Pointing Fingers

Cry My Diluted Swastika

As the rhetoric heats over healthcare reform, the swastika has taken center stage. The problem is that no one knows whether the once dreaded symbol is being used to identify the target or the perpetrator. And therein lies the danger.

We live in toxic times.

The increasing displays of vitriolic calls to violence, fueled by frothy-mouthed commentators like Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh, and condoned – if not exacerbated – by cowardly elected officials are menacing and troubling.

The tone of discourse that America saw during the Presidential election, unbridled anger and blatant racism stirred by politicians like Sarah Palin was finally overshadowed by the media’s shift in focus once Barack Obama won the election.

As the world rejoiced in a President with a beautiful, intelligent wife, adorable young daughters and the ability to string a sentence together without sounding like a village idiot, the racists and the haters stewed and simmered. The seeming dissipation did not last long however, despite the media’s love fest with Obama, and although critics on the right loudly condemned Obama’s economic stimulus package before the ink had even dried, they strained credibility, covered only by Fox News and right wing blogs.

On April 7, 2009, a report released by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” was greeted with outrage by Republicans and naturally right wing extremists, who used it as a tool to warn against the President’s nefarious agenda to curtail both the First and Second Amendments.

The report included a caveat that “threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts,” although the election of the first black President, a faltering economy and “the possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.”

The stated goal of the report – to “effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States” -- was irrelevant. From Joe Scarborough on MSNBC to the obvious suspects on Fox News and right wing blogs, the report was roundly criticized as nothing more than a slanderous attack against anyone opposed to Obama’s liberal, socialist agenda.

On June 10, 2009, 88-year-old white supremacist and vocal Holocaust denier, James von Brunn shot and killed Stephen T. Johns, a guard at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC. Racist and anti-Semitic screeds were found in his car parked outside the museum. According to a court affidavit, a notebook was found with a handwritten note reading, "You want my weapons — this is how you'll get them. The Holocaust is a lie. Obama was created by Jews."

On May 31, 2009, Dr. George Tiller was assassinated as he attended a Sunday church service in Wichita, Kansas. Frequently targeted by extremists for willingness to perform late-term abortions, Dr. Tiller was gunned down by Scott Roeder, who has since become a darling of the radical and ironically termed “pro-lifers.” Jail visits have included prominent leaders of the anti-abortion movement, such as the Army of God, a fringe hate group that unapologetically and openly glorifies murder and violence against physicians, women and clinics in their purported defense of the unborn. And, of course, homosexuals.

Obama’s healthcare plan was the perfect catalyst to rile up anyone ideologically opposed to his policies, notably bitter McCain/Palin supporters – the same ones who were chanting “kill him, kill him” at pre-election rallies. Particularly after the fringe “Birthers” movement headed by Orly Taitz and Alan Keyes challenging Obama’s citizenship gained widespread support following support by CNN’s Lou Dobbs, was widely discredited after offering an easily refutable fake Kenyan birth certificate as evidence.

Astroturfing campaigns – namely well funded campaigns by industry lobbyists to appear as if they are grassroots efforts -- have turned town hall meetings into increasingly high-pitched battlegrounds. Egged on by groups with ties to insurance industry lobbyists, the “disruption” of town hall meetings continues to get more explosive by the day.

The strategy has been not to argue any counterpoint, but rather to drown out any other expression at all, and to ironically dismiss any criticism other than to bolster arguments that their First Amendment protections are being eroded. Fear mongers continue to propagate lies designed to play on the fears of those already scared, and who have yet to reconcile that a black man was elected President of the United Sates. Their America!

According to ABC News, the Secret Service has launched an investigation of a Maryland man who held a sign reading "Death to Obama" and "Death to Michelle and her two stupid kids" outside a town hall meeting this week.

The batty, barely coherent former half-term governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, who excoriated late night TV host, David Letterman, for making a joke about her daughter being “knocked up,” (even though one of her daughters had indeed been), and daring to shine a public spotlight on her children, took to Facebook to attack Obama’s “death panels” that she irresponsibly and inaccurately alleged would kill her parents and child with Down Syndrome, using her defenseless child as nothing more than a political prop to foment fear, hatred and mistrust.

On Fox News, Glenn Beck claimed President Obama harbored a "deep-seated hatred of white people" and accused him of being "racist." Only after he simulated poisoning Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, did advertisers begin bolting in droves; while Beck continues to spew his Rupert Murdoch funded hatred. Apparently UPS, HSBC, Visa, Pearle Vision and Broadview Home Security are still willing to affiliate themselves with this whack job. Visa, it’s everywhere you don’t want to be.

As the rhetoric heats, the swastika has taken center stage. The problem is that no one knows whether the once dreaded symbol is being used to identify the target or the perpetrator.

An astonishing editorial on healthcare reform in the Washington Times, laced with Nazi imagery, titled “No 'final solution,' but a way forward,” saw fit to inform readers of Nazi Germany’s Aktion T4 program in which “children and adults with disabilities, and anyone anywhere in the Third Reich was subject to execution who was blind, deaf, senile, retarded, or had any significant neurological condition, encephalitis, epilepsy, muscular spasticity or paralysis.”

Demonstrators both inside and outside town hall meetings hold up signs depicting Obama as Hitler, and his attempts to reform healthcare as a giant step in his radical socialist, communist fascist agenda, seemingly unaware of the inherent differences among socialism, communism and fascism.

On August 5, 2009, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi suggested the opponents at town hall meetings were there as a result of astroturfing. “They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare." Brian Baird , a Washington Democrat who has received death threats, later apologized for accusing health care opponents at town halls of a “lynch mob mentality” and their “close to Brownshirt tactics.”

The same week, radio-host Rush Limbaugh, told his listeners: “Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate." He also stated; “"There are far more similarities between Nancy Pelosi and Adolf Hitler than between these people showing up at town halls to protest a Hitler-like policy."

Limbaugh told Washington Examiner's Byron York, “I've been listening to the left compare George W. Bush to Hitler for eight years. I've been listening to Democrats and the left compare conservatism to Nazis my whole career. This time I responded. In kind, by comparing the radical left policies of the Nazis to today's radical left leadership of the Democrat (sic) Party.”

Limbaugh’s comment is possibly the only intelligent remark he’s made over this whole fracas. That the left likened George Bush, and his policies, to Hitler is true. As an artist, I personally made frequent references to similarities to policies of the Bush administration and those of the Nazi Party.

The fundamental difference is that the left’s opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the constitutional desecration wrought by the Patriot Act, eavesdropping and spying outside the purview of FICA courts, black sites conducting torture on foreign soil, the politicization of the Department of Justice, extraordinary rendition and a host of other flagrant violations of the constitution were not masking a real and dangerous racism. And comparing those to Nazi regime tactics is not that difficult. Indeed, it may alienate some, or leave little room for meaningful debate or for others, trivialize the Nazi’s murderous rampage.

The coverage on the left by the likes of Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, point to the Nazi rhetoric as a disturbing trend in a rise of hate speech. Seeking to criticize Obama as a Nazi, whether through imagery or rhetoric, is speech firmly protected by the First Amendment. Nazi comparisons, not matter how distasteful to some, are not the same as inciting people to violence, expression that the First Amendment does not protect.

Protestors at town hall meetings, like William Kostric, carrying signs with the same quote that Timothy McVeigh had on his T-shirt when arrested, packing unconcealed 9-mm Smith and Wesson handguns (actions protected by both the First and Second amendments respectively), are a lot more alarming than those hurling Nazi accusations, to be sure, but are still protected. And, more so than under the previous administration. As USA Today reported in 2006, “months before the 2004 election, dozens of people across the nation were banished from or arrested at Bush political rallies, some for heckling the president, others simply for holding signs or wearing clothing that expressed opposition to the war and administration policies.”

During the Presidential campaign, a man with a Star of David atop his head, admitting he doesn't want a black man as president hanged an Obama effigy in his front yard. An act mimicked by an unidentified protester at an anti-Obama healthcare rally in Salisbury, Maryland, where freshman Democrat Frank Kratovil was hung in effigy, the protestor smilingly posing with his handiwork, reminiscent of photographs of lynchings from the South, where such disturbing imagery was used to send postcards.

A four-foot wide swastika painted over the sign at congressman, David Scott's Smyrna, Georgia office stood out from some of the hyperbolic signage at town hall meetings. A "Blue Dog" Democrat, David Scott is black, and a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. Unlike Nazi references related to Obama or Pelosi, the painting of a swastika on the premises of a black man has that unmistakable message that crosses that First Amendment line. As unmistakable as a fiery cross.

For the right wing extremists, neo-Nazi’s, resurgent Ku Klux Klan members and others harboring racist sentiments, comparing Obama to Hitler is blasphemous. Imagery of Obama as a Nazi must irk neo-Nazis and white supremacists as much as it did Hitler when Leni Riefenstahl’s cameras captured the beauty and grace of athlete Jesse Owens at the 1936 Berlin Olympics.

It’s not the people holding signs comparing Obama to Hitler that America needs to be worried about. Fueled and fed by commentators, politicians and the media, it’s the ones whose racist hatred is being masked by more sinister, less obvious expression. Like heathcare.

Don't Ask, Dont Tell, Go to Hell

They function as entities unto themselves. They have their own standards, their own morals, their own values and their own set of laws that govern their conduct. Deference is given to them by both courts and constitutions globally. Both have been beset by scandal, time and time again. Most often, it's about sex.

For all their differences, they are disturbingly similar. The United States military and the Catholic Church are two among the most powerful institutions in the world. The law of guns and canons, namely the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), governs American men and women in uniform (and prisoners of war, visa violators, and men with slightly darker skin than Tonya Harding with last names like Paula Abdul). The 1917 and revised 1983 Codes of Canon law (COC), on the other hand, also govern men in uniform, albeit uniforms that would result in an immediate discharge if worn by men in the military. Women in either uniform are not particularly favored by either institution.

Both patriarchal hierarchies are governed by excessive structures and strict codes of conduct that inevitably run against the grain of human nature and ultimately are impossible to maintain to serve the intended purpose. Both the institutions and the laws that govern them are shrouded in secrecy and lies and plagued by abuse and cover-ups, yet both are held up as bastions of social virtue and moral certitude. Both duck and dive in their conduct and twisted phraseology, their attempts to govern human relationships revealing more about their inadequacies than their strengths. And both shoulder more responsibility for the damage incurred on themselves and those they touch than any outside influences, which both seeks to blame.

"De sexton," the Sixth commandment, ("Thou shall not commit adultery") is used as a catch-all phrase for any kind of sexual problem or crime, and conduct "in re turpi" (which refers to particularly offensive transgressions, including 'unnatural' acts) are the most frequently used by the Church to describe the conduct of their escalating wayward priests. Similarly, the United States military insists on adultery-free conduct for married servicemembers (Commanders in Chief notwithstanding) and even prohibits 'unnatural acts' such as sodomy (the infamous Article 125) between married adults.

In order to appreciate their similarities, it makes sense to consider the extent to which, in many ways, they serve as polar opposites. It would serve those seeking to bring about change in the Church by relaxing the Papal doctrine on celibacy, homosexuals and women to study what the playing field will look like by exploring the nuances of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" military policy of the United States.

The Unites States military represents a microcosm of America at large, and as such, has often been unwillingly forced to adjust its positions and policies in order to keep up with societal changes. President Harry S. Truman's Executive Order, which brought an end to official segregation in the armed forces, was only signed in 1948. The Catholic Church responds to change at a far slower pace, euphemistically speaking. Modern science cannot even shake some of the firmly held tenets of Christian doctrine. Graciously the Church apologized to Galileo Galilei for his 1632 heresy conviction just slightly before Bill Clinton apologized to America for feeding Monica Lewinsky under the desk.

The Catholic Church has been under heavy attack by the media (who might finally succeed where modern science failed once the talk of increased "chatter" subsides, Evita W. Bush returns from the Rainbow tour to Europe and they can revert back to sex, lies and who murdered Chandra).

America's smorgasbord of fast-food journalism is so excited by the sex abuse scandal they are grudgingly, if barely, covering the explosive situation in the Middle East and that other place where, yawn, Donald Rumsfeld is still planning Missile Defense Shield strategies and a war on Iraq in the name of, yawn, terrorism. The more cynical among us are hard pressed to avoid considering Cardinal Bernard Law reneged on the abuse settlement originally promised to victims to pay Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller to take heat for withholding receipt of a certain FBI memo from Phoenix as a distraction to move the scandal from the front pages.

More dangerous to the Church though, is the attack by decent Catholics who have finally decided enough is enough. Watching the Church leadership choke on its own moldy and stale diet of bigotry, deceit, blame and blackmail has become nothing short of a spectator sport in the United States, and with the God-answered cancellation of the XFL and the dismal failure to find the untouchable Osama bin Laden, Americans want blood.

In a series of what can only be politely termed public relations catastrophes, it appears that every time a Cardinal opens his mouth, another nail is hammered into the coffin of papal credibility, sending the media into a feeding frenzy and both Catholics and non-Catholics alike reeling in incredulous horror. For all his Doctor Strangelove evil logic and demented hand gestures, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is winning the PR battle -- at least in America -- where the Church is imploding. From statements expressing how much the Pope loves contact with children, to strategically disastrous accusations and Clintonesque parsing from the likes of Cardinals Edward Egan, Bernard Law, Roger Mahoney and George Francis. All that's left is for them to adopt Michael Jackson's "Keep the Faith" as their theme song to get them through the crisis.

A hastily arranged meeting with the Pope at the Vatican allowed the Cardinals to escape into five star luxury in Italy and avoid the rapidly boiling discontent in the forms of protests and calls for resignation - particularly, Boston's Bernard Law. Law, in perfect tradition, relocated a pedophile who was publicly advocating sex between men and boys to minister children, and not just one either - both former priest John J. Geoghan and the Rev. Paul R. Shanley have been blessed with Law's denial in the form of praise and relocation. The moral and intellectual equivalent of hiring Jeffrey Dahmer as a babysitter, or Mike Tyson as a rape counselor. And the public relations equivalent of positioning Aldridge Ames to explain how giving a student visa to Mohammed Atta was an isolated, unexpected mistake. Or hiring Oliver North as a military strategist and expect anyone to believe him. (Well, except Fox news).

In a display of the worst possible arrogance and contempt, Law has accused children that were raped and molested, and their parents, of negligence. Los Angeles' Cardinal Roger Mahoney has been equally vitriolic as accusations of abuse by him and his priests mount by the minute. From Milwaukee to Florida, the list of abusive Bishops and priests keeps growing. The Boston archdiocese has identified more than 80 priests in the Boston area who have been accused of molesting minors over the past 40 years. In 1991, more than 80 women were sexually assaulted by drunken Navy and Marine aviators at a convention, infamously referred to as Tailhook. Silence, blaming the victim, denial cover-ups, and eventually payouts served as a huge wake up call at the time.

The keyword du jour for the Cardinal Cleansing Conference was "zero tolerance" - a typically shallow, overused American buzzword that has oversimplified complex issues resulting in teachers sending children home for daring to bring pencils to school, or publicly hoisting their skirts to ensure appropriate panties - if any at all.

Seeped in denial, and framing the summit, was papal biographer George Weigel's observation that the "serious problem of homosexually oriented clergy who are not living chaste celibate lives" was to blame along with the "culture of dissent that has contributed immeasurably to the ecclesiastical atmosphere in which sexual misconduct festers."

Chicago's Cardinal Francis George sought to explain the Vatican's reluctance to take on a "zero tolerance policy" by stating the Church needed "wiggle room" the exercise of which is responsible for the current crisis to begin with. Adding insult to injury, he continued to remarkably distinguish between a pedophile like Rev. Paul R. Shanley, preying on young, prepubescent boys, and a heterosexual priest succumbing to the advances of a young 'fifteen-year-old lady' after drinking one too many Scotches. Perhaps a distinction does exist. Just ask the parents of a traumatized fifteen year old tormented and plagued with nightmares of the alcoholic pig that violated her trust and innocence in the name of Jesus, wearing his collar.

Of Cardinal Bernard Law's game of musical parishes for molester priests, Cardinal George added: "He said that if he had not made some terrible mistakes, we probably would not be here. He apologized for it. He said nothing about resignation and we did not ask him." Indeed they didn't, and therein perhaps resides the biggest problem. While the frequently violated "Don't Ask," provision of the military policy is designed to protect gay servicemembers from being forced to reveal their orientation in violation of the "Don't Tell" provision, the Church's "Don't Ask" policy represents a systemic failure of Church leadership to seek answers to what really lies beneath the plague of abuse that is tarnishing the integrity of the Church to the core, as well as a failure to ask priests candidly whether or not the accusations are true.

The Church closet is being ripped off its hinges, as she seeks to upgrade her current policy of sheltering pedophiles with relocation strategies that endanger children, paying off victims for their silence and continuing the systemic hierarchy of failure. Seemingly floored that the Church would be revealed as a bastion of homosexuality as its leaders sashay about in satin and sashes like aging beauty-pageant contestants, trying to pick up the pieces -- serving as a showcase to every aspiring drag queen by offering the only outlet where silky dresses and ornate jewelry can be worn legitimately and with impunity and still engender pride in Mom and Dad.

Celibacy has always been the perfect excuse to avoid repeating the embarrassing flaccidity on Prom night in a pre-Viagra age, where taking vows to refrain from carnal intimacy with women was nothing short of a blessed relief that finally put to rest the stereotypical, yet unavoidable, questions pertaining masculinity, sensitivity, sexual orientation and prolonged bachelorhood. Any man who looks you in the eyes and tells you they are "married to the Church" has sexual identity issues worth questioning.

Similarly, the military, which has always prided itself on turning boys into men, (using recruiting posters homoerotic enough to confuse the branding with Abercrombie & Fitch catalogs), continues to serve as the perfect setup for Cody Cocksucker to delay marrying that clingy girl-next-door or Phen-fen-popping cheerleader and hide among more than a few good men for a few good years.

Now, the Church's version of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that spawned the current crisis is under the most microscopic of scrutiny since the secular world challenged the Church to admit that Aristotle was wrong. Particularly as many Catholics, including some leaders, suggest factors such as homosexuality, the strict refusal of the Church to ordain women and the strict celibacy requirements of Priests are at the very heart of the scandal.

It was not until recently that the United States military finally admitted (to the few left still in the dark) that there were gays serving in every branch and every special unit, receiving Purple Hearts and Bronze Stars. It was a reasonable assumption if one was to have merely looked at the costs incurred in first training them, then investigating them and rooting them out. That's just called treason, however. The best thing Al Qaeda has going for it is "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

In a similar vein, the Catholic Church has spent millions and millions of dollars covering up incidents of abuse and pedophilia by relocating the culprits and paying off victims and their families in return for silence that has enabled the most insidious denial. No gays in the military. No pedophiles in the Church.

Now, incredulously, importantly earnest writers with gentle manners - such as National Review's William F. Buckley - are singing the praises of the rector for New York's Archdiocese, Monsignor Eugene Clark, for being 'brave' enough to mention the 'elephant in the room,' -- the fact that the scandal facing the Church is not a pedophile problem. It's a homosexual problem. Comforting, of course, to the fifteen-year-old slut who took advantage of the poor Priest who couldn't handle his booze. And to the family of that wicked, sick, disgusting faggot, Father Mychal Judge, who got what he deserved when the second tower fell on top of him, cocksucker, as he administered last rites to fallen firemen on September 11, 2001. Better dead, the bastard. Not quite the type we want marching in our Saint Patrick's Day parades.

For many Catholics, such as the firemen who loved and respected Mychal Judge, his sexual orientation was unimportant - perhaps even more so, since he was, after all, a priest. Most servicemembers on active duty care more about a fellow servicemember's ability to shoot straight when they fire a weapon rather than be straight when they ejaculate. Monsignor Clark believes, as do many other Church elders, that pedophilia is rampant in the Church because of the presence of active homosexuals since there are more male to male occurrences of pedophilia. So much so, they have begun referring to the problem as ephebophilia -- homosexual attraction to adolescent boys. As if shifting letters and changing grammar -- as they do priests, from parish to parish -- will solve the problem. Given that women can't be ordained, and the Church's sanctuary for and protection of anyone harboring sexual dysfunction of any kind, the problem clearly points to the composition of the Church, rather than homosexuality.

'Active' is the operative word, however, and is the root distinction between the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policies of the Church and the military respectively. The first of many disastrous moves by President Clinton, the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was an unworkable compromise passed to appease bigots and avoid the real issue. (And stroke the shattered ego of the uglier, less election-worthy Southern Democrat, Sam Nunn). The military had no other choice than to admit that there were just too many gays in its ranks to argue that gays couldn't serve admirably without admitting that the military was fundamentally unprepared and ineffective as a cohesive unit.

So a flawed policy, that continues to this day, allows an absurd charade to exist, which communicates that although the military knows that gays are rife among their ranks, they don't want to know who. The biggest difference between the two policies boils down to conduct. The military policy makes no distinction between speech and conduct. A celibate servicemember professing to be gay will be discharged for homosexual conduct. There exists a rebuttable presumption that the statement alone will invariably lead to prohibited conduct, and therefore is conduct already.

In early March, Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls told The New York Times that "people with (homosexual) inclinations just cannot be ordained…that does not imply a final judgment on people with homosexuality, but you cannot be in this field."

The Church, in its "love the sinner, hate the sin" paradigm of hypocrisy, clearly does distinguish between conduct and speech. Celibacy, however, is celibacy. Homosexual conduct is a sin only if acted upon, even if by a heterosexual; celibacy by a homosexual is not. In other words, it makes no difference if a priest is gay or straight really, because it makes no difference who the hell they aren't allowed to fuck.

The military's "Don't Tell" provision, in theory, is designed to prevent straight servicemembers - not from the anguish of knowing that some in their unit are gay, mind you - but rather from discovering who. For the Church, however, the "Don't Tell" concept is designed to prevent public knowledge of the abuse, avoid criminal prosecution and to suppress potential claims. Secrecy, lies and denial remain the key ingredients to the effective implementation of both policies.

The Church insidiously strong-arms its aggrieved into adopting a "Don't Tell" position by paying victims to refrain from taking civil action or otherwise making an issue in order to avoid scandal "for the good of the Church." The military, "for the good of the military," believes the presence of closeted soldiers in foxholes - or the immediate discharge of mission-critical gays that reveal their orientation truthfully - will somehow engender unit cohesion and bolster military preparedness. A servicemember is to stay in the closet and engender trust by lying to commanders "for the good of the military," while an abuse victim, "for the good of the Church," must become complicit in protecting evil within the power structure, facilitate a complete avoidance of cleric accountability, deceive the laity and remain a silent in the knowledge that abusive priests from Fort Lauderdale to Poughkeepsie are plowing prepubescent ass with impunity.

Deference is given to the military brass by congress and even the Supreme Court to override constitutional protections afforded to civilians and impose what they feel is in the best interest of the military. For the Catholic Church, the arrogance and denial reflected by the Church leadership highlights a reliance on "clericalism" -- an ideology gleefully embraced by the leadership, and reinforced on the laity which suggests that somehow the silk clad clergy are entitled to special privileges and respect. The Church takes advantage of victims already abused by its own, by encouraging and maintaining an enduring attitude that it is sinful or wrong to make any kind of accusation against a priest or a bishop or that priests and bishops would never do anything evil or wrong. In addition to their internalized fear and blame, an abused child is further faced with challenging deeply held convictions among his or her parents, the Church and even civic leaders, that making accusations -- let alone bringing charges -- against a priest or bishop is nothing short of an attack against the Church and religion itself.

According to the Code of Canon Law, the sexual abuse of or contact with a minor under the age of 16 is a violation of a priest's obligation of celibacy. In other words, it's about the priest, not the victim. Clerics guilty of sex abuse of minors are to be punished with appropriate penalties not excluding dismissal from the clerical state according to these canons. Clearly dismissal is not an automatic punishment for unequivocal guilt. The Code does not mention homosexuality or homosexual acts specifically, because fortunately someone was smart enough to realize back then that fucking kids is wrong for heterosexual priests as well.

Despite mention of punishments inflicted on clerics for homosexual crimes in the Christian Penitential Books of the 6th to 11th centuries, Catholic Church authorities, such as Cardinal Bernard Law, suggest that the problem of sexual abuse of young boys and girls by horny, drunk and pedophilic priests is a recently surfaced problem, which only now, is serious enough to be discussed at Vatican meetings and Bishop Conferences. We and, more importantly, victims are supposed to take comfort in the fact that despite the references to sexual abuse of minors as a specific crime in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and again in the revised Code of Canon Law of 1983, the hierarchy is finally willing to admit -- half-assed -- that there might be a pedophile problem - by blaming homosexuals.

Since, as the codifications suggest, the problem is hardly a new one, and if the problem was important and severe enough to be included in the canons and Penitential Books, how on earth can the Church claim ignorance of its horrific effects on children, reassign priests accused of raping and molesting children, and worse, why would they pay millions of dollars to keep the abuse a secret? Granted, no organization relishes the attention and public relations damage that results from such disclosures, but none are quite as vocal in their judgments and condemnations either. Endangering and hanging out violated children to dry is hardly a noble fucking alternative for which one can claim moral authority.

Even if one is to assume the best, and accept that the Church leadership genuinely, if ignorantly, thought that silencing victims and relocating and transferring priests from parish to parish was going to remedy the situation, how could they have possibly ignored the growing evidence of rampant recidivism of priests "cured" and what explanation can be given for their failure to conclude that shuffling priests does not solve the problem of pedophilia any more than electro-shock therapy does homosexuality. Especially if armed with more than enough medical evidence making clear the extensive harm to victims, their families and to society resulting from child sexual abuse. If fucking causes unwanted pregnancy, you don't keep fucking. You either use birth control, or stop fucking. Or become Andrea Yates.

While the "Don't Ask" component of the military policy resulted in the removal of questions pertaining to sexual orientation from recruiting questionnaires and forbade officers from asking about a servicemembers orientation, the Church has implemented a rigorous screening program designed to ensure a heterosexual priesthood. "Asking" is part of the process, although, as pointed out earlier, the Church is asking the wrong questions of the wrong people. Clearly neither the military nor Church's screening programs -- asking or avoiding - works in keeping out homosexuals.

The argument for and against the ordaining of women is inextricably linked to the issue of homosexuals in the Church, and once again, the military policy offers a telling comparison. (No pun intended).While the President and his men derided the Taliban for their appalling treatment of women as a justification for their continued destruction of Afghanistan, close advisor, Karen Hughes, mysteriously resigned from her White House post, First Lady, Laura Bush, collected sewing kits to send to Afghani women, and good old American female servicemembers (those who weren't sitting submissively in the back of cars wearing full body covering and Burkas in Saudi Arabia) were discharged at a rate nearly twice their presence in the service. Women comprise approximately 14% of the total force strength, yet 30% of gay discharges for 2001 were women.

The military spares no expense in both the implementation and violation of its "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Notorious for witch hunts and campaigns to weed out men and women they have spent millions of dollars preparing and training, a mere suggestion, or incorrectly interpreted glance, is enough to trigger an investigation. Successfully too, according to figures released March 14, 2002 by Washington D.C. based watchdog group, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN). Citing Department of Defense figures, the Pentagon fired a record 1,250 men and women - or 3-4 service members every day - for being lesbian, gay or bisexual. The figure is the highest number of gay discharges since 1987, seven years prior to the implementation of the Pentagon's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

The opposite attitude prevails with the Church, however, which all but denies accusations or complaints about pedophilia and child abuse, and ignores rumors and red flags that would sooner have triggered a sexual harassment investigation at Enron than a pedophile investigation by the Church.

Rather than confront the widening crisis, the Catholic Church is surrounded by enablers and other two-bit commentators who will do anything to scapegoat others instead. Crisis Magazine, an aptly named Catholic answer to the National Enquirer, has already begun pointing to statistics on women abusers in order to justify the Church's dismal record in protecting children: "In 1994, the National Opinion Research Center showed that the second most common form of child sexual abuse involved women abusing boys. For every three male abusers, there's one female abuser. Statistics on female sex offenders are more difficult to obtain because the crime is more hidden."

Whether the Church is spitting out this data -- coupled with comments like those of Joaquin Navarro-Valls -- to support their inaction, or hint at why the ordination of women might not be such a good idea, it's worth taking note. Particularly by those lobbying the tone deaf Catholic church. Straight women who refuse to succumb to the advances of lecherous commanders and other leering male servicemembers are accused of being lesbians or sluts, of course, if they comply. This Whore/Dyke syndrome provides a depressing glimpse of what one can expect if the Church ever deigns to ordain women. As sure as priests diddle kids, this is the methodology that will be used to weed women out. What better than to rid the Church of women by accusing them of being lesbians? Or child molesters?

Despite shrill protestations by Church leaders suggesting there is no conflict between the regulations and norms contained in the Code and other Church law provisions, and the secular or civil law on matters related to the impropriety of sexually abusing, molesting or otherwise harassing children, the proof is in the ever-expanding mountain of evidence that tells a very different story. In spite of all of this, the Catholic Church continues to assume the right to speak out on various public issues, which it claims are grounded in religious teaching and impact on the civic culture.

How dare the Pope, his clergy and religious leaders assume moral authority with their hypocritical frowning on harmless acts such as masturbation, pre-marital sex, birth control, anal and oral sex -- all roads culminating in sinful (albeit consensual) pleasure in the absence of procreation, yet in the protection of the procreated, remain dangerously and irresponsibly silent and allow the unconscionable sexual abuse of children to fester along all roads leading to, and emanating from, Rome?

In April, the head of a Vatican council, Archbishop Julián Herranz, stated bishops should not be required to turn over records on abusive priests to prosecutors. Reverend Gianfranco Ghirlanda, an influential Vatican canon lawyer, published an article in the magazine Civilta Cattolica suggesting bishops not cooperate with law-enforcement officials in sexual molestation cases involving priests, nor tell a parish that receives a pedophile priest about his history because that would ruin the priest's "good reputation."

The Church is facing a crisis of unprecedented proportions in modern times. And while the comparison to the military's policy is instructive, the major difference is that the military's policy, for all its unfairness, hypocrisy and traitorous conduct that weakens the country's effective argument and defense against terrorism, the voluntary actions of adults are central to the issue. The Church's conduct makes them, at least, accessories in the rape and abuse of children physically and emotionally, which, coupled with their implausible denial, is nothing short of criminal, for which they should be tried and punished, Canon law be damned.

Parents can no longer turn a blind eye either. Short of arming our children before sending them to confess their sins or Sunday school, and teaching them to aim and fire when a priest makes an unwelcome sexual advance, the reality is that trusting a Catholic priest, or even a Bishop, alone with a child today should be considered nothing less than gross negligence and child endangerment. We now have more than enough evidence to discount pleadings of ignorance, and in addition to shaking the walls of denial surrounding the Church, parents should be held accountable the same way as they should for allowing their young children to navigate the Internet unaccompanied or leaving a small child alone in a car on a sweltering day with the windows closed.

Originally published on Annoy.com in 2002.

The Indefensible

And now, for a bit of context...

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Cry on 911

The act is so depraved so violent, so sickening, one shudders at the thought of what else percolates in the minds of those perpetrating it. Some of the details get lost in the translations, but evidence coming out of Iraq in the form of photographs and first-hand accounts make the torture at Abu Ghraib seem like child’s play by comparison.

According to reports, a program of “sexual cleansing” is being perpetrated against homosexuals in Iraq.

One of the methods, known as either “American Gum” or “Iranian Gum,” involves using industrial strength glue manufactured in Iran, which sticks to the skin, and can only be surgically removed. Death squads targeting homosexuals proceed to glue their anuses shut and then force feed them diarhetics, causing them to die an excruciating death.

Much like photographs of blacks being lynched in the American South were subsequently circulated by the proud perpetrators, videos of this violent form of torture are being virally distributed on mobile phones in Iraq.

While life under Saddam Hussein was no picnic, Iraq was far more secular than it is today, and while America’s “liberation” of Iraq put an end to the Baathist dictatorship, the absence of any post-invasion plans for rebuilding and restructuring allowed for the rapid spread of Islamic fundamentalism, resulting in a campaign of terror that has been waged against gay Iraqis.

In 2005, Iraq’s leading Shia cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, issued a fatwa urging the killing of gays, lesbians and transgendered people in the “worst, most severe way” possible. “Ahl al-Haq” (the Followers of Truth) have stepped up attacks in recent months.

Attacks against homosexuals have increased significantly in Shiite neighborhoods, as well as the southern provinces and in the Hurriya, Sho’la and Sadr neighborhoods in Baghdad. In Sadr City a lists of the names of allegedly gay men were circulated including a quote stating, “You, prostitutes, we will punish you!”

Gay assassinations are reportedly being orchestrated by police and security agents in the Ministry of the Interior.

“Honor killings” in Iraq are widely accepted, whereby fathers or brothers are given wrist slaps and virtually hailed as heroes for killing daughters and sisters if they “bring shame” on the family by having pre-marital or adulterous sex (even if she is raped). The same barbaric culture applies to homosexuals. In newly liberated Iraq, homosexuality is a crime, punishable by seven years imprisonment or, de facto, by execution.

Reminiscent of World War II, London based Iraqi LGBT, comprised of Iraqi exiles, have set up an underground system of safe houses and escape routes in Baghdad and other cities, smuggling gays and lesbians out of Iraq into neighboring countries and helping them apply for United Nations humanitarian protection. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs believes up to 30 people have been killed during the last three months alone.

Men are targeted simply for being perceived as gay. Men who dress in Western styles, or who shave their beards, are suspected of being gay. Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, (who reportedly has assumed the title of Grand Ayatollah), and his Mahdi army militias are suspected of being involved in these murders, although an Iraqi government source told ABC News (one of the few media outlets actually reporting on this) that Ahl al-Haq was suspected of playing a role.

The Rainbow Fund and Gays Without Borders are among organizations in the United States that are seeking to draw attention to the crisis and raise money to support the Iraqis in imminent danger.

At a rally held at Harvey Milk Plaza in San Francisco on May 17^th, 2009, a group of politicians, religious leaders and activists sought to raise awareness of the plight of gay Iraqis and raise money for the Rainbow Fund. (See photos|video)

California Senator, Mark Leno, stated: “Once again we see the results of radical religious zealots, whether they are in Iraq, California or anywhere else…who are insistent that their particular interpretation of their particular religious book should become state law.”

San Francisco Supervisor, Bevan Dufty called the violence and torture perpetrated against gay Iraqis “unspeakable,” adding, “to have ridicule place upon dead bodies, and left in shallow graves, to have families that disown their own, and subject them to torture and murder is absolutely unspeakable.”

San Francisco Police Commission President, Theresa Sparks, whose son is a marine serving in Iraq, Karen Koi of the Rainbow Fund, Reverends Don Fox and Lea Brown of the Metropolitan Community Church, and Deborah Walker from the Harvey Milk Democratic Club spoke out forcefully against the violence and torture of Iraqis based upon who they are or who they choose to love.

San Francisco Supervisor, Ross Mirkirami, an Iranian, denounced the atrocities, stating, “San Francisco stands tall with the people of Iraq in this case that is not okay to watch people be publicly executed, allow them to be persecuted for any reason whatsoever, but because they are singling out people for being LGBT, and allowing this to happen at U.S expense, is why there should be a complete outcry from Americans.”

Michael Petrelis, the renowned activist and organizer of this event used the old Act Up call to action, reminding the audience: “We say no to homophobia. Gays and lesbians under attack, what do we do, Act Up, fight back.”

The final speaker, Gary Virginia from Gays Without Borders, voiced his disgust at Speaker of the House and San Francisco representative, Nancy Pelosi, who recently visited Iraq and said absolutely nothing, despite the fact that these reports have been out there for quite some time now. Years from now, there will be ample evidence of what she knew about this torture, and when she knew it. Yet as mind-boggling as Pelosi’s silence may be, the fact that none of the national gay organizations have uttered a word about this either shrieks volumes.

As one of the speakers, my focus was on the quandary America finds itself when it comes to this issue.

It is astounding that in 2009, we find ourselves, as Americans, in an awkward situation where we are not able to exercise the moral authority to speak out forcefully against Iraq’s treatment of homosexuals. Our military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, which treats gays and lesbians as second class citizens, coupled with our refusal to acknowledge, investigate or prosecute our use of torture, in violation of our international obligations, renders any criticism of Iraq hypocritical at best.

Former Vice President, Dick Cheney's recent assertion that the Bush Administration was "committed to using every asset to take down [al Qada] networks," is laughable, but unfortunately, President Obama cannot make such a claim either.

As long as America continues to implement the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy against gay servicemembers, discharging highly skilled, valuable assets at a huge cost -- both financially and tactically -- such highfalutin claims have no merit and cannot be taken seriously.

President Obama punts to congress, who in turn punts to the Pentagon (who says they have no plans to do anything about it), requiring Press Secretary Robert Gibbs to contradict the Pentagon, despite no evidence to suggest that anyone is actually doing anything about it.

Political stalling and hedging on this issue, (when fired translators could potentially be intercepting communications to prevent a terrorist attack), demonstrates that fear and prejudice trump a genuine commitment to national security.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was a terrible compromise from day one, but fourteen years later, under a Democratic congress and President, its continued implementation is inexcusable, bordering on treason.

Gay marriage may be the civil rights focus right now, and recent successes lessen the disappointments of the dismally fought opposition to Proposition 8, (which did little more than squander upwards of 40 million dollars), and the cowardly decision to uphold it by the California Supreme Court.

National gay rights organizations are nothing more than over-bloated, self-obsessed, self-congratulatory embarrassments, more adept at tackling dinner menu items than serious agenda items, and with more to say about Miss California runner-up, Carrie Prejean’s, breast implants than they do about gays and lesbians being slaughtered in Iraq.

And while gay marriage is worth of demanding as an equal right under the law and guaranteed by the constitution and despite its ultimate federal recognition being all but inevitable, the prejudices against it do not threaten national security. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, on the other hand, remains a dangerous policy in urgent need of the attention of thinking Americans, regardless of one’s sexual orientation.

It’s time to place your elected representatives on notice regarding their attention to a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and demand that either Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton – or both -- speak out decisively against the torture of gay Iraqis.

At this point, both are slightly more important than the right to use a word to define a government-sanctioned relationship, no matter how pathetic the arguments against it.

And the Band Played On...

A broad, united coalition of human rights advocates and politicians held a spirited rally Sunday, May 17, in solidarity with the LGBT citizens of Iraq, who face surging violence and killings. Recent reports out of Baghdad document the gruesome gluing of anuses of gay men, who are forced to swallow laxatives, leading to death by diarrhea, and come amid continuing genital mutilation of gays. Leaders called for an end to Don't Ask, Don't Tell and a condemnation of torture by the United States.

"New" Torture Images Not So New

There are torture images floating around, as if they were just released. Not so. They have been around for quite a while. The image above, never before released by me, was shot in November 2006 for my Torture exhibition based on the images from Abu Ghraib. Clearly it is based on one of the images being positioned as newly leaked.

Newly released image

Milky Way

Saw Milk at the Castro Theater last night, which is the only place to really see it, methinks. Sad how little has progressed since then. We still have homophobic retards passing fear/hate driven legislation, and impotent, terrified gay "leaders" who shouldn't let the door slam them in the ass on their way out.

It's That Time...

Tired of being sick when I see the news;
Sick of listening to tired views;
Sick of watching kids with guns
Killing parents, sisters, sons.

Tired of parents cold as ice
Rearing kids to sacrifice
To hatred death in the name of Cause
While bombing babies, starting wars.

History I fear has taught not a thing.
Religion I swear will nothing bring,
But Blood and Violence and little Reason.
Passover Easter, what a Fucking Great Season.

Mesopotamia Still a Mess

A month before America's unilateral, preemptive war against Iraq, I wrote an editorial denouncing the war, concluding thusly:

So ready we are, and ready we must be. As the proprietors of certain fast food venues change their menus to reflect “freedom” rather than French fries, (forgetting, it seems, who gave America the Statue of Liberty) and kids expressing anti-war sentiments on T-shirts are sent home from school, we can rest safely in the warm glow of Homeland Security and a commitment to a peace that would dangerously threaten the viability of Halliburton, Monsanto and all the other corporate cronies that bought and own W, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Blair, Howard and the gang. The most massive anti-war protests in history won’t change their minds anymore than a veto by the Security Council would, or the disbanding of NATO might.

Two elections later, we are still there, having done little more than strengthen Iran and create an entire new generation of terrorists. From Mission Accomplished to Abu Ghraib, the war has been a disaster, no matter how you look at it or how may people argue 'the surge worked." Perhaps, but the war didn't. President Obama needs to make good on his campaign promise, and start using the money that continues to fund the war to help stimulate the economy.

Here's the editorial in its entirety.

Be Ready to Mess with Mesopotamia
By Clinton Fein
February 20, 2003

Following a supposedly God-ordained firework display over Texas which ignited seven astronauts who were simply furthering the cause of science, the media gushed into sensationalist overdrive with headlines as unbelievable as “Closer to Heaven”.

“There was to the sadness today a sense of misfortunes multiplying, as America sorts through another tragedy and a national gloom deepens," The Washington Post editorialized. Whether the sinful scientists were attempting to work with stem cells to enhance life down here on earth that caused God’ wrath or were just on the losing end of a space invader turf brawl, we’ll never know.

One thing is certain – faith based foreign policy is the most creative decoy for the pursuit of oil, since snow-melting global warming inconveniently ruined the notion that oil drilling in the sensitive Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Northeast Alaska would not impact the few inhabitants and fragile ecosystem of the snow tundra.

The Iraqis were said to have danced in the street when news of the Israeli astronaut, who had once flown bombers over Baghdad, was blown to bits, possibly above a ranch in Crawford, Texas. The best thing to have transpired from the over-milked, sentiment-saturated media-coined national tragedy was the deflection – if momentarily – from experts and analysts providing preposterously boring insights into how the inevitable war will play out.

Colin Powell, powder puffed for television to look whiter than Michael Jackson (and more red-faced with celebrity-fading outrage than Gloria Allred), turned hawkish at the U.N. following a high-school quality presentation of evidence in a dog-and-pony show designed to convince, perhaps, the dullest of minds, that the correct, tedious hoops had been jumped through as a matter of protocol – a half-hearted attempt to mask America’s arrogant policy of unilateral pre-emption by force. As if somehow, anti-American sentiment, and the likely resultant spike in terrorism, will be dissipated by a reluctant, contrived endorsement by a fractured NATO or a strong-armed resolution by the United Nations.

George W. Bush, acting tough at a Navy base following an awkward meeting earlier that week with Australia’s Prime Minister, John Howard, could not stop him from being relegated to the ranks of former disgraced right-wing nutcase, Pauline Hansen, back home.

Australians, still reeling from a recent terrorist attack aimed at Australians in Bali, were outraged at the notion of their unpopular, lame duck, lame brained embarrassment promising unequivocal support to the United States prior to the furnishing of any real evidence, and adopting the role of second poodle to Britain’s prime minister, Tony Blair.

Tony Blair, scrambling to offer Britain a valid reason as to his unequivocal kowtowing to the Americans, had to overcome embarrassing revelations that his much-touted dossier of Saddam Hussein’s egregious weapon building program was plagiarized. Little more than a Digital Millennium Copyright Act felonious copyright infringement of outdated material, downloaded sans permission and without credit, from the thesis of an American PhD student. Skeptical Brits were given all the reinforcement they needed to support the growing perception that a war with Iraq may indeed be about weapons of mass destruction – namely oil guzzling, emissions-heavy sports utility vehicles.

The “boy crying wolf” shenanigans of Blair’s government has spawned an irreparable public relations disaster which began in the form of a career boost last August by George Michael with his “Shoot the Dog” hit and 2DTV animation music video. The overwhelming, and increasingly global, perception of Tony Blair as George Bush’s poodle is stretched further by an expression of sympathy for Cherie Blair, whom, Michael suggests, is no longer getting laid now that Tony’s sexual interests are being satiated by a red-necked, testosterone-gushing, swaggering Texas cowboy with Presidential seals on his boots.

Alone in bed, an animated Michael tries to distract an angry Cherie Blair from her fixation on the televised image of handsome soccer pin-up sensation and pop-cultural consumer icon (and England football captain), David Beckham. Bursting into tears, a devastated goalkeeper mourns after Tony Blair, donning an American football helmet picks up a round soccer ball with his hands and stretches into the shape of what else? -- An American football.

No less distasteful to the global audience watching the Security Council’s ratings-winning feature attraction, was Britain’s appropriately named straw man, Jack Straw, the Colin Powell-B-movie counterpart, whose Sporty Spice rhetoric is deserving of the same treatment of former Spice Girl, Geri Halliwell, in the George Michael video – a solid, unceremonious elbow shoving out of the picture.

Older than “Old Europe,” Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, with the charm of Goebbels offering a heil Hitler salute at a ceremony at Israel’s holocaust memorial Yad Vashem, further insulted Germany and France, (following his remark that they represented “Old Europe” for refusing to hop, skip and jump into line behind America’s jackbooted thug war march to Baghdad which created the biggest rift ever among NATO allies), by excluding them from what the Bush administration now refers to as a coalition of the willing (COW) in maintaining world peace, blissfully unaware that modern day thinking, for the most part, would consider the pre-emptive dropping of bombs on innocent civilians somewhat antithetical to peace.

In New York, a court-ordered, First Amendment-precarious compromise to a planned antiwar peace march by a neurotic traitor named Barbara S. Jones of the Federal District Court in Manhattan, witnessed the mistaken puncturing of a 15-foot balloon of the earth brought to the rally by children from a public school they later, ironically, patched with duct tape. The same duct tape that earlier in the week, Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, accompanied by Attorney General, John Ashcroft, had suggested be used to thwart the deadly hazards that could result from a chemical or biological attack, by using it to tape sheets of plastic to windows and doors.

With almost the same fanfare as Ashcroft’s satellite announcement from Moscow announcing the capture of alleged “dirty bomb dreamer,” Jose Padilla (as much remembered as Osama bin Someone), the much criticized, color-coded threat level security alert went from Dijon mustard to terracotta orange (depending on the color settings of monitors and televisions). A sudden, dramatic spike in sales of plastic sheeting and duct tape suggested that Americans were taking heed of the advice represented by the threat level alert system -- which although previously had specified shopping as a response – had failed to add such blatant product specification. It’s only a matter of time before color-coded security alerts turn into full-scale branding opportunities. Burnt Orange brought to you courtesy of Dupont.

However, color coding is only the half of it. Be Ready, the new buzz phrase being flaunted by the biggest bureaucracy in the history of government (created to give Tom Ridge a real job and deflect attention from intelligence failures leading up to September 11), offers some practical advice as to how to spot one, never mind protect oneself, in the event of a chemical attack with the launch of a new web site www.ready.gov.

The presence of “many dead fish, birds and small animals” are “cause for suspicion,” but should not induce anyone to rush to conclusions that might be nothing more than the obvious symptoms of the Bush administration’s environmental policy. “If your eyes are watering, your skin is stinging, and you are having trouble breathing, you may have been exposed to a chemical”, or simply driving home from work in Texas. Or perhaps you were inhaling the toxic fumes of a private jet rushing Arianna Huffington to promote electric cars at an anti-SUV rally.

Other pearls of wisdom from the Homeland Defense team: “If the chemical is inside a building where you are, try to get out of the building without passing through the contaminated area, if possible.” Unless, of course, the duct tape already prevented the chemicals from getting inside the building -- or you from getting out -- or if you’re feeling a little dare devilish.

The graphical representation of a man serenely pondering the dead fish and then calmly walking away, as if on high-potency Quaaludes, Rohypnol or the same anti-depressants that allow Laura Bush to smile, read to children upside down and not so much as flinch as the world explodes around her, is enough to reassure the most cynical that a chemical attack is no more dangerous than a partisan one. The final image of the illustration figure lying down seeking medical attention makes it difficult to tell whether he collapsed from chemical exposure, slow reaction to his explosive surroundings or fatigue from trying to decide whether “the farther away from the blast and the fallout the lower your exposure” suggested he should go inside or outside, following a nuclear attack.

So ready we are, and ready we must be. As the proprietors of certain fast food venues change their menus to reflect “freedom” rather than French fries, (forgetting, it seems, who gave America the Statue of Liberty) and kids expressing anti-war sentiments on T-shirts are sent home from school, we can rest safely in the warm glow of Homeland Security and a commitment to a peace that would dangerously threaten the viability of Halliburton, Monsanto and all the other corporate cronies that bought and own W, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Blair, Howard and the gang. The most massive anti-war protests in history won’t change their minds anymore than a veto by the Security Council would, or the disbanding of NATO might.

We don’t need color codes. Blood is red.

In Madoff We Trust

 

Mad at Madoff, little thief, stealing billions, causing grief.

Dark energy, awful karma,

Jews now have Bernie

like the gays had Jeff Dahmer.