Sunday, July 17, 2005

They came for my porn...

First of all, before I start my rant let me state for the record that I'm over 21. I could go into a bar, order a beer and IF ASKED for proof of age- could indeed prove that I'm legally allowed to drink beer.
I also have usually felt this means that I'm legally entitled to buy and own porn- as I can prove I'm an adult and I believe that porn is a first amendment free speech right. IMHO- you don't really have a healthy society if you don't have porn. That's how my mind works. I will admit I don't talk about my porn in mixed company, but it's a fact of life... I'm a guy, I have porn. If a man tells you he doesn't have porn in *my* mind he's either lying or whipped.

I recently went to an adult dvd site. Right now I don't have enough money to really buy porn but I was checking to see if they had a dvd I was looking for in stock, so that when I had enough money for porn I could buy it.

On their front page they mentioned that due to new regulations they had to remove ‘certain images’ from their site. Huh? I scratched my head and went looking for the dvd( note: I’m NOT gonna mention what site I was at or what dvd I was looking for. So don’t bother asking). When I went into the section where the dvd SHOULD be if the site had it… I noticed that instead of having the front cover for some of the dvds, so you could make a guess if you wanted the dvd, they had the following graphic:

Image Hosted by

I then went back to the front page- and the announcement that the web content had been altered. From that link they said:
“Recently, United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has approved changes proposed to U.S.C. 18 section 2257 requiring all companies that display explicit sexual content to obtain age verification documentation from the original producers of the work.

Originally, this documentation was only necessary for those companies that hire, pay, and film the content. This information is incredibly private, and includes personal information pertaining to the performers that could be very dangerous when in the wrong hands. Now, these documents must be disseminated to virtually every adult vendor that wishes to remain in business and out of jail.

Currently, we are diligently working to obtain, organize, and verify this information as quickly as possible as to not interrupt our service to you. Unfortunately, this will mean a temporary disruption to our web site in the following areas:
• Removal of all screen shots from our web site
• Removal of all back box art from our web site
• Removal of all explicit front box art from our web site

I can understand the fact that if Vivid is making a dirty movie, they better check to make sure all the men and women in the video of legal age… However, if I sell Vivid dvds, why do *I* have to get proof that all the men and women in the product are legal age. Isn’t enough that Vivid had to do this? Worse that means if I want to work porn, god forbid, not only would I have to give my social security and w2 information to the video company that I want to work for- BUT by the above logic… I’d also have to give my private information to ALL the websites that I, or the video company I work for, want to carry my movie.
So I think this is bad for both the performer, who’s now required to share this personal information, and the websites who want to sell porn. Because I have to tell you as a customer, I’m not going to buy a porn dvd unless I can see the box and possibly screen shots, so I can make an informed decision. I also wonder if that means if I were to put an adult film on Ebay, if they’d be able to arrest me as I wouldn’t be able to prove that the people in the video were over 18.
Actually this site raises some interesting adult questions about this new revision to the law:
But wait - there's more. Any site affected by 2257 must also publish a physical address that serves as its "place of business." Someone must be available at that address 20 hours a week just in case a law enforcement officer wants to gain access to those 2257 records. This doesn't seem too onerous if you imagine a or Vivid Video type of operation. But consider all the mom-and-pop adult Web sites run out of private residences, or Webcam girls who don't turn the cam off when they take someone to bed. These rules mean that your local Webcam girl and our friends over at sex blog must publish their physical addresses online, thus leaving performers and writers vulnerable to stalking and harassment. But hey, it's a great full-access wank pass for cops who can't afford to pay for really primo porn sites every month.

This bothers and offends me. Especially as I figure that webcam girl- who’s just trying to earn a little extra $ and make a few people happy, has like a gazillion percent better chance of seeing the inside of a jail cell then Tom DeLey or Karl Rove. Heck this law sounds EASIER to prove then the one Rove is accused of breaking.
I felt I needed to share this. I think that what Gonzales is doing is UNAMERICAN. I think there are soooo many other things Gonzales should be worrying about then cracking down on porn providers. I’d rather he crack down on illegal assault weapons sales, especially as it was his boss who allowed the LEGAL sales of assault weapons to resume when W. refused to renew the ban on assault weapon sales.
Then again this is the guy who told W. that we could go back to torturing non Americans because the Geneva Convention didn’t apply to us. Apparently it’s more important that our AG worry about PORN then basic human rights.


Ok... now that I know Evan's on the mend, I can start thinking about other stuff besides him and my crappy job search...

So I's needs to blog about Rick Santorum. I found this week a quote from Santorum... and it almost made my head explode.

The background is simple he was talking about the Catholic Church's pedophile scandals in the last few years.

'When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.'

So he's saying it's the BOSTON Church's problem... because Boston was at the center of the tempest. Which in my mind is worse then asking a rape victim what she was wearing because maybe she was asking for it.
The victims of the pedophile cases are KIDS. And Cardinal Law's response is more in keeping with the GOP then the ACLU- deny, hide evidence, blame the accusers, deny.

I just can't believe the GALL of Santorum- to blame the liberals for pedophiles because you know if you allow gays to marry- you'll have time traveling pedophile priests.
The 'time traveling' refers to the fact that although the priests had been found OUT around the turn of the 21st century... the actual crimes happened in the 70's and 80's.... They had just been covered up for so long til the dam burst, when the general populace found out that the Vatican had been re-assigning priests when the community they worked at began to suspect something.
And I feel a foot note is needed because Cardinal Law got a PROMOTION for his work at protecting the church.

I also want to mention that as appalled I was by Santorum, I was equally appalled by Gov. Romney. See Romney had a problem... on the one hand he wants the same votes Santorum wants for the 2008 presidential primaries, on the other hand he's sorta, kinda the Governor of Ma. So he said (drum roll) "people are entitled to their own viewpoints" ... So he disagrees, respectful-LEE. He went on... ''I'm not going to suggest -- well, let me say I am going to suggest that he's wrong on the conclusion he's reached, and hopefully upon further examination, he will realize it's not a Boston issue. It's a national issue, it's a world issue, and the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church is not a Massachusetts- or Boston centered problem."

God, what a world we live in where a presidential hopeful, Rick Santorum, can compare gay marriage to bestiality and then blame the same gay people for the priest pedophile problem. Worse, one of his possible opponents, Romney, realizes that Santorum is on the right track to get the republican vote.

Thursday, July 14, 2005

I (hate) America

So last night the Daily Show had author Bernie Goldberg who just wrote The 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America( and Al Franken is #37). Jon Stewert took this guy to school as most of the list is left wing commentators... like Al Franken BUT Bill O'Rielly and Rush are no where to be found.
Jon( and most of my American hating friends) further pointed out that perhaps we should be less worried about cultural damage and more worried about say Rove who violated National Security.

I've decided to list the 100 here as I just find it VERY funny, esp as Tad Rall a political cartoonist that I link to is #15- and David Duke, a known Klansman, is a mere #66.

And I love that my Senator- Kennedy, made #3 but as I say in the title... I hate America.

1 Michael Moore
2 Arthur Sulzberger
3 Ted Kennedy
4 Jesse Jackson
5 Anthony Romero
6 Jimmy Carter
7 Margaret Marshall
8 Paul Krugman
9 Jonathan Kozol
10 Ralph Neas
11 Noam Chomsky
12 Dan Rather
13 Andrew Heyward
14 Mary Mapes
15 Ted Rall
16 John Edwards
17 Al Sharpton
18 Al Gore
19 George Soros
20 Howard Dean
21 Judge Roy Moore
22 Michael Newdow
23 The Unknown American Terrorist
24 Lee Bollinger
25 James Kopp
26 Dr. Martin Haskell
27 Paul Begala
28 Julian Bond
29 John Green
30 Latrell Sprewell
31 Maury Povich
32 Jerry Springer
33 Bob Shrum
34 Bill Moyers
35 Jeff Danziger
36 Nancy Hopkins
37 Al Franken
38 Jim McDermott
39 Peter Singer
40 Scott Harshbarger
41 Susan Beresford
42 Gloria Steinem
43 Paul Eibeler
44 Dennis Kozlowski
45 Ken Lay
46 Barbara Walters
47 Maxine Waters
48 Robert Byrd
49 Ingrid Newkirk
50 John Vasconellos
51 Ann Pelo
52 Markos Moulitsas
53 Anna Nicole Smith
54 Neal Shapiro
55 David Westin
56 Diane Sawyer
57 Ted Field
58 Eminem
59 Shirley Franklin
60 Ludacris
61 Michael Savage
62 Howard Stern
63 Amy Richards
64 James Wolcott
65 Oliver Stone
66 David Duke
67 Randall Robinson
68 Katherine Hanson
69 Matt Kunitz
70 Jimmy Swaggart
71 Phil Donahue
72 Ward Churchill
73 Barbara Kingsolver
74 Katha Politt
75 Eric Foner
76 Barbara Foley
77 Linda Hirshman
78 Norman Mailer
79 Harry Belafonte
80 Kitty Kelley
81 Tim Robbins
82 Laurie David
83 The Dumb and Vicious Celebrity
84 The Vicious Celebrity
85 The Dumb Celebrity
86 Chris Ofili
87 Sheldon Hackney
88 Aaron McGruder
89 Jane Smiley
90 Michael Jackson
91 Barbara Streisand
92 Kerri Dunn
93 Richard Timmons
94 Guy Velella
95 Courtney Love
96 Eve Ensler
97 Todd Goldman
98 Sheila Jackson Lee
99 Matthew Lesko
100 Rick and Kathy Hilton

Looked at the 100 book today... I specifically looked at #37 and #3
#37) Al Franken... in which he just writes a 'satirical' script to make fun of Al Franken's satire. It was stupid, annoying and NOT funny.
#3) Ted Kennedy- First the author brings up Chappaquidic, rumors of Ted cheating as a youth and the fact that one of his cousins was accused of Date Rape. Gee... unlike W. who's grandfather worked with Nazis or Ah-nold who's father WAS a Nazi.
His three big bones with Ted is 1- The fact that Ted Kennedy lead the charge against Bork being a member of the Supreme Court. And he goes on to point out that Ted did such a good job that whenever a president puts up a candidate they worry that the candidate is gonna get 'borked'= shut down completely by congress. 2- Ted accused a black CONSERVATIVE of being a sexual predator( Clarance Thomas). How DARE he! And what would've the dems done if the Republicans had accused a LIBERAL black of being a sexual predator.
[drew- funny but I thought the repugs did that ALL during the 60's]
The third 'strike' against Ted, was Ted ACCUSING W. of going to war against Iraq for political purposes. Ted had the gall to say that W. was committing TREASON just so that W. would get good poll numbers. Never mind the fact that WMDs have never been found and there was more of a terrorist connection to Saudi Arabia then there was to Iraq.

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

The 'solution' to Rove.

I was reading one of the many poli blogs and I realized that it's important to figure out what Rove knew, when he knew it and what he did with the information he knew.


Now since W., Rove and the repubs say that we are at war- outing a spy is a TREASONOUS offense. This is further backed up by the "If you're not with us, you're against us" Bush Doctrine.

Clearly Rove needs to be sent to Gitmo. He needs to be 'debriefed' by the army's finest to find out ALL of his possible Al Qaeda ties. We need to know what other crimes against AMERICA Rove has perpetrated and the best way to send him to 'club g'mito' with the rest of his freedom hating brethren.

I know the above ain't gonna happen but it puts a smile on my face just imagining the ironic justice IF they did that.

Monday, July 11, 2005

Plame hits the fan...

I've been blogging about the Valerie Plame thing for a good bit of time... because I thought it was an important story, one that interested me and showed what scuzzbuckets Bushco is.

Well although I didn't see it- below is an edited transcript from today's press conference. I love it as it seems that the press corps was FINALLY growing a spine and 'not taking it anymore'.
The edit simply took out the non Rove stuff.

QUESTION: Scott, can I ask you this: Did Karl Rove commit a crime?

MCCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to a ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than: We're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.

QUESTION: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliot Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this"?

QUESTION: Do you stand by that statement?

MCCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that, as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation, we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time as well.

QUESTION: Scott, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us, after having commented with that level of detail, and tell people watching this that somehow you've decided not to talk.

You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?

MCCLELLAN: I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation...

QUESTION: (inaudible) when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?

MCCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish.

QUESTION: No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything.

You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didn't he?

MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

QUESTION: Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?

MCCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.

QUESTION: You're in a bad spot here, Scott...


... because after the investigation began -- after the criminal investigation was under way -- you said, October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this," from that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began.

Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation.

MCCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization. And I think you are well aware of that.

We know each other very well. And it was after that period that the investigators had requested that we not get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation.

And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this. Because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States.

I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.

QUESTION: So you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore and since then you haven't.

MCCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation and I'm just not going to respond to them. QUESTION: When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you pin down a date?

MCCLELLAN: Back in that time period.

QUESTION: Well, then the president commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?

MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.

QUESTION: Well, we are going to keep asking them.

When did the president learn that Karl Rove had had a conversation with a news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson's wife in the decision to send him to Africa?

MCCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions.

QUESTION: When did the president learn that Karl Rove had been...

MCCLELLAN: I've responded to your questions.

QUESTION: After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the president's word that anybody who was involved will be let go?

MCCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point.

QUESTION: Can you walk us through why, given the fact that Rove's lawyer has spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with the investigation, that it compromises the investigation to talk about the involvement of Karl Rove, the deputy chief of staff, here?

MCCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it's ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are following their direction.

QUESTION: Scott, there's a difference between commenting on an investigation and taking an action...

MCCLELLAN: (inaudible)

QUESTION: Can I finish, please?

MCCLELLAN: I'll come back to you in a minute.

QUESTION: Scott, (inaudible) president spoke about war on terrorism and, also, according to India Globe report there is bombings in London and also bombings in India. And at both places, Al Qaida was involved.

According to the India Globe and press reports, Pakistani television said that Osama bin Laden is now alive and they had spoken with him. And his group is (inaudible) terrorism around the globe is concerned.

Well, now, the major bombings after 9/11 took place in London and (inaudible) fighting against terrorism is concerned.

Where do we stand now? Really, where do we go from London as far as terrorism is concerned? How far can we go after Osama bin Laden now to catch him, because he's still in Pakistan?

MCCLELLAN: What occurred in London is a grim reminder that we are at war on terrorism. We are waging a comprehensive war on terrorism.

You heard the president talk earlier today to the FBI personnel and others who were at Quantico. And the president talked about our global war on terrorism. He talked about our strategy for taking the fight to the enemy, staying on the offensive, and working to spread freedom and democracy to defeat the ideology of hatred that terrorists espouse.

And the president pointed back to the 20th century. He pointed out that in World War II, freedom prevailed over fascism and Nazism. And in the Cold War, freedom prevailed over communism.

MCCLELLAN: Freedom is a powerful force for defeating an ideology such as the one that the terrorists espouse. And that's why it's so important to continue working to advance freedom and democracy in the broader Middle East. And that's what we will continue to do.

And the president also talked about the great progress we've made at home to protect the home front.

The families and friends of those who lost their lives in London continue to be in our thoughts and prayers. We know what it's like to be attacked on our own soil.

And that's why the president made a decision that we were going to take the fight to the enemy to try to disrupt plots and prevent attacks from happening in the first place. And that's exactly what we are doing.

But we're also going to work with the free world to support the advance of freedom and democracy in a dangerous region of the world. For too long we ignored what was going on in the Middle East. We accepted and tolerated dictatorships in exchange for peace and stability, and we got neither.

As the president said, free nations are peaceful societies. And that's why it's so important that we continue to support the advance of freedom, because that's how you ultimately defeat the ideology of hatred and oppression that terrorists espouse.

QUESTION: Does the president continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove?

MCCLELLAN: Again, these are all questions coming up in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. And you've heard my response on this.

QUESTION: So you're not going to respond as to whether or not the president has confidence in his deputy chief of staff?

MCCLELLAN: You're asking this question in the context of an ongoing investigation, and I would not read anything into it other then I'm simply going to comment on an ongoing investigation.

QUESTION: Has there been any change, or is there a plan for Mr. Rove's portfolio to be altered in any way?

MCCLELLAN: Again, you have my response to these questions

If you want to read the full conference- with the non Rove stuff... go here.

And a history of the 'spin' can be found here.