.
I've just posted 3,333 new pictures to BME in all sections, including about a thousand in the members sections. This will be the last update until I get back from Venezuela on Tuesday. Thanks to all the contributors, to Jimmy for the corset play main cover shot (and be sure to check out his very cool Tribal Antiques company), and to VEAL for the BME/HARD cover.
I wanted to comment as well on two current political issues.
The Jailing of Reporter Judith Miller
As you know, Matt Cooper has fingered Karl Rove and “Scooter” Libby (Cheney's hit man) as the CIA intelligence leaks, which kept him out of prison. Robert Novak, who to broke the story in the first place, presumably has immunity for some unknown reason and has avoided both disclosure and prison. Judith Miller on the other hand has refused to “name her sources” (which are presumably these two characters) and sits in prison — but don't assume her the noble hero defending freedom.
You have to look at her history as a reporter recently — she's been a government shill that's consistently repeated lies, and was complicit in tricking Americans into supporting the war in Iraq. She's in prison because she was paid off — in order to make a criminal case against Rove and Libby, two witnesses are needed, and as long as she keeps her mouth shut there is only one. And I'm sure you noticed Bush's recent flip-flop that no action will be taken unless a criminal case is made.
Potential Supreme Court Justice Roberts
When bigots talk to each other online (and offline), they use the equivalent of secret handshakes — literary symbols; acronyms and ciphers, archaic quotes, and so on — that let them communicate with each other without non-bigots realizing who they are… and right now the neo-cons and Christian nutcases are doing the same thing while they talk about Roberts.
Listening to the speeches, what you hear most of all is stuff about “strictly applying the Constitution and laws,” a far more terrifying statement than it seems on the surface. Basically what this statement means is making the legal call that any right not explicitly and specifically named in the Constitution is not a right. What this means is no right to privacy, no right to alternate lifestyles (certainly no same-sex marriage), no right to various social programs (ie. a pro-corporate stance), erosion of church and state separations, and worse. It's a very dangerous way of thinking about civil rights. You need to ask yourself whether the Constitution should define a set of minimum standards (ie. you have no less liberty than defined here), or a set of maximum standards (ie. you may have no more liberty than defined here).
There are other codewords as well, but that's the big one…
It just drives me nuts that there's no responsible mainstream media in America explaining this stuff to the general public. These bastards can only get away with destroying America because of the assistance of the corporate media and an unquestioning public. Enjoy your soma as the ship sinks.
I choose hippy peace
(Mostly as an antidote to the overwhelming rage that fills me)
