Anti-Sex “Morality” Leader Ted Stevens Convicted of Lying, Cheating, Stealing

On August 3, I posted the following blog about the indictment of Senator Ted Stevens. I said I planned to “enjoy watching him roast.” I am.

I can’t curse him today any better than I did 90 days ago, so here’s the original post. You can also enjoy the blog I wrote three years ago trashing his Indecent Congressional Hearings.

[August 3, 2008]
I come not to praise Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, but to help bury him.

Forget the $250,000 he’s been indicted for acquiring illegally. The guy stole billions—billions—of dollars by siphoning taxpayer money into a state that has 1/12 as many people as Los Angeles County. Think he sent Angelenos 8 times the money he sent Alaska?

The rest of the Senate shares much of the blame for Stevens’ 40-year theft, voting for this guy’s unconscionably greedy appropriations year after year after year. When we hear how “powerful” a member of Congress is, it means that his/her colleagues have given him/her that power—in exchange for favors, past and future. As Mark Twain said, “Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself.”

And yet Stevens alone deserves the blame—the revulsion, disdain, and spitting on his name—for his gross hypocrisy.

You may recall that in 2005 he convened hearings on “Indecency in the Media.”

The “hearings” were rigged, designed to force the TV industry to “voluntarily” make their content more “family friendly.” “Those who represent the families of America,” said Stevens, believe the media does not provide “the kind of moral compass that our country should have for our young people.”

“Moral compass”—as in “thou shalt not steal, nor break the incredibly-generous Senate rules you’ve exploited to become fabulously wealthy.”

Only days later, Stevens was again using the FCC to attack American freedom. The FCC abruptly gave itself the right to decide that one-time uses of common cuss words on TV or radio were “indecent,” subjecting a station broadcasting such a word to enormous fines. (Exactly what part of “…shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” don’t you FCC commissioners understand?)

When a federal Appeals Court ruled that the FCC couldn’t give itself the right to criminalize everyday speech, Stevens co-sponsored a bill to overturn the court’s decision, mandating that the FCC “maintain a policy that a single word or image may constitute indecent programming.” Again, he said he was concerned that sexual words and images in the media were undermining America’s “morality.”

But the FBI had been investigating Alaska’s state senators and corrupt contractors, and soon busted six state lawmakers, including the senator’s son, Ben, who was then president of State Senate. Senator Stevens’s home was also raided by the FBI as part of the major corruption case, as he had accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of illegal gifts from contractors who were receiving enormous federal contracts (which they still have).

So while Stevens was bludgeoning our freedoms because of his supposed concern about American morals, he was stealing. He was taking bribes. Doesn’t that count as part of “morality”?

I’m sick of “morality” being defined solely as limiting sexual expression. Lying, bribing, and cheating are all violations of “morality” that affect our kids. But as we’ve seen with anti-sex hypocrites such as the disgraced Trent Lott, Randy “Duke” Cunningham, Ralph Reed, Lou Sheldon, and Pat Robertson, they don’t know “morality” from a hole in the ground. They spew anti-sex hatred and ignorance in the name of “morality,” then steal, cheat, bribe, gossip, lie, and keep library books overdue.

And I’m not even talking about anti-sex politicians who are secretly into sex, such as Larry Craig or Ted Haggard. That’s hypocrisy of a different sort.

The Feds have been investigating Stevens for several years, and last week indicted him only on charges that are airtight—passing up dozens of other juicy violations of law and of public trust. This guy is guilty, and I plan to enjoy watching him roast.

Now he’ll have time to travel his shameful $400,000,000 “bridge to nowhere.” ‘Cause that’s exactly where he’s going.

“Porn on planes”—Another urban legend fans hysteria

If you’ve been terrified by the thought of flying to grandma’s and being stuck in a middle seat next to someone enjoyed Buttbusters 3 on his laptop, you can relax. Delta, JetBlue and now American Airlines are busy censoring the internet they’re offering you up in the sky.

Like so much legislation opposing sexual rights, this is one more solution searching desperately for a problem.

The 19,000-member Association of Professional Flight Attendants recently asked American Airlines to add filters to its in-flight Wi-Fi access to prevent passengers from viewing porn and other inappropriate websites. Although a union representative says that attendants and passengers have raised “a lot of complaints” over the issue, the Association couldn’t produce examples of actual problems.

Actually, in-flight censorship now starts on the ground. Earlier this year, the Denver International Airport started blocking access on its free Wi-Fi network to Web sites that officials deemed offensive.

The Denver Post points out that some of those questionable sites include Vanity Fair and the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue—both of which you can buy at airport newsstands.

So what airports and airlines judge “inappropriate”—my blog? Your blog? Sites relating to breast cancer, gay rights, the Daily Show? And what about the rest of what people do on their laptops? I’ll be working on a talk I’m giving to social workers in Albuquerque next time I fly; what if the person looking over my shoulder is offended by my “Diagnosis & Treatment of Sexual Issues?”

Considering the billions of miles flown by U.S. passengers every year, we’d all know if there were an actual problem about in-flight porn. We all talk about the actual problems we experience up there—the pathetic food, dirty seats, lack of leg-room, hairy arms pushing us off the armrest. Anyone ever see—or know someone who saw—Chester the child molester up there?

Every flier knows that “Federal regulations prohibit smoking or disabling smoke detectors in the lavatories.” Undoubtedly, censors would like to add “and no masturbating in those private little places, either.” Might as well prohibit thinking about sex there as well.

---

Technorati: sexual freedom, sexual repression, censorship, sexual intelligence, sexual censorship, sexual politics, war on sex, America’s war on sex, sexual rights, sex education, pornography

Yet Another Sneaky Law Designed to Discourage Abortion

Politics, as they say, makes strange bedfellows. No odd couple could be odder than Senator Sam Brownback (‘premarital sex leads to depression and suicide’, ‘porn warps the brain’) and Senator Ted Kennedy (insert your own tasteless joke about the condition of his brain).

And yet they’re cosponsors of the Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act, which now awaits President Bush’s signature.

The bill requires parents whose fetus is diagnosed with a profound impairment to receive information on the condition and on available support services. It also establishes a registry of families willing to adopt special needs children.

Why is this law necessary? Doesn’t good medical practice provide information patients need? Doesn’t good patient education provide information about local services?

The hypocrisy of this law is stunning.

Some 80-90% of fetuses diagnosed with Down’s syndrome, spina bifida, and cystic fibrosis are aborted. Brownback sees this as a tragedy, cynically decrying how “America is poorer because of this…without [these childrens’] amazing gifts and their wonderful, unconditional love.”

Of course, bearing such a child is certainly a viable option for parents who choose it. But Brownback doesn’t mention the marriages torn apart, the families damaged, the opportunities for education, healthcare, and intimacy lost by parents (and their living children) who choose the option of bearing a severely disabled child. Isn’t America “poorer because of this?”

Eighty to ninety percent—that’s an amazing level of consensus about anything, which no politician or consumer advertiser could possibly create if they tried. Clearly, couples and families of all kinds, in every kind of circumstance, make the (often difficult) decision to abort these pregnancies.

Brownback, Kennedy, and their Congressional colleagues have intervened in the complex realities of these families. The law requires “patient education” that is not required for people seeking plastic surgery or hip replacements—both of which are far, far more dangerous and intrusive than abortion.

If Brownback is so concerned about undermining “the diversity of American life,” he can start by reforming his punitive stance on immigration, his ignorant stance on maternity and paternity leave, and his discriminatory stance on funding health care for the poor.

No, his position is that the health of those not yet born is far more important than the welfare of those already born. Unable (as yet) to criminalize abortion, he is using the sneaky ploy of demonizing specific reasons for abortion, discouraging those who seek it through guilt and intimidation. Attempting to simply criminalize abortion is far more honest and honorable.

Kennedy should put his personal issues aside and support families as they currently exist, rather than attempt to legislate how families should look. He should be ashamed of ending up in bed with Brownback, a consistent enemy of what Kennedy has always stood for—science, justice, privacy, and women’s rights.

The idea that America needs more profoundly disabled children is bizarre and dystopian. The idea that the government should be deciding whose fetus should be given special consideration is not humane—and certainly not “conservative.”

And if you don’t believe in abortion—I support you 100% in not having one. Preserving your choice is what makes America great.

---

Technorati: sexual freedom, sexual repression, censorship, sexual intelligence, sexual censorship, sexual politics, war on sex, America’s war on sex, sexual rights, sex education, pornography

Is Porn to Blame for the Economic Collapse?

The Wall Street Journal called me for an interview yesterday.

In South Africa, everything that goes wrong is blamed on a half-century of apartheid. In the Arab world, everything is blamed on Israel and the Jews. And in America, everything is blamed on internet pornography.

Since 2000, “morality” groups, cynical politicians, misinformed feminists, and lazy journalists have claimed that internet porn was causing America’s ills: destroying marriages, tearing apart families, causing violence. These folks were—and continue to be—blissfully, willfully ignorant of the facts: that while America was being flooded with internet pornography, the rates of divorce, suicide, rape, and child sexual exploitation remained stable. None of these is worse now than it was eight years ago.

But the demonization of sexuality and pornography continues.

When the Wall Street Journal asked for an interview, I assumed it was about the psychological or sexual impact of America’s financial crisis. Wrong—it was about “sex addiction.” Yes, the largest economy in human history is melting (along with the planet), and the Wall Street Journal sends a reporter to cover so-called “sex addiction” and “porn addiction.”

So in addition to freeway traffic, the awful lines in airports, the decline in kids’ reading scores, and the poor performance of the New York Yankees, apparently you can also blame our economic disaster on sex—out of control, selfish, destructive sex.

That’s America’s real sexual addiction—blaming everything on sex.

To see the (rather lame) article, click here.

---

Technorati: sexual freedom, sexual repression, censorship, sexual intelligence, sexual censorship, sexual politics, war on sex, America’s war on sex, sexual rights, sex education, pornography