Wackjobs Have Rights Too

I never thought I would ever see the day that I would defend the right of uber-bitch Rosie O'Donnell to be a stupid ass, but that's just what I'm doing here. She has now officially joined the ranks of British historian and holocaust denier David Irving and those two little Nazi muppets Lynx and Lamb Gaede, of Prussian Blue, as permanently enshrined members of The Pagan Temple's Twilight Zone. Why?

Submitted for your approval: Rosie O'Donnell, progressive gay feminist activist and child advocate, comedienne, and all around pain in the ass, has come out publicly on ABC's The View with the opinion that 9/11 might well be an inside job designed to ignite support for the "war on terror".

She has further stated that the current dilemna of the British navy and marines personnel, to wit being held hostage by their Iranian captors for supposedly entering Iranian territorial waters, might actually have been purposely set up by Britain to pave the way for an invasion of Iran by the US. We will invade Iran soon, as planned, she promises.

She has made it clear on her blog and on The View, the ABC morning show of which she is a co-hostess, that she is a stalwart Bush basher and is willing to believe the worse about the administration, even to the point that she is wiling to accuse them of potential complicity in the terrorist attacks that caused the deaths of 3000 Americans in one fell swoop.

I've all but torn my hair out in the past at the ignorance of these ridiculous conspiracy theories, but here I find myself on O'Donnell's side, not because I have suddenly and amazingly come to some mystical revelation that she and her conspiracy theory whackjob adherents are right after all, but-

Enter Bill O'Reilly, of Fox New's "The O'Reilly Factor". According to him, Rosie should be fired for perpetuating these conspiracy theories, for the crimes of supporting the government of Iran and standing against her own country, and for causing pain and suffering to the victims of the attacks and those who lost life and limb in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, their families, etc.

Donald Trump of course chimed in saying he too believed O'Donnell should be fired, for pretty much all these same reasons, and presumably for being a fat ugly slob as well.

My response-Why do you hate America, Mr. Trump? Mr. O'Reilly, why do you hate freedumb?

As repugnant as I consider O'Donnell and many if not most of her views, including these reported here,she has as much a right to promote them as anyone has a right to promote any view. As some of O'Reilly's guests intimated to him on the subject, if O'Donnell is fired, it should be because Rosie's presence is demonstrated to have cost the program viewers. O'Reilly insists that it has, though I have heard other claims to the contrary. Perhaps that is why O'Reilly insists the ABC Network should take the step of firing her for her irresponsible behavior.

Sorry, but I consider that the proverbial slippery slope involving one of our most precious freedoms, the First Amendment right to free speech. Granted, it can be abused. You can't or are not supposed to incite violence, purposely engage in slander or libel, or engage in giving aid and comfort to the enemy, for just some examples.

Taken one at a time-in Rosie's surreal world, it is the US and the Bush Administration who is inciting violence, she is trying to do her part to end it.

Slander and libel have to be proven to be purposefully engaged in, otherwise the onus is on Bush and the Administration to disprove the claims.

Actually the true onus is on the American people to recognize bullshit whackjob conspiracy theories when they hear them, but that's a different matter.

As for giving aid and comfort to the enemy, we are technically not at war with a country, but with a radical ideology. Iran may be our enemies in a sense, but not in the legally binding sense of declarations of war. Neither are we at war with Iraq or Afghanistan as those nations are legitimately defined. Until such time as O'Donnell gives verifiable aid and assistance to a specific individual or group of people that are known terrorists, therefore, she is pretty much in the clear.

True, O'Donnell's views might be legitimately viewed as traitorous-but she is not technically a traitor. Some might even hold forth the view that she is a patriot. The point is, when it gets to the point that activists and pundits can demand that a person be removed from their jobs for holding forth views they consider repugnant, where does it end?

Again, I come by this position honestly. I have watched with bemusement and amazement as it has been demanded that people be fired for, for example, stating that blacks are good at certain sports due to the way their ancestors were bred by former slave-owners. Makes sense to me, so why the fuss? Regardless of whether it's right or wrong, does it warrant a person being fired? Nope. Not in my opinion.

Neither should Michael Richards be continuosly tortured for his unfortunate use of "the N word" in a comedy performance. Neither should Mel Gibson be constantly derided for his drunken anti-Semitic tirade every time he is mentioned in public. Neither should an actor from the hit ABC drama "Grey's Anatomy" lose his job over his use of the slang word "faggot" (especially when he used it in the context of denying that he called another performer on the show that derogatory name).

And neither should Rosie O'Donnel be fired,despite the fact that she makes me want to see somebody just slap the living shit out of her sometimes. After all, she would be the first person to take the first opportunity to herself demand that somebody else be punished for saying something that she found offensive.

So yes, it's fine to get some satisfaction out of the prospect of the chickens coming home to roost. But the First Amendment is more important than Rosie O'Donnell,or any of the people I have mentioned in the context of this post.

To me, Rosie O'Donnell is a person with a lot of inner rage that seems to me to approach hatred. Just look at her long enough and you can see what I mean. She might hide it for awhile, but the woman oozes anger and rage all but seeps from her pores. Personally, I think she was molested as a child or teenager by a trusted family member or friend and never came to grips with it. That's one reason why she is so involved with children's issues, and yet, so far as I know, she stays relatively clear of child sex abuse issues. I might be wrong here, if so it would be understandable, as I don't watch Rosie O'Donnell enough to know in great detail what her positions all are. I do know she derided Michael Jackson from time to time, but shit, who hasn't?

Of course the question needs to be asked, why wouldn't she set an example and step forward? Well, remember, Rosie is perhaps most importantly known as a gay activist. For her to step forward and admit to being a victim of incest or some other form of sexual exploitation or molestation would invite questions as to the reasons for her sexuality. And the idea that some people might draw the conclusion that Rosie's lesbianism is based on such a serious psychological trauma as molestation would not be conducive to mainstreaming and acceptance of the gay lifestyle. That would be just too much for her to bear.

As a result, she keeps it hidden within, and the rage builds and builds, until it suddenly erupts, with more and more frequency as the more time passes, it seems. She seems to have a particularly hateful view of authority figures. Or maybe it's just conservative authority figures.

Of course, I could be just as wrong and off base on all this as Rosie is about 9/11, the current Iran hostage crisis, and, well, just about every issue she opens her mouth about. However, I have a right to express my views within reason, and so does she. Yes, I understand that she would probably not be as tolerant of my right to free speech as I am of hers, but what the hell? If ABC fires Rosie it should be solely for the reason that she is causing The Views ratings to go down the tube. No other reason is acceptable, and as such, and until such time, Rosie should stay put, though it would be nice were The View to give equal time to other viewpoints. Again, that's on them too.

So, I guess that's it. To paraphrase the words of the character Jim Halpert from the NBC hit comedy "The Office"-

Congratulations, Universe. You win.

Defending The Patriarchy

Alas, I am a troll, and my comments have been banned from a certain site due to their excessive trollishness. No, I won’t say who they are, however if you care to memorize the contents of this sites blogroll, you might be able to figure out who they are once they have been deleted from the list. Hurry though, it won’t be there much longer. Truthfully, this will hurt me much more than it will hurt them, judging from the relative larger number of comments per average post on their site than mine, but on the other hand, they never bothered to reciprocate my linkage, so maybe not. At least I got their attention momentarily.

So what is all this about? Well, they insist that the evil patriarchy should be demolished. I disagree. I think it should be reformed from within, assumming it needs to be reformed at all..

I also dare to hold that patriarchy has it’s beneficial components as well as it’s most obvious negative ones, and further that a “feminarchy” would (gasp) hold a comparable ratio of positive to negative aspects. As such, being male, I would remain entrenched in said patriarchy, other than working to reform it from within, though this would not be, as they wrongly assummed, from a privileged position.

And, selfish human being that I am, yes, I demand credit and appreciation for my efforts. This really gets to them for some reason, they seem to hold the position that you should do something because it is right, and expect no appreciation for that. Oh, I take that back, they modified that position. It depends on the quantity of work you do (are you willing to engage in unquestioning drone labor) or the quality (can you demagogue and lead said mindless drones to the new paradise of feminist domination, errrr, equality).

Otherwise, just being for something, donating a little time, money, and say, voting for the appropriate political candidate, such minor details as living by example, gets you not so much as a smidgen of respect. Yeah, try selling that to a skeptical to begin with public.

Anyway, I’m a troll, i.e., someone who doesn’t agree one hundred per cent with the party line and dares to question the validity of it’s observations and conclusions.

Well, ok, and also I guess because I related that “my bitch” had best not stand in the way of the tv screen when the game is on. Just bring on the cold cuts. Can I help it that I’ve got an edgy sense of humor? Actually, while I do have that, in reality I do not have a “bitch”.

I also don’t have a lot to do with the patriarchy. I have not personally benefited from it. According to them, you see, all males pretty much have benefited from it by just the obviousness of their male-ishness, though they later modified this position as well to denote that many men have not.

The patriarchy has been with us for some time, though. It was invented by the United States founding fathers, by way of their purposefully malicious bending of the words of the Bible, and then enshrined into the constitution. George Bush recently unveiled plans for a new cabinet department, the Department of Patriarchal Security.

I’m kidding. Actually patriarchy predates not only the US, it also predates Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Neo-Pagan/Wiccan mythology to the contrary, the ancient pagan cultures were patriarchal, for the most part. Their goddess cults pretty much not only defended it, they promoted it. Their goddesses were all good little girls who did what Daddy Zeus told them, unless they were shrewish bitches like wife Hera, or out and out sluts like Aphrodite. This example of course is the Graeco-Roman one, but all pagan cults pretty much toed the patriarchal line.

Women were bartered by their fathers as young girls to the proper mate (a scion of the wealthiest family the woman could be arranged to be married into). Women had no say, were considered their husband’s property, could be divorced at will, while men had the ultimate last word in all matters of both major and minor importance. Women may have ruled their children in some respects, but even here the man had the final say. Women could own no property, could not hold public office. While there have been notable examples of exceptions to these rules, by and large this was the reality of the ancient world. Women were chattel. Their lives and the quality thereof were dependant solely on first their fathers, and then their husbands, and finally, their sons if they were fortunate enough-or unfortunate enough-to survive their spouses.

And of course men have ruled since the days of recorded history, and so far as any available evidence attests, well before then.

Thing shave gotten better, though. There is a social evolution as well as any other kind, and patriarchy has fallen under the sway of mother nature as much as anything. And it will continue to do so. Thus the feminazis can continue to rail against it, will probably even make minor temporary progress from time to time, but for the most part theirs is an impotent rage with no real point.

Just, “look at me. I’m against the patriarchy, so I’m great and wise. If you are not against it you are a part of the problem so you are scum. But if you change your mind and are against it you still don’t get to be great and wise like I am.”

Oh, and of course, I almost forgot their other typical stance-

“Don’t criticize Muslims, you racist.”

Still, change will come in time, but it won’t be rushed, because it just won’t take if it is. And when it gets to the point that women are truly the equal of men in all things, women will probably still be bitching about their lot in life. And so will men. That is probably one thing that’s never gong to change on either side of the equation.