I rant about the "OpenSource Boob Project"

Gentle

Yes, I am one of the last to tackle this topic. After Get Off The Internet, Beaucoup Kevin,  Occasional Superheroine, The Beat and almost countless others have said what they had to say. I thought I said all I had to say about it in my comments on Val's blog, but I felt compelled to write more about it here.

What is the Open-Source Boob Project? Read more about it here but this is the gist of it:

The Open-Source Boob Project.

At Penguicon, we had buttons to give away. There were two small buttons, one for each camp: A green button that said, "YES, you may" and a red button that said "NO, you may not." And anyone who had those buttons on, whether you knew them or not, was someone you could approach and ask:

"Excuse me, but may I touch your breasts?"

And if you weren't a total lout - the women retained their right to say no, of course - they would push their chests out, and you would be allowed into the sanctity of it. That exchange of happiness where one person are told with gropes and touches that they are desirable and the other is someone who's allowed to desire.

For a moment, everything that was awkward about high school would fade away and you could just say what was on your mind. It was as though parts of me were being healed whenever I did it, and I touched at least fifteen sets of boobs at Penguicon. It never got old, surprisingly.

Some women didn't want to. That was fine. We never demanded anything of anyone. And if you didn't want to put yours up for the Project but you wanted to touch, well, that was fine, too. It was simply for folks who felt like being open.

It was a raging success at Penguicon.... And there haven't been any hookups that I know of thanks to the Open-Source Boob Project. It is, as I said, a very special thing. (Though I wouldn't rule it out if two single people exchanged a moment.) And we'll probably do it at other cons, because it's strangely wholesome and sexual at the same time.

I've left off the names, because frankly, people should reveal for themselves whether they're Open-Sourcers or not. Not everyone wants to go public with it, and what happens at the con stays at the con. But trust me. If you are, and I meet you, I will ask. And you'll understand the beauty and simplicity of the Open-Source Boob Project for yourself.

Touch the magic, my friends. Touch the magic.

Yes! A geek's glory land! Being able to touch a woman's boob without dinner and a movie first! Or even showering!

I have these few tips for anybody who thinks that this is a good idea:

1. It's not
2. No, really, it's not.
3. Not every woman wants their boobs touched.
4. Those that do might be coming from a wide variety of reasons. They are not all free thinkers who are comfortable with their bodies. So don't think that if someone doesn't want to have their boobs touched that means something is wrong with them. 
5. Couching your 'feeling girls up' project in new age-y jargon doesn't take a way from the fact that the whole point of the project is so you can get your rocks off by feeling a woman's boobs.
6. Don't try to deny it. You don't need to touch a woman's breasts to say her body is beautiful. You want to touch her breasts so you can touch her breasts.
7. Backpedaling by saying that people have misconstrued your "healing" and "wholesome" breast touching ritual and turned it to a lewd and perverted breast touching ritual doesn't really work. These people might be perverts, but they cut to the gist of your ideas.
8. And for those who think this misguided idea, which gives women a choice in the matter, allows you to just go up to any woman any a convention and cop a feel, you are really, really, REALLY mistaken. I feel sorry for your groin, which will probably be kicked. A LOT.
9. Anybody at a convention who comes up and grabs my wife's boobs will be power bombed through a table.
10. By HER, not ME.
11. If you are so socially maladjusted that the only way you can touch boobs is starting up a program where the willing will allow you to touch their boobs, might I suggest going to a strip club. The less reputable the better. Think BYOB. Sure, you have less money for Star Trek prop replicas and almost naked Japanese vinyl figurines, but, with the right stripper on the right night, you will be able to touch all the boobs you want.
12. Or better yet, how about you start treating women with dignity and respect. Treat them like human beings. Then you might actually get a girlfriend who would let you touch her boobs all the time. Yes, yes, I know. You'd have to start brushing your teeth and showering, and you'd have even less money for Star Trek prop replicas and mostly naked Japanese vinyl figurines and you'll be limited to only one pair of breasts for an extended period of time, but there are other benefits, like having someone care if you live or died.

See, I have a circle of friends where we come up with some wacky, off the wall ideas. But we usually keep these ideas to ourselves. We don't present these wacky, off the wall ideas to the general public where they will be viewed out of context and interpreted differently than we intended. That being said, theferret is either deluded or less suave than he thinks he is. Because as much as he tries to couch his groping in an intellectual way, in a way which he wants to appear is empowering to women, he is still trying to cop a feel of random women's boobies. And even though the women in his circle of friends do not think that's offensive, it doesn't mean that it's wrong for another woman to think it is.

 

CNN.com irritates me in two very different ways.

Everyday, I get an e-mail from CNN.com listing their top ten most popular stories of the day. Today was no different, but two particular stories caught my eye and raised my ire.

First off, the number 8, most popular story on the site was this:

Martha Stewart's dog dies.

I am not making this up. Some would say Martha Stewart dying wouldn't really be CNN.com newsworthy, but her dog? And enough people clicked on it that it ranked number eight? Really?

I am not saying I hate dogs. I love dogs. And I know losing a pet can be really sad. But what I am saying is that if the pet of a bint who is most known for stock fraud and making festive centerpieces for fancy dinner party dies, it should not be covered by a reputable news website, at least if it wants to stay reputable.

 

Art_mahmoud_gi

The other thing that made me angry was a recent speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (The story about the speech ranked #5).

In the speech, the Iranian dickwad made this outright lie:

"Four or five years ago, a suspicious event occurred in New York. A building collapsed and they said that 3,000 people had been killed but never published their names."  

I am a Democrat and, on a lot of things I am a liberal, but right now I want to bomb Iran back to the stone age (which for them is only 100 years or so) just because of this comment.

I love it when people lie, thinking that just because they hold power that it will become the truth. And maybe in Iran that works.

Perhaps I'm being to harsh and the Iranian dickwad was merely uninformed. So, listen up, Mr. Iranian dickwad president guy. Not only have the names of the victims of 9/11 been published, each and every 9/11 ALL THE NAMES OF THE VICTIMS ARE READ AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER SITE!!!!!!! They usually televise it, Iranian dickwad, perhaps you should check it out. Or, if you come back to the US after the site is rebuilt, you can just go over and read the names inscribed on the memorial there. Maybe that would be of a help.

Yeah, I know. He was probably just trying to get Americans angry. Well, he succeeded.

Gates Ombudsman: 03/11/08

Ombudsman,-header

Some more rantable news items:

• NY Governor Elliot Spitzer linked to prostitution ring: Or, the "get tough on crime" candidate lets his position on prostitution be known. You know, one of the more odious comments political wags make about the possibility of women being in power is that the fact they are hormonal once a month inhibits their ability to lead.Yet, how many men in leadership positions had their careers destroyed by their not being able to keep their pesky in their pants?
• Obama states he will not accept the vice-presidency if he loses: I guess he's only all about change only if he is the one controlling the change. If offered to be a high-ranking part of an administration also looking for change, he will stamp his feet and go home. I understand why he said this, after all, he is running for president and his eyes should be on that prize, but it still comes out as being selfish.
• John Rogers off of Blue Beetle: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!
• Being replaced by Will Pfeiffer: Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!
• But only for a limited time: Noooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!! 
• My review of "Left on a Mission" is up at Popmatters: Go read it!
• New Guiding Lines column up at Broken Frontier: A big day for my writing on the internet. This week, I cover Serenity: Better Days #1, The Last Defenders #1, JLA Classified #54, Pogrom #1, Screamland #1, Superman #674, Astounding Wolf-Man #5, and Avengers Fairy Tales #1.
• Valerie D'Orazio puts the clamps down over at Occasional Superheroine: A combative round of commenting causes Val to approve all comments. Honestly, it doesn't seem from what I see here that the posts were even close to flamewar worthy, but perhaps she has a history with that fellow. Either way, as long as she continues to blog, I am fine with that! 

Recent Spate of False Memoirs Troubles Me.

It all started with James Frey, who gained national infamy when his some of his claims in his memoir, "A Million Little Pieces" were shown to be untrue. You'd think that after that, authors and publishers would wise up and that sort of thing would never happen again. But in the last two weeks, now less than two other memoirs were exposed to be factually challenged. More so than even Frey's book.

Last week, it was revealed Misha Defonseca's book, "Misha: A Memoire of the Holocaust Years," in which she claims that, as a Jewish child, she lived with a pack of wolves in the woods during the Holocaust, was untrue. She didn't live with wolves, nor in the woods. She wasn't even Jewish. Her parents were killed, but not because they were Jews, but rather because they were resistance fighters.

You'd think that the publishers might have been a little suspicious about the fact she claimed to live in the woods, being protected by wolves. But I guess they didn't doubt her truthiness because she mentioned the Holocaust. I mean, who would be a scuzzy enough to lie about the Holocaust for personal gain.

If that wasn't bad enough. this week it was revealed that Margaret B. Jones lied in her memoir "Love and Consequences". In it, she claimed she, a white woman, was raised in poverty by a black foster mother and sold drugs for a gang in a tough Los Angeles neighborhood. Turns out she grew up in an affluent suburb with her biological parents. Never lived with a foster family, never lived in the Hood, never sold drugs for the Bloods.

Luckily, this trend in fake true stories is not going to change the way book publishers do business. Which is good because I have been shopping my memoir around. And unlike these others, my memoir is 100% true (wholly depending on your definition of the word "true". And "is". )

What's more, I have decided to print an excerpt from the first chapter here in my blog. I figure, what better way to get the bidding war started. The title, you impatiently ask?

RAISED BY POODLES, The Bill Gatevackes Story. A Memoir

Chapter one

Fleas are the bane of my existence.

 

Mom

Some might have called Sally a bitch. I called her mom.

She stood about 15 inches high at her highest point. She had intelligent eyes and grey fur which came to puffs at her ankles. She was the poodle, and she helped make me the man I am today.

How did I come to find myself in Sally's "pack". Well, I only heard this information second hand. So, I cannot verify the accuracy of this account.

My biological father is unknown to me. He could have been the lifeguard at the local pool. He could have been Englebert Humperdick. Or he could have been a member of the 1970 New York Football Giants. I just don't know. But I do know who my birth mom was.

My biological mother, I would later find out, was named Bambi Barbie, a teenage girl who found herself pregnant after sleeping with one of those 27 men. I like to think that she, freaked out by the thought of having a child at 17, gave me up to adoption and that is how I found myself in Sally's happy home. But the truth was far worse.

My mother was a Tabsca addict. You might be unfamiliar with "Tabsca", a hallucinogen with a cult popularity in the 1970s. It was a dangerous cocktail of "Tab" and "Fresca". Separately, they were refreshing carbonated beverages. Combined, they formed a highly powerful psychotropic drug 10 times as potent as LSD.  

One November, my birth mother went shopping for Thanksgiving after a six day Tabsca bender. She says the last thing she remembers is freebasing a dose of the "Tan Demon" in the car right before going into the supermarket. The next thing she remembers is arriving back at her apartment and seeing a 13 lb. turkey the car seat. She assumes that while in the store, she put switched me out with the poultry. She put my jumper on the bird and left the store with it, leaving me in the refrigerated bin with the other turkeys. Such is the horrific effects of Tabsca.

When I related this tale of abandonment, people expect me more upset than I am about the event. "She got you confused with a frozen turkey!" they ask. "Doesn't that piss you off?"

I guess I should be angrier. But I take a rather zen approach to it. This is what fate had in store for me. It was supposed to happen. This is the way my life was supposed to go.

That, and I'm glad my birth mother mistook me for a turkey while we were still in the supermarket and not when she was preparing Thanksgiving dinner.

###

That's all for now. Agents and publishers, contact me if you want more. As to what to expect from future chapters, here is a little taste:

"Sally named me Wrrrraowrrr, which translates into human as "Fluffy". I guess this is an ironic reference to my being completely devoid of fur. Kind of like calling a bald man "Curly", a tall man "Tiny" or a dumb man "President of the United States""

"I remember getting that first, simple, black leather collar. I knew then that I finally belonged."

"The family cat didn't like me. I still have the scars to prove it. But I gave as good as I got."

"I remember to this day exactly what I said when social services took me away from Sally. I said, "Aaaaooorrrrrroooo!!!""

"He said "Try these man, you'll taste the raaaaiiiinnnnbooow!" That was the day my Skittles addiction began."

Diablo Cody: Much Nothing About Ado.

Oscarsleeping

CNN.com sent to me, via my Academy Awards alerts,  an AP story about the backlash against Diablo Cody. Since it is 3 AM and I can't get to sleep, I decided to blog at random about the backlash and Ms. Cody.

(Image courtesy of her MySpace blog. More on pictures taken from her blog)

• How is any of this news? Especially AP and CNN worthy news? The media is fascinated with this woman, mainly because she was once a stripper and now is a writer. But their has been backlash against Kevin Smith, Quentin Tarantino, Akiva Goldsman and just about any other writer you'd care to mention. None of that backlash is major media newsworthy.
• As for the backlash itself, well, welcome to Hollywood. While I haven't been to Hollywood other than as a tourist, it is renown for building people up so it can tear them down.
• Is the backlash motivated by jealousy? Yeah, at least in part.  
• As an aspiring writer, am I jealous of Cody's success? Hell yeah. But not in the way I want to tear her down. I want to use her for an example and/or inspiration. If she can do it, perhaps maybe I can too.
• The article is titled "Latest "It" talent feeling backlash". If that wasn't the most awkward title ever, I don't know what is. And it's not really verified either. The article is mostly "This newspaper said this about Cody. This website said this about Cody" Comments from her are conspicuous in their abscence. Is she really feeling the backlash? How can we tell?
• The article should be disqualified for quoting TMZ at all. TMZ is the catfish of the tabloid world, the bottom feeder of the bottom feeders.
• The article, while wrapping itself in the journalistic pretense of doing a serious examination of the backlash, is, in essence, a backhanded form of backlash itself.
• What constitutes the backlash? A brouhaha about her Oscar shoes, people imitating her writing style, a comedian imitating her, and "embarrassing nude pictures" of her posted on Egotastic (The link will take you to the pictures, So beware.). The last one appears to be the worst. The rest are fairly tame.
• The kicker? The pictures on Egotastic were taken from various and sundry blogs she herself has had over the past few years. (Seriously, this girl has a progression of blogs to rival mine. Hey, Diablo! Come to Vox! It's user friendly!) 
• As for there BEING nude pictures, I only say this: Nude pictures of an ex-stripper on the internet is the equivalent of finding a drunk person of Irish descent in a bar. (And before you yell at me, I am half Irish). In other words, fairly common.
• For a "serious" article, it portrays a lot of quotes out of context. One quote is in favor of Cody but at first read seems the quotee is dissing her.
• I'm begining to feel I should put on black eyeliner and film myself screaming into the camera "LEAVE DIABLO ALONE!"
• The article says Cody is now under pressure to match the success of Juno. Hmm. Lets see. She has another movie in pre-production, a Steven Spielberg produced TV series in pre-production and a regular back page column in Entertainment Weekly (of which I am probably most jealous of her for. I had my eye on that job. Someday. When I became a famous author. Okay, I know it's not likely. But a boy can dream, can't he?), so she is doing pretty alright just the way it is.

I endorse that you DON'T vote for Ralph Nader.

Ralph Nader

So, Ralph Nader announced he is running for President. I guess the exploratory committee came back and said "Ralph, we've done some research. And there is a really chance that you can screw up this election! I know! Just what you wanted to hear. Shall I set up the press conference now!"

A lot of disenchanted people have already joined the band wagon. I have this to say to anyone on the fence.

Do not vote for Ralph Nader.

If you are sick and tired of how big business treats its employees and influences politics, find out the culprits and boycott their products. Write to your Congressman or woman and say you won't support them if they take money from these people.

But don't vote for Ralph Nader.

If you want a more responsible environmental policy, again, write your Congressperson. Do all you can, personally, to recycle and to buy recycled goods. Become active in assuring your local community does the same thing.

But don't vote for Ralph Nader.

Because while Nader says all the right things about the subjects that many politicians say nothing, or little about, in reality, there is little he can do about it.

The President is head of the executive branch. The executive branch can only enforce laws, not make them. That burden falls on the legislative branch, or the Congress. So all these sweeping changes that Nader wants to make relies on the cooperation with the Congress.

Now, the congress is full of all these fat-cat politicos on both sides of the aisle who are in the hands of lobbyists working for companies that exemplify what Nader is railing against. Do you think they'd be willing to sponsor a bill, say, adopting a carbon pollution tax? An increase in pnealties for corporate crime? Not likely.

I don't know if Nader is idiotically idealistic or selfishly self-serving, but this campaign is doomed for failure. There is no chance he can win. And if in the outside chance he does win, he will have a hard time fulfilling on his campaign promises. The only thing he really can accomplish is ensure that enough votes are leeched away from the Democrats that the Republicans have a better chance of winning.

Oh, he will deny this. He will say that if the Democrats can't beat the Republicans with him in the race, they can't beat them at all. He will make the point that Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 and was screwed by the electoral college--nothing to do with him. But the fact is, he did cost Gore the election. He did syphon votes away from the Democrats. And he gave us a President that was almost the exact opposite of the ideals he stands for.  

Nader is a learned man. He should realize this. He should be pragmatic enough to know that change can not come all at once, and any real, lasting change comes through compromise. Compromise is not in Nader's vocabulary

So, therefore, if you want a better country. Do not vote for Nader. I may be a political bigot. But I am not infringing on Nader's right to run. He has every right to be on the ballot. But you have every right not to vote for him.

Ralph Nader: Voice of the People, or Self-Serving Demogauge?

Ralph Nader

According to CNN.com, Ralph Nader has put together an exploratory committee to investigate the possibility of him running for President this year. That sound you hear is most of America groaning.

Why is he thinking of running? This is what he has to say about that:

"John Edwards, the banner of Democratic Party populism, is dropping out, and Dennis Kucinich dropped out earlier, so in terms of voters who are at least interested in having major areas of injustice, deprivations, and solutions discussed in a presidential campaign, they might be interested in my exploratory effort."

So, since Edwards and Kucinch two candidates with zero primary wins thus far and only 29 delegates between them, are out you decide to fill their shoes because voters want to hear what they had to say and its up to you to keep the fire burning? Right?

If people were really all that interested in what these two men had to say, they'd still be running, wouldn't they? Don't get me wrong, Edwards was my horse in this race, but the voters hath spoken. And Ralph, you are not going to do any better.

I mean, seriously? Has anybody been clamoring for Nader to get in the race? Anybody saying "I wish Ralph Nader was running"? Al Gore, yes. Mike Bloomberg, yes. Nader? No.

Why do we only hear from Nader during election time? Where is he during the other 3 years? Where is his message then? One of the reasons Al Gore is a popular choice for a candidate is because he is out there trying to stop global warming. Love him or hate him, agree with him or not, he is out there getting his message across. Where's Nader?

And if the message is so important, why did he wait for Edwards and Kucinich to drop out? Why didn't he throw his hat in the ring back when all the other candidates did? And does he really need to run for President to get his message across? Al Gore over the last few years showed he didn't. 

Or why doesn't Nader run for Senate to try to work in the system? Could it be that there is not enough media attention doing it that way?

Don't call him a spoiler. Even though he is best known recently from costing Gore the election in 2000 (Yes, there is no way to be sure that Nader cost Gore the election. But Nader got 97,000+ votes in Florida in 2000. Gore lost the state by 537. It seems almost like a lead pipe cinch that at least 538 of Nader's voters would have voted for Gore if Nader wasn't in the race. Not all of those 97,000 were people who only showed up at the polls because Nader was running.), he has this to say he's trying to do the same thing now:

"Political bigotry will be the label on anybody who uses the word 'spoiler.' Because ‘spoiler’ means minor candidates are second class citizens. Either we have an equal right to run for election, or we are spoilers for each other trying to get each other's votes.”

Ooh! I'm a political bigot! Yes you have the right to run, Ralph. But you have no chance of winning. None. Zilch. Zero. I know it. America knows it. And you should be smart enough to know it. The only thing you will do is take votes away from the Democrats. And if the race is close that could very well spoil the election for the Democrats. If you were a candidate from the get go, or if you added your name to the Democratic ticket from the very beginning, I would have more respect for you. Your stance would be more believable. Call me a bigot, but coming in when more than half the field for either side has already dropped out, it looks like you want to play the part of the spoiler.

If you are truly concerned with helping America, Ralph, you wouldn't run for President. If 2000 taught you anything, not only won't you win, but whoever wins will pay absolutely no attention to your platform. And you could cause the country to be in even worse shape than if it would have been if you never ran. That's what happened in 2000.  

If the message is so important, and running for President is such a great platform for get yours across, and you are not actively trying to spoil the election for the Democrats, why didn't you drop out of the race before November in 2000? You had already made your point. Tell your supporters to vote for whoever, just not you.

It is one thing to join the race to use it as a platform to get your opinions heard, It's quite another to run just to hear the sound of your own voice. With Nader, I think its more of the latter than the former.

The Britney Spears circus gets another clown.

Dr phil

Just when you though the public downward spiral of Britney Spears couldn't get any weirder, enter Dr. Phil.

After the latest escapade, with Britney being taken into the hospital on a gurney, she had to suffer the indignity of Dr. Phil barging into her hospital room, brandishing his own unique version of tough love all the while.

Now, if all this happened under the radar, if no one knew about it, I would say that Dr. Phil was doing a good thing. He was trying to help out a woman in need.

But it got plastered all over the news outlets and Dr. Phil even wanted to do a special about it, supposedly to help all the people suffering from the same thing Britney was going through.

CNN.com put it excellently in this article: "That's assuming, of course, they have been in and out of rehab in recent months, arrived in public in short skirts and no underwear, shaved their heads bald, run over a photographer's foot, banged up a car in a parking lot and left without notifying the owner, and attacked another car with an umbrella."

So, what it looks like instead that Dr. Phil was simply taken advantage of the Britney Spears tragedy to get some publicity for himself. Of course, not being stupid, he trashed the special--for now. But he still looks like a charlatan and an opportunist.

Best part about this, is that, supposedly, he was there at the request of the Spears family. Which proves that bad parent doesn't exclusively occur during childhood. I could happen your entire life.

 

Tempest in a Teacup: CT Teacher gives out "pornographic" comic as an assignment.

As the Beat reports here and here, from this news article and this follow-up, a male Guilford CT High School teacher has resigned after assigning a copy of Eightball #22 to a 13 year-old female student. Of course, I had to comment on it.

First off, I have to say that in this case and in the Gordon Lee case, if you are giving comics that feature nudity to children, you are just asking for trouble. I mean, really. Think before doing something as daft as that.

That being said, the "victim" in this case is 13 years old! I was buying and reading Watchmen when I was 13! In the grand scheme of things, that was more pornographic than that issue of Eightball, which was reworked into the Ice Haven hardcover. And I only turned out mildly perverted.

The original article illustrates the fantasyland view most parents have about their kids. They are either in denial about or have forgotten how they were like when they were young and prefer to think of their children as pure, innocent, simple, untouched-by-the-world creatures who stay that way until they turn 18, when, magically, maturity rushes at them all at once and they become fully functioning adults overnight.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. As much as they think they are protecting them, the real world creeps in earlier that the realize. And "pornographic" comics aren't the main culprit. Try TV, movies, magazines, music videos, their friends and just the news in general. I'd argue that almost everything these kids come in contact through the above media is more explicit than that issue of Eightball.  I mean, what is worse? Seeing a drawing of a female breast or hearing Marg Helgenberger talking about her sex life, or lack thereof, on CSI?

And the parents quoted in the article take overreacting to ludicrous levels. "It's pornography," one says. "If that was my daughter that came home and showed this to me I honestly believe my husband would hurt the man," says another. Really? Is that a fact? Good tactic. Surely seeing daddy lacing a beating on her teacher would counter act the negative effect seeing a cartoon booby would have on the child's psyche.

I have read the book, but for those of you who have not, Journalista! , the blog of Eightball publisher Fantagraphics, has reprinted the most offensive panels from the issue. Those of you clicking the above link expecting to find hot, hardcore sex will be extremely disappointed. I'd wager to say that if those panels were a scene in a movie, that movie would only garner a PG-13 rating. Meaning the student in question could pay her money and see it with out any adult supervision at all.

But, of course, these are comics were talking about. There's an entirely different standard for comics than there is for movies. After all, didn't you know, comics are for kids! These perverts are using a child's medium to try and scar these pure and innocent children just so they can get their rocks off! Those nasty buggers!!!!

We are over 50 years removed from Wertham's Seduction of the Innocent and witchhunt it spawned but the climate of what caused it has not changed all that much. This incident, and the reaction to it, is proof of that.

 

 

 

My take on the whole Former Senator Larry Craig fiasco.

I had meant to blog about this earlier, but thought the ship had passed. But the case was a big topic of conversation over the weekend with my friends. So I figure I could be safe talking about it.

For you who don't know, Larry Craig was a Senator from Idaho. He was arrested on June 11 for lewd conduct at a Minneapolis Airport, an arrest he pled guilty to at the beginning of August. You can read about it here.

The arrest stemmed from Craig allegedly attempting to receive gay sexual favors from an undercover police officer.

This is especially ironic considering that Craig's record in Congress is very non-gay friendly, with him voting for a law against same sex marriage and against laws regarding gays being discriminated in the work place and violence against gays being considered hate crimes. 

And I say "allegedly" because even though he pled guilty, he said that he did no wrong. He only pled guilty because he wanted the ordeal "to go away".

I never understood this argument. Pleading guilty or , like, Michael Jackson did, settling out of court with the defendant just to make nasty allegations "go away" never really seems to make them go away. More than anything, they act as confirmations that the rumors and accusations were true.

Craig's sexuality is called into question a number of times. He even mentions this in his statement a few days after the scandal broke, calling it a "witchhunt" and naming the Idaho paper, the Idaho Statesman, as a main culprit. As a matter of fact, he said that the stress newspaper's persecution was one of the main reasons why he pled guilty.

But Craig had maintained his innocence and has said repeatedly that he was not gay, even going so far as to accuse the arresting officer of trying to entrap him.

But the scandal brought pressure from some of his Republican co-horts to step down. On Saturday, he announced that he will step down at the end of the month.

My take on this?

• If he is innocent, then he quite possibly could be one of the most stupid people in the land. If the rumor is that you are secretly gay, and you are arrested for proposistioning gay sex, and you are innocent yet you plead guilty anyway, then you deserve to step down as a Senator. People who make that kind of bad decision should not be running the country.
• If he is guilty, well, he is simply a gigantic hypocrite. His political views border on the homophobic. To be have gay tendences and put up that front? He needs to seek counseling. He seems to be basing his political reputation, or at least part of it, at the expense of a group of people who I believe do not deserve that type of condemnation. He is infringing on the rights of a group that need the protection from violence and discrimination he is voting against. If he is in fact gay or bi and still does that, that is borderline evil.
• I don't envy the police officer who has to sit in a bathroom all day. God, the thought of the smell alone makes me wince.
• This might actually sound homophobic in and of itself, and I assure you that it is not intended to be, but I admire the system gay people have in regards to hooking up. For the record, according to the article, what Craig did was tap is foot, slide his foot over to touch the officers, and wiggle the fingers of the hand opposite the stall wall underneath the wall. (Just putting that out there in case anyone, like Craig, you know, "accidentally" do all of the above). Yes, that is a lot to go through, but if straight people had a similar method, my teenage years would have been much happier.

My take on Miss South Carolina Teen

Has every one heard about Lauren Caitlin Upton? She is Miss South Carolina Teen who was asked by Mario Lopez during the Miss Teen USA contest, ""One fifth of Americans can't locate the United States on a world map; why do you think that is?" Let's see if we can go to the tape:

 

Uhhh...what did she just say?? Miss Teen South Carolina 2007

 Hopefully, that worked. Regardless, she funked up her response.

I have an opinion on the whole thing. Hopefully, I'll be gentler.

1. First off, I agree pretty much with everything Peter David says, and I will probably parrot him several times in this blog post.
2. I am not a big supporter of beauty pageants, especially when it comes to young girls. I believe that when a woman could be anything she wants, from the president to a stripper. If an adult woman wants to be in a beauty contest, more power to her. But when you are 18 and under, in my opinion, most times it becomes less about what you want and more about what someone else wants.
3. That was a pretty stupid question to ask a beauty pageant contestant. The answer is simple: because enough emphasis is not placed in geography in our schools. And the fact that people are stupid, but we won't go into that. Neither answer is fit for a beauty contest answer. The judges want positive and peppy.
4. I consider myself a Supergenius but I don't know much about geography. I CAN find the US on the map though. Canada and Mexico too. And England. And France. Spain, Germany too. Russia and China as well. After that, it's a crap shoot. Seriously. I'd wager a bet that most people have a hard time find stuff on maps. If anybody can place every country on the map, they are too scary to be associated with.
5. I bet Dubya would stumble just as bad if he had to answer that question on the spot. Heck, he'd probably screw up a prepared statement about it.
6. Public speaking is nerve wracking, whether it's a board meeting of 12 people of an audience of 150 people, like the Miss Teen USA pageant gets.  
7. Is there anything that Mario Lopez won't do?

The O.J. Simpson book debacle.

News today of The Goldmans and Denise Brown appearing on Oprah on September 13th got me thinking about the whole "If I Did It" fiasco. Several other times along this long and windy path the scandal took I was compelled to write something about it. Now, I feel I just have to.

First of all, the idea of the book was even thought of being publish I find repugnant. Here, you have a man accused of a double homicide, found innocent by a jury of his peers, writing a book on how he might have killed them if he actually did. Am I the only one who sees a problem with it? If he did it or if he didn't do it, he, and the book publishers, are exploiting a horrible loss of life for a profit. If O.J. is guilty, he got away with murder and is making a buck of it over a decade later (although, O.J. might not have had that money for long" 

Judith Reagan's defense of the project, summed up here, essentially said that she is publishing the book so O.J. could finally confess his crimes and his victims, and all victims of spousal abuse, could have some peace and closure.

This is the stupidest defense of all time. IT WS NOT A CONFESSION! If the book was a confession, it would be titled "I Did It" not "If I Did It". That "If" adds plausible deniablilty to the book and allows O.J. to keep, however slim it might be, an air of innocence. The "If" gives O.J. an out.

So, public outcry is so great that book was cancelled. I thought that the case was closed, and the whole thing was over and done with.

Then, it was announced last month that a bankruptcy court gave rights to the book to the Goldman family. You'd think the family bought the rights so no other company would pick it up and try and publish it, sparing the family grief and sorrow.

Instead, the Goldmans are going to try to publish the book and try to get a TV or Film project done in efforts to recoup some of the $33.5 million dollars in damages they were awarded in the civil case against Simpson.

Oh, and to get justice for their son Ron, as per this quote from Goldman at the time of they were awarded the rights:

"After 13 years of trying to get some justice for Ron, today's the first time that we had any sense of seeing some light at the end of the tunnel."

Justice? Justice? How is publishing this book justice?

Wasn't it enough justice when the wrongful death trial was decided in your favor?

Wasn't it enough justice when O.J.'s plans to get the books on shelves failed?

Isn't it justice enough to sit on the rights so the book will never see the light of day?

Goldman wants us to think that he is hurting Simpson by publishing the book, that he will be making money of the rights so O.J. doesn't. That's just stupid. O.J. wasn't making anything off it anyway. And I doubt that anybody would have fought for the rights if Goldman didn't scarf them up. The book was dead and toxic. I'd argue that if anybody besides Goldman got the rights, the book still would not see the light of day.

If, somehow, that by publishing this book that the case against Simpson would be reopened and he might actually be convicted of the slayings, then I would say that Goldman's justice argument might hold more water. But that can't happen due to double jeopardy and the pesky "If" in the original title.

So, what this all comes out looking like a ploy for the Goldman's to get money. Perhaps they truly believe that they are getting justice against Simpson by doing this, but in reality, they're not. Is it a shame that the Goldmans are having such a hard time collecting the funds from Simpson? Yes. And if there was something I could do to fix that, I would. But the money they make after the portion of the proceeds goes to the Ron Goldman Foundation for Justice will assumedly go right in their pockets. And that looks like they are after financial gain more than anything.  

I hope Oprah asks the hard questions on the 13th. I'd like to find out what really is going on here.

Bush references Vietnam in reference to withdrawing from Iraq.

Read about it here.

See, Karl Rove is gone and SEE what he does? Man.

So, is the point he's trying to make that Iraq will be like Vietnam if we leave? But wouldn't it be more like Vietnam if we stay? If it's going to be like Vietnam anyway, I say we leave.

E-Mail Spam Alert: The "______ has sent you a card" e-mail.

The is an e-mail going around that supposedly spreads a "malware" virus onto your computer. I don't know what the virus does, but if they are hiding it, it can't be up to any good.

So be on the look out if you get an e-mail saying that some one who you may know (they most likely won't use names. They will use something like "your partner") has sent you an e-card from egreetings with a link to test for you to look at it. The link will release the malware into your computer.

And it could be from any company, or no company listed, not just eGreetings. Yesterday, I got an e-mail from a spammer saying "My Father has sent you a card." No company listed.

How did I know it was spam (other than my wife being warned at work about the scam and warning me)? Well, Mr. Spammy Spammer. If my identity and my personal information is so valuable that you want to steal it, my internet browsing so unique you want to take a peek, or you hatred of me so great that you will try to scam me, do your research first and DON'T SEND ME AN E-MAIL SAYING MY FATHER WHO HAS BEEN DEAD FOR 9 YEARS HAS SENT ME AN ELECTRONIC GREETING CARD!!!!!

I am gullible, but I know that there has not been any zombie sightings in the town where my dad is buried, and if they were, my dad was not up on either computers or giving out cards for any reason, let alone no reason.

Oh, and for causing me pain and suffering by sullying the memory of my dead father, Mr. Spammy Spammer? A pox upon you. Whether it be getting a flesh eating bacteria in your groin, simultaneous splinters under all of your finger and toenails at the same time, or being anally raped by a 800-lbs gorilla the next time you visit a zoo, KARMA WILL PAY YOU BACK.   

Helpful Harry Potter hint from Jack Chick

Jack chick harry potter

Via Colleen Doran by way of Heidi MacDonald

Yes, and destroy the books too! And your Led Zeppelin albums and Proctor and Gamble products! Because they're eeeeeevil! EEEEEEEEEVIL! 

This blog was mentioned on CNN.com!

Yes, and the proof is right here! I didn't think my ramblings here would really get noticed, but there it is, this blog as the first post in the section that looks at the biggest stories on the web! See! Rant about Paris Hilton and you get results!

Even more great news.

The AP is now reporting that, according to something called the National Intelligence Estimate, Al Qaida is now likely to attack the US, with a special added bonus that it might be the Iraq branch of the organization.

I was wondering why over the last week, government agencies were leaking information that Al Qaida was back to full strength and renewing efforts to sneak terrorist into the US. I guess now I know why. 

Conspiracy theorists might say this release of information is planned. That the White House is trying to sway public opinion by using fear tactics so close to when Senate is planning an all-night session to debate whether the troops home.  Like, say the White House has anything to fear. Because we all know from the Iraq spending bill that Congress doesn't have enough votes to do anything in regards to the war.

Am I more frightened by this latest news item? No. It merely confirms something I already knew. And if this causes a chicken little reaction from peopel who actually thought they were safe, those people should be rounded up and put in a place for people whose brains don't work the way they should.

Like I said, and stop if you heard me say this before, Dubya should have made sure Al Qaida was irreparibly damaged before getting us involved in Iraq. They didn't. And now, Iraq, a country which before we invaded had no verifyable ties to Al Qaida, now has cells there.

I can't believe more people aren't more upset about the complete and utter failure of Dubya in this area.

Stan Lee Media sues Marvel. Stan Lee sues Stan Lee Media. Stan Lee Media sues Stan Lee.

Let me see what I can make of this fiasco based on what I read here, here and here.  

So, a new guy takes over the bankrupt Stan Lee Media and promptly sues Marvel Comics stating that Stan Lee signed an agreement when he joined the company signing over co-ownership for all his creations. ALL OF THEM. SPIDER-MAN. HULK. THE X-MEN. FANTASTIC FOUR. ALL OF THEM. Stan Lee sues Stan Lee Media saying the lawsuit is whack (I believe that is the legal term, if I am not mistaken). In return, Stan Lee Media sues Stan Lee, essentially saying the lawsuit is not whack and you owe us money too.

Here are my thoughts on this cluster frak.

1. I don't believe anyone could be that stupid as to sign that kind of contract. Especially Stan Lee. That is like to play in traffic, putting foreign objects up the nose, keep them from putting dirty underwear on their heads stupid.

2. Even if Stan did sign that contract, the rights weren't his to give. Unless there is some hidden agreement that I don't know about, Stan created all of those characters under a work-for-hire agreement. The characters were Marvel's property from the moment the first comic featuring them rolled off the press.  So good luck to Stan Lee Media in fighting that battle.

3. Usually, these kind of rights lawsuits are settled out of court between the creators and the company. This can be taken one of two ways. One, that the big corporations feel sorry for the aged creator or just don't want negative publicity and just settle. Another way of looking at it could be that the companies don't have that much faith in their work-for-hire agreements and want to end the fight quickly. It could be that Stan Lee Media is only looking for a quick payday and is hoping Marvel will settle. But if SLM thinks Marvel's WFH agreements are shaky, this could be a long and windy road. And if by some miracle SLM is successful and wins the lawsuit, this will cause a dam to break and every creator who has ever created something for Marvel, or any other company, will sue for ownership. That could mean that all the comic companies will cease to exist and every creator will own all of his or her creations forever.

I am crazy interested in this. Logically, I can't see any way, based on what I know about the business, that SLM could be successful. But if they are? Hoo boy! It will be an exciting time in the world of comics.   

More good news...

CNN.com reports that Al Qaeda (that's how they spell it. I guess the AP has a different spelling. Can we get on the ball, pick a spelling and go with it?) is renewing efforts to sneak terror plotters into the US. Oh, joy.

Two Al Qaeda stories released or leaked by the government on two consecutive days? Conspiracy theorists, START YOUR ENGINES!!!!

Not to sound like a broken record, but we wouldn't have this problem if Dubya finished the job in Afghanistan. Or screwed up in Iraq. Or even was elected.

Bill's Sports Round-Up

I like sports, but I don't often talk about it. But some news items caught my attention and I thought I'd share.

1. A-Rod's agent says he could get over $30 million a year, Yanks willing to negotiate during the season.: I'm a Reds fan, but the wife is a Yankee fan. So, I feel entitled to have an opinion on this. My advice to the Yanks? Let A-Rod go! Okay, he's having a good year this year, and the Yanks are way behind the Red Sox. Last year? When the Yanks were way ahead or way behind, bombs away. When the game was on the line? Choke city. Have the Yankees been to the World Series since he's been there? No. Has he ever brought a team to the Fall Classic? No. So, I say let him go. For that kind of money, you can get three or four more consistent players. Let some other team go into hock for his services.
2. David Beckham impending arrival in LA causes a buzz: "Finally, somebody who can bring professional soccer to the forefront of America!" Uh, no. He's being paid a gazillion dollars to come over and play for the LA team and people still won't watch soccer. I don't know why, but they just won't. They probably wouldn't even if the promised ample female nudity and free beer. Beckham just isn't going to change anything.
3. Bonds nears 756: This should be a historic event. I should reall be excited. But I'm not. Did he do steroids? He says he didn't. But early career Bonds=stickman, later career Bonds=Incredible Hulk. I find it hard to believe that came naturally. But if he did take performance enhancing drugs, he probably did it at a time when they were legal. But it's still, in my eyes, cheating.