Here we go:

“Well, I’m a pastor, not a pundit,” {Rick Warren} told CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux on Thursday’s “Situation Room.” “One of the things we’re going to do is I’m going to ask identical questions to both candidates, which will be different.

“I’m not going to play ‘gotcha’ with one candidate and not with the other. This way, it will be totally fair. You compare apples to apples,” he added.

Among the questons that will be asked:

“What’s your favorite color?”

“Do you prefer sunrises, or sunsets?”

“How do you like your steaks: medium, rare, or well done?”

“If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?”

Ok, I might have made some of those up, but I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if Warren really did ask them. You think it might be too much to hope that this Hawaiian-shirt wearing fat-ass might actually bother to ask Barry-O how he can reconcile his quasi support of infanticide with his “Christian” beliefs (especially since he’s been a “Christian” for, what… 5-6 minutes now?) And yes I did say infanticide, because seriously, that’s how F%&*ED UP Obama’s position on abortion is.

You could almost hear the collective sound of balls hitting the megachurch floor as those half eunuch weenies (beginning with their Head Weenie Rickie Warren) abandon all sense of principle so they could entertain a couple of presidential hopefuls, because God forbid we should offend anyone you know, especially with the truth. Horrors!

There must be a reason why I keep confusing Saddleback with Brokeback these days.

I’m sure a few Warren fans will come out of the woodwork now to tell me what an idiot I am and that Warren is such a wonderful guy and everyone wubs him and he gives so much to the community and blah blah blah. Well sure everyone loves him. It’s easy to be loved when you don’t stand for anything.

Hmmmmm….

A few things happened that I wanted to write about, but some of it was pretty sensitive stuff that made the news (like a guy croaking under my agency’s watch. Oopsie! Glad I wasn’t around for that). Then there was some juicy drama that involved a psycho-nutso forum I used to belong to, but I didn’t want to rehash events that would take way too long to explain to my readers, so that’s out too. Hmmm, what to write about, what to write, what to write… …well I heard Britney lost of custody of her kids recently. That’s something right?

Crap.

I recently got temporarily banned from a “conservative” forum after challenging one of the members for making disgusting comments regarding his lifestyle. He basically bragged about being a heavy drinker and for sleeping around with as many women as he could mathematically fit within a day.

Normally this would get a yawn from me. I am from New York after all. But here’s the thing: he called himself a Christian, and a devout one at that.

Say what now?

Since when did God start giving thumbs up for behaving like a drunkard and a sex maniac? Was there a footnote I missed in Revelation that said, “Oh by the way, all those commandments I mentioned earlier about living a sinless life? Just kidding!”

Dudes, seriously, what is this? It was so outrageous I initially thought he was just joking. When it became clear that he wasn’t, and even worse tried to defend it, I finally called him out on it. I wasn’t nasty about it (though I could have been), and even used Scripture to back up my points and explain why I felt he was wrong.

So what happens? The board starts coming after ME. Well one “Christian” in particular, who I’m sure had also expressed the same reservations and concerns about this guy behind closed doors, yet decided to take his side and attack me because of an unrelated post I had made a few days earlier that she thought was distasteful. So, my lacking tact was somehow worse than a guy who brags about smelling like the women he slept with the night before?

O-kaaay.

Then another “Christian” (who also happened to be a mod) starts blasting me in private messages (PM), telling me that I go too far, that I should have taken it to PM, yadda yadda yadda, blah blah bladdy blah blah. Not one person, NOT ONE, ever considered the idea that maybe, just maybe, I might have had a point. And I did have a point, but I was the only one who was actually willing to say anything about it publicly.

I’m not the kind of guy who likes to murmur behind closed doors. I’d rather bring things out in the open, that way there’s no doubt as to where I stand on things. And believe me, there was no doubt then when I made that post. But once again, because I said what I felt was the truth, I get my arse put in a sling. So much for contending for the faith once delivered to all the saints.

The cowardice and hypocrisy of that board astounds me to no end. They were perfectly willing to express the very same concerns I did behind closed doors, but to actually tell it to Man Whore’s face was another matter, and even worse, they pretend to be on his side through it all. These are Christians? Good grief, the word has lost all meaning.

Hypocrites, In-Your-Face Perverts, and Cowards. That’s what the church today is all about, and why I no longer want any part of it. Yet in spite of it all, I really do believe there are good Christians out there, some of who even frequent this blog, and while they’re not perfect, they’re still trying to do the best they can in a screwy, psycho world. I have nothing but heartfelt admiration for them. I only wish we weren’t so spread out away from each other in distant lands. Oh well. At least I know they’re out there.

And yeah, I admit I’m hoping that amongst them all, the girl of my dreams is still out there as well, waiting for me.

There’s been some discussion going around about the recent AutoAdmit lawsuit that was recently filed, and since I previously read about some of the details on Feministe a few months back, I thought I’d share my own take on it here.

You know, let’s face it: The Internet is not a safe place. There are some whacked out loonies on this box that would give even steely Chuck Norris the creeps (…ok maybe not Chuck Norris, but you get my point). Yet the women involved here (whether they were parties to the suit or not) had an unfortunate tendency to post their real names and upload pictures of themselves online, whether in galleries like Flickr or other settings, and sometimes these photos could be a bit, uhh… alluring.

They certainly had a right to do so if they wanted to, and to say that their actions meant they were automatically “asking for trouble” is plainly sexist to me. The problem though is that their behavior also exhibited a sense of naivete as to the dangers of posting personal information about yourself online, especially if you’re an attractive looking woman. I can understand their grievance here however, that if a guy can post details about himself and not get any flak for it, then the same should hold true for a girl.

But that’s not reality. Hell even I’ve been threatened to be sued, stalked, my server hacked and God only knows what else, and I’m a GUY. That’s partly why I don’t reveal too much about myself and use a pseudonym for blogging.

Even more, nothing superbly made the point as to the dangers of exposure on the Internet, than the recent hoopla over a certain high school pole vaulter who had suddenly become a Google trend and the topic of many rude and coarse discussions, all because of ONE professional photograph that had been taken of her (and no I’m not giving the name or posting a photo, so sod off horndogs). It all underscores the sad reality that the more info you post about yourself online, the more you leave yourself open for tremendous attack (or unwanted attention), no matter what gender you are. So as much as it might pain some proud feminists to do so, please, for your sake, be wise when posting content of a personal nature on the Internet.

Now let’s examine the other side of the equation, how some of the commentators at AutoAdmit treated the female law students in question…

I think here I’ll simply reiterate what I said on Ann Althouse’s blog (edited for clarity):

No offense Ms. Althouse, but you (and other law professors like Reynolds) basically flipped off the female law students in question and dismissed their initial fears out of hand, while completely glossing over the stalking elements of the AutoAdmit threads. If you showed any true sympathy for their plight as you claim, it must have been in passing, because that certainly wasn’t the impression I had when reading your thoughts on the subject.

The threads didn’t merely contain off the wall comments, but disturbing material that encouraged criminal behavior and put the targeted law students in legitimate fear for their safety. You had much to say about the students’ fear of being able to find work as a result of this mess, but to THIS you offer few, if any words of genuine sympathy.

While I personally do think a degree of it is hyperbole, including the issue of whether these threads could dramatically affect their career goals (it may or may not), there are other issues to consider, and even if the cause of action to bring suit lacks merit, it may be because the plaintiffs in question saw no other recourse. They asked that the threads be taken down, and as far as I know the administrators flipped them off (even now). The refusal to remove threads that discussed rape fantasies, listed addresses of the victims, encouraged quasi-paparazzi behavior (and God only knows what else) may be an exercise in free speech in your view, but it also showed a gross and utter lack of common decency. Yet for all this talk about copyright issues and damage to career prospects, etc., little has been said about the more disturbing (and yes violent) elements of the AutoAdmit threads here. Ciolli not only lost his job offer over it (as it appears), but he may have also inadvertently opened the door to the introduction of new case law (presuming this lawsuit actually has wheels) that could potentially assign some degree of culpability and liability to the administrators of Internet message boards for the future, all because this asshat refused to do the right thing in the first place. Insane laws always get started like this too. Because one jerkwad couldn’t be bothered to do the right thing, the rest of us have to pay for it.

In regards to free speech, some may remember the pressing issue of whether simply posting a list of home addresses to abortionist doctors on an anti-abortion website (and nothing else) constituted legitimate free speech. Yet to what purpose would this serve? That it might come up on Jeopardy one night? Compare this to posting the addresses of the female students on AutoAdmit and then making rather umm, rude suggestions on what to do with that information. Is this still protected free speech?

Such issues of free speech is a grave subject not to be taken lightly. But what some of the AutoAdmit members did was incredibly atrocious, and if we can agree on that, what then should have been the proper recourse, if not this lawsuit? From this side of the valley the answers collectively seem to be: just ignore it.

Are you kidding me? If candid snapshots of me were posted on an hostile forum complete with my home address and healthy discussions on what Big Bruno would like to do to me once he gets his hands on me, I’m supposed to IGNORE this? I think I can understand now why some feminists might not like conservatives very much.

It’s also surprising to see law professors who are charged with teaching proper legal analysis to their students, analysis that requires a careful evaluation of ALL sides, would resort to making treatises that would be so obnoxious and embarrassingly one dimensional in tone here.

Law professors. Ugh. The scummiest kind of lawyers indeed.

You know, it does seem to me that some of the blogging law professors’ reaction to the law students’ complaints have been obnoxious to say the least, and it’s unfortunate to see them have an overbearingly overexposed presence in the blogosphere. But then again what other occupation pays you a 6 digit salary with a work week of only 8-10 hours and the possibility of tenure, (which curiously enough leaves you all the time in the world to blog?)

One of my slim shady friends shared a link (warning: profanity) listing the terms and rules of a forum for Marine wives.

Wow. Nothing quite like seeing a bunch of catty women making like they also carry a set of balls and a rifle just cuz they married a Marine.

I don’t know about you, but I for one happen to LIKE a snuggle filled, Happy Kitty Hug Land. This world is an ugly, mean and nasty place, multiplied by a factor of 10 if you’re a Marine. Coming home to Happy Kitty Hug Land can help remind us that there are still some good things left in this world. We cherish the kind of innocence, love and affection that only a good womanly woman can provide.

Here’s some advice for you gals. Whether we’re Marines or not, we likes our wimmins to be, well, wimmins. We like you to keep your hair long and bat your eyelashes at us and wear dresses and do cute, adorable girlie things. If we were drawn to those who take pride in picking their noses, letting one rip and dropping f-bombs when the team we’re rooting for is losing, we wouldn’t be sharing our beds with you. So please, save the profanity, the spitting, and the ass scratching for us men, and be the ladies that us men so desperately need you to be.