Irrit8

Far be it from us to denounce vulgarity. But when hypocrisy slaps you hard enough in the face, a response is usually necessary. Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, defended a new advertising campaign, “Where the Hell Are You?” launched by Australian Tourism Minister Fran Bailey. Howard told reporters in Sydney:

"I think the style of the advertisement is anything but offensive but is in fact in context and I think it's a very effective ad."

What makes it so incredibly eye opening, is that this is the same blood-lusting Iraqi War Bush sycophant – an original “Coalition of the Willing” cheerleader, who complained to reporters last month about the decline of good manners in Australian society.

"I think we have seen a marked deterioration in good manners…I think it's time that the television networks put a curb on the increasing use of vulgarism on television."

We’re not sure if this is allowed in Australian society, but we have a polite question for Mr. Howard: Who the Bloody Fucking Hell Are You?

Posted by Clinton Fein at 12:27 PM | 0 comments  

American media’s response to how to cover the Danish cartoon furor has been eye opening. Aside from the Philadelphia Inquirer, the only major newspaper to run one of the images to date, (and a few smaller publications in California and Wyoming), most newspapers have chosen to tell the story without using the images.

The executive editor of the Washington Post Leonard Downie Jnr. said the cartoons "wouldn't meet our standards for what we publish in the paper … We have standards about language, religious sensitivity, racial sensitivity and general good taste."

No one can deny that the issue is complex, and that careful consideration of the cultural and religious ramifications is warranted.

And whether a publication decides to publish or not to publish is the prerogative of the powers that be at any such publication.

In an update by Joe Strupp in Editor & Publisher, Anne Gordon, Philadelphia Inquirer managing editor, chided the Associated Press for independently withholding the cartoons claiming it was not AP’s decision to make on behalf of all newspapers.

Kathleen Carroll, executive editor at The Associated Press, asserted that any publication of the cartoons does not add to the news coverage of the issue. She added: "If people want to find them, they are easily found."

Doug Clifton, editor of The Plain Dealer in Cleveland, told Editor & Publisher that he did not “see a need to insert ourselves in that fight." But Clifton said his paper will likely place a link to the images from another site when it runs an editorial on the issue over the weekend. "They will have the option to see it if they choose," he told Editor & Publisher.

That is unquestionably the most cowardly and pathetic response I have seen to date. It’s one thing to state, albeit disingenuously, that publication of the images is not germane to the telling of the story, but its quite another to claim that as an excuse to mask a fear of reprisals or to capitulate to pressure.

Since Clifton believes that the story doesn’t warrant running the images, is unwilling to take a stand, and genuinely believes the story doesn’t warrant it, how about demonstrating how good he is at articulating the story without them? The “choice” he’s offering is not in his editorial control.

What Doug Clifton is doing is riding on the backs of others who are taking significant risks in standing up for their principles and having the courage of their convictions.

Clifton’s yellow approach is the moral journalistic equivalent of jacking off during a gang rape.

Posted by Clinton Fein at 8:11 PM | 1 comments  

The global furor over the publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad as violent seems as inappropriate as the tepid condemnation over Pat Robertson’s call to assassinate Hugo Chavéz.

Calling for the beheading of an artist for creating a caricature depicting a religion as violent is about as hypocritical as assaulting or killing a woman for appearing in a degrading beauty contest. Or like amputating Ann Coulter’s legs for her immodest vagina flashing on Fox News. Or castrating and sodomizing men who rape.

As fanatical, intolerant Muslim clerics continue to incite violence over the depictions of violence, and as Israeli Jews deliberately incite riots by building unauthorized new structures in settlements, America’s religious righteous -- armed with justifications from their churches, mosques and synagogues -- are mincing into gay bars with machetes and guns and opening fire. Others are frantically preparing to picket Coretta Scott King’s funeral because she supported gay rights. The Pope, lost in the haze of his Nazi Youth is too busy purging the symptoms of his dysfunctional, homocentric Church -- in between satin dress fittings and Prada shopping sprees -- blissfully oblivious to the blatantly obvious causes. The one certain thing all of these Torah-touting, Koran-killing, Bible-bashing, Scripture-screeching religious zealots seem to share, is an unbridled lust for violence.

While all the world’s major religions -- Judaism, Christianity, Catholicism, and Hinduism – shoulder responsibility for fueling extremist factions spewing hatred, violence and intolerance, Muslims do need to drop the victimization act and realize that just as they condemn and judge others with impunity, so too must they learn to cope with being subject to criticism.

Until people stop, in Allah's name, stoning woman to death, killing homosexuals, cutting the hands off children stealing food to survive, flying passenger planes into skyscrapers, car-bombing innocent people, forcing their religious convictions onto others, and other such atrocities, and until Muslims loudly and clearly reject and condemn the violence perpetrated by those who have hijacked and perverted their religion, the likelihood of cartoonists depicting Muhammad as a gentle, olive-branch carrying dove is not particularly high.

Posted by Clinton Fein at 5:24 AM | 0 comments  

Whilst not strictly a First Amendment issue, the controversy raging over Oprah Winfrey's surprising defense of author James Frey, by calling in to CNN's cartoonish Larry King, culminated in a public apology yesterday by Winfrey.

Winfrey's own First Amedment history relating to the beef industry, as well as the greater debate as to what distinguishes fact from fiction, opinion from reporting and other such "thin lines" makes the debate relevant here.

For those living in a bubble -- or outside America -- in a nutshell, James Frey cooked up a story called A Million Little Pieces, which was apparently rejected by his publisher as a fiction, and subsequently repackaged as a memoir. Not to be confused with an autobiography, which suggests a factually accurate, verifiable recalling of events, but simply a memoir, which is a non-fictional, but far less scrutinized recalling of events by the author. What Comedy Central’s Stephen Colbert might call “truthiness.” (Add that word to your word-processing dictionary). Memoirs sell better than fiction does.

The enterprising sleuths at the web site The Smoking Gun on a quest to find Frey’s mugshot to add to their considerable collection of celebrity mugshots, found themselves ensconced in a six-week investigation, uncovering details that made James Frey’s memoir as an alcoholic, drug addict, and criminal as convincing a non-fiction as the White House propaganda that prompted the Patriot Act and apparent congressional relinquishing of their role as a constitutional balance of power.

What made the story even more juicy, is that America (with a literacy rate, incredibly, of 97% according to the CIA) was induced to read a book by Winfrey’s powerful book club, arguably the most powerful there is, which shot it straight to the top of the New York Times (and every other noteworthy) best-seller list.

What bothered me most about Oprah’s defense of James Frey was compounded by a recent profile in Newsweek in which Oprah, in her words, attributed her entire success as a woman to being truthful. I readily admit that there is no one truth and that truth, in and of itself, is a subjective concept, but the distinction between one’s perceived truth and a blatant embellishment is clear enough. A redemption tale presented as a factual account but predicated on lies and embellishments is far less inspiring than a fictionalized tale presented as such.

Winfrey’s defense of Frey on Larry king bothered many, including yours truly, who included references to it in my Cry-Baby piece, featuring Martha-Ann Alito and disgraced congressman, Randy “Duke Cunningham”. Some felt it was much ado about nothing.

In addition to frying Frey, Winfrey attacked Doubleday publisher Nan Talese, who seemed to wither under Winfrey’s relentless showdown, (enhanced by a televised appearance of a smug, purse-lipped New York Times columnist, Maureen Dowd, wagging an accusatory finger at all concerned, urging Winfrey to withdraw the endorsement of her book club.) Doubleday, later released an apology.

However, cynical as I am, Oprah Winfrey redeemed herself yesterday, and restored her credibility. She is the first American public figure in the eighteen years I’ve been in the country that was so quick and so unequivocal in admitting she was wrong, had made a mistake, and was sorry about it. It’s so unbelievably rare and refreshing I am surprised at how quickly my scorn and cynicism turned to forgiveness and appreciation. She may be a lot of things, and her quest for publicity may be all-consuming, but authenticity is authenticity, and she deserves a hat tip here.

James Frey -- his long-drawn, stumbling, piecemeal confession in the wake of some fine investigative journalism by the The Smoking Gun notwithstanding -- on the other hand, doesn’t quite have the balls.

The truth in a memoir is not quite the same as the truth from our government. With cooked intelligence leading to a pre-emptive war, domestic eavesdropping, a culture of absolute corruption, the leaking of names of CIA operatives and a media culture that makes it impossible to differentiate the National Enquirer from the Los Angeles Times, are we simply being distracted yet again?

Posted by Clinton Fein at 5:12 PM | 0 comments  

Poor old Imus. Once again, the Manhattan shock-jock who has delusions of being a cowboy -- an image about as convincing as his kids-with-cancer ranch is an exercise in altruism -- and who looks more like Ann Richards than John Wayne, is having a hard-time (Viagra notwithstanding) dealing with the whole Brokeback Mountain thing.

Notoriously homophobic, Imus and his gang (including the equally unconvincing heterosexual sidekick Bernie McGuirk and the ever effete Charles McCord) have resorted to calling the movie Fudgepack Mountain (which of course, made GLAAD hysterical, following an exchange where MSNBC’s slobbering pantywaste, Chris Matthews, and Imus segued from a manly discussion about their weighty hips to discuss the gay cowboy movie).

The wit in this sophomoric insult was so subtle that it could only be communicated through repletion, again today – Imus screeching, “Fudgepack Mountain, Fudgepack Mountain, Fudgepack Mountain” to NBC’s Andrea Mitchell. Mitchell, whose sole experience in male sexuality is garnered from fucking (or not) the oh-so-virile Alan Greenspan for the last eighty years or so. Do these MSNBC anchors have no self-respect?

Imus, McGuirk and your girly gaggle of hanger-ons, it’s this simple. You don’t want to see a movie that is about two guys who are in love, and yes, (whether GLAAD wants to acknowledge it or not), fuck each other, bareback in a tent, don’t go.

Who cares? Jesus Christ, like the whole world gives a shit that little Bernard McGuirk is going to have to look in the mirror and deal with his unspeakable woody over two guys getting it off. Get a life dudes. Fuck your wives a little harder, if you must, if you think that will help your fixation -- Deirdre Imus kind of looks like a male version of Laura Ingraham anyway – but for those of us who are secure in our sexuality, frankly, the only things unsexy about the notion of Fudgepack Mountain are the hysterical, homophobic closet cases shrieking about it.

See also:
Who Is the Bigger Homophobe?

Pushback Mountain

Posted by Clinton Fein at 1:29 PM | 0 comments  

In 2001, the ERLC's [Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission] annual report called for Disney to cease its promotion of "Gay Days" at its theme parks; halt the publication of pro-homosexual books; refrain from advocating the "radical homosexual agenda" through its broadcast venues; and "establish an advisory committee of Southern Baptists and other evangelicals" to provide Disney "advice and counsel" on their entertainment projects. (The accompanying image by Clinton Fein was created in 2001.)

Now, five long years later, ABC executives have canceled "Welcome to the Neighborhood" – a reality show about a gay couple and their child that moves into a neighborhood whose residents “overwhelmingly identified themselves as white, Christian and Republican.”

According to the New York Times, ABC claims to be “concerned that viewers who might have been appalled at some early statements made in the show - including homophobic barbs - might not hang in for the sixth episode.”

In an annual letter to shareholders in 1998, Walt Disney Chairman Michael Eisner said he "always will defend the right" of the company to make entertainment that some might find offensive." He also pledged to "fight attempts by groups like the Southern Baptist Convention to change the content of Disney products."

Not only is the current act of cowardice the weakest cop-out imaginable – but when ABC’s decisions are applauded by the likes of James Dobson and Gary Bauer (with their barely-veiled threats to derail evangelical Christian support for "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe"), it’s obvious that greed trumps anything else, and the sniveling little rodent still has no balls.

Posted by Clinton Fein at 3:07 AM | 3 comments  

The interest in this story has been so phenomenal that I have added some additional updates, and will likely add more as time goes on.

The annoying thing about hastily and ill-crafted legislation is that it forces one to be pedantic, muddying rather than clarifying the law, inviting legal challenges and outright violations. Remember, it depends what is is.

Assuming for argument’s sake that this law is designed to deal solely with conduct rather than content issues, so its not that someone sends you content you find annoying, but sends it hundreds of times, which you find annoying.

If the language as amended above is to be taken on its face, the first problem is with the word utilizes, since it doesn’t clarify whether utilizing it has to be for its intended telecommunication purpose.

Loudly setting off the alarm of my cell phone every two minutes whilst attending a ballet doesn’t change the fact that the device CAN BE USED to originate communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet. Or that I have not revealed my identity. Or that I have not annoyed many people. Similarly, if I was to hold up my cell phone, displaying an aborted fetus as the background image, and point it at doctors entering or leaving an abortion clinic, without revealing my identity, would that constitute *utilizing* a prohibited device and thus a felony?

And if one is to assume that the device or software must indeed be used to *originate* telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet, then the question of what is transmitted becomes unclear. With Annoy.com postcards, for instance, the sender uses the service to create a message which is then published on Annoy.com’s servers and inaccessible to the public. What is actually transmitted to the recipient is a notification that they have been sent a communication and provides them with a unique key that allows them to retrieve it if they so choose.

In fact, with CNet, I was able to forward their very article to me, containing theoretically annoying content by spoofing Arlen Specter, and CNet (like most news publications that facilitate emailing content, but unlike Annoy.com) actually sends the self-generated content in the email notification itself, only linking to the story.

Ironically, a remaining provision of the CDA is what actually protects third party content providers, and since Annoy.com does not monitor or approve postcards, and therefore intent cannot be established, prosecution is unlikely. Annoy.com’s overall stated intent to annoy is content based.

Nonetheless, I believe the law requires too many assumptions and remains vague enough to warrant a constitutional challenge.

ADDITIONAL LINKS

FAQ: The new 'annoy' law explained
CNet
Janaury 11, 2006


Declan McCullagh clarifies...

Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
CNet
Janaury 11, 2006

Declan McCullagh's Original Article

Posted by Clinton Fein at 5:07 PM | 0 comments