FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WANT A REASON WHY YOU OUGHT TO BOOKMARK THIS WEBLOG in your web browser ... or, for that matter, subscribe to the RSS feed of this blog ... allow me:

Over the coming days, you can expect to enjoy such interesting gems of reading in The Exaggerator as these:

• An Open Letter directed to the conservative propaganda machine, and the propagandists working its dark Satanic mills.
• Disputing the "tax reasons" device which explains why the likes of "work-from-home" and "credit service" businesses manage to stay in operation in spite of their inherent lack of profitability.
• The Inconvenient Truth of the Christian Homeschooling movement.
• Four poems by the great Scots bard, Robert Burns, worth disrupting a demonstration by the so-called "Westboro Baptist Church" with--or, for that matter, a Religiopolitical Right rally.
• A St. Patrick's Day special discussing Ireland's Transport 21 initiative and how it seeks to improve the Irish transport infrastructure on €34 billion over ten years.

Not to mention the usual attempts @ commentary on the day's events and whatever crosses Your Correspondent's mind from day to day.

Reasons why The Exaggerator is worth some of your online time every day.

And why it's worth bookmarking.

Or subscribing to the RSS feed--not just by e-mail, but also in any RSS readers, online and otherwise, you may be using.

As if that weren't enough ... make the most of your time while on the blog and get any online shopping you need to get done on The Exaggerator. Your Correspondent can't live on traffic alone, let alone disability benefits, as he's explained before many times.

Reasons enough to make The Exaggerator a worthwhile habit.

(Remember, I can always welcome your comments.)

THERE IS AN UNWRITTEN LAW OF LOGIC WHICH HOLDS THAT "SILENCE EQUALS ACCEPTANCE."

Which, put simply, requires speaking out among those who disagree with the status quo to challenge established convention and (il)logic.

And which some of its more ardent Zealots and True Believers (especially so such with conservative leanings) further expand to the point of illogic with the argument that "depiction equals endorsement."

Is it any wonder that the Great Silent Majority can be, perhaps, the most ardent examples of "silence equals acceptance" in action, hard-wired as they are (thanks, in large part, to deliberate poverty, ignorance and lack of realistic opportunity for socioeconomic empowerment somehow conditioning them into, in effect, abject orthodoxy)?

And is there not the risk and danger of such unfailingly embracing the "silence equals acceptance" argument by their acts, deeds and exploits developing Serious Mental Disorders themselves?

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

NIGERIAN "419" SCAMMERS JUST CAN'T HELP COMING UP WITH MORE CREATIVE SUBJECT LINES to try and trick the unwary into responding with the hope of earning some big-big money in the process--only to realise that the earnings are probably illusory to the point of transient.

In particular, the kind designed to create an aura of trust and confidence among such with an inborn naivete as may belie emotional vulnerability which the "419" operator can quickly exploit.

Some of the more interesting examples of recent "419" e-mail Subject lines I have encountered include:

• CALVARY GREETINGS
• REMAIN BLESSED
• DEAR BELOVED ONE
• MY DEAR BELOVED
• IN GOOD FAITH
• NOW CONTACT MY SECRETARY
• TREAT AS URGENT AND CONFIDENTIAL
• WITH TRUST
• CAN YOU BE HONEST AND SINCERE?
• USE IT FOR THE CHILDREN OF G-D
• HELLO MY DEAR RESPOND IMMEDIATELY

(Many such, no doubt, designed to pander to the emotions by suggesting that such is a "dear and trusted" relationship you obviously don't know about in reality--not to mention a lure into what could be an expensive trap when you discover where all manner of additional "processing," "administrative" and "paperwork" fees, "taxes" and even "stamp duty" will likely be requested because of "serious delays" in finally releasing the funds.

(Which, over recent weeks, has started to take a turn towards "pre-loaded debit cards" with a theoretical maximum daily spend of $1,500; the better, presumably, to avoid attracting suspicions which the PATRIOT Act could raise by more traditional means of cash or banker's draft.)

Is it any wonder that some of the best targets "419" scammers probably have are the financially as much as emotionally vulnerable?

Myself, I delete such rather pathetic appeals from the e-mail (and, in some cases, report such to The Proper Channels). How many others among you do likewise?

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

WHAT DO GOP PRESIDENTIAL WANNABE MIKE HUCKABEE AND THE ENERGIZER BUNNY have in common?

They just keep on going.

Right Wing Watch, People For the American Way's blog as monitors the Religiopolitical Right, comments on the former:

Over the weekend, Mike Huckabee jaunted off to the Cayman Islands to deliver a speech at the Young Caymanian Leadership Foundation's awards banquet because … well, he needed the money:

"No taxpayers pay for me to have health insurance, to pay my mortgage, to pay my bills," Mr. Huckabee said. "And so to me, it's not just absurd, it's beyond absurd — it's insulting — to think that there's something nefarious about my being here when nobody has raised the question about sitting U.S. senators taking their full paycheck and enjoying all the magnificent perks they get from the U.S. taxpayers."

Obviously, Huckabee needs to earn money when and where he can, since his only job at the moment is running his long-shot presidential campaign, especially since he thinks that this very campaign just "may be killing my political career." 

Of course, rather than "killing" his career, this quixotic endeavor has actually made his career.  After all, had he not run and managed to outlast much bigger names like Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and Rudy Giuliani, nobody would be speculating as to whether he might be tapped to serve as John McCain's vice-presidential nominee or to serve as Secretary of Health and Human Services.  

On top of that, he has built up a large base of right-wing supporters that could easily propel him into a position as one of the nation's leading, most high-profile Religious Right leaders once the race is over, much as Pat Robertson did following his own run for president.  

Far from hurting his political future, Huckabee's campaign is still out there stumping with figures like Steven Hotze and continuing to rack up support from various right-wing leaders: 

"This is Texas," declared Rick Green, a Mike Huckabee supporter. "In Texas, we don't cut and run. In Texas, we don't give up and go home before the fight is over."

[***]

Although the Huckabee camp has worked to define its candidate more broadly as a tax-cutting economic populist, Monday's supporters made it clear why they were there.

"Protecting life and protecting the family," said the Rev. Steve Washburn, pastor of First Baptist Church of Pflugerville. "We are to vote for the candidate who will best champion this cause of the Lord, this moral cause."

Brent Bullock, who works for a Christian nonprofit group, warned of corrosive "secular humanism and socialist ideologies."

Green works for Wallbuilders along with renowned pseudo-historian David Barton, while Bullock happens to run the America Bless God Campaign of Texas which seeks to "reestablish the Word of God as the moral standard in America":

America's predominate population of Christians has been influenced by Secular Humanism and contemporary American culture, which has damaged the testimony of the church and the foundations of civil government.  We live in an age where each man does what is right in his own eyes, and there is a great struggle over the standards by which we should live.  Many lives are being damaged by man's immoral standards.  We believe that God's moral standard, as revealed in the Bible, should be the standard we live by; not my standard or yours.  Biblical standards, understood in the full contextual interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, provide for a blessed society.

Once his campaign is officially over, Huckabee will find himself well-positioned to join the ranks of high-profile Religious Right leaders such as James Dobson and Tony Perkins, should he so choose.  In fact he would probably be quite capable of not only joining them, but outright challenging them considering that the "values voters" they claim to represent have been flocking to his campaign while the leaders have been glaringly slow to embrace him. 

As Janet Folger, one of Huckabee's biggest supporters, put it:  

There is something this political race is doing that nobody would have expected. Among conservative and pro-family leadership the sheep are being separated from the shepherds.

There are those in "leadership" in the pro-family movement who follow the pundits, the polls or the politicians instead of leading on principle. I could list them, but, well, you already know who they are. The ones sitting on their hands or convening to the candidate of compromise.

[***]

There are sheep, and there are shepherds. Sheep follow the pundits, the polls, political expediency and promised perks. Shepherds follow principle. Gov. Mike Huckabee is such a man. So are those who stand on principle with him.

Not to mention the possibility of some interesting parallels between the Huckabee campaign's articles of faith and those of the Afrikaner National Party of South Africa, torchbearers for the cause of apartheid during their 46-year "Divinely Ordained" monopoly on power; has anybody considered that likelihood, and yet Huckabee's being (un)conscious of the interconnexion?

BREATHES THERE, READERS, NOTHING MORE CRASS WHEN IT COMES TO THE RELIGIOPOLITICAL RIGHT'S TREATMENT OF WOMEN than Rush Limbaugh's term "testicle lockbox," originally coined with reference to Hillary Rodham Clinton?

As if that weren't rather crude, consider what ConWebBlog has to say about conservative criticism of The Vagina Monologues:

A Feb. 14 CNSNews.com article by Evan Moore notes the 10th anniversary of "the controversial Eve Ensler play, 'The Vagina Monologues,'" adding that "conservatives have decried it as a crude production that degrades women--the exact opposite of what Ensler intended." And indeed, Moore quotes conservatives saying just that. But nowhere does Moore or any of the conservatives he quotes cite any specific content of the play that puroprtedly "degrades women."

Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America is quoted as saying that the play "is intended to push the envelope, and the way it pushes the envelope is by degrading women." Wright again claims the play "degrades and demeans women" and adds, "The role of the feminist movement was to ensure that women were judged by their merits, their capabilities, their experience. Yet 'The Vagina Monologues' reduces women to their private parts, as if that's the only thing that matters." No specifics are given.

Allison Kasic, director of collegiate studies at the Independent Women's Forum, is quoted as saying, "The play is blatantly anti-male [and] glorifies promiscuous behavior ... [This] is not empowering but actually demeans women." But Casic never cites any specific dialogue from the play other than noting that there is "someone on stage yelling 'c--- over and over again."

While Moore quotes supporters of the play, he apparently did not give them an opportunity to respond to Wright's and Kasic's claims that it "demeans women."

And we all know, good boys and girls, what conservatives really expect of women: That they "submit graciously" to the will of their husbands in service to "national and racial duty."

In other words, as sex machines.

That, and the husband being expected to use "whatever means necessary" (even if it means fear, force and intimidation while carrying three red lights) to ensure her "submitting graciously." And even then, the whole ordeal of actus coitu ensuing is only winding up as nothing short of humiliating.

Come to think of it: How do we know the Greater Conservative Agenda isn't really calling for tricking vulnerable young women from "welfare basket cases" into prostitution as their only way out towards self-reliance and personal responsibility?

FROM THE 19 FEBRUARY BROADCAST OF "THE RADIO FACTOR WITH BILL O'REILLY," as transcribed by the good people @ Media Matters for America (emphasis supplied):

O'REILLY: Maryanne, Woodbury, Connecticut: What say you, Maryanne? Maryanne--

CALLER: I'm here.

O'REILLY: --you're on the air.

CALLER: Here I am.

O'REILLY: OK.

CALLER: I just wanted to say that I think Michelle Obama is an angry woman--is speaking, I think, with her real voice for the first time. And--

O'REILLY: But how do you -- what do you base that on? You're basing that on what?

CALLER: Well, your representative asked me not to talk about this, but I have a friend who had knowledge of her and said to me months ago, "This is a very angry," her word was "militant woman."

O'REILLY: All right. What I want you do then, Maryanne, if -- I want you to stay on the line.

CALLER: OK.

O'REILLY: Because it's not fair to Michelle Obama for you --

CALLER: Oh no, all I'm saying is--

O'REILLY: --because we don't know who you are, and we don't know who your friend is, but we want to know. We want to know, OK. But it's not fair at this point for you to say, "My friend said X and Y," because we just don't know. But if you would give us your information, we would like to talk to your friend. And then whatever your friend tells us, we'll track it down. We'll do it in a fair and balanced and methodical way. That's how we're going to cover this campaign--all of them, all of them. So stay on the line, give us your information. If indeed Michelle Obama is angry about something, if she has a history, we would like to know that, and then we can put it into some kind of context so that we can be fair to everybody.

You know, I have a lot of sympathy for Michelle Obama, for Bill Clinton, for all of these people. Bill Clinton, I have sympathy for him, because they're thrown into a hopper where everybody is waiting for them to make a mistake, so that they can just go and bludgeon them. And, you know, Bill Clinton and I don't agree on a lot of things, and I think I've made that clear over the years, but he's trying to stick up for his wife, and every time the guy turns around, there's another demagogue or another ideologue in his face trying to humiliate him because they're rooting for Obama.

That's wrong. And I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels--that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever--then that's legit. We'll track it down.

1-877-9-NO-SPIN. Right back.

The which, as can be expected, generated a firestorm of response from not just Fox News, but also such who specialise in keeping the que vive on the media generally.

In its turn, prompting Bill O'Reilly to issue what may best be called a feeble attempt at apology in response to the ensuing outcry.

Still, though, Your Correspondent has some Serious Questions worth asking of Fox News in particular:

• What sort of liability would Fox News have in case, let's say, some mentally-unstable person becomes so motivated by the original remarks to threaten Mrs. Obama with lynching, physical harm or other violence during a campaign stop with her husband?
• In the event that Fox News and/or Mr. O'Reilly are directly implicated for the consequences of the remarks in question, then what would be the extent of their liability?
• Would there be particular liabilities inherent upon Roger Ailes and/or Keith Rupert Murdoch, given their positions of authority, confidence and trust vis-a-vis Fox News and News America Corporation, respectively, in consequence of any ensuing acts, deeds and exploits?
• Is there the likelihood of Fox News and/or News America "judgement-proofing" certain cash assets offshore in "pure trusts" and suchlike to avoid possible financial liability?
• Have you no sense of Decency, Sirs, @ long last?
• Have you left no sense of Decency?

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

IF YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT HOMESCHOOLING YOUR CHILDREN ON THE "NATIONAL CHRISTIAN EDUCATION" MODEL for the sake of "developing a healthy and proper moral compass [and] a True Patriot Love in All Thy Sons Command," you may want to take an especially close look @ the curricular materials.

There could well be the possibility that much of it amounts to sugar-coated appeals to racism, xenophobia, jingoism and White Christian Supremacy further seeking to reinforce the social isolation inherent and expected among those thus homeschooled--enough to make you want to reconsider.

I bring this up in light of the following item from the BBC as perhaps relates to the Hidden Dangers of Christian Homeschooling, or could otherwise offer some helpful insight (besides, "it's a small world, after all"):

An Islamic school in west London preached "race hate" to its students, an employment tribunal has heard.

The King Fahad Academy in Acton taught students from a textbook which called Christians pigs and Jewish people repugnant, ex-teacher Colin Cook said.

The 58-year-old from Feltham, south London, is claiming unfair dismissal, race discrimination and victimisation and is seeking £135,000.

But the school said Mr Cook was sacked for misconduct.

Last year, a Whitehall inquiry said the school provided satisfactory education.

No evidence

Schools minister Jim Knight ordered the inquiry into the Saudi-funded independent school following Mr Cook's initial claims.

He told the employment tribunal the school was "institutionally racist" and treated him differently to Saudi teachers.

He claims he was sacked after blowing the whistle on students cheating in public exams.

Mr Cook said after he left another teacher showed him textbooks containing racist passages.

"Subsequent to my dismissal I discovered that race hatred was being taught in textbooks in the school," he said.

But Simon Cheetham, for the school, said he could not prove his claims that the specific offensive passages were used in lessons.

"Without any evidence to support it, it's not worth a jot," Mr Cheetham said.

The hearing continues.

Come to think of it, Your Correspondent would like to ask those who were Christian Homeschooled whether the materials they used tended to race hatred, incitement, jingoism and bigotry.

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

SERBIAN GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED DEMONSTRATIONS IN BEAUTIFUL DOWNTOWN SARAJEVO last night opposing the UDI for the Kosovo region got a bit nasty to the extent that rioting ensued, in turn leading to the United States Embassy being firebombed.

I say "Serbian Government-sponsored" because the State Department has raised concerns that those involved in the firebombing may have been provoked by remarks tending to incitement during the rally.

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

AND IF YOU THOUGHT THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION FROM MEXICO AND ELSEWHERE IN LATIN AMERICA was awful enough of a problem--even without weird and unwholesome elements exploiting same for their own sinister and dangerous ends--the European Union is launching a new initiative in Ghana aimed @ discouraging the illicit migration of Africans into Europe in the hope of getting better jobs and livelihoods, usually on dangerous and unseaworthy vessels.

Which, for the most part, arrive in the Canary Islands, although some such arrive via Malta or southern Italy.

Proving that illegal migration is not the exclusive monopoly for the "morally-superior" American peoples.  

PERHAPS WE SHOULD LET MIAMI HERALD COLUMNIST LEONARD PITTS, JNR., explain why Those Who Should Know Better only enjoy taking cheap shots against Democratic Presidential wannabe Barack Obama for their own misguided hubris-weighted egos:

Barack Obama is not a Muslim.

We know this because he has told us so.

We know it because there is no credible evidence to suggest otherwise.

We know it despite a campaign of lies and whispers from various bloggers, pundits and head cases.

Barack Obama is not a Muslim. But, what if he were?

Same guy, same charisma, same inspirational idealism. But also, a Muslim. Not a crazy Muslim. Not a guy prone to strapping bombs to his chest in hopes of meeting virgins in heaven. A Kareem Abdul-Jabbar-type Muslim. A Dave Chappelle, Ahmad Rashad, Shaquille O'Neal-type Muslim. A guy you like and admire who just happened to be, you know . . . Muslim.

Would it matter? Should it?

The question bears answering because of the creepy, are-you-now-or-have-you-ever-been attitude toward Islam that seems to be seeping into the public dialogue lately. As in that campaign of lies and whispers that keeps showing up in my inbox--claims that Obama won't salute the flag, took his oath of office on a Koran, belongs to a terror cell and other assorted idiocy.

NBC News anchor Brian Williams has apparently been getting the same e-mails. In moderating a recent Democratic debate, he asked Obama about rumors "that you are trying to hide the fact that you're a Muslim . . . ''

The senator laughed a heard-that-a-few-times-before laugh. Then he replied that he is a Christian, that he is a victim of Internet rumor, and that he trusts the American people to "sort out the lies from the truth.''

What bothered me is that, by its phrasing, Williams' question presupposed there is something wrong with being a Muslim. And Obama's answer left the presupposition unaddressed.

What if he was a Muslim? What then?

A 2007 Pew Research Center survey found that 43 percent of us have a favorable opinion of Muslims (make it Muslim Americans and the number rises to 53 percent). Which may sound not so bad, except when you compare it to favorable ratings of other religious groups. Jews, for instance, are at 76 percent. Even evangelical Christians manage 60. And that ranking for Muslims represents a 5 point drop since 2004.

It's no mystery why the nation's opinion of Muslims is becoming less favorable. In a word, terrorism. And frankly, Americans are right to fear Muslim fanatics who embrace violence as a means of getting what they want.

But see, the key word there is not Muslim. It's fanatic. Yet some of us still think Muslim is the brand name for crazy. Me, I think the only difference between religious fanatics here and in the Middle East is that Middle Eastern nations tend to be theocratic (i.e., the word of the holy book has the force of law) and to be intolerant--sometimes, violently so--of dissent. So no one dares tell them no.

But if Pat Robertson, to name an American Christian fanatic not quite at random, had the force of law behind him and the ability to silence those who disagree, don't you think he would be as scary as the scariest ayatollah in Iran?

I do. That's why I would never want him to be president. Which is not quite the same as saying I'd never want a Christian to be president. I just prefer my presidents--regardless of their religion--reasonable. And sane. That seems a fair standard.

Yet it's a standard some of us now discard. The ongoing whisper campaign against Barack Obama, against his very American-ness, is a shameful appeal to ignorance and fear. Against that, I offer a simple statement the world's most famous and well-loved follower of Islam made just after the Sept. 11 attacks.

''I am a Muslim,'' said Muhammad Ali. "I am an American.''

That says it all. Or at least, it should.

Need I say more?