23 February 2008
10.01 hours

Governor Tim Pawlenty
State Capitol
St. Paul, MN 55155-0001

Dear Governor Pawlenty:

IN YOUR RECENT VETO OF BADLY-NEEDED LEGISLATION to revamp the transportation network in Minnesota, you claim such was necessary to "protect the good taxpayers" of Minnesota--even with a deteriorating infrastructure of roads, bridges and transportation which was made all the more evident when the I-35W bridge over the Mississippi River near St. Anthony Falls in Minneapolis collapsed on 1 August.

As if that weren't enough, your very Department of Transportation has found serious deficencies in a number of bridges across Minnesota, the most blatant example being the US 61 bridge over the Mississippi @ Hastings--the busiest two-lane bridge in Minnesota, know--which has a deteriorating superstructure that's so bad, a 40-ton limit will likely be imposed on same. Until it collapses.

Once that happens, Governor Pawlenty--what will be your next patsy?

After all, you have this nasty little reputation for being a Zealot and True Believer (hard-wired, even) in the discredited socioeconomic theorem known as "supply-side" or "trickle-down," which suggests that, by keeping taxes all the lower, companies would be compelled solely from the goodness of their hearts to create REAL jobs for REAL people paying REAL money which, in turn, would be repayable as REAL taxes.

Not to mention the interrelated belief, perhaps based on the same flawed exponential maths used by those promoting the so-called "five reports" chain letters a few years back, which suggests that low taxes=jobs=socioeconomic stability--articles of faith held dear by the likes of pro-business groups such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation and (all the more so) the so-called "Club For Growth," among others on K Street.

Of particular concern is the likelihood of your agenda and policies being influenced--perhaps even manipulated--by the Club For Growth, perhaps the most blatant advocate of such platitudes you hold dear. Come to think of it: 

• How do we know that your agenda, and those influencing same through the old whispering-in-the-ear game, isn't really being influenced by the Club For Growth or advisors working in their behalf (perhaps even in the guise of the "Taxpayers' League of Minnesota")?
• How do we know that your "real" agenda for repairing the transportation infrastructure based on keeping taxes all the lower isn't really based on "public-private partnerships" awarded more than likely to major campaign contributors expecting reward for Good and Loyal Service? Isn't this what they used to call "the spoils system"? What would be your preferred defence therefor?
• Are you not (un)consciously (un)aware of the clear and present danger such a mindset based on equally-defective and even discredited socioeconomic thought could pose upon the good name and repute of Our Beloved Minnesota, as manifested in the likes of:
• corruption;
• fraud and waste;
• inefficency;
• increased bureauracy;
• risk of mismanagement;
• discouraging transparency and oversight; and
• potential moral harm among all involved?
• What kind of influence, "talking points," "guidance," etc., are you receiving from the Club For Growth when it comes to such policies you hold dear as articles of faith?
• How do we know you're not resorting to, or likely to resort to, misadventures tending to moral debauchery or perversion (including use of sexual favours, heterosexual and/or homosexual) as an agency of coercion or co-optation? What lengths will you resort to to avoid attracting scandal as could cause moral harm to Our Beloved Minnesota as much as yourself as a byproduct of said misadventures?
• Is your real desire in keeping the fuel tax, etc., all the lower "to protect the good taxpayers" really nothing short of code to encourage wasteful and inefficent driving and commuting practices translating into more frequent fill-ups @ gas stations (the argument here, so to speak, being that more frequent gas sales will translate into increased tax volume while maintaining current tax rates)?

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

AND ANOTHER THING OR TWO:

What would be your reaction if it just so happens that the major credit-rating agencies of Moody's, Standard & Poor's, Dun & Bradstreet and Duff & Phelps place all State of Minnesota debt securities and equities On Credit Watch because of your misguided Zealotry and True Belief in "supply-side" socioeconomic thought--with a subtle warning that they could reduce your state's bond rating dangerously close to "junk" status in the end?

And what will it take to convince you to consciously recognise that, sometimes, tax increases, no matter how severe you may deem them, may be all the more necessary to finance reconstructive efforts on the transportaion network--another high-traffic bridge collapse with substantial casualties? A significant and measurable traffic jam (with substantial tailbacking) on one of the Twin Cities' major freeways, with substantial waste of fuel, ensuing air pollution and frayed nerves?

And what prevents your acknowledging the involvement (howbeit subtle) of potentially weird, unwholesome and/or dangerous elements in excusing your discredited low taxes=jobs=socioeconomic stability argument and agenda, unaware all the while of the possible consequences far-reaching for Minnesota's good name, repute, honour and credit rating--consequences which can easily be exploited by Very Dangerous Persons and Elements of Society for potentially dangerous ends?

How do we know that you're not insane or otherwise mentally unstable?

How do we know that you're not an alcoholic, drug addict or sexual fiend?

How do we know that you're not suffering from such conditions as could affect your capacity to capably discharge the powers and duties of your office, as defined in the Minnesota Constitution?

Have you forgotten that the Legislature could have you removed from office for not just "treason, felony or other high crimes and misdemeanors," but also for incapacity to discharge the powers and duties entrusted you? Likewise with the voters, through the agency of a recall election?

Remember the old saying: "Nero fiddled while Rome burned." (If truth be known, it was more than likely that the Emperor Nero played the lyre while the Eternal City was going down in flame.)

  sincerely,
ILUDIUM PHOSDEX
(die egte artikel--aanvaar geen plaasvervangers)

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

MEMO TO READERS, ESPECIALLY THOSE RESIDENT IN MINNESOTA: You are strongly urged to share this with not only Governor Pawlenty's office, but also with members of the Minnesota Legislature. Make sure they "get the message" that "we're as mad as h***, and we're not going to take it anymore," and then some.

Remember: "There is strength in numbers." 

WITH THE RELIGIOPOLITICAL RIGHT'S ARTICLES OF FAITH FOREVER SEEING HOMOSEXUALITY AS A MENTAL AND MORAL ABERRATION of the Highest Order Requiring the Utmost Vigilance and Attention of All Right-Thinking (read: poor, undereducated or homeschooled and easily-influenced) Americans, you could just imagine their response to what the New York-based tabloid Brevities ("America's First National Tabloid Weekly") reported on its front page in the issue of October 10, 1932:

MINERS' HOT HOLES

Coal Holes Hot as Gals Dig Deep
Underground Love True to Form

Sweat and Sex Mingle Freely as
Working-Men Demand Diversion in Love

The story thus headlined suggested that employers were secretly hiring prostitutes to prevent their blue-collar employees from becoming "girlie men" or otherwise developing "tendencies" (to use the preferred term of choice back then for those suspected of homosexuality), explaining thus:

But the horny-handed sons of toil that roll up the shekels for the big boys must have their women. This is especially true of the coal miners, steel mill workers and other labor hogs who do the nation's dirty work. Gals give this class of citizen his only kick. And gals this bozo must have if he is going to keep on whooping up production while his wages and chances of getting ahead go to the devil.

But then again, Brevities was never really credible to begin with, considering its highly-sensationalised and @ once salacious tone of reporting attracting the attention of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, as frequently took Brevities to task for Publishing Obscene Material--oft followed by Vice Squad seizures of copies from newsagents.

Equally interesting is the fact that Brevities was, more or less, the continuation of Broadway Brevities and Society Gossip, a gossip weekly as ran from 1916 until 1925, when editor Stephen G. Clow was found guilty of using same for blackmailing purposes--but not before publishing a series of no less than thirteen articles under the collective title "A Night in Fairyland" as sought to depict New York's nascent homosexual community in crude and unsparingly offensive terms rivalled by the Religiopolitical Right's dark Satanic propaganda mills in our "more enlightened" times.

In other words, using overzealous sensationalism in service to a warped and twisted vision of Morals and Decency, with little or no regard for Truth--but then again, conservatives don't want the Great Unwashed to handle the truth, instead expecting them to accept prolefeed cheap and cheerful.

Not to mention pornographic, as need be, if only to pacify them.

YOUR CORRESONDENT UNDERSTANDS THAT IN SOME GERMAN SPA TOWN WHOSE NAME HAS SLIPPED HIS MIND, one of the many novellas of the American West as were penned by the legendary Karl May (1842-1912) is dramatised on an outdoor stage every summer, roughly from the Whitsun weekend (i.e., seven weeks after Easter) until the Reunification Day holiday on 3 October.

And a new such is so dramatised every summer.

(German readers of this weblog would kindly assist me in this respect.)

In that vein, Your Correspondent hath it that New Glarus, Wisconsin has an annual reenactment of the Wilhelm Tell legend associated with its ancestral homeland of Switzerland on the Labour Day weekend, with performances in English and German.

Which has Your Correspondent imagining where someone in Wisconsin Dells might want to stage (and outdoors, mind you) adaptations of the several episodes of the long-running radio thriller series Suspense, "Radio's Outstanding Theater of Thrills" in the spirit of these adaptations of Karl May I alluded to earlier.

With proper timing, the original half-hour radio dramas could be nicely adapted so that two such could be staged in an evening:

• A rotating episode from a selection as could change annually; and
• The fan favourite "Sorry, Wrong Number," which was repeated no less than seven times on Suspense "by popular request" during its 1942-62 run on CBS radio.

Preceded by the original "seven chimes" and haunting music as preceded every episode, along with a short preface explaining the history and legacy of the mystery/thriller anthology series, recalling many of the legendary film and radio stars who appeared over its 20-year broadcast run and the many writers whose stories were so adapted ... and now its adaptation to the outdoor stage for a new generation as may not recall old-time radio.

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

SOME OF YOU CULTURALLY-CONSERVATIVE READERS OF THIS WEBLOG would, having read thus far, wonder why such a stage adaptation shouldn't be more approriate for Branson, Missouri.

I will explain the best I can:

Branson, for its part, is getting a bit hackneyed by the idealised delusion of the cultural conservative element seeing in Branson the One True Acme and Perfection of Amerikanischer Realkultur, one expected to convey a subtle propaganda message (think Taylor Caldwell's novellas as conduits for Extreme Right propaganda) along with the entertainment; the better to appeal to such who have no ideas anyway.

And which could be its own worst joke.

Hence, Wisconsin Dells, with its own brand of natural weirdness inherent, might be a better venue for Suspense adapted to the outdoor stage--so long as it doesn't meet the same star-crossed fates as a number of Hollywood films where the occult, the Forbidden Arts and horror figured prominently (especially so The Exorcist and the Poltergeist series).

CONWEBWATCH, A WEBSITE AS MONITORS THE LIKES OF SO-CALLED "ONLINE NEWS PORTALS" WITH INHERENT CONSERVATIVE BIAS AND "SPIN," has a sterling reputation for exposing the excesses of journalistic travesty and perversion by the likes of CNSNews, NewsMax and WorldNetDaily.

It is on that last one that ConWebWatch makes note of the recent out-of-court legal settlement that may have actually discredited WorldNetDaily enough to the point of their becoming their own worst joke:

WorldNetDaily has long used a $165 million libel and defamation lawsuit filed against it by Clark Jones, Tennessee car dealer and fund-raiser for former Vice President Al Gore, for self-aggrandizement purposes.

A September 2000 article by Charles C. Thompson II and Tony Hays -- part of a several-part series published by WND attacking Gore prior to the 2000 presidential election--described Jones as a "suspected drug dealer," "described as such on state law enforcement computerized files," who had interfered with a criminal investigation. Thompson and Hays also suggested that Jones played a role in the arson of one of his auto dealerships.

WND regularly bashed Jones as a "Gore crony" and depicted itself as a defender of the truth and the freedom of the press. Thompson insisted, "We did a proper, ethical investigation.... And the spurious claims of Clark Jones can't and won't win." WND editor Joseph Farah has insisted (without citing any evidence to back it up): "Understand that this lawsuit would be dropped in a flat second if Al Gore wanted it to be dropped," going on to claim, "WorldNetDaily has made every effort to ensure that its reporting in this series--and in everything it has covered--was fair, honest, truthful, balanced and accurate." WND has regularly boasted the articles caused Gore to lose Tennessee in the 2000 presidential election and, thus, the presidency, since a Tennessee win would have sealed an Electoral College victory and made the post-election turmoil in Florida moot.

As recently as Feb. 5, a WND article by Bob Unruh portrayed the lawsuit as a harbinger for "the future of investigative journalism in the United States," quoting WND's lawyer in the case, Larry Parrish, as saying, "If what WorldNetDaily did is subject to being the basis for a libel judgment, investigative reporting will just come to a complete halt." It also quoted Farah as complaining that "the largest defamation case in the history of the United States has not been reported anywhere outside of the news agency involved."

Farah probably doesn't want to complain about that anymore.

Eight days after this article appeared, a Feb. 13 article stated that WND has settled the lawsuit, which had been scheduled to go to trial next month, out of court--in part by retracting the statements it made about Jones.

The terms of the settlement are confidential, according to the article, though it would be logical to assume that WND paid some amount of money to Jones for the grief it caused him. It also provided "the text of the settlement statement jointly drafted by all parties in the lawsuit. Both sides agreed to limit comment on the lawsuit to this statement":

"A lawsuit for libel, defamation, false light and conspiracy was filed by Clark Jones of Savannah, Tennessee against WorldNetDaily.com, Tony Hays and Charles H. Thompson II arising out of a press release issued by WorldNetDaily.com on September 18, 2000, and articles dated September 20, October 8, November 24 and December 5, 2000, written by Tony Hays and Charles H. Thompson, II, posted on WorldNetDaily.com's website.

"The original news release by WorldNetDaily.com of September 18, 2000, and the article by Hays and Thompson of September 20, 2000, contained statements attributed to named sources, which statements cast Clark Jones in a light which, if untrue, defamed him by asserting that the named persons said that he had interfered with a criminal investigation, had been a 'subject' of a criminal investigation, was listed on law enforcement computers as a 'dope dealer,' and implied that he had ties to others involved in alleged criminal activity. These statements were repeated in the subsequently written articles and funds solicitations posted on WorldNetDaily.com's website. Clark Jones emphatically denied the truth of these statements, denied any criminal activity and called upon the publisher and authors to retract them.

"Discovery has revealed to WorldNetDaily.com that no witness verifies the truth of what the witnesses are reported by authors to have stated. Additionally, no document has been discovered that provides any verification that the statements written were true.

"Factual discovery in the litigation and response from Freedom of Information Act requests to law enforcement agencies confirm Clark Jones' assertion that his name has never been on law enforcement computers, that he has not been the subject of any criminal investigation nor has he interfered with any investigation as stated in the articles. Discovery has also revealed that the sources named in the publications have stated under oath that statements attributed to them in the articles were either not made by them, were misquoted by the authors, were misconstrued, or the statements were taken out of context.

"WorldNetDaily.com and its editors never intended any harm to Clark Jones and regret whatever harm occurred. WorldNetDaily.com has no verified information by which to question Mr. Jones' honesty and integrity, and having met him, has no claim or reason to question his honesty and integrity. WorldNetDaily.com wishes him well."

(This statement has been appended to the original 2000 article, as well as Unruh's Feb. 5 article, which repeated the original article's accusations against Jones without bothering to note that Jones had denied them, and other articles repeating the claim.)

The note that "all parties in the lawsuit" signed off on the agreement presumably also covers the other defendants in the case: Thompson, Hays, the Center for Public Integrity (which underwrote Thompson and Hays' reporting), then-WND director of communications (and now vice president for communications and marketing at the conservative Heritage Foundation) Rebecca Hagelin, and various Tennessee-based news outlets.

WND's admission that "no witness verifies the truth of what the witnesses are reported by authors to have stated" and that "the sources named in the publications have stated under oath that statements attributed to them in the articles were either not made by them, were misquoted by the authors, were misconstrued, or the statements were taken out of context" is a huge mea culpa. And it begs the question: Shouldn't the time to have figured this out have been before the article was published, instead of waiting until seven years after the fact to verify the claims?

Related article on ConWebWatch: WorldNetDaily on Trial Selected legal documents filed in Jones/WND lawsuit: Clark Jones' lawsuit against WorldNetDaily, et al. (second amended) WorldNetDaily affidavit, July 2004 "Request of WorldNetDaily.com/ Hagelin for Jones to admit," August 2004 Jeff South's analysis Dwight Teeter's analysis

As ConWebWatch detailed, the Center for Public Integrity, which backed out of the Thopmson-Hays project after deciding that, according to CPI senior fellow Knut Royce, "we didn't have a story that the Center would be the adequate forum for." The authors found a willing publisher in WND, which admitted in court papers that it never fact-checked the articles before publishing them and didn't even know the identities of the anonymous sources Thompson and Hays hid behind in making their false accusations against Jones.

The statement also appears to comport with claims by expert witnesses for Jones, who stated that the articles "grossly violated the basic standards of care advocated by professional journalism organizations and practice in reputable newsrooms" and that they included "publication of statements about wrongdoings attributed to Clark Jones which were attached to unnamed sources and allowed free floating use of the weasel word 'alleged' with no evidence presented that any official charges or allegations had been brought against Mr. Jones."

So much for Farah's claim that "WorldNetDaily has made every effort to ensure that its reporting in this series ... was fair, honest, truthful, balanced and accurate."

One more thing has not been discussed by WND: the unavoidable conclusion that the rest of Thompson and Hays' reporting may very well be similarly "misquoted," "misconstrued, or "taken out of context."

Since WND has often boasted that the series, in Unruh's words in the Feb. 5 article, "was responsible for Gore losing the state--and thus the presidential election," should it not also apologize to Gore as well for disseminating lies that cost him the election?

After all, there is a definitely likelihood that the rest of Thompson and Hays' series is a factually shaky as their claims about Jones--which, among other things, peddled guilt-by-association ties between Gore to the Russian mafia and claimed he protected "corrupt officials" in Tennessee.

Will WND go back and fact-check the rest of Thompson and Hays' reporting as well, or will it wait for someone else to sue before being spurred into action? The former would be the prudent solution, at least if WND has any proactive interest in rebuilding public confidence in its reporting.

Will WND take action against Thompson and Hays to recover damages for their faulty reporting? It certainly as a case to do so; if it wanted to publicly demonstrate a commitment to good journalism, it could easily make a big show of doing so, decrying the reporters for besmirching WND's good name (such as it is).

The problem is, however, that the Jones lawsuit is just one manifestation of WND's abysmal reporting standards:

• In February 2004, WND ran several articles repeating never-proven, anonymously sourced rumors that then-Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry was having an affair.
• WND retracted a December 2004 article by Aaron Klein that falsely claimed the group Islamic Relief is linked to terrorism and fraudulently raising money to benefit fictitious orphans.
• In April 2005, it treated an April fool's blog post on a gossip site claiming that the husband of Terri Schiavo had sold the rights to his story for a TV movie as the real thing, and had to retract it a few days later.
• WND's G2 Bulletin falsely claimed "Teresa Heinz Kerry was behind the funding of radical causes including Act-Up, Islamist jihadists, anarchists who disrupted the Seattle World Trade Organization meeting and communist front groups" when not only there is no evidence that Heinz money has gone directly to those groups, the documented evidence is that Heinz money given to the Tides Center has been specifically earmarked for environmental projects in Pennsylvania. Farah has referred to "Teresa Heinz Kerry's nonprofit Tides Center," even though she is not on its board of directors.
• According to mythbuster website Snopes.com, a November 2001 WND column by Ellen Makkai attacking the Harry Potter book series cited "High Priest Egan of the First Church of Satan" calling Potter "an absolute godsend ... we've had more applicants than we can handle lately"--a quote lifted from the satirical website The Onion. (The quote has since been expunged from Makkai's column.)

And that's just the obviously false stuff. That doesn't include the distorted and biased "reporting" promulgated by WND writers such as Aaron Klein, Bob Unruh, and Art Moore.

These are all significant breaches of sound journalistic practice, as well as blows to whatever credibility WND has--but Farah has never publicly addressed them with his readers, explaining how they occurred, how (or if) those responsible were punished, or what measures WND has taken to ensure they don't happen again.

So what does this all mean? Mainly, that Joseph Farah is much more interested in promoting a right-wing, anti-liberal agenda than responsible journalism. In the case of the Thompson-Hays articles, he clearly allowed his hatred of the Clinton administration to trump the time-honored concept of journalistic diligence.

That's one thing that can be said for much of WND's reporting--it really doesn't care if what it reports is actually true, as long as its political enemies are appropriately smeared.

(In court papers in the Jones lawsuit, WND made the laughable claim that "WND expressed no corporate editorial opinion with respect to whether Albert Gore, Jr. or George W. Bush was the more suitable candidate to hold the office of President" in 2000, even though Farah--who, as WND's founder and editor, is arguably WND's "corporate editorial opinion"--had asserted before the 2000 election that "There are at least a thousand good reasons not to vote for Al Gore for president," stated that Gore is "unfit for the presidency" and that "he will turn the presidency into a kind of neo-paganistic ayatollah-like system of oppression from which this country will never recover.")

As if to demonstrate that it hasn't learned anything from having to pay a no-doubt-significant sum to settle a libel lawsuit and after admitting that it published falsehoods--and following its tradition of running unverified claims against Democratic presidential candidates--WND gets back behind the smear machine with a Feb. 17 article (unbylined this time) unquestioningly repeating a claim by a man named Larry Sinclair who said he did drugs and had sex with Barack Obama. WND made no apparent effort in that article or another one the next day to verify anything the man said--indeed, WND offers no independently corroborated evidence whatsoever to support the man's claim--what including his claim to live in Duluth, Minnesota, or his claim that he is "a registered Democrat but has never voted for any candidate."

Regarding those last two claims: One blogger is reporting that the man is, in fact, from Texas and a supporter of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.

WND appears to be making the same mistake it made in publishing Thompson and Hays' work: Shouldn't WND have made an effort to verify Sinclair's claims before it published them? You know, how real journalists do it? Or does WND believe that the mere fact that someone is spouting smears against a Democrat is evidence of its truth?

It's looking like WorldNetDaily is supplying yet another aggrieved party with material for another libel lawsuit--and that WND is giving readers yet another reason not to take it seriously as a source of news.

Farah's willingness to use WorldNetDaily to recklessly spread falsehoods about his political enemies may--and perhaps should--eventually kill his website. WND's crushing admission in the Jones lawsuit that it spread lies after years of boasting it did nothing wrong, plus its eagerness to spread unproven claims about Obama, are signs that Farah cares nothing about the consequences of his actions, only about using his website as a vendetta machine.

(Perhaps something the courts ought to consider is the likelihood of charges against WorldNetDaily as being an agency of blackmail and extortion in the guise of "investigative journalism" with obvious conservative biases. Does Joseph Farah recall the likes of Broadway Brevities, a mid-1920's tabloid eventually shut down for its being a blackmailing front?) 

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?