Saturday, June 10, 2006

Zarqawi - The Man, The "Myth," And America

A fascinating article on Zarqawi, from Nir Rosen:

So time to dispel some myths. Zarqawi did not really belong to al Qaeda. He would have been more shocked than anybody when Colin Powell spoke before the United Nations in the propaganda build up to the war and mentioned Zarqawi publicly for the first time, accusing him of being the link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Zarqawi in fact did not get along with Bin Ladin when he met him years earlier.

He found Bin Ladin and the Taliban insufficiently extreme and refused to join al Qaeda or ally himself with Bin Ladin, setting up his own base in western Afghanistan instead, from where he fled to the autonomous area of Kurdistan in Iraq, outside of Saddam’s control, following the US attacks on Taliban controlled Afghanistan in late 2001. Zarqawi only went down into Iraq proper when the Americans liberated it for him. He had nothing to do with al Qaeda until December 2004, when he renamed his organization Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, or Al Qaeda in Iraq as it has become known.

Why did he do this? It was a great deal for him and Bin Ladin. Zarqawi needed the prestige associated with the Al Qaeda brand name in global jihadi circles….For Bin Ladin and his deputy Zawahiri it was also a great deal. Al Qaeda was defunct. Its leadership hiding in the Pakistani wilderness, completely cut off from the main front in today’s jihad, Iraq. When Zarqawi assumed the al Qaeda brand name he gave a needed fillip to Bin Ladin who could now associate himself with the Iraqi jihad, where the enemy was being successfully killed every day, and where the eyes of the Arab and Muslim world were turned to, far more than Afghanistan.

Zarqawi was not very important in the first place, and hardly represented the majority of the resistance or insurgency…It took the United States to make Zarqawi who he became. Intent on denying that there was a popular Iraqi resistance to the American project in Iraq, the Americans blamed every attack on Zarqawi and his foreign fighters, and for a while it seemed every car accident in Baghdad was Zarqawi’s fault. The truth was that much of Iraq’s Sunni population, alienated by the Americans who removed them from power and targeted them en masse during raids, supported and participated in the anti American resistance. Even many Shias claimed resistance. Muqtada Sadr, the most powerful and popular single individual leader in Iraq, led two “intifadas” against the Americans in the spring and summer of 2004, and his men still rest on their laurels, claiming they too took part in the Mukawama, or resistance.

But by blaming Zarqawi for everything the Americans created the myth of Zarqawi and aspiring Jihadis throughout the Arab world ate it up and flocked to join his ranks or at least send money. Zarqawi was the one defying the Americans, something their own weak leaders in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria and elsewhere, could not do, having sold out long ago. It was then comical when the Americans released the Zarqawi video out-takes and mocked him for fumbling with a machine gun. Having inflated his reputation they were now trying to deflate it. But it was too late.

(link courtesy of This Modern World)

Friday, June 09, 2006

K to the Raut to the Hammer on the failed Amendment

Since this is purportedly "Gay Week," here at Codemorse, I thought I'd share the Hammer's rather tepid acknowledgement that the Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage is unecessary. I should note that the Hammer appears to believe I'm dimwitted:

On Wednesday the Senate fell 18 votes short of the two-thirds majority that would have been required to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The mainstream media joined Sen. Edward Kennedy in calling the entire debate a distraction from the nation's business and a wedge with which to divide Americans.

Since the main business of Congress is to devise ever more ingenious ways (earmarked and non-earmarked) to waste taxpayers' money, any distraction from the main business is welcome. As for dividing Americans, who came up with the idea of radically altering the most ancient of all social institutions in the first place? Until the past few years, every civilization known to man has defined marriage as between people of opposite sex. To charge with "divisiveness" those who would do nothing more than resist a radical overturning of that norm is a sign of either gross partisanship or serious dimwittedness.

This point is fine as far as it goes, but I think even the Hammer will concede that not everyone pushing the Amendment is merely "resist[ing] a radical overturning of [the opposite sex] norm." But then we get into the motives of people and as I've stated on multiple occasions, it's a meaningless exercise.

Our Liberal Media

From the Washington Times:

Democrats call Zarqawi killing a stunt
By Amy Fagan

Some Democrats, breaking ranks from their leadership, today said the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi in Iraq was a stunt to divert attention from an unpopular and hopeless war.

"This is just to cover Bush's [rear] so he doesn't have to answer" for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers, said Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat. "Iraq is still a mess -- get out." Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, said Zarqawi was a small part of "a growing anti-American insurgency" and that it's time to get out. "We're there for all the wrong reasons," Mr. Kucinich said.

Officially, Democratic leaders reacted positively to the news and praised the troops that successfully targeted al Qaeda's leader in Iraq with 500-pound bombs at his safe house 30 miles from Baghdad. "This is a good day for the Iraqi people, the U.S. military and our intelligence community," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

Meanwhile, Democrats sprinkled caveats throughout their praise. "That is good news; he was a dreadful, vicious person," said Sen. Kent Conrad, North Dakota Democrat. Mr. Conrad added that he hopes the military can get Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri, another top al Qaeda leader. "They're even more important," he said. Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, Michigan Democrat, said it was good news but added, "I think we have a long way to go."

Republicans called Zarqawi's death a positive step and thanked Iraqi citizens for standing up to a threat against their nascent Democracy. "I am more optimistic than ever that a free and stable Iraq can be achieved," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee.

Notice how no one in the above story, Democrat or Republican, calls Zarqawi's death a "stunt." Notice that only one commentator - Rep. Peter Stark - comes close to suggesting such a thing with actual quoted words; not just reporter Amy Fagan's suggestive editorializing.

Notice as well that the title of this piece "Democrats call Zarqawi killing a stunt" quickly devolves in the first paragraph to "some" Democrats calling the killing a stunt. Then, notice how the whole thing devolves further - to become "Democrats sprinkled caveats through their praise."

This is the definition of irresponsible journalism. Were this an Op-Ed piece, the taking of small quotes and creating the idea of a "Stunt" might be acceptable, if not ethical. But this article is on the Nation/Politics page, and as such, it's ludicrious.

The point of posting this has less to do with the skewing of news like this to frame Democrats as wet-blankets, and more to do with the over-arching (and frankly unbearable) trend of coloring news stories with the opinions and/or ideas of the reporters.

Remember real journalism? Where you got facts, and figures, and recountings of events without the attempt to package stories as entertainment or controversy?

Yeah, neither do I. But it must've been great.

(link courtesy of oliverwillis)

The Cup Of Life

It begins today.

I've got two horses in this race - neither of which is destined to make it to the end. But that's just fine by me.

I'll be rooting for the US, which is fielding it's "Best Team Ever," according to all reports. If ever the US needed some positivity on the world stage, it's right now. Soccer is an unlikely but powerful instrument to bring some of that positivity to the people who hate us all indiscriminately.

And I'll be rooting for Togo, playing in it's first-ever World Cup. The country has essentially called a truce on civil war because they made it to the games. Is there a better example of how the "little" things in life can surmount violence?

Let's go, USA!

Let's go, Togo!

Thursday, June 08, 2006

Warm Greetings To Debbie Schlussel

Codemorse would like to welcome conservative commentator Debbie Schlussel to our humble corner of the internet.

ISP UUNET Technologies
Continent: North America
United States (Facts)
State: Michigan
City: Detroit

We invite Ms. Schlussel to take advantage of our comments section and attempt a defense of her opinions on AIDS and gays. Despite our obviously snarky tone in prior posts, Codemorse stands by its commitment to open, intelligent debate.

Should you choose to comment, Ms. Schlussel, your remarks will not be altered or deleted. Your opinion - prejudiced as it appears - will be tolerated and preserved, even if (or, more accurately, especially when) it's an opinion that our contributors disagree with.

The floor is yours, Ms. Schlussel. Explain yourself, if you feel so motivated. What is it that bothers you so much about gay people? Why would you eliminate hard data from your comments section that contradicts your opinions - without explanation or serious provocation?


Ms. Schlussel continues to amuse. Her recent musings on weddings:

Yet another development in the blurring of the sexes and the feminization of America's men. It used to be that a wedding was the bride's domain. She planned everything (or is lazy and hires a planner), and the groom just showed up in his tux. No more.

Today's USA Today reports that more grooms are getting involved in planing weddings. There are even books for grooms in how to plan a wedding: "The Knot Guide for the Groom" and "Well Groomed: A Wedding Planner for What's-His-Name(and His Bride)."

Guys picking dresses and bridesmaid outfits, flowers, and cake flavors. Come on. What is this--"Brokeback Wedding"?

Get it? "Brokeback Wedding!" Because being involved in planning your wedding is GAY!

Also "Gay":
- Artsy types
- Kids with long hair
- Caring about things
- Compassion
- Puppies
- Gouda Cheese
- People who are different from you
Since many bachelorette parties are trending toward the antics and behavior of bachelor parties, it's hard to tell, these days, whether it's the groom or the bride who wears the pants in the relationship.

Would that we could return to those halcyon days of yore; when the question of just who wore the figurative-pants around here was perfectly clear.

Where are the Real Men? The ones who leave the entirety of an absurdly-overswollen event to their fiances? The ones who'd rather play golf than participate in what is, assuredly, the most anticipated day of their fiance's life?

Le Cup Du Monde

Today marks the start of the World Cup - set your Tivos.

There's an interesting article on the US team and the abuse they've weathered around the world from other countries - it's eye-opening and outrageous.

Try playing with chants of "Osama bin Laden! Osama bin Laden!" raining down, the Americans say. Try getting ready for kickoff with uniformed militia guarding the field holding ready-to-fire machine guns. Try scoring a goal with rocks, batteries and bottles flying toward you. And try falling asleep the night before a match while fans drive by your team hotel, honking horns, setting off cherry bombs and blasting music.

It's all part of what U.S. soccer officials believe is one of the best-kept secrets in all of sports: The tough road their teams face to qualify for the World Cup through CONCACAF, the collection of 40 North American, Central American and Caribbean countries that comprise their FIFA qualifying group.

Part of it is gamesmanship, such as when Guatemala changed a venue 10 days before a match to a remote jungle village accessible only by a dangerous three-hour bus ride through the mountains. But part of it isn't.

"The anti-American sentiment is the biggest thing," said goalkeeper Tim Howard, who plays club soccer in England. "As Americans, we play the big brother role. People either resent that or appreciate it. They either thank you or hate you."

Over the last decade, at matches in Latin American countries such as Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador and Costa Rica, U.S. players have been pelted with everything from batteries and coins to screws and saliva. In one match, former coach Steve Sampson said his players were bombed with bags of urine and animal blood. In the mid-90s, defender Paul Caligiuri was treated for welts on his back after being sprayed with a chemical substance, presumably acid.

I don't think this requires much in the way of commentary. I'll be rooting for the US to make a strong showing in the Cup because I love my country, and because I'm proud of the men who've taken their talent and given it to our team. That trick Guatemala pulled is pretty impressive, though.

Every Party Needs A Pooper, That's Why They Invited Me


Al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the coalition's most wanted man in Iraq, was killed in an airstrike near Baquba, jubilant U.S. and Iraqi authorities announced Thursday...."The ideology of terror has lost one of its most visible and aggressive leaders," Bush said. "Zarqawi's death is a severe blow to al Qaeda."

"Special Operations forces, acting on tips and intelligence from Iraqis, confirmed Zarqawi's location and delivered justice to the most wanted terrorist in Iraq," Bush said. "Zarqawi personally beheaded American hostages and other civilians in Iraq," Bush said. "Now Zarqawi has met his end and this violent man will never murder again."

Which is inarguably a good thing.

What worries me about this? The fact that what we're trying to fight a war against isn't a country or a region, but a philosophy and ideology.

Martyrs tend to play well with crazy folks, and Zarqawi's a martyr to his cause now:
A Web site used by Al Qaeda in Iraq confirmed al-Zarqawi's death and urged its followers to continue the insurgent fight.

Another Web site used by the group issued a statement: "People of Islam, God will not let our enemies celebrate and spread corruption in the ground. Expect the right that was stolen to come back to us and destroy the Crusaders" -- an apparent reference to U.S. troops in Iraq.

If this war on terror is ever going to be won, we've got to put our attentions in two places: tracking down and bringing people like Zarqawi to justice (my version of justice includes courts, and trials, and law, not two 500 lb. bombs, but in Zarqawi's case, hauling him into court was realistically not happening), and combating the radical ideology that the Zarqawi's of the world use to manipulate people into doing their dirty work.

Without emphasis on both, I'm afraid that the war on terror will become a never-ending battle. Because you can't kill a belief. You can only change it.

That said, it's my hope that Zarqawi's death has the desired effect on his followers - namely, to deflate their spirits and to convince them of the futility of their actions.

Na Na Na Na...Na Na Na Na... Hey Hey Hey...Goodbye...

God I hope this is true:

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the mastermind behind hundreds of bombings, kidnappings and beheadings in Iraq, was killed Wednesday evening by an air strike northwest of Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi officials said Thursday.

And this is an awesome follow up.

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

"Gay Week" At Codemorse Continues

To the surprise of absolutely nobody, the Senate announced that it had voted down the Gay Marriage ban this afternoon.

To the surprise of absolutely nobody, "the fight" is still on:

“We were hoping to get over 50 percent, but that didn’t happen today,” said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., one of the amendment’s supporters. “Eventually, Congress is going to have to catch up to the wisdom of the American people or the American people will change Congress for the better.” “We’re not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected,” said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.

And we're not going to stop until people like yourself are revealed to be the meddlesome, opportunistic bigots you so clearly are, Senator Sam Brownback.

Bush said he was disappointed by the vote, but it often takes time to amend the Constitution. “Our nation’s founders set a high bar for amending our Constitution and history has shown us that it can take several tries before an amendment builds the two-thirds support it needs in both houses of Congress,” the president said in a statement.

“My position on this issue is clear; marriage is the most fundamental institution of our society, and it should not be redefined by activist judges. The people must be heard on this issue,” the statement continued.

Translation: MY people must be heard on this issue. Screw your people. Not literally, of course. Because sodomy is bad.

....Two Republicans changed their votes from yes in 2004 to no this time: Sens. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.....All told, seven Republicans voted to kill the amendment. The four others were Sens. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins of Maine, John McCain of Arizona, Olympia Snowe of Maine and John Sununu of New Hampshire.

Congratulations to the above Republicans. You have my respect, and my gratitude. Senator Snowe continues to be a beacon of moderate reason in the extremist wilderness.

The rest of you should be ashamed of yourselves. Future history will show you to be no better than the yellow-bellied politicians who capitulated and cowtowed to the segregationists and anti-Suffragettes.

"My wife and I have been married 47 years - we have 20 kids and grandkids - and I'm really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we've never had a divorce, or any kind of a homosexual relationship.

-Sen. James Inhofe

Congratulations, Senator. You should be so very, very proud.

Nation Building Good?

Adopting a plan from the Clinton playbook, Jonah Goldberg trumps the idea of nation building.

The World Of Dr. Moreau


On a projection screen at Stanford Law School, an auditorium full of nerds stared at a picture of a guy who'd done himself up like a cat—not with makeup, but with tattoos and surgery. The guy's whiskers were implanted. His nose had been converted to a cat nose. His teeth had been filed into the shape of cat teeth. His head has been flattened, and he was looking for a doctor to implant a tail. And that's just the tip of the freakberg.

Our guide to the self-mutilators, professor Robert Schwartz of the University of New Mexico, wasn't trying to gross us out. He was trying to show us the irrationality of regulating body modification based on grossness. Why do we shrug at botox, liposuction, and circumcision? Why do we think it's no big deal if models, actors, and athletes have themselves cut open for professional advancement? Why did tattoos remain illegal in parts of the United States until three weeks ago? Why did we have "ugly laws" that ordered maimed people off the streets?

Speakers and attendees called themselves visionaries, futurists, or revolutionaries. They invoked Marcuse, Sartre, and Heidegger. They preached struggle and solidarity. They spoke of speciesism, morphological diversity, techno-progressive transhumanism, somatic-epistemic technology, nonanthropocentric personhood ethics, and the "illusory distinction between self and cosmos."

Another panel addressed "the self-demand amputation community." You've heard of a woman trapped in a man's body? Imagine being a one-legged person trapped in a two-legged body, said the speakers.

Maybe the cockeyed thinking of transhumanists is what allows them to see the illogic of the way we dope kids with caffeine while banning other stimulants. Maybe that's why they find it odd that we denounce steroids as cheating but ignore athletes who get Lasik or muscle-enhancing surgery. Maybe that's why they look back at the doubling of human life expectancy in the last century and wonder why we shouldn't try to double it again. To our hunter-gatherer ancestors, they figure, we already look posthuman.

Life truly does imitate science fiction. We're living in a time of man-made miracles and monsters, and I'm grateful to have a front row seat at the carnival. See the amazing Cat Man! Witness the Awesome Power of the deaf Cyborg! Marvel at the Immortalists!

Fascinating stuff. These people are deeply, deeply weird. Yet, isn't it always the weird ones that end up changing the world? The questions these people pose are good, meaty philosophical ones - ones that should be discussed in depth as our world continues its march toward further diversity. What is the difference between Pam Anderson and Cat Man? Is it that she attempted to adhere to society's notion of the sexual? Is it because the Cat Man isn't already a super-model?

Is this simply the inevitable progression of individualism, aided by technology? And if the Immortalists' obsession with life-extension yields results, does that negate their weirdness?

Are we not men? That's a question that H.G. Wells asks through his animal/human hybrids in the Island of Dr. Moreau, and the answer is as ambiguous as you'd expect: We're both animal and human. The indulgence of one to the exclusion of the other leads inevitably to disaster. In this Brave New World of ours, what makes us "human?"

How do we define ourselves, when we have the ability to totally redefine ourselves?

Greetings, Salutations, Wilkommen, Buenos Dias

Codemorse would like to welcome our newest group of recent visitors to the site, and we hope you'll stick around. Apparently, my rantings on Debbie Schlussel struck a nerve with some folk.

If you're just now hopping on the perpetual-motion machine that is Codemorse: Curing What Ails Ya, allow me to explain the purpose of existence. Well, our existence at any rate.

Codemorse is an ongoing experiment in non-partisan free thought. While many of my personal views tend toward the "liberal," my fellow contributor, Jabawacefti (Jabs, for short) tends toward the "conservative." You'll be able to tell who's written a particular piece by glancing at the bottom of a post.

We believe that the extreme political divide in this country is damaging to its citizens. We believe that the encouragement of free speech and thought is a Good of the highest order. It's our hope that by bringing together liberal and conservative in the spirit of intelligent, sometimes-goofy debate and discussion, we can do our small part to show the nation that it is possible (and yes, desirable) to maintain respect and friendship with those you disagree with.

You are actively encouraged to hold an opinion and to voice that opinion. Unless that opinion is bigoted or malicious, your comments here will be respected and responded to (though we can't guarantee that you won't be assaulted by a hail of good-natured sarcasm/snark. Those with thin skin, look elsewhere). Let it all hang out. Tell us what you think. This place is yours - Jabs and I just keep house. Feel free to poke around. Our archives are deep, and stuffed with film reviews, cultural musings, and a veritable potpourri of random shit.

Thanks, for making Codemorse a brief part of your already-overstuffed day.

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Playtime is Over

I've come to complain. Haven't really done that in a while.

The object of my scorn, the Republican Party. I would air some barbs at Democrats as well, but frankly do not feel that they are even worthy of thought, considering how irrelevant they have become. I hope that changes, but for now...

When one (let's call our "anonymous" protaganist, Jabawacefti [Jabs for short]) charts his political course, one picks out several lodestars to guide the way. For me, those lodestars, or guiding principles, were (in no particular order):

Individual liberty and individual freedom
Defense of democracy and democratic institutions
A strong military and defense
Limited government intervention
Limited government generally

Those principles as stated mean nothing. By which I mean, there are always competing principles, and stating you are in favor of "limited government" only means something when balanced against other competing principles. But to follow the thought, for example, I believe generally in less government subsidies, even if that means that some people, otherwise worthy of receipt of the same, are harmed because I believe that on the whole, the government's intervention and interference is mostly harmful.

But in the United States, we basically have two political parties (with minimal third party runs every so often). Those parties have multiple constituencies. Those constituencies are often at odds based in part on these competing principles. In this case, the Republican Party (in theory the vanguard of the Conservative movement) has alligned itself with some social conservatives, some of whom are completely unconcerned about "limited government intervention."

Such is the case with the Federal Marriage Amendment.

And in this case, those social conservatives are pushing the Republican Party (and the country generally) to use the Constitution to interfere where they frankly ought not. And in so doing, they proponents of this Amendment are violating virtually every other tenet that Conservatives hold dear.

There are several reasons why this Amendment is a poor idea, but here's just a couple, off the top of my head:

1) Family law has always been, more than virtually any other set of laws, defined and determined at a local level. Mandating family law across the United States, from Washington (although technically there would have to be a percentage of State ratification), stands athwart everything that Conservatives hold dear about our federalist system of government.

2) There is no reason to fear that judges in Massachusetts will define the marriage laws across the country as set forth in the Defense Against Marriage Act.


3) Constitutional Amendments are generally used to expand personal rights, clarify the federal/state relationship, or limit the power of the government generally. Certainly not defining the legal relationship between two individuals.

Apart from the fact that the Constitution is now being used to codify a particular discrimination against a limited set of people, I just do not see the harm. Can someone please explain to me the harm of gay marriage? From what I understand about gay marriage (and I'm admittedly no expert), by allowing for same-sex marriage, heterosexual couples are not obligated to attend same-sex wedding ceremonies or otherwise participate in any way regarding the same. Individual churches are not obligated to conduct same-sex marriages if it conflicts with their faith. Nor is the population (aside from some Australian hooligans) forced to listen to Barry Manilow.

This is election year politics at its very worst. It's cynically appealing to the basest in our natures perhaps because the idea of same-sex marriage "just doesn't feel right" to some. Well, I don't like the taste of tuna fish (ugh!), and I don't tell you not to eat it. And I certainly would never (I repeat, NEVER) stand for the government telling you not to eat it.

As Ronald Reagan said, "I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves."

So, what's a conservative to do? Complain, I suppose. And hope that this Amendment fails so miserably that it will never be proposed again.

Then we can deal with the real issues facing this country. Because ladies and gentlemen, playtime is over.

Debbie Schlussel: Skin As Thin As Her Logic

Well, we won't be getting any enraged comments from Deb Schlussel's homo-hating crowd today.

Why? Because she's deleted the comment I'd posted on her site, providing links to websites that effortlessly debunk her claims that AIDS is a disease of sluts and gays.

Better, she's barred me from commenting further. This only helps to bolster my withering disdain. Thanks for the help, Debbie. Do Codemorse (and the truth) a solid, and pop over to Deb's blog. Post the links I've provided somewhere conspicuous.

Here's the comment I attempted to post in response to the deletion:

Dear Debbie,

I know it must be difficult to handle "dissenting opinion." But the deletion of my intial comment on your AIDS diatribe - which contained links clearly and factually debunking your prejudiced, hateful nonsense - seems both petty and childish to me.

I am a helpful person by nature, so here, once again, are the links to the sites which call your not-very-thinly-veiled homo-hatred out and show you to be a woman who would rather provoke a fight than deal with inconvenient facts.

"Between 75 and 85 out of every 100 HIV positive adults have been infected through unprotected sexual intercourse, with heterosexual, (male - female) intercourse accounting for over 70 cases and homosexual, (male-male) intercourse accounting for approximately 5 to 10 cases."

Taken from:

Here are the AIDS statistics from 2004. I offer them because they provide something you do not. Namely, hard data:

Do us both a favor and comment on this post IN BIG CAPITAL LETTERS (ed. - this is how Deb responds to people she disagrees with) so that I can't continue accusing you of being a shifty, factless, prejudiced witchhunter. Neither of us wants that.

And here's her site's automated response:

Thank You for Commenting

Your comment has been received. To protect against malicious comments, I have enabled a feature that allows your comments to be held for approval the first time you post a comment. I'll approve your comment when convenient; there is no need to re-post your comment.

Yes, the truth is a malicious beast. No wonder people like Debs run from it. Nevermind that it isn't my first time commenting.


Talking Out Of Your Ass - Still In Fashion

25 years ago today, the Centers for Disease Control recognized a new disease. They called it GRID--Gay-Related Immuno-Deficiency.

But amid political pressure from the PC and Gay lobbies, the name was changed to AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome). We were told, "This is not a gay disease. This is everyone's disease." We heard dire predictions about millions dropping like flies from this disease. Millions of straight, non-gay, non-drug user Americans.

And yet, it never happened. Other than disease-infested athletes who slept around with disease-infested groupies like, say, a guy named "Magic," there really weren't too many straight people struck by the disease, unless they were prostitutes, complete sluts, intravenous drug users who shared needles.

The millions we were told about dropping like flies just didn't happen. In fact, it turned out that in America, AIDS really isn't "our" disease. But drunken Congressman allocate medical research funds to the disease in such disproportionate amounts that you'd think it still is "our" disease, that you'd still think millions were or are about to drop like flies. They aren't.

....we're not saying that AIDS shouldn't be researched and treated. We're saying there are other diseases. The world's cosmos is not San Francisco . . . or even DuPont Circle (memo to Barney Frank).

We're saying it's time to stop the insanity. Time to redistribute much of the disproportionate amount medical research money from the red ribbon disease of Elton John's friends and needle park inhabitants to the rest of us who have other, equally pressing maladies that run in our families by the misfortune of genes versus someone else's irresponsible behavior in George Michael's back seat and drug dens.

The sheer ignorance and dripping hatred in Ms. Schlussel's post is breathtaking. Were her assertions correct in ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, some of this dreck might be partially-forgiveable. I doubt it, but anything's possible.

Here's the thing, though: Not only is this woman filled with enough prejudice to float her eyeballs, she's also an idiot without access to - and/or understanding of - numbers:

"Between 75 and 85 out of every 100 HIV positive adults have been infected through unprotected sexual intercourse, with heterosexual, (male - female) intercourse accounting for over 70 cases and homosexual, (male-male) intercourse accounting for approximately 5 to 10 cases."

Here's the AIDS & HIV statistics for 2004, for those who enjoy facts, not gay-bashing.

Of course, since many of these numbers are global and not limited to the US alone, Ms. Schlussel and her ragingly bigoted ilk will probably justify their position with snide comments about the third-world. As we (ie: Ms. Schlussel) all know, the poor and the uneducated are unworthy of our compassion.

I've posted on Ms. Schlussel's site, so I'd expect some "interesting" comments here over the next day or so. Maybe something along these lines (all comments left untouched to preserve the inability to spell "disease," amongst other telling details):

After "they"(GAYS) have redefined civility no one will have a definition than defines anything. Go to the CDC (gov. Center for Desease Control)and try and find meaningful figures on AIDS. What a "GAY" coverup.

Oh, yes... Yesterday's big scare: AIDS!....Anyone that makes a living a promoting scare tactics for these inflated projections deserves a kick in the crotch in a public forum. SHAME ON YOU!!

Debster, don't know if you've heard or remember, but soon after the big revelation there were rumors a certain guy named "Magic" didn't exactly get AIDS from female groupies if you know what I mean, and I'm not talking needles, either. I don't know whether true or not, but it was mentioned at quite a few places if I recall.

You are right about the disproportionate amount of funds pumped into this one disease, why it amounts to nothing more than largesse for the Gay male community to ward off accusations of homophobia.


In other news, those Holocaust numbers are, like, WAY inflated.

Gloves. Off.

There is absolutely no way, at this point in time, to confirm the below.

From the Wayne Madsen Report: 1984, I watched [Bush] perform (with the enthusiasm of homosexual male who had done this many times before) a homosexual act on another man, namely Victor Ashe. Victor Ashe is the current Ambassador to the nation of Poland who should also come out like former Governor McGreevey of New Jersey and admit to being a gay American. Other homo-erotic acts were also performed by then private citizen George Bush because I performed one of them on him personally.

I am the woman this website ( speaks of that has been posted on the net nearly two years now. None of this would be the business of anyone but President Bush's little ruse to save his failed presidency by using DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act] to divide Americans one from the other has to be exposed as the act of a desperate closeted homosexual man. The only crime in being GLBT is in the hiding. The President needs to come clean with the American people about his own past sexual behavior before he tries to besmirch the humanity of people in search of sincerely committing to the same bonds of matrimony he's afforded. He violated his own vows of monogamy having a homosexual affair with a long time family friend of whom his wife had no knowledge. His hypocrisy seems to know no bounds.

From Bush's Secret Life in '84:
Here you will find out the little known truth concerning President George W. Bush, Victor Ashe, the current American ambassador to Poland (formerly mayor of Knoxville, Tennessee and Exec. V.P.; C.F.O. of Fannie Mae), and their adulterous-bisexual relationship with a Las Vegas woman in 1984.

....The Las Vegas woman was paid $15,000 to arrange sexual liaisons involving bisexual men for George W. Bush (then private citizen) and Victor Ashe (then a Tennessee State Senator). These adulterous bisexual affairs (3 encounters in all-3 different cities) took place in the state of Tennessee during the 1984 senate debates between, Al Gore, Jr., Victor Ashe and Ed McAteer. An African-American woman was invited to participate in this adulterous sexual encounter with George W. Bush and Victor Ashe immediately following the Chattanooga senatorial debate. This woman was paid $1,500. A few years later the Las Vegas woman was detained in Washington D.C. with Victor Ashe by the Metro D.C. police. She was released but Victor was taken into custody.

There's more. Read it all. Ordinarily, I'd NEVER stoop to airing the allegations of a former dominatrix on this site. But when Bush starts pushing my friends around and telling them that they aren't good enough for the "sanctity" of marriage? Well, the gloves come off.

Truth? Blatant smear? I report, you decide.

Barry Manilow Fighting Crime (Sort of)

What a great idea. Police are taking crime hot spots and showering them with Barry Manilow music in an attempt to ruin the mood, so to speak.

Her name was Lola, she was a showgirl
With yellow feathers in her hair and a dress cut down to there
She would merengue and do the cha-cha
And while she tried to be a star,
Tony always tended bar
Across a crowded floor, they worked from 8 till 4
They were young and they had each otherWho could ask for more?

At the Copa (CO!), Copacabana (Copacabana)
The hottest spot north of Havana (here)
At the Copa (CO!), Copacabana
Music and passion were always the fashion
At the Copa....they fell in love


Just in case the world ends today, I'd like to say what a pleasure its been to have held your company here at Codemorse for a while.

During the plagues, the violence and the revelation of the antichrist - all surely only moments away - please feel free to stop by Codemorse to share your own stories of how you weren't quite "good" enough to be swept up in the Rapture and spirited away to someplace "better."


July 4, 2007
American citizens will now be compelled to allow British soldiers to live in their homes, thanks to a new signing statement from President Bush.....While precisely which British soldiers are to live in which homes remains unclear, the signing statement is clear and unambiguous, according to a press release on the White House website.

The statement, in Bush’s handwriting, contains the complete text of the Third Amendment — “No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law” — crossed out, with the words “Hey, Bigtime, we missed one! Bring on the redcoats!” and what appears to be a smiley face added underneath.

(courtesy of thismodernworld)

Monday, June 05, 2006

Oh, Joy.

Today, Gay Marriage steps back into the spotlight.

On the heels of terrorist activity in Canada and the deployment of the National Guard to the border, our country will be turning it's eyes and ears to the issues that really matter. Namely, keeping gays from committing to one another in monogamous, loving, legally binding relationships.

The given reasoning for the Gay Marriage Amendment: activist judges have taken the power away from the people - leaving no choice but to push a federally-based definition of what marriage is.

The fact that a federal amendment to the meaning of marriage is, in fact, activism at the highest level seems to have escaped those oh-so-intelligent folks; who honestly believe that whether gays get to call themselves "married" is culturally devastating.

I'm not sure who makes me want to throw a fist faster; those illogical, passionate, religiously motivated folks who scream about homosexuality's "sinfullness," or those dispassionate, overly-logical types who sit back and, without concern or empathy, allow this sort of madness to be perpetrated by their extremist fellows.

Either way, I'd advise staying out of my way. I'm a pretty even-keeled fella, but both of you make me want to vomit.

Sunday, June 04, 2006

You Gotta WALK With Personality! TALK With Personality!

From the NYTimes:
"The redemptive narrative that Mr. Bush has often told about his life — a frequent drinker who found God and his political purpose in early middle-age — has greater resonance here than in other parts of the country. And people say they are willing to overlook major problems, or not blame Mr. Bush for trouble spots, because they like his personality."

Stated succinctly: "He's fucked up royally, sure. But I like his personality. Personality goes a long way."

Good God. Well, I appreciate their honesty, I suppose.