone service provider without "lockin" agreements tending to unconscious enslavement.

Actually, more like four.

They happen to have, for your consideration and review, a selection of various mobile phones which are "unlocked"--without the SIM card loaded in beforehand. And though they may be expensive to start with, in the end you can still insert the SIM card from your previous phone and use it in your new "unlocked" such.

Consider:

 

 

ANOTHER ROUND OF COLD AND SNOWY WEATHER (AND THEN SOME) IS NOW ARRIVING UPON THE MINNWISSIPPI REGION, where Your Correspondent is resident.

The which, no doubt, compels him to stay in his flat in deference to potentially serious wind chill readings in the -30 to -40 trend by evening, and continuing into tomorrow morning (whence he's likely to remain in the apartment) on top of blowing snow and potentially serious "whiteout" conditions reducing visibility to <½ mile @ times.

(In fact, the snow is coming down @ a good clip as I look from the windows of my flat, drying out the dainties just washed.)

And yet, it was close to 50 degrees yesterday about this same time!

Isn't that Minnesota weather for you?

*************

TO GOP PRESIDENTIAL WANNABE MIKE HUCKABEE, IT SEEMS AS IF EVERYTHING HAS TO RELATE TO HOMOSEXUALITY, and vice versa (as if still viewing homosexuality in its discredited context of Loathsome Mental Disorder Requiring Constant Treatment, preferably "faith-based").

Witness these comments from People For the American Way's Right Wing Watch blog as discuss such a (flawed) interconnexion as still hath its Zealots and True Believers among Those Who Should Know Better:

Mike Huckabee's loss in South Carolina's Republican primary made clear his weakness in the race: his inability to expand his support beyond conservative evangelicals. For all the talk in the press about Huckabee's broad, populist appeal, and for all his own efforts to convince the GOP base otherwise (most recently with exuberant stands on immigration and the Confederate flag), it could be those two narratives just cancel out, leaving him with a campaign built on second-string religious-right activists and church-based get-out-the-vote.

Like Gary Bauer, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins has been critical of Huckabee for the candidate's supposedly narrow appeal. This week, Perkins once again recalled the "three-legged stool" metaphor:

Perkins likens the coalition to a three-legged stool with Iowa winner Mike Huckabee representing the social leg, New Hampshire and South Carolina winner Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) the defense leg, and Michigan and Nevada victor Mitt Romney the economic leg.

"What's required is bringing those three together ... and I think we're seeing this," he continues. "We're moving closer to embracing all three of the components of the conservative coalition. Fiscal conservatism, defense conservatism, and social conservatism."

If that's the strategy, Huckabee's got his work cut out for him. His attempt to establish foreign-policy credentials entailed a visit to apocalyptic megachurch pastor John Hagee, but that only managed to alienate Catholics. His tax plan is so far to the Right that even the Right wants no part of it.

Writing in Human Events, Marvin Olasky—architect of faith-based government initiatives—suggests Huckabee adopt a fusionist argument: "Social conservatism makes possible fiscal conservatism." Sounds simple, but the argument can get a little tricky:

The key is realizing that growth in governmental "human services" has come in part through the recognition of real problems. When a guy and a gal shack up, it's not purely a personal matter. That's because one result, a certain percentage of the time, is likely to be a child with a single mom, and that child at some point is likely to receive governmental support.

Olasky continues, arguing that equal rights for gays "also lead to bigger government":

Ave Maria University Professor Seana Sugrue has pointed out that the same-sex marriage movement is a subset of a sexual revolution based in liberty, but liberty "achieved through the empowerment of a state with the strength to destroy sexual norms." Since referendum after referendum has shown that most people do not favor same-sex marriage, it requires overreaching courts to decree it, and propagandistic schools to get students to see as normal what most instinctively recognize as weird.

Libertarians rightly relish the theme throughout American history of government ordaining and individuals disdaining. But what happens when individuals or their churches believe that homosexuality is wrong? Gays need strong governmental action to keep people from speaking out against it. They need criticism of homosexuality to be declared "hate speech." They need government to force religious organizations to hire gays or facilitate adoption by gays. 

Huckabee may be in a tight spot now, but he may want to wait until he's really desperate to try to pass off recycled anti-gay talking points as "libertarian" economic philosophy.

Which begs the question of where exists evidence of an interconnexion between the acceptance of homosexuality and bigger government (and, conversely, smaller government requiring the defence of State-sanctioned racism, bigotry, xenophobia and intolerance, using "whatever means necessary" and excusing same as Christian Patriot Love).

Wasn't the apartheid regime in South Africa rather bureaucratic in and of itself, especially so the Ministry of Law and Order?

And where exactly does it state that the defence of so-called "Traditional Values" (read: 1950's white, middle-class, Levittown model) is necessary to the defence of free-market capitalism as Great White Father of the Lower Classes in particular?

*************

YOUR CORRESPONDENT STOPPED LISTENING TO HIS FRAUDULENCY ALL THESE YEARS AGO, and the same can be said to apply equally to his State of the Union Address last evening as repeated the same broken-record Neocon/Fascisti platitudes and nonsense.

Think Progress decided to take apart the various articles of faith called for in SotU and challenged them against facts in real time; they are worth serious reading, study--and as "talking points" for the sake of Indecision 2008. And wisely. (It may require your scrolling down the page to see all the evidence, as they update the page throughout the day.)

*************

AS FOR YOUR ONLINE SHOPPING, YOUR CORRESPONDENT PROUDLY CARRIES OVER THE SHARPER IMAGE as among his affiliates from the daily phosdex continuing here @ The Exaggerator.

And with that in mind, he'd like to bring back an occasional tradition of featuring specials for the coming month @ perhaps the one store where Sam "The Squid" Dullard and Oliver VanRossum could just be happy in @ the mall.

For starters, until 4 February:

 

 

  

  

MEMO TO ANYONE CONSIDERING SUPPORT OF RON PAUL, EITHER FISCALLY OR MORALLY: GOP Presidential wannabe Ron Paul, previously Libertarian but switching to the GOP to gain some mainstream credibility and recognition, may not quite be the so-called "Real Republican" he claims to be.

Witness this recent item from The New Republic (thanks to Pam's House Blend for the hat tip) which reveals a dark side to Ron Paul that Ron Paul the Presidential candidate doesn't exactly want you to know: Videlicet, his past infatuation with anti-Semitism, racism, white Christian supremacy, the so-called "citizen militia" movement and homophobia by way of a succession of newsletters as were published in the 1980's and 1990's under such illustrious names as Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report and The Ron Paul Survival Report, depending on time; James Kirchik, who wrote the item, explains his rationale for this exposé @ this time:

Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first-person, implying that Paul was the author.

But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics. 

Let's not forget, too, that Henry Ford of Model T fame also dabbled in anti-Semitic propaganda during the 1920's by way of his weekly magazine, The Dearborn Independent, featuring excerpts of the notorious anti-Semitic forgery Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion; faced with a boycott threat by Jewish groups, Ford would repudiate his anti-Semitic views and acknowledge that certain of the anti-Semitic pieces which had Ford's byline in the Independent were actually ghost-written.

How will Mr. Paul explain such hatemongering to which his name was given as imprimateur all those years ago?

It might be well to ask him accordingly, and confront him with the evidence. Politely, of course.

=============

MIKE HUCKABEE CAN'T QUITE BE TRUSTED, EITHER: Again from Pam's House Blend, comes another worthwhile hat tip--this time, involving Mike Huckabee's moral turpitude and why it should preclude your consideration for the GOP Presidential nominee.

Which especially the Elmer Gantry Religiopolitical Theology Institute's supporters ought read, and carefully. (Or are we forgetting that this element is actually ignorant and can't think critically anyway?)

*************

MOVING FROM THE RIDICULOUS TO THE SUBLIME, ESPECIALLY AMONG YOU FANS OF THOSE CHINATOWN BUSES operating in the Northeast Corridor and the West Coast ... Your Correspondent wants you to know where you can now make reservations and get tickets for your favourite Chinatown bus services (tours included) thanks to this weblog's affiliation with GoToBus.com, the premier online resource for Chinatown buses.

To start, just click on the following banner:

(Remember, you'll be helping this weblog and Your Correspondent with your shopping online here.)