NERO FIDDLED

If there were a god, I'd say god bless Jessica Ahlquist

noreply@blogger.com (Noah Diamond) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:29:00 +0000

New York Times

Today's Times tells the story of Jessica Ahlquist, 16, of Cranston, Rhode Island -- clearly a remarkable young woman, who has taken a courageous stand in favor of the American Constitution, and against the American religious fanaticism which constantly seeks to undermine it.

Ms. Ahlquist is a student at Cranston High School West. Attached to the wall of the school's auditorium, there is an eight-foot-tall sheet on which a prayer is printed. Above the text is a headline: "SCHOOL PRAYER." Perhaps coincidentally (but I doubt it), the prayer was installed there in 1963, just after the Supreme Court decisions (Engel v. Vitale and Abington School District v. Schempp) which established the prohibition of prayer in public schools.

For the details, I refer you to Abby Goodnough's Times article, but here are the broad strokes:

In 2010, an anonymous parent filed a complaint about the prayer with the ACLU, and Ms. Ahlquist emerged as a passionate voice against theocracy during the ensuing school board hearings. She advocated removing the prayer, and started a Facebook group devoted to the cause. In March of 2011, the school board voted (4 to 3) not to remove the prayer, and the ACLU asked Ms. Ahlquist to serve as a plaintiff in a lawsuit. This month, a federal judge ruled, correctly, that the prayer's presence on the wall of a public school was unconstitutional, and it was covered with a tarp. Some angry and deluded residents of Cranston are demanding an appeal. Relying on the usual tactics of people who know they are wrong, and are unable to offer an coherent argument, they're abusing and threatening her. Police have had to escort her to school. Florists have refused to deliver roses sent to Jessica from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. A state representative, Peter G. Palumbo, called her "an evil little thing." (Please help flood his office with pointed commentary.)

Cranston West graduate Donald Fox, speaking in favor of theocratic oppression, told the Times that "the prayer banner espouses nothing more than those values which we all hope for our children." Mr. Fox is wrong. The "prayer banner" espouses other things as well. It begins with the phrase "Our Heavenly Father," implicitly espousing the view that the universe was created by, and is controlled by, a fictional character. Its first line, "Grant us each day the desire to do our best," espouses the insulting notion that such things can (or even must) be "granted" by said fictional character. And then there's that smug heading, "SCHOOL PRAYER." Do the walls of the school have any other examples of massive signage which boastfully defies the United States Constitution?

The president of the Cranston West student council, Pat McAssey, admitted to the Times that the threats made against Jessica Ahlquist are "completely inexcusable." But, Goodnough writes, McAssey "added that Jessica had upset some of her classmates by mocking religion online. 'Their frustration kind of came from that,' he said."

Ah, I see. Some of Jessica's classmates were frustrated, because she exercised her right to free speech. Poor things. Is there any part of the First Amendment which they approve of?

In solidarity with Jessica Ahlquist, I suggest that we all mock religion online. Ready?

Noah

Roe at 39

noreply@blogger.com (Noah Diamond) — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 17:47:00 +0000

In honor of the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and in protest against the clowns competing for the Republican nomination -- each of whom gleefully advocates the continued erosion of women's rights -- here's one of our favorite Nero Fiddled sketches.

New Hampshire

noreply@blogger.com (Noah Diamond) — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 06:38:00 +0000

The Iowa Caucus

noreply@blogger.com (Noah Diamond) — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:45:00 +0000

This begins Nero Fiddled's inadequate, intermittent coverage of the 2012 presidential election!

I know: You came here for comprehensive analysis of the Iowa caucus. Well, at this time, Nero Fiddled can project that the United States, with its 538 electoral votes, will go to President Barack Obama.

Mr. Obama's re-election needn't have been a sure thing. As you may have heard, the economy is lousy, and even the president's supporters have accumulated quite a list of frustrations and disappointments. To understand the projected landslide, we have to take a look at the losers.

It's been clear for a long time that Mitt Romney is the Republican frontrunner, and he is an ideal frontrunner in many respects. But despite Romney's handsome face, business experience, and magical underwear, his political ambitions are frustrated by the fact that nobody likes him.

We were surprised to learn that Santorum was doing so well among Iowa Republicans. The name sounded familiar, so we Googled it. Now we remember. The frothy Santorum surge was remarkable, but when an Iowa pizzeria put Santorum salad on the menu, everyone got sick and left the room.

Ron Paul's supporters certainly are enthusiastic! Luckily, there are only about four of them.

Not long ago, Newt Gingrich was doing well in the polls, but in the days leading up to Iowa he was crippled by attack ads from Romney-affiliated PACs. Since then, Newt's signature issue has been his staunch opposition to negative politics. (No punchline necessary.)

Michelle Bachmann was once thought to be a contender, but since her Ames straw poll victory in August, the anti-Romney vote fragmented. If you wanted paranoia, there was Ron Paul. If you wanted religious fanaticism, there was Santorum. If you wanted someone incapable of formulating a coherent sentence, there was...

There was another candidate in this race, but I can't remember who. Oops.

This concludes Nero Fiddled's in-depth coverage of the 2012 Iowa caucus. But this was only the first contest of many, and as the presidential race continues, who knows, maybe Nero Fiddled will bring you an occasional comment about it, with all the intermittent inadequacy you've come to expect.

Bloomberg Bravely Excludes Clergy From 9/11 Memorial Service

noreply@blogger.com (Noah Diamond) — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 01:50:00 +0000

Like most New Yorkers, I have mixed feelings about Mayor Bloomberg. I deplore his tendency to switch parties whenever it's politically convenient, and his overturning of term limits. I've liked some of the changes he's made to the city (the Broadway promenade is wonderful, and far more consistent with the city's traditions than some critics have claimed), and disliked others (non-smokers would be less annoyed with smokers if smokers had places to smoke). Like President Obama, Bloomberg always benefits from comparisons with his predecessor. But unlike Obama, Bloomberg is now above pandering. His independence sometimes allows him to make brave, intelligent choices that few other American politicians, if any, would dream of.

Even so, I was astonished and delighted to learn that Bloomberg was excluding clergy from the 9/11 memorial services this weekend. The astonishment itself says something about our twisted culture. Religion, whatever you might think of it, has no rightful place in the official business of our cities, states, and nation. But in flagrant violation of both the Constitution and rational thought, our currency says "in god we trust" (while neglecting to proclaim credence in any other fictional characters); Congressional sessions begin with prayers; and before taking an oath, we're asked to place our hands on that ridiculous book. So instances of genuine separation of church and state are always striking.

But 9/11 makes this a special case. The 9/11 attacks, as I've said here many times, were the ultimate faith-based initiative -- a successful attempt, by deeply religious, god-loving, god-fearing men, to kill people they saw as insufficiently pious. They were doing god's work, acting in accordance with the mandates of their religion; the Koran, like the Torah and the Bible, explicitly encourages and celebrates the slaughter of infidels. Islam did not attack a Christian nation. Religion attacked a secular one.

And that's why, in some 9/11 memorial events, the inclusion of religious dogma has stung a little more painfully than usual. Taking an oath on the Bible can be attributed to the fact that longstanding traditions are hard to shake. But 9/11 is new, and it happened because of religion, and there is no way to move forward from the events of that awful morning until we recognize that god is just another word for war.

Of course, religious zealots have been quick to condemn the mayor's decision. Writing for the conservative website Free Republic, Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt calls it "a sad display of anti-Christian censorship." How revealing it is that to Mr. Klingenschmitt, the exclusion of religion in general is "anti-Christian." That's how he really feels. Like many religious people, even the sweetest and best-intentioned, Klingenschmitt can't think outside the conviction that his religion is the one true faith. He thinks his coreligionists are virtuous and will be rewarded, and that everyone else faces, and deserves, eternal suffering. If Klingenschmitt had called it "a sad display of anti-religious censorship," he would still be wrong, but his choice of words reveals him as a bigot.

Klingenschmitt goes on to quote Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association: "What's a memorial service if you are going to leave god out of it completely?" The answer: An emotionally honest and intellectually responsible occasion. Klingenschmitt's article is followed by an unintentionally hilarious passage which is headlined "A PRAYER TO ALMIGHTY GOD and A PETITION TO NYC MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG," and which begins, "Dear Sirs." You'd think a chaplain would have addressed god and simply CCed Bloomberg.

Meanwhile, over at catholic.org, Deacon Keith Fournier says, "We will not be 'allowed' to pray at Ground Zero if the Mayor of New York has his way." In fact, people who gather at the World Trade Center site, or anywhere, on September 11 or anytime, are welcome to pretend to communicate with the imaginary friend of their choice. There will simply be no religious element in the official service. As Bloomberg press secretary Stu Loeser told the New York Times, the memorial service will include six moments of silence, and "we think most people use those moments of silence for reflection and prayer."

The mayor and his administration have admirably stood by their decision, despite predictable outcry from dimly-lit corners. "It's a civil ceremony," Bloomberg has said. "There are plenty of opportunities for people to have their religious ceremonies. Some people don't want to go to a religious ceremony with another religion. And the number of different religions in this city [is] really quite amazing." This is a wise and fair judgment, one I only wish the United States Congress were capable of making. A while back, some Bloomberg aides said that clergy was being excluded because there's no fair way to decide who gets to speak and who doesn't -- a cop-out which the administration has rightly retracted. "It isn't that you can't pick and choose," Bloomberg said last week. "If you want to have a service for your religion, you can have it in your church or in a field, or whatever."

From: Noah Diamond
To: sloeser@cityhall.nyc.gov
Subject: Thank you

Mr. Loeser,

I am writing to thank the Bloomberg administration for its wise and courageous decision to exclude clergy from the 9/11 memorial service this weekend. I know that some are displeased with this choice, and I'm sure your office is hearing plenty from them. But there are many other New Yorkers who see that the inclusion of religious dogma in a 9/11 memorial is not only inappropriate, but a bitter insult to those who perished at the hands of religious extremists.

My sincere gratitude to you, to the mayor, and to the administration, for a brave decision worthy of the world's greatest city.

Noah Diamond

Rick W. Perry

noreply@blogger.com (Noah Diamond) — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 22:41:00 +0000

The Republican Party, in part of its ongoing effort to demonstrate that it's the party of new ideas, is rallying around a swaggering, inarticulate meathead who thinks Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional, carries a gun while jogging, suffers from fanatical religious delusions, wears cowboy boots, and is the governor of Texas. That ought to work out well.

But if Rick Perry wants to replicate the success of a swaggering, inarticulate meathead who occupied the Oval Office some years ago, looking and talking exactly like him is not going to be enough. Perry has probably not studied the template closely (I'm just guessing), so here are some useful tips for him.

1. Get the nomination. This should be difficult. The earlier Texas governor won the nomination by launching a reprehensible smear campaign against the infinitely more qualified frontrunner. But in Perry's case, there is no qualified opponent. He merely has to prove to various sub-constituencies that he is a) sillier than Michelle Bachmann, b) handsomer than Mitt Romney, or c) crazier than Ron Paul. He falls short in all three categories, but the cowboy boots will probably make up for it.

2. Lose the general election. Obviously, if Perry gets the nomination, this is what's going to happen. But don't worry, Perry fans. When it comes to this breed of politician, democracy is merely an obstacle, as long as he can...

3. Get appointed President of the United States by the Supreme Court.

Noah

If you prick a corporation, does it not bleed?

noreply@blogger.com (Noah Diamond) — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:13:00 +0000

"Corporations are people, my friend..." -- Mitt Romney, 8/11/11

Weekend Roundup: Rick Perry, Warren Jeffs, and Anders Breivik

noreply@blogger.com (Noah Diamond) — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 05:23:00 +0000

Rick Perry

This weekend, about 8,000 people will attempt to fill a 70,000-seat Houston stadium with prayer. The event, called "The Response," is a giant prayer meeting organized by Rick Perry (a Bush by any other name) and sponsored by the American Family Association, a hate group devoted to the overthrow of rational thought. Among the event's headliners are Focus on the Family's James Dobson (known for likening stem cell research to the crimes of the Nazis, and for equating homosexuality with incest and beastiality), pastor John Hagee (who attributed Hitler's crusade to a "divine plan"), and the Heartland Apostolic Prayer Network's John Benefiel (to whom the State of Liberty is "a demonic idol").

In addition to the poor taste and foggy legality of a public official hosting a Christian religious event, "The Response" raises questions about Perry's presidential ambitions. "As an elected leader," says Perry in a videotaped message, "I'm all too aware of government's limitations when it comes to fixing things that are spiritual in nature. That's where prayer comes in, and we need it more than ever." He then mentions the economy, which he apparently considers a spiritual problem. At Doonesbury, a recent "Say What?" feature nicely juxtaposed two Perry quotes. Asked if he'll run for president, Perry said, "I'm getting more and more comfortable every day that this is what I've been called to do. This is what America needs." And regarding America's problems, Perry said, "I think it's time for us to just hand it over to God and say, 'God, you're going to have to fix this.'" This is the same governor who, back in April, issued an official proclamation asking Texans to pray for rain as a means of comatting drought.

It's quite breathtaking to hear a guy who aspires to the American presidency flatly admit that he has no ideas or solutions to offer.

Warren Jeffs

Warren Jeffs, leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (that sect of Mormonism which is unconcerned about public image), has been convicted of sexually assaulting two underage "wives." Prosecutors, seeking a life sentence for Jeffs, plan to introduce evidence that he has 78 wives, 24 of whom were younger than 17 when wed to Jeffs; that he either performed or witnessed 67 other marriages to underage girls; and so on.

At the sentencing trial, Jeffs delivered a message from God. "You are now touching that which is sacred," said God, through Warren Jeffs. "This must cease. If we do not live these laws we are damned here and hereafter. We believe in a marriage system of eternity called celestial marriage, wherein celestial means heavenly authorized, not to be intervened by government intervention. I, the Lord God of heaven, call upon the court to cease this prosecution against my pure, holy way." Jeffs then refused counsel and left the courtroom, explaining that he didn't want to see his religion "derided in open court." Poor guy! His faith is under attack! Warren Jeffs doesn't want to see his religion criticized. He just wants to have sex with little girls.

Anders Breivik

The American media sideshow to the terror attacks in Norway has landed on the question of whether Anders Breivik is "a Christian terrorist" or, I don't know, a Muslim terrorist pretending to be Christian in order to slander Christians? Of course Breivik is a Christian terrorist, and for people who regularly use Muslim and terrorist interchangeably, the counterpoint is worse than disingenuous. As Jon Stewart put it in a brilliant Daily Show segment last week, perceptions of Breivik as a Christian terrorist derive largely from "the shooter's fifteen-hundred-page, crucifix-drenched call to reclaim Western Christendom."

Many conservative Christians refuse to see that their religion, too, can inspire immoral acts of wanton cruelty. "Breivik is not a Christian," thundered Bill O'Reilly. "That's impossible. No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder." Yes, that's what he said. (A very cursory list of people who have committed mass murder while believing in Jesus might include Benito Mussolini, Ted Kaczynski, Charles Manson, Christopher Columbus, Adolf Hitler, the Klan, the Crusades, and the Mafia.) I suppose O'Reilly means that Breivik was not a real Christian, because his acts were not in keeping with the teachings of Christianity. Muslims make this argument too: Bin Laden wasn't an actual Muslim; he espoused a corrupt, perverted variation on a belief system rooted in peace and love.

The Christians and the Muslims are equally deluded. A Fox News panel would undoubtedly furnish some bloodthirsty quotes from the Koran, presented to support the thesis that Islam is inherently violent and hateful. They'd be right. The Koran says, “We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve” (3:151). It says, “Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward” (4:74). It says, “Take [infidels] and kill them wherever ye find them. Against such We have given you clear warrant” (4:91).

And the Bible says, “The terror of God was upon the cities” (Genesis 35:5). It says, “This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee” (Deuteronomy 2:25). It says, “Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men” (2 Corinthians 5:11). It uncritically describes Samson's suicide attack against a house filled with three thousand men and women (Judges 16:27-30). The character of Jesus does say some nice things, but he also says, "I came not to send peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34); he condemns those who disagree with him to eternal suffering (Matthew 25:46 and elsewhere); he says that Christians are entitled to judge all and be spared all judgment (1 Corinthians 2:15).

Anders Breivik, like the 9/11 terrorists, could have been reading either book.

Noah

Bush Kept Us Safe, Except For All Those Attacks

noreply@blogger.com (Noah Diamond) — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 10:58:00 +0000

Last week, Fox News host Eric Bolling (of The Five, a panel show which is currently limping along in Glenn Beck's old time slot) revealed that his memory only goes back a few years. "America was certainly safe between 2000 and 2008," he declared. "I don't remember any attacks on American soil during that period of time."

None of Bolling's co-panelists questioned this breathtaking act of revisionism. One of those co-panelists was former Bush press secretary Dana Perino (who earlier in the discussion said it was "ridiculous" to assert that we never found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq). Perino herself has made the same outrageous claim, and so have many other prominent conservatives. This is just a sampling:

November 24, 2009: Discussing the Ft. Hood shootings, Dana Perino tells Sean Hannity, "We had a terrorist attack on our country [under Obama]...We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term."

December 27, 2009: Mary Matalin, appearing on CNN's State of the Union, asserts that George W. Bush "inherited a recession from President Clinton, and we inherited the most tragic attack on our own soil in our nation's history." Matalin was, of course, wrong on both counts.

January 8, 2010: Noted war hawk and cross-dresser Rudy Giuliani, on Good Morning America, manages to keep a straight face while saying, "We had no domestic attacks under Bush. We've had one under Obama."

January 11, 2010: Conservative radio host Jim Quinn, on The War Room with Quinn & Rose, tells us that Bush "got us eight years of safety...eight years of not being attacked."

In addition to this frequent and blatant right-wing lie, there is a similar (and even more frequent) lie which is a little easier to sell. In this version, the conservatives claim that there were no terrorist attacks on American soil during the Bush years after 9/11. Here are some examples of conservatives who do remember 9/11, and know what year it happened, but apparently stopped paying attention on 9/12:

January 15, 2009: In his farewell address, noted war criminal and functional illiterate George W. Bush brazenly declares, "America has gone more than seven years without another terrorist attack on our soil."

January 6, 2010: New York Post columnist Michael Goodwin writes, "Obama often complains about the problems he inherited from George W. Bush, but he also inherited a record of zero successful attacks on America after 9/11."

January 6, 2010: Fox News Channel's Monica Crowley says that "after 9/11, President Bush and Vice President Cheney had a 100% perfect track record in keeping the homeland safe from an Islamic terrorist attack."

April 2010: Former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen, in his silly little book Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama is Inviting the Next Attack, writes: "When President Bush left office, America marked 2,688 days without another terrorist attack on its soil."

May 3, 2010: Charles Krauthammer says, on Fox News, that "the Bush administration had seven years after 9/11, no successful attacks in the United States. There's already been one successful attack under the Obama administration, the Ft. Hood shooting."

Of course, there were terrorist attacks in the United States between September 12, 2001 and January 20, 2009: The 2001 anthrax attacks, the 2002 El Al ticket counter shooting at LAX, the 2002 "Beltway snipers," the 2006 SUV attack at the University of North Carolina, and the 2007 Unitarian Church shootings, as well as a litany of failed attempts. (The 2003 grenade attack by Amy Sgt. Hasan Akbar was an attack on military officers, and not civilians, and was therefore not an act of terrorism. Of course, the same is true of the Ft. Hood shooting.) Now, none of these was as ambitious or as costly as the 9/11 attacks, but these conservatives didn't say there wasn't another attack as bad as 9/11; they said there wasn't another attack, period, and this is simply not true. And these lies have been repeated so often that we know they can't all be accidental misstatements. What they are is talking points.

The tendency of conservative commentators to overlook these post-9/11, pre-Obama acts of terrorism is especially revealing. It tells us that these people are either not close followers of the news (as any political commentator ought to be), or, even worse, that they are aware of the facts but are also aware that their audience is not, and can be easily lied to.

As for Eric Bolling, he returned to the airwaves last Thursday to deliver a non-apology apology. "I misspoke," he lamely offered. "Obviously, I meant in the aftermath of 9/11." In addition to not knowing what "aftermath" means, Bolling is clearly shifting from the first lie to the second. From there, he went into a senseless and characteristic diatribe about "the radical liberal left." How dare they know what actually happened! Bolling's tirade then degenerated into a typical harangue about how he watched the towers fall that day and therefore could not possibly be wrong. "I'll never forget 9/11," he concluded, "but thank you, liberals, for reminding me how petty you can be."

I'll never forget 9/11 either, nor will I forget any of the other atrocities wrought upon this country under the leadership of Bush and Cheney. But thank you, Eric Bolling, for reminding me what a shithead you are.

Noah

White Supremacist Assholes Are Running for Office!

noreply@blogger.com (Noah Diamond) — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 07:21:00 +0000

Vomit, if you will, when I tell you that David Duke is considering a run for the presidency. Not only that -- David Duke is only the most conspicuous of a whole slew of white supremacists who are bidding for public office. Of course, that's not new. But, as Eve Conant reports in her disturbing Daily Beast article, they're doing much better these days.

Loy Mauch, for example, is an advocate of "Biblical government" and a member of the secessionist League of the South. He's fought to tear down statues of Abraham Lincoln, and he considers the Confederate flag "a symbol of Jesus Christ." And in 2010 he was elected to the Arkansas House of Representatives with 53.5% of the vote.

Mauch is an anomaly, though, because he won. Usually, they lose -- like Harry Bertram, a so-called "white civil rights advocate" who won 14% of the vote in a race for West Virginia board of education last year. ("My platform is conservative like the Tea Party," Bertram says, "but more racialist inclined.") Then there's James C. Russell, a proponent of "appropriate ethnic boundaries for marriage and socializing," who ran for the New York House of Representatives and got 37%. These are not winning numbers, but it's astonishing that candidates who openly espouse white supremacy are achieving them.

What's even scarier is the unknown number of militant racists who are working their way into the government without talking about it. The United Klans of Tennessee, according to Conant's article, claims to have "several mayors and county commissioners serving who do not openly identify as Klan members." Brian Culpepper, a leader of the neo-Nazi National Socialist Movement, says, "We have people working with the most recent incoming class of freshmen in the House. And they don't even know it."

Some of these candidates have run as Republicans, some as Teabaggers, and some as nominees of the A3P Party. (It stands for American Third Position, and it postures as an NAACP-like civil rights advocacy group.) Many Republicans and Teabaggers, of course, are white supremacists, officially or not, and the emergence of so many openly racist candidates is partly an outgrowth of the un-openly racist Teabaggers. "Many of our people are involved in the Tea Party," said Don Black to Eve Conant. (Black is a "white nationalist" and founder of the neo-Nazi website Stormfront.) "But much of their leadership is skittish when it comes to talking about racial realities. The Tea Party is a healthy movement but many are too conditioned to run like scared rabbits when called racists."

White supremacists are frustrated by the Teabaggers' reluctance to be more openly racist, but they also see the movement as a tremendous opportunity. Last year, David Duke released an unintentionally hilarious YouTube video in which he speaks directly to Teabaggers, trying to persuade them that in addition to fiscal conservatism and limited government, they really ought to do something about the Jews. (Can't get enough? See Duke's recent interview with Thom Hartmann, in which he discusses the possibility of a presidential campaign.)

This is one of the reasons why David Duke will always be my favorite white supremacist Nazi Klansman bigot asshole moron. He really hates the Jews, and I think it's nice to be included. So many of these guys disappoint me -- they seem to spend all their time railing against African-Americans, gays, Hispanics, and Asians, and it makes me feel left out.

Duke is now embarking on a tour of 25 states, supposedly to determine whether he'll seek the presidency. Needless to say, he can't win the nomination. Most Republican primary voters who are inclined to support racist policies know that they'll get the exact same policies from any other Republican, without all that troublesome KKK baggage.

Duke now feigns outrage when journalists mention that he was once a Grand Wizard of the Louisiana Klan: "Hey, come on! That was thirty years ago!" Like he's talking about a DUI.

Noah

Rep. Todd Akin: Liberals Hate God

noreply@blogger.com (Noah Diamond) — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:06:00 +0000

A couple of weeks ago, an NBC Sports broadcast (covering the U.S. Open, whatever that may be) omitted the words "under god" from an on-air reading of the Pledge of Allegiance. Predictably, it took no time at all for NBC to apologize and say it was an accident, and it took even less time for the religious right to shriek about how NBC hates America.

Every time a Pledge of Allegiance story comes up, it must be pointed out that the words "under god" were not part of the original Pledge. They were added in 1956 against a backdrop of McCarthyism and hysteria. (Click here for previous posts which address this in more detail.)

You'd think the right would eventually run out of ridiculous things to say about this, but here comes Congressman Todd Akin (R - Missouri). Consider Rep. Akin's recent comments, made during a radio interview with Tony Perkins, who is the president of the Family Research Council and a first-class putz. NBC's error, according to Akin, "was something that was done systematically, it was done intentionally, and is tremendously corrosive in terms of all of the values and everything that's made America unique and such a special nation."

Whoa, whoa, let me stop you there for a moment, Congressman. First of all, it could have been an honest mistake, and to simply declare that it was done "intentionally" (to say nothing of "systematically") without even pretending to offer evidence shows a serious thought deficit. And if there was any doubt about that, just refer to his next outrageous claim -- that for NBC to omit the words "under god" from the Pledge, deliberately or not, is "tremendously corrosive" to "everything that's made America unique and such a special nation." Now, really, sir! Everything that's made America unique can be boiled down to the insertion of two words, six decades ago, into the Pledge of Allegiance?

Okay. So no thinking person could possibly take Todd Akin seriously. Akin wasn't talking to a thinking person. He was talking to Tony Perkins, who incredulously asked, "Why would NBC do this?"

Akin's premise, as far as Tony Perkins is concerned, is just fine. One day in June, NBC systematically broadcast the Pledge of Allegiance in such a way as to destroy everything that's made America special. NBC doesn't want America to be special. NBC wants --

I'm trying to be satirical here, but this is one of those times when no comedy writer could top the actual quote: "Well," said Congressman Todd Akin, "I think NBC has a long record of being very liberal and at the heart of liberalism is really a hatred for God and a belief that government should replace God. And so they've had a long history of not being at all favorable toward many of the things that have been such a blessing to our country."

Here Akin is confusing liberals with atheists, and I'm sure he's capable of confusing either of those with Communists, Nazis, community organizers, or vegetarians. But let's set that aside, because what's really amusing here is Akin's notion of atheism. He thinks we hate god. We hate god so much, we want the government to replace god! Akin's view is so limited, he can't even conceive of the idea that there is no god. There are just people who love him and people who hate him.

Akin is merely practicing what he has learned, from his party, from his religion, from Tony Perkins: Saying something makes it true. If you say that the words "under god" are the essence of the American experiment, then I guess you're right! After all, you said it. If you say NBC is trying to destroy America, that's good enough for me! And if you say that there's a character in the sky who created the universe, who controls it, and who listens to the things you pretend to tell him, then hey, that sounds pretty convincing too.

Noah

New York's Triumph of Love

noreply@blogger.com (Noah Diamond) — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 04:24:00 +0000

...and at long last, the State of New York has ended our embarrassment. This is now one of the six states in the country in which two people who love each other are allowed to get married, even if they are of the same gender.

We've been hearing that marriage is a civil right, that this is a civil rights issue, and that, like all civil rights issues, it's a shame to have to legislate it in the first place. But we did need the Nineteenth Amendment, and we did need the Civil Rights Act, and we did need this. And now we need a national law protecting same-sex marriage.

So yes, I agree, it's a basic civil right, a natural thing, and this is an obvious victory for justice and decency and equality. But it's also a dramatic paradigm shift. It's progress on a historic scale. It's actual change.

This year I would give anything to be a New York City florist or caterer.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

"And in the polls, who is the most consistently misinformed media viewer? The most consistently misinformed? Fox. Fox viewers. Consistently. Every poll."

noreply@blogger.com (Noah Diamond) — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 04:23:00 +0000

This is All I'm Saying About Anthony Weiner

noreply@blogger.com (Noah Diamond) — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 02:53:00 +0000

And so, Anthony Weiner has announced his resignation, on the grounds that the so-called scandal has become such a distraction that it's no longer possible for him to serve effectively. That's hard to deny, since none of his colleagues has defended him, while President Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi have all said publicly that he should resign. Though he's a media star, highly visible and beloved by liberals, Weiner doesn't seem to have many friends on Capitol Hill. He was likely to be expelled from his committees, and it's probably true that his continued presence in Congress would do little good for the causes he supports.

But that's a factor of the reaction to what Weiner did. His ability to serve has been compromised not by his cybersexual encounters, but by a snickering, sanctimonious, deeply hypocritical Washington/media culture. You know the story: Weiner ranks quite low on the sex scandal scale; he didn't actually have sex with anyone, nor did he meet anyone in person; he did not prey on minors or on his employees; he did nothing illegal. He had some sexually-charged online chats with strangers, and shared some intimate self-portraiture. Whether you think this is a major transgression or not, you can't reasonably put it in the same league as the Vitter, Sanford, Ensign, Spitzer, McGreevy, Craig, Edwards, Gingrich, or Clinton scandals. As many have rightfully noted, these scandals only should matter when they involve illegal activities, or when they illuminate hypocrisies (as in the case of all Republicans who sermonize about the evils of abortion or gay marriage, then walk away from the podium and casually sodomize an aide).

But that's all been said a lot. What hasn't been said enough is that Anthony Weiner really didn't do anything so awful. Or, if it was awful, only his wife, Huma Abedin, is in any position to say so. If she has a problem with it, then yes, it is a problem -- a personal problem. Maybe Weiner has some work to do as a husband. But why the universal assumption that Ms. Abedin has been badly wronged? Isn't it possible that her attitude is: "I don't mind if Anthony fucks around on the Internet, as long as he doesn't pursue anyone in the flesh, and as long as our marriage stays strong?" Or: "Yeah, Anthony was supposed to stop doing that; I'm a little pissed." Why does the fact that Anthony Weiner engaged in some mildly naughty online conversations automatically make him a terrible person, and Huma Abedin a poor, suffering, abused spouse?

Now, in fairness, let's take it the other way. Abedin may indeed feel that this was a major transgression, that it amounted to a kind of infidelity, that it was a violation of her trust, and that the marriage cannot survive the continuation of these activities. If that is the way she feels, fine. It's up to her. It's between them. Why Weiner's cybersexual activities should bother anyone other than Huma Abedin, I can't imagine.

As popular culture becomes more permissive, the society surrounding it seems to grow more repressive. As Bill Maher pointed out last week, Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis grabbed each other's genitals on stage as part of a comedy bit at the MTV Movie Awards -- a children's show! But an adult flirting with another adult in private on the Internet -- that's inexcusable? That's a sign of moral decay? You know what I find infinitely sicker and more shameful than Anthony Weiner's online conduct? The conduct of his detractors at his press conferences.

Does the name Howard Stern mean anything to you? He was an occasionally amusing shock jock who enjoyed a brief moment of relevance at some point in the nineties. Apparently he's still around, and still talking and everything, and it was one of Stern's sidekicks whose voice was heard disrupting both of Weiner's recent press conferences. Not only was the goon's behavior embarrassing; he was clearly ignorant of everything he was trying to comment on, repeatedly addressing the congressman as "Senator Weiner," and shouting incoherent questions about penis size and erectile function. This was not a bit of Andy Kaufman reality hacking. This was a braindead bully, sitting at the back of the room, barfing language.

And then, of course, there is poor little Andrew Breitbart, who is only to be pitied. We partly owe the Weiner scandal to Breitbart, because Breitbart thinks this proves something about liberals, the way the Vitter, Craig, or Ensign scandals prove something about "family values" conservatives. I hardly need waste your time or mine explaining why Breitbart is wrong. Let's just say he's Breitbart and leave it at that.

But then, we don't owe the scandal only to Breitbart. We also owe it to Anthony Weiner, because even though I don't think he did anything so terrible, it was absurd of him to think none of this would ever come to light. You're a highly visible member of Congress, and you're interacting with strangers on the Internet; of course at some point those photographs are going to appear in a context you didn't choose. For an ambitious politician, it was a silly risk to take.

That's all.

Noah

Gotcha Question

noreply@blogger.com (Noah Diamond) — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 23:06:00 +0000

(The following is a hypothetical encounter.)

REPORTER: Governor Palin, how are you today?

PALIN: Oh, I'm just fine, there, yup yup! Me and my family are just havin' a real, real good time, travellin' around this great country of this nation and land of ours, there, seein' the sights and learnin' about our history there. Like the Civil War, also, which is when we fought against the French and told 'em that they weren't gonna be makin' us have abortions!

Noah

The Hack Political Cartoonist, Age 6

noreply@blogger.com (Noah Diamond) — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 21:19:00 +0000

Apocalypse Update

noreply@blogger.com (Noah Diamond) — Sun, 22 May 2011 01:40:00 +0000

This is a Nero Fiddled news update.

The apocalypse, projected to occur today by crackpot radio evangelist Harold Camping, has not taken place.

In related news, the Bible is a work of fiction, and water is wet.

Abortionland!

noreply@blogger.com (Noah Diamond) — Fri, 20 May 2011 02:34:00 +0000

One of the well-maintained myths about the current Republican swarm is that they're really only concerned with economic issues. As many have noted (Rachel Maddow repeatedly and authoritatively), this is just their cover; the true conservative agenda concerns the usual litany of social issues and the quest for "small government." (A "small government" is one which refuses to regulate corporations but does make up the rules for your bedroom.)

Yes, Indiana Governor and presidential hopeful Mitch Daniels called for "a truce in the culture wars" -- and then signed a costly bill to defund Planned Parenthood in his state. All over the country, Republican legislatures have been waging a ferocious attack on women's rights, from dire restrictions in Kansas to the shocking "sonogram law" in Texas to the old "eugenics" bit (from 2012 aspirant Rick "Frothy Mixture" Santorum!) to the plan to redefine rape to Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan's baffling pronouncement that the 2010 midterms were a mandate to stop abortion. According to a study by the Guttmacher Institute, it adds up to an unprecedented assault on the rights of women to make their own medical decisions.

In this dangerous time, we at Nero Fiddled want you to know that we have your agitprop comedy needs covered. Here's one of our favorite Nero Fiddled sketches, originally performed in 2006, revised in 2008, and -- whadaya know! -- still timely.

Noah

Republican Hysteria About Women's Rights

noreply@blogger.com (Noah Diamond) — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:38:00 +0000

As usual, if you want the truth, listen to the comedians.

The Daily Show
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

The Bartlet Doctrine

noreply@blogger.com (Noah Diamond) — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 12:32:00 +0000

"We're for freedom of speech everywhere. We're for freedom to worship everywhere. We're for freedom to learn for everybody.

"And because, in our time, you can build a bomb in your country and bring it to my country, what goes on in your country is very much my business. And so we are for freedom from tyranny everywhere, whether in the guise of political oppression, Toby, or economic slavery, Josh, or religious fanaticism, C.J.

"That most fundamental idea cannot be met with merely our support. It has to be met with our strength. Diplomatically, economically, materially. And if Pharaoh still don't free the slaves, then he gets the plagues, or my cavalry, whichever gets there first. The USTR will go crazy and say that we're not considering global trade. Committee members will go crazy and say I haven't consulted enough. And the Arab world will just go indiscriminately crazy.

"No country has ever had a doctrine of intervention when only humanitarian interests were at stake. That streak's going to end Sunday at noon."

-- President Josiah Bartlet

Noah as Groucho, January 29

noreply@blogger.com (Noah Diamond) — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 07:49:00 +0000

If you're going to be anywhere near New York City on January 29, 2011, around 8:00 pm, and you don't have anything really important to do, you might consider paying a visit to the Bushwick Project for the Arts, 304 Meserole Street, Brooklyn (L train to Montrose), to see me as Groucho Marx in the first performance of a new show called Groucho on the Air. Tickets are available online for $15 (or $18 at the door).

I'll be writing more about Groucho on the Air in the weeks ahead, over at Noah's Comedy Palace, and also at the Groucho on the Air website. In the meantime, I hope you'll enjoy the show's first video trailer.

Ratzinger's Barely-Perceptible Shift in Position on Condoms

noreply@blogger.com (Noah Diamond) — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 00:49:00 +0000

Joseph Ratzinger, the criminal kingpin who operates under the codename Pope Benedict XVI, has unexpectedly declared that condoms are the lesser of two evils -- the greater evil being disease and death. On this cue, we are now supposed to applaud Ratzinger's open-mindedness, and the supposed ability of church doctrine to adapt to changing times. But this is far too little, much too late. Ratzinger's latest pronouncements might as well have been made atop a mountain of corpses, in whose unnecessary deaths the Catholic church has been complicit at best.

"By acknowledging that condoms help prevent the spread of HIV between people in sexual relationships," says James Martin (a "reverend"), "the Pope has completely changed the Catholic discussion on condoms." Mitchell Warren, who heads the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, says, "This is a great day in the fight against AIDS. A major milestone."

If you're a fundamentalist lunatic, and you begrudgingly acknowledge an irrefutable scientific fact after decades of denial, you get a pat on the back. Tomorrow's headline: CHURCH CONCEDES EARTH IS ROUND. Come, let us praise the forward-thinking pontiff!

The Catholic church has been an accessory to the deaths of millions of Africans (and countless Americans too) infected with HIV/AIDS. Mother Theresa, who is one of those figures you're not allowed to criticize, was a fraud and a quack, and essentially a murderer, whose incoherent view that condoms were worse than death was responsible for the deaths of those she was supposedly helping.

The worst thing about Ratzinger's tardy concession to sanity is that he doesn't even seem to mean it. The official position of the Catholic church remains what it's always been -- that birth control is a sin; that sexual intercourse, except under very specific, incredibly narrow circumstances, is also a sin. The church is not endorsing the use of condoms -- heavens no, that would actually make sense, and the church is opposed to anything that makes sense. Ratzinger is simply saying that if you're going to be a disgraceful sinner who harbors disgusting feelings like the urge to have sex, it's better to do it safely than not. You're still going to hell and everything.

George Weigel, a conservative Catholic writer, interpreted Ratzinger thusly, to the Associated Press: "Someone determined to do something wrong may be showing a glimmer of moral common sense by not doing that wrong thing in the worst possible way -- which is not an endorsement of anything." Thanks, George -- that's a very effective rebuke to anyone who momentarily thought Ratzinger was a compassionate human being.

Admittedly, the church's "new" position on condoms is slightly preferable to its old one -- you might call it the lesser of two evils -- but the inarguable truth of the matter is that Catholic doctrine regarding human sexuality remains dangerous, primitive, sanctimonious nonsense, irrelevant to modern life, and certain to result in more unnecessary death.

But at least you can know that when priests rape children, there is now at least a slim possibility that they will wear condoms.

Noah

Cable Rashomon

noreply@blogger.com (Noah Diamond) — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:57:00 +0000

Jon Stewart's closing speech at the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, October 30:

Keith Olbermann responds, November 1:

Rachel Maddow on the suspension of Keith Olbermann, November 5:

Bill Maher on the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, November 5:

Jon Stewart on all of the above, November 8:

Could Be Worse

noreply@blogger.com (Noah Diamond) — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 13:08:00 +0000

Well, it could have been worse, and most of us thought it would be worse, and that's something. The Republicans won control of the House, though their margin is not as substantial as the one the Democrats have enjoyed, and they picked up six Senate seats, but the Democrats retain the Senate majority.

The worst: Victories for deranged teabagging miscreants Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, defeats for unapologetic liberals Russ Feingold and Alan Grayson, and the emergence of Speaker Boehner.

The best: Harry Reid defies expectations by defeating deranged teabagging miscreant Sharron Angle; victories for Barbara Boxer and Jerry Brown in California.

And here in New York, everything was peaches and cream, with Schumer and Gillibrand easily keeping their Senate seats, and Andrew Cuomo handily eviscerating deranged teabagging miscreant Carl Paladino in the gubernatorial race. Paladino's concession speech was almost as gratifying as it was bizarre. As expected, Chris Coons decisively won the Delaware Senate race, beating deranged teabagging miscreant Christine O'Donnell, who I assume has already signed a contract with Fox News. She's not a winner, she's you.

Bad news not unexpected: California's Proposition 19, legalizing the recreational use of marijuana, defeated.

We're still waiting to see if Michael Bennet defeats deranged teabagging miscreant Ken Buck for the Senate in Colorado; right now Bennet maintains a slim lead. No winner yet in the Florida gubernatorial race, either, but deranged teabagging miscreant Rick Scott has a slim lead over Democrat Alex Sink. Also unresolved is the Alaska Senate race, but it's looking like write-in Republican Lisa Murkowski will keep her seat. It's too bad Democrat Scott McAdams didn't pull it off, but at least the Senate is spared the stench of deranged teabagging miscreant Joe Miller.

It's a drag that we'll now have to hear Democrats (including President Obama) blather about bipartisanship and how important it's going to be to work together with deranged teabagging miscreants who have no intention of working with anyone. But since we've been hearing that for two years anyway, it probably won't feel like much has changed.

Noah

UPDATE: Have you seen deranged teabagging miscreant Sharron Angle's concession speech? Wow. It's inconceivable that anyone voted for this person.

Vote

noreply@blogger.com (Noah Diamond) — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 12:10:00 +0000