The Worst Penn State Column I've read so far...

Hoo-boy. What a doozy on MMFA today.

Hosted by Fox (who else) and in his column for the World Nut Net Daily, Joseph Farah attempts to blame the systematic train-wreck at Penn State on...

(wait for it)

Society's tolerance of homosexuality!

You can (and should) read MMFA take, as well as the comments section, and you can read the entire roll of toilet paper here. (And if you do, leave a comment there. I did. We'll see what it brings in.) But here's my take, based on some of the "highlights":

We may not fully understand the details of what Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky did or didn't do to young boys in locker rooms and showers, though he does admit inappropriate behavior. But the real question is how he did it for so long without consequences.

Good start: "We may not fully understand the details,” but hey, don't let that get in the way of your diatribe!

But now that being accused of homophobia is considered an offense, while practicing homosexuality is considered a virtue, should it really surprise anyone that such behavior would go unreported or unchallenged for so long?

“Being accused of homophobia is considered an offense.” I’m not even sure what that means. BEING ACCUSED isn’t the offense, asshat. BEING HOMOPHOBIC is the offense. But whatever.

Also… “practicing homosexuality is considered a virtue.” Really? By who, exactly, other than another homosexual who’s looking for a mate or some action? (Between another consenting adult, and which does not harm to anyone, I hasten to add.) Who actually considers homosexuality a "virtue?"

Does he mean a virtue, like... honestly, for example? Or integrity? Intellingnce? Wisdom? And, if so, HOW THE HELL WOULD THIS GUY KNOW?!

In an age when government schools are actually teaching children how to perform homosexual acts and that there is nothing wrong with them, it would seem that an environment conducive for predators of children is being created under the watchful eye of the state and the media.

“In an age when government schools are actually teaching children how to perform homosexual acts?!” Jesus Tapdancing Christ, man! Where the hell are your children going to school?! A Catholic School?! (Sorry, could resist.)

Remember also that Penn State is a public university. There is probably no institution more conscious of the new "sin" of homophobia than the American college campus. There are few imaginable offenses more grievous than homophobia in that environment. One pays a price for exhibiting any symptoms of this dread disease - especially in academia.

Wow. That’s the first thing he’s gotten right. I can’t disagree with a thing he’s said here. Of course, I’d say it PROUDLY, as opposed to with the righteous indignation that HE'D likely say it with, but whatever.

Although on the other hand... "Academia," huh? Please, refresh my memory: Which academic subject did Sandusky teach, exactly? For that matter which subject did Patrerno teach? And who decided to cover this up for "academic" reasons? Puh-lease. If there's a culture problem here, it's our worship of Football, and the glorification of Football players and Football coaches. The Religioun of Football was far more to blame here (which is to say, almost entirely) than any "indoctrination" regarding tolerance.

What happened at Penn State is a tragedy. Worse, it's likely a series of tragedies that will impact the lives of people for years to come.

Yes, it will. And it is. As is (and will) the continued bigotry against those who want to live in peace with their life partner, but can’t because people like you continue to insist on slandering and harassing them.

Let's stop acting like idiots by addressing symptoms of a much deeper problem when most everyone knows why we're seeing an explosion of predatory sexual acts on innocent children everywhere - in churches, in schools and in academia.

"Let's stop acting like idiots." You first.

Besides… We KNOW why it happened in Churches. Because The Church covered it up! (That, and the most Religious and Pious members of our society usually also tend to be the most hypocritical. Just sayin'.) Asd for SCHOOLS? (Which is realtly the same as aying "Academia?") Yes, Homosexuallity is TOLERATED. That means we no longer ostracize people for being who they are. But the last time I checked PEDOPHILIA is NOT. (Nor is Sexual Harassment – you know: that Liberal pox on the Conservative Corporatists and Herman Cain's of the world?)
Question for you: If Sandusky had been found raping little girls, would that change anything? Would HETEROSEXUALITY suddenly come under scrutiny? It very simple:

HOMO – means “same”

PEDO – means “child” or “young”

See… NOT THE SAME THING.

Sure… Male Pedophiles do tend to show a preference for boys. But not all of them. How do you explain the others? How despicable is it that this man is willing to disappear any number of FEMALE victims of molestion. And I know they're out there! Hey: I know one or two PERSONALLY! How about female pedophiles? They ALSO tend to prefer boys. Some prefer girls, sure, but the trend goes against you here. And many of either gender? Don’t care. Because it’s not about GENDER, it’s about AGE. (And those thing that go along with it.)

And those male pedophiles who molest only boys? They show no greater preference for same-sex relationships with other ADULTS than the general population does. So… Are they still homosexual? What’s more, homosexuals (meaning ADULTS in same sex relationships with OTHER ADULTS of the same gender) show no greater predilection for Pedophilia than the general population. There isn;'t even a corelation between the two unless you start out with absrud assumption that the two are the same and go from there, never bothering to justify, explain or test that assumption!

The REAL reason that this tragedy went unpunished for so long, is very simple. It’s not our tolerance of HOMOSEXUALITY. It is our very unfortunate tolerance of sexual indiscretion. (Combined with our irrational love of Football.) Whether it's politicians who cheat on their wives, bosses who sexually harass their subordinates or people who molest children, for too long the gut reaction is to doubt the victim. Failing that? BLAME the victim. And finally, MAKE IT ALL GO AWAY. Whether that means re-assigning a Priest to a different parish, or telling a retired coach that he and his charity for underprivileged boys (*shudder*) is no longer welcome on campus, we are more eager to bury it under the rug that deal with it.

Of course I say, "we," but lets face it: that's being generous. These people aren't LIBERALS. This guy invokes "Academia," becuase that's a code-word for Liberal. But again: What subject did Sandusky and Parterno TEACH? They're not ACADEMICS, they're FUCKING FOOTBALL COACHES. And Penn State Football? If anything? That's CONSERVATIVE. Backwoods towns, where everyone related to everyone else? (Which more and mor eappears to be the case here?) Outside of Vermont? Those also tend to be CONSERVATIVE. There was no liberal cover-up here. This was not the result of a discussion about the tolerance of homosexuality amongst the Liberal, academic elites. And it's a blatant lie to charectarize it as such. Now I'm not suggesting for aminute that this Sandusky was a pedophile because he was Conservative, or even that he WAS conservative. (Nor Paterno, nor anyone else involved for that matter.) I'm just using it to illustrate the fact that if we're going to start throwing around baseless acusations, I can do it too, and make a far better case for it!

And besides, as far as I know? SANDUSKY IS NOT GAY. And if he is? May if lived in a more tolerant area, he'd have found a more fullfilling relationship with someone his own age, and this never would have happened. I can't proove that, obviously, but if homosexuality plays ANY factor here, tolerance remians on the side of RIGHT!

And is some ways we - as a SOCIETY - are getting better about some aspects of this. Pedophilia generally sets off more alarms, which is what makes the Penn State story so disturbing. But in Rapecases? Blame the victim. Smear the victim. Put the victim on trial. Sexual Harassment? Hoo-boy. Even when they WIN, the victims’ careers are still effectively OVER. Who wants to hire someone who is such a lawsuit liability? (See what happens when "I sued my last employer" is on your resume!) Not to mention that by the time they have won (assuming they ever get to court, let alone win) they’ve endured any and all manner of retaliation, slander, libel, personal attack and invasion of privacy. So they get victimized, then victimized again, and again, only to WIN and have “go find a new career” and a red-letter on there chests to show for it. Meanwhile? Their ex-boss? Well, shoot… Even if he’s NOT rehired - assuming he was even fired - he’s still got his wealth to live on. Much more so than the poor subordinate whose career he was SUPPOSED to be helping BUILD anyway.

If you want to tie Penn State to another social issue? Tie it to Sexual Harassment. Tie it to Rape. Because the issue with Pedophilia is not one of GENDER... It is one of CONSENT.

Asshole.

-------------------------
Best comment in the entire story.
(There are only two people who rocked it better: John Holmes and Freddy Mercury, and they both died of AIDS!)

We're Fascists Now.

Or at least we stand to elect a whole lot of extremely un-American "leaders" come November.  And to answer some of ClassicLiberal's retort from the Losing Heart post: I don't care that they haven't cast their votes yet.  And I don't really care that some of the more *ahem* colorful ones, like that [sorry, can't say it] Christine O'Donnell, don't stand a snowball's chance in Phlegethos of winning.  I can't abide the very existence of these people, and the fact that, while they have been largely propped up by the media, they have been met with anything but utter contepmt by the public at large.  See... there was a fundamental misunderstanding that came through in that "Losing Heart" post.  No one's fault but my own, but I'd like to clear something up.  When I cast my Vote for Obama?  I was voting for what I perceived as a common-sense moderate.  Everything the guy said just made sense to me.  Not because it was liberal, but because it was right. (That's "right" now, not "Right!")  And yes, granted I find myself increasingly scratching my head more and more lately: appealing the overturning of DADT?  In the words of Gorobei Katayama, "Are you kidding me?" But, even now, I have now doubt that my disappointment in Obama is less that that felt by many Liberals.

Because my faith wasn't really in "Obama."  It wasn't really about Obama. 

And it wasn't entirely about the Democrats either.  Yeah, OK, 59-60 seats and yet all they could do was quibble amongst themselves and make huge concessions to the right.  They're about as useless as that option in PowerPoint to print your presentation without scaling the slides to fit the paper.  (Which for some reason is the default setting!  What's that all about?  Given it's utter uselessness, that had to be the work of a future Blue Dog!) 

What I was really put my hope in, what I really started to to believe in, as I watched them finally dump the Republicans, finally see the light on Bush, finally seriously support both a female candidate and a black one... what my faith was truly mistakenly misplaced in? 

Was the American People.

That's what Losing Heart was really all about.  The fact that for a... well, not even for a brief shining moment... for two whole years (!) I watched as larger and larger portions of America finally came to realize that which had been so painfully obvious to all of us: That Bush was stupid, Cheney was evil and the Republicans really, really suck.

And what really frustrates me to no end is that the things these people (the Tea Baggers) complain about? (Deficits, the Economy, Civil Liberties?)  Are the things that, if anything? The Republicans were far worse on than the Democrats are or ever were, and yet they've positioned themselves, to the Right of them! For two whole years I watched as my country grew wise by the day.  And for the last two it's been like watching them sink into the thralls of dementia.

Now... I've mentioned Erin Lindsey before: in Losing Heart, in fact.  She writes a really fantastic webcomic called Venus Envy, or least she DID... she stuck a knife in the back of main character back in March and, so far, hasn't continued with the story.  Which... kinds of sucks, actually. LOL.  But one of the features of her comic that I really like are the times that the she uses her craft to make a personal statement on some critical political point.  One of these that I've been hanging on to, bookmarked, now for a couple weeks, was this one, from 2006:

Now... at this point I'd be insulted if I still had to actually say that I agree, wholeheartedly with the sentiment being expressed, and that didso at the time.  Shoot, it really all started with the Patriot Act, years before. So by 2006, it wasn't like I needed any convincing!  That being said... Nazi's?  I'll admit that even at the time, as a firm believer in Godwin's Law, I'd probably agree with the sentiment, but say that if you want to be taken seriously, you really have to avoid those Nazi comparisons.  I mean... even Glenn Beck knows that! [/sarcasm]

But I've always been a bit  more Chaotic than Lawful, and there are rather a lot of [non-felony] laws that I'm happy to bend so...

You know we're fascists when a serious Candidate, from a major party, has his hired goons handcuff a reporter to a chair and still have people take him seriously!  One black guy with a "night stick "stands outside a polling place, saying nothing to no one and these people want to make a Federal Case out of it, even after the Bush DoJ decided not to.  (But... he was Black, so of course it's Obama's fault now.)  (Not that they're racists or anything.)  But a reporter, heck even a private citizen for that matter, gets unlawfully imprisoned by the hired goons of a major party candidate and people still support him?!  Applaud him even?!

And how about Fox's strong stance in support of Net Neutrality, huh?  Now, you might think that I'd be A-OK with anything that means fewer people will be visiting Fox-owned websites.  But if I can defend Fred Phelps at a military funeral, standing up for people's right to see Fox in this case is a no-brainer.  Because this shows exactly what kind of power a company can have when we don't have strong Net Neutrality regulations and draconian penalties for companies breaking them.  Apparently Fox thinks keeping some portion of the population for seeing some section of the Internet, due to a spiteful business dispute with their ISP is somehow appropriate.  It's not.  It's downright chilling.

Why does that make us fascists?  Because I still hear people arguing that this is somehow just Fox exercising their free speech, while Net Neutrality is somehow some form of censorship!  But hey, why not just censor huge swaths of the Internet? 

It sure would make life easier for Sharron Angle, a woman I've already crucified, the parchment nailed above her head reading "IMHO," who apparently believes that the media should only ask questions that the candidates want to answer.  Um... that's not how it works, babe. You see... It's the media's job to ask the questions we want answered and it's your job to answer them. And if you can't do that without either sounding like a blithering idiot, or alienating half of the country, guess what?

You don't get the job!

And yet people still support her, despite the fact that she's running a close second behind Joe Miller in the "who's the worst supporter of the free press" contest.  Maybe they'd think that *Glenn Beck had a point when he called the *NEA, "adovcating though art" which is "propaganda" and that "you should look up the name, *Goebbels."  But the thing is?  Sharon Angle basically wants to be Goebells!  She's not Goebbels. Goebbels wasn't as stupid as she is.  But she seems to think that the only purpose the press serves is to carry the message she wants it to!  So... she wants to be Goebbels!

I'm completely convinced that very few of these people have ever even read the Constitution, least of all, my favorite head case, Christine O'Donnell, who apparently thinks it's profound that the word "separation" doesn't appear in the First Amendment.

Firstly, I'd like to repeat what I said in my Religion Tab, because, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, I hold this truth to be self-evident:

The Constitution of the United States, the cornerstone in the foundation of the most prosperous and powerful civilisation the world has ever known, says it best:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Can you be any more clear that that? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." IOW: We are not a "Christian Nation," you Right-Wing, un-American, Funny-Mentalist Morons! And... when taken together with, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," it is painfully obvious, beyond any shadow of doubt or debate, that this intends for there to be a clear, iron-clad separation of Church and State. Period. No sane person can read that statement and draw any other possible interpretation form it. (But when was the last time you met a sane Funny-Mentalist?)

Well... not Christine O'Donnell anyway.  But I knew right away she'd fly to the top of my list anyway, once I'd read that she's strongly against Abortion, Contraception and Masturbation.  Now, putting aside that she apparently has no problem with over population, I've said it before: No reasonable person can possibly be opposed to more than two of those things!

Secondly, I wonder if this stupid, stupid girl has any clue about some other words that don't appear anywhere in the entire Constitution?  Words like...

Christian,
Jesus,
God,
Creator, [that was the Declaration of Independence, in case you forgot!]
Theocracy,
Heaven,
Hell,
or
Soul.

They're not there, Chrissie!  Not one of them is, in a document of over eight thousand words!

Now I know she won't win.  I know that. Delaware is a strong, Blue state.  But... she won her primary. So someone was apparently taking that nut-bag seriously!

Erin, I know what you were saying, and I'm totally down with the message.  But we weren't Nazi's in 2006.  On the other hand, come November, we'll be electing several bonafide, jack-boot Fascists to the Congress. Not all of them, granted.  But some of them.   And the State-Run Media (as Rush Limbaugh refers to the Non-Limbaugh-based media, but which I more accurately will soon be calling Fox News) is primed and ready to carry their message.  The first amendment is dead.  And Fascism is coming because so many Americans would rather embrace it than comes to terms with the fact that we have a Black President, who's cleaning up the mess they made the last time they were in power.

Sieg Feil, America.

--------------------------------------
***BTW, the Glenn Beck / NEA / Goebbels reference is in that same video I linked to, just after Erin's Lindsy's awesome polemic.  And, yes, that is my YouTube Channel.  At one point I had a personal video there as well; my response to a Tea Party Video.  But... IDK...  Once I'd made it and posted it, my heart just wasn't really in it anymore.  The anticipation of doing it felt better than the result did, so I took it down. If anyone's interested in hearing it anyway, let me know and maybe I'll put it back up.

Conservatives have an interesting interpretation of censorship...

PART ONE

In a fairly recent discussion about Net Neutrality, I was presented with the absolutely absurd point by RW poster Seahawks123, that Net Neutrality was somehow tantamount to censorship.  He likened it to the fairness doctrine, another vastly overated "threat" to "free speech" that the Right loves to fear monger about. 

Now, first of all, regarding the fairness doctrine:

1) The Democrats are NOT trying to reinstate it.  I don't know why not.  It could only help civil discourse and foster more open and honest political debate at this point.  (And the fact that the Right isn't advocating for a required rebutal, sort of puts a stake, once and for all, in the idea that the media leans to the left, no?)  But, for better or worse, there are no serious proposal pending to re-instate it.

2) In arguing against it, as is par for the course, the Right can't help but distort what it represents.  All it requires is that the opposition be allowed to say their piece.  WHAT'S SO WRONG WITH THAT?!  It does not (and never did) require equal time.  After three hours of Rush Limbaugh, Clear Channel would have been in perfect compliance just to give some token liberal 10 seconds to quote Joe Peschi from My Cousin Vinny and say, "Everything that guy just said was bullshit."

3) They always say that it impinges on free speech, and thus that's it tantamount to censorship.  But for the life of me, I'll just never understand how making sure someone has the chance to speak somehow constitutes a LIMIT on free speech!  Seems to me that only a coward who KNOWS HE'S WRONG or KNOWS HE'S LYING would fear hearing (or having people hear) what his opponent might say.  Personally, I wouldn't dream of editing out (or moderating) a conseravtive's resonse to anything I've posted here.  If it were thoughtful, I'd just deal with it, and if it were absurd and abusive I'd simply say, "Look at what I have to deal with!"  But, if you're as intellectualy bankrupt as Rush Limbaugh / Glenn Beck / Sean Hannity / Mike Savage / Ann Coulter / etc... I can see why being forced to give even 10 seconds to an opposition voice would cause you to wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat.

ANYWAY, the really goofy thing here is that Net Neutrality doesn't work at all like the fairness doctrine.  And it doesn't stop anyone from saying anything or force anyone to give time or space to let anyone else say something.  What it DOES DO is guarentee everyone an equal opportunity to speak.  It says that NO ONE can be cut out.  Well, that's pretty much EXACTLY what free speech is all about, isn't it?!  But the bulk of the Right (as usual) can't wrap their tiny little brains aorund even so simple a concept as this.  This becuase:

1) The Democrats support it.  Therefore they MUST oppose it.  Doesn't matter what it is.  Which is just fucking stupid.

2) The Right Wing Talking heads (who are all paid by the corporations who would lose power and influence under Net Neutrality) oppose it.  Therefore the MUST oppose it.  Doesn't matter what the implications are for US, the prviate citizens. Which is, again, just fucking stupid.

3) Per their talking points, ANYTHING a private, for-profit corporation does is GOOD, and ANYTHING and EVERYTHING the Government does is BAD.  (Which might just be the MOST fucking stupid mentality of all!)

And the sad thing is that I honestly do not believe I am distorting their position here!  As far as I can tell, and I would LOVE for someone to explain to me how I'm wrong, letting private, for profit corporations decide which messages get priority and which messeges get to be access at dial-up speeds is NOT censorship, but a law saying that ALL SITES, regardless of their message, get the same bandwith somehow IS.

IOW: Making censorship illegal, is censorship. 

I'll say it one more time: That is just fucking stupid.  There is simply no other conclusion that can be reached. by a sentient, free-thinking life form.

So let me make this crystal clear: I'm an 100%, unequivocably in favor of Net Neutrality.  And that means that Matt Drudge and Fox Nation and Conservapedia and all the other RW propaganda sites will all have the same opportunity to put their ideas out their as I do. And I'm fine with that.  A-OK, in fact. Because THAT is what free speech, no... that is what AMERICA is all about, and that is what makes America great.  To oppose Net Neutrality is to oppose free speech itself.  So... it's really no surprise that the Right opposes it: If they can't silence thier opposition, and dominate ever corner of a debate, they can't WIN.  And they KNOW this.  So of course they want the power to stick the opposition sites on dial-up speed! 

But we, as liberals, know that (1) We have nothing to fear from these clowns in a open and honest debate and (2) that if we were put on EQUAL footing, that we'd actually have MORE of a say than we do now.  We know what a rude awakening it will be for the bulk of the Right to discover just how much in their favor even the parts of the media that are relativly critcial of them really are.  So yeah: To me it's no suprise that they find the idea of REAL free speech terrifying.  It would only make them look like stupid, uneducated hypocrites - something their complicit corporate media has thus far been unwilling to do, even though it's about as difficult as putting on a hat.

(There's a PART TWO to this, but it's late, and I've got sh...tuff to do.  So I'll do that part tomorrow.)