I know he mentioned it before, but Tom Tomorrow’s has a quote from Fox News that creeps me out the more I read it :

HANNITY: Mr. Cunningham, you’re a great American. Thanks for giving us the full report, we love having you back.

CUNNINGHAM: Sean, you’re a great American.

What’s so creepy about this exchange is how often it occurs. Now I’m sure the semi-Orwellian phrase means something harmless like “all liberals should rot in hell”, but the almost robotic way the phrase is thrown around makes it seem more like a secret code than a pleasant greeting. Perhaps it’s just a quick way of saying “you get the fertilizer and I’ll rent the truck” or something.

There’s something vaguely Sedaris-esque about this story of a high school English class led by a self-righteous evangelical Christian (via Kevin) :

The class was equally divided between Christians and Godless Heathens, and every Friday she would split the class up, Christians on one side, Heathen on the other, and force us to play Bible Baseball.

Details on this are fuzzy, because it’s been 18 years, but the gist of it was something like: the person “at bat” had to answer a Bible question. If answered correctly, the student would move on to first base. If answered incorrectly, the team in the “outfield” got to try and answer it. If they could, the batter was out.

“I’m pretty sure this is illegal in public school,” came the rumblings from the Heathen dugout.

We never did more than mumble, however, and it wasn’t only because Southern children are raised to not disrespect their elders, no. It was because of the hilarious fact that the Unwashed stomped the Saved into the ground every week.

I’m not sure why this was so, but my theory is that we, the Unbelievers, were all voracious readers and enthusiastic creative writers.[. . .]One of the recurring motifs we noticed, from Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land to the poetry of Yeats, were the constant Biblical references and use of religion in general. It made sense to us, if we wanted to be writers, to educate ourselves on what was in the Bible. Whether we believed in the Bible as the word of God or not (and some of us did, Heathen status aside), it’s undeniable that the Bible has had a profound impact on Western literature. So we read the Bible. We educated ourselves. We discussed it with each other.

Y’know, I’d be willing to bet you that the majority of people who call themselves “Christians” can’t remember the differences between Lazarus and Judas, Frankincense and Gomorrah, or even tell you what’s remarkable about the parable of the Good Samaritan.

It’s not just confined to the junior varsity Bible trivia team, either. As embarrassing as it is for the college-bound “true love waits” crowd to be unfamiliar with the teachings that supposedly guide every aspect of their lives, yesterday’s Supreme Court arguments about the Ten Commandments displays show not only ignorance about Christianity, but history and other religions as well.

Chemerinsky points out that the text on the Texas monument is not the Jewish version and thus alienating. But what about religions that don’t accept the commandments at all? “Imagine a Muslim or a Buddhist,” he begins. Justice Antonin Scalia cuts him off: “Muslims believe in the Ten Commandments,” he says. “No, they don’t,” replies Chemerinsky. Scalia looks horrified, but without missing a beat he adds: “I think 90 percent of Americans believe in the Ten Commandments. And I bet 85 percent couldn’t tell you what the 10 are.”
[. . .]
Staver retreats to insisting that the purpose of even the original display was secular, specifically to show “the historic nature of the Ten Commandments as the foundation of American law.” Again, this offends Scalia, who rears up to quote Justice William O. Douglas saying quite the opposite: “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.”

Ginsburg tries to go a different route, distinguishing the cases at hand from the court’s historic indulgence of “In God We Trust” on coins. That “minimal reference” to the divine is quite different from “a powerful statement of the covenant God is making with his people,” she says. Staver replies that the references to God in the commandments are minimal, too.

“Have you, um, read the first four?” queries Ginsburg.
[. . .]
David Friedman of the ACLU speaks against the Kentucky display. He’s given almost 10 minutes of open-mike time, as the justices are either too confused or too tired to fight anymore. He rests much of his argument on the expressly religious and sectarian purpose behind the initial display, quoting the county officials’ unapologetic claims that “America is a Christian nation” and “Christ is a prince of morals” as well as their resounding support for Judge Roy Moore.

Breyer asks (probably to pre-empt Scalia), “What’s wrong with saying there is a religious role in history?” Friedman replies that “there’s a difference between saying that religion played a role in our history and saying it is the moral foundation.” He adds that the counties were claiming the commandments as “the moral background of the Declaration of Independence.”

“If that what it meant, that’s idiotic,” snaps Scalia.¹ “You can’t get the Declaration of Independence out of the Ten Commandments!”

It’s truly stunning that at these disparate levels of experience, from school children to our nations highest court, there exists a similar level of unfamiliarity with the works that millions of people have devoted their entire lives to “studying”. If this is the moral and spiritual foundation of your entire lives, shouldn’t you have more than a passing familiarity with it? Does growing up in a religious bubble make people actively avoid any information that might change their spiritual outlook, even if the information is about their own religion?

My guess is that when you condition yourself to “Believe your beliefs and doubt your doubts”, there’s no need to actually know any of the details. As long as you accept that worshiping Jesus is the only way to get into heaven and that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, then you can get by without having to read all that boring “PooPoo begat PeePee” stuff. Besides, it’s not as if the preacher is handing out pop quizzes.

^{1: You’re right, Justice Scalia. Having a Ten Commandments display which claims they “provide the moral background of the Declaration of Independence and the foundation of our legal tradition” is very, very idiotic.}

Diana Rehnquist and the Supremes ruled yesterday that a couple of former spies who sued the CIA ? not necessarily for back pay or an outright cash settlement, but for a hearing of their case ? were, if you’ll pardon the legalese, “Shit outta luck.”

By a vote of 9 to 0, the court dismissed a lawsuit by two former Soviet bloc diplomats who said the CIA induced them to betray their countries during the Cold War in return for a pledge of resettlement in the United States and a lifetime income — then refused to live up to the deal without so much as a hearing after the U.S.-Soviet conflict ended.

Writing for the court, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said the applicable rule had been laid down in 1876, when the court threw out a suit by a former Union spy seeking his promised pay from the federal government. In that case, the court held that a suit to enforce an espionage contract is inconsistent with the mutual pledge of secrecy that forms a central condition of any such arrangement.

The decision was a victory for the Bush administration, which had argued that anti-terrorism efforts could be hampered if case officers attempting to recruit intelligence sources had to worry about being sued every time they tried to cut a deal with a would-be spy or defector.

Admittedly, trying to verify any of the facts in a case like this ? one in which nearly everyone involved very likely needs to keep their identity a secret, and in which most of the particulars of the case are probably still classified ? would be pretty much impossible.

But John and Jane Doe weren’t asking for a public trial, they were asking for a review of their case by the CIA, which, if I’m not mistaken, is at least sort of skilled when it comes to keeping things under wraps. Further:

It reversed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which had ruled in 2003 that the two former diplomats, a married couple who sued as John and Jane Doe, should be allowed to proceed because they sought not merely to get paid but to enforce a constitutional right to a fair hearing. The government’s interests could be protected by conducting all or part of the case behind closed doors, the 9th Circuit said.

But yesterday, the Supreme Court said that the 9th Circuit was “quite wrong” and that the 1876 ruling, Totten v. United States, was a broad one, intended to forbid all claims against the government stemming from clandestine espionage agreements.
…
As for the possibility that leaks could be prevented by conducting a lawsuit in secret, or permitting the government to invoke a state-secrets privilege to prevent the disclosure of national security information, Rehnquist wrote that such measures “simply cannot provide the absolute protection we found necessary in enunciating the Totten rule. … The possibility that a suit may proceed and an espionage relationship may be revealed, if the state secrets privilege is found not to apply, is unacceptable.”

Clearly it’d be possible to separate a classified review of their case from a public hearing, but Rehnquist (and apparently the rest of the court) seems flatly opposed to this.

Look: The business of spying is obviously rife with deception. But this case seems to be much more about government agents (in this case, the ones who promised the Does a lifetime annual stipend) being held accountable for their promises as it is about the actual particulars of spying.

Maybe it’s just my own knee-jerk reaction to the phrase, “The decision was a victory for the Bush administration,” but this certainly seems like an extension of the gleeful lack of accountability they seem to practice ? think abu Ghraib and/or the spiraling deficit ? while preaching the opposite ? see the pending bankruptcy “reforms,” a grotesque giveaway to consumer lenders and a simultaneous punch in the kidneys to indebted consumers themselves. Four more years, ladies and gentlemen.

Ezra’s got an interesting post about blog promotion that coincide with something I’ve been thinking about for a while now.

On a related note, I’ve been thinking a lot about link hierarchies and new blog promotion. In comments, Brian Jennings made the point that it makes more sense for a few writer to put his energy into posting diaries at DailyKos, rather than stick his flag in some unknown backland in cyberspace. Kos’s place boasts a huge audience who will look at your work and, if they like what you do, ensure more folks read it. At the top levels of diary promotion, more eyeballs will land on it than will see any other blogger that day, save Kos himself. That’s a much more rational and direct reward system, particularly in the lefty blogosphere where our interest in promoting our brethren fluctuates between “nil” and “eh”. Unfortunately, and I wish it were different, I can’t see that as a good thing, no matter how I try. Though Kos is benevolent and far-sighted and walks on water and speaks to birds, confining so much new energy to his site can’t be good. It’ll only choke off the vibrancy of the progressive blogosphere in the long run. Now, I don’t blame Markos for any of that, this has been a pretty surprising occurrence that grew out of some great moves (like the switch to Scoop), but it’s a problem nonetheless.

In keeping with blogger tradition, rather than leave a comment on his site, I’m promoting my commentary into a post of its own.

In a way, I agree with both Ezra and Brian Jennings on this one. If you’ve got some ideas that you’ve wanted to put into posts, the DKos community is a great place to start. The large audience will be able to give you instant feedback and help you get better at crafting your idle musing into a coherent point. That said, if you want to become a big deal in the blog world, exposure to DKos traffic won’t really prepare you for the real challenges that stand between you and the upper levels of the blog hierarchy.

If you really want to build an audience, the first thing for any new blogger to do is to post a lot. Readers of the blogosphere are incredibly fickle. If you don’t post often, even your most loyal readers will get bored and stop regularly checking your site. Because of its dependable traffic patterns and large user base, posting DKos diaries will not prepare you for the disappointment of watching your fanbase slowly erode away.

The second thing an up-and-coming blogger needs to do to build an audience is to promote themselves. There’s a fine line between “sending an email to your favorite site about a post your proud of ” and “spamming the world with another tiresome anti-Bush rant”. If you could see my inbox (or Ezra’s or Atrios’ or…), you’d be shocked by how many people regularly cross this line. Getting unwanted emails from fellow bloggers isn’t usually a big deal, but getting emails every other day is a damn good way to get your email address blocked permanently. If you want to email a post to your favorite blogger, you’ll have a lot more success if you contact the blogger personally, summarize the post, include a quote of the best part, and explain why you think the blogger you’re contacting would be interested in the post you’re sending.

The final (and most important) part of blogging is that you’ve got to establish your own voice. Not that every post has to be wordy, but if you’re not adding anything other than links to other blogs and op-eds, then you’re wasting your time. Do you regularly find that you have something to add to the debate that you don’t see being mentioned anywhere else? If that isn’t the case, then don’t bother.

Keep in mind that the three points I mention above (regular posting, promotion, and originality) won’t guarantee success, especially when you’re not doing all three. If you publish a masterpiece, but only feel like writing once a month or so, then you’re probably better off finding a medium that’s a little slower-paced than blogs. If you regularly post interesting work, you might be surprised with how frustrating it can be to wait for word-of-mouth to increase your traffic. Spreading the word about things that are important to you is a noble goal, but don’t get your hopes up. It takes a lot of patience and hard work to build up a relatively decent audience.

To go back to Ezra’s post, here’s the biggest reason why I would recommend against using the Dkos diaries as a way to “get to the top” is this : Posting diaries in the hopes of being promoted may help you gain favor among the DailyKos community, but it won’t necessarily prepare you for success in the blogosphere as a whole. The key word here is “community” and as with any community, the regulars at DailyKos have common interests that may not always mesh with your own. Because it’s a good way to get instant feedback, I’ve crossposted a number of entries from this site into my Dkos diary. The fact that some diary entries barely get a fraction of the feedback that I get on my personal (and much less popular) site belies the notion that the regulars at DailyKos represent a microcosm of the liberal blogosphere as a whole. Being a successfully diarist at DailyKos isn’t the same as being a successful blogger, so don’t fool yourself into thinking Dkos diaries are a shortcut to blogosphere success.¹

When I started this site almost two years ago, I entertained fantasies of having hundreds of thousands of readers and reaching the upper echelons of the blogosphere. While I don’t think this goal is unattainable, it definitely requires an level of commitment to the site that I’m unwilling to provide. Through a frequent lack of inspiration, writer’s block, occasional vacations, laziness, and a general discomfort with hyping my work, the traffic level plateaued about a year ago (with the exception of the pre-election surge), but I’m happy with the makeup and size of my readership. My goal has always been to express my opinions and provoke conversation about politics, movies, etc. In that sense, this site has been an enormous success and based on the havoc that erupts whenever the comments section gets flooded on some of my more popular posts, I don’t know if I’d really want the site to become more “successful” anyways.

^{1: Along the same lines, in regards to a point raised in the comments of Ezra’s post, regularly posting diaries in the hopes of becoming a guest blogger for Kos is as foolish as a stand-up comedian appearing on the Tonight Show in hopes of subbing for Johnny. If your only goal is to replace someone else, then you need to stop what you’re doing and figure out why you want to be a blogger in the first place.}

Every time I glance at a headline about the “BTK killer”, the first thing that pops into my mind is that BTK is some sort of abbreviation for “Burger King”. I don’t know why, perhaps my brain is fried or something. When this happens, I usually realize I’m just being dumb again about halfway through asking myself “What’s up with this Burger King murderer?”

And does it strike anyone else as a little odd to shorten something as awful as “bind, torture, kill” as BTK? (Seems a little like NKOTB to me.) Couldn’t the media show a little more creativity in labeling this guy than just using an acronym. How about the “Church Council Killer”?

Before anyone gets thinks I’m being flippant, let me be clear that I can’t think of anything more repulsive than sick assholes like this who prey upon women or children. In fact, I’ve largely avoided the details of the story because I don’t want to get completely depressed. That said, I hope that the orgy of media coverage that will surround this trial will be responsible enough to examine the larger questions like what societal factors, if any, help contribute to crimes such as these or whether stereotypes about what does and doesn’t make someone a “criminal” helped this man elude capture for thirty years. Considering the personality-driven, overly-sensational, and largely context-free coverage of the Scott Petersen trial, I’m not going to get my hopes up.

Here’s an incredibly disturbing episode from Jerry Falwell’s autobiography (via Bob) :

There were times that Dad?s pranks bordered on cruelty. One of his oil-company workers, a one-legged man he nicknamed ?Crip? Smith, complained about everything. Dad and Crip?s co-workers got tired of the old man?s bellyaching and decided to take revenge. One morning Crip called in sick and Dad volunteered to send by lunch to his grateful but suspicious employee. Dad and his chums caught Crip?s old black tomcat, killed it, skinned it, and cooked it in the kitchen of one of Dad?s little restaurants. They called it squirrel meat and delivered it to Crip on a linen-covered tray. When Crip returned to work the next morning, Dad and his co-conspirators asked him how he liked his meal. They knew he would complain even about a free home-cooked lunch, and when Crip called it ?the toughest squirrel meat? he had ever eaten, they were glad to tell him why.

Before you get too shocked, keep in mind that this is from the same guy who lost his virginity to his mother in an outhouse.