Re: What the heck?

[Greyhawk]

“Our troops should not see their honor sullied so that the moguls behind magazines like Playboy and Penthouse can profit,” said Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., unveiling his House bill April 16.

Though I wouldn't be surprised if some day you'll see a picture of this guy with a combat boot up his ass.

I'm going to pull your key paragraphs - because they really need emphasis here:

Exchange officials noted that tax dollars are not used to procure magazines in the system’s largely self-funded operations.

But Broun’s spokesman John Kennedy contended that taxpayer dollars are involved — “used to pay military salaries, so taxpayer money is, in effect, being used to buy these materials,” he said.

And I agree completely that this is an odd argument coming from someone who is paid in taxpayer dollars, for sponsoring this sort of batshit crazy nonesense.

I believe the Bill's definition of "nudity" might also be precedent setting. From the text of the bill:

The term `nudity' means human genitals, pubic area, anus, anal cleft, or any part of the female breast below a horizontal line across the top of the areola with less than an opaque covering but does not include the exposure of the cleavage of the female breast exhibited by a dress, blouse, bathing suit, or other apparel.'.

We're not talking Hustler here, or even Playboy and Penthouse - this definition will ban Maxim, FHM, and several other magazines already judged "tame" enough for sale even in the CENTCOM AO. (And wait 'til Broun discovers they also sell R-rated movies on base!)

The Bill's 16 cosponsors are listed here. Before I go to sleep tonight I will pray that these guys never learn about the internet.

Meanwhile, up in heaven, Kurt Vonnegut gets another laugh:

The Senator, suspecting nothing, resumed his tale: "These people never want to talk about what you want to talk about. It's always about something else. When he found out who I was, he didn't want to talk about Eliot. He wanted to talk about the Rosewater Law." The Rosewater Law was what the Senator thought of as his legislative masterpiece. It made the publication or possession of obscene materials a federal offense, carrying penalties up to fifty thousand dollars and ten years in prison, without hope of parole. It was a masterpiece because it actually defined obscenity.

Obscenity, it said, is any picture or phonograph record or any written matter calling attention to reproductive organs, bodily discharges, or bodily hair.

"This psychoanalyst," the Senator complained, "wanted to know about my childhood. He wanted to go into my feelings about bodily hair." The Senator shuddered. "I asked him to kindly get off the subject, that my revulsions were shared, so far as I knew, by all decent men." He pointed to McAllister, simply wanting to point at someone, anyone. "There's your key to pornography. Other people say, 'Oh, how can you recognize it, how can you tell it from art and all that?' I've written the key into law! The difference between pornography and art is bodily hair!"

He flushed, apologized abjectly to Sylvia. "I beg your pardon, my dear."

Update: No surprise - Broun's district includes NONE OF GEORGIA'S MANY MAJOR MILITARY INSTALLATIONS.

And more from Patrick Lasswell.

What the heck are we fighting for?

[badger 6]

Since at least the pin-up era of World War II, service members have somewhat half-jest referenced those pretty girls as what we were fighting for. Now maybe we were not really fighting for Betty Grable, Raquel Welch, or Jessica Simpson specifically, but surely we were fighting for the right to express ourselves by adorning our barracks, lockers, and personal space with pictures of pretty women. And in this day and age, sometimes those women have no clothes on.

That is why this story is so outrageous.

Give us this day our photo ops, and forgive us our prespasses

[Greyhawk]

Dana Milbank is upset that he couldn't shove a camera into the face of a 6 year old girl:

The family of 38-year-old Hall, who leaves behind two young daughters and two stepsons, gave their permission for the media to cover his Arlington burial -- a decision many grieving families make so that the nation will learn about their loved ones' sacrifice. But the military had other ideas, and they arranged the Marine's burial yesterday so that no sound, and few images, would make it into the public domain.

That's a shame, because Hall's story is a moving reminder that the war in Iraq, forgotten by much of the nation, remains real and present for some. Among those unlikely to forget the war: 6-year-old Gladys and 3-year-old Tatianna. The rest of the nation, if it remembers Hall at all, will remember him as the 4,011th American service member to die in Iraq, give or take, and the 419th to be buried at Arlington. Gladys and Tatianna will remember him as Dad.

The two girls were there in Section 60 yesterday beside grave 8,672 -- or at least it appeared that they were from a distance. Journalists were held 50 yards from the service, separated from the mourning party by six or seven rows of graves, and staring into the sun and penned in by a yellow rope. Photographers and reporters pleaded with Arlington officials.

"There will be a yellow rope in the face of the next of kin," protested one photographer with a large telephoto lens.

Not sure why the family didn't order the ropes torn down. But even if they had, Milbank says the one reporter who snuck through the barriers (I wonder if his initials were D.M.?) still couldn't get much of a story:

The distance made it impossible to hear the words of Chaplain Ron Nordan, who, an official news release said, was leading the service. Even a reporter who stood surreptitiously just behind the mourners could make out only the familiar strains of the Lord's Prayer.

The Post's actual coverage of the funeral is here (including one of the pictures).

You'll find well written stories on LTC Hall and his family here and here.

Best news from Pennsylvania I've heard today

[Greyhawk]

Down on The Corner:

Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.) will have an opponent this year after all. A judge had kicked retired Lt. Col. William Russell (R), a veteran of both Iraq Wars, off the ballot earlier this year for lack of valid petition signatures. A legal challenge had winnowed him down to just 993, whereas he needed 1,000 signatures. This gave Murtha a shot at an unopposed victory in the fall, as there were no other Republican challengers.

Russell did not give up, though. To qualify for the November ballot, he had to get at least 1,000 write-in votes in the district yesterday to qualify for the ballot. His consultants saw this as doable, but still a challenge in a primary where there was really nothing happening on the Republican side — not even a decent local race to attract voters to the polls. Considering that Republican turnout was already going to be low, and only a small percentage of voters ever think to write in a name, you might think they'd be lucky to get just enough to qualify.

Well, think again. I'm told that the count now stands at 4,700 write-in votes for Russell, and the largest county in the 12th District hasn't even reported yet — nor have any absentees been counted.

Russell's web site is here.

And to maintain fairness and impartiality, the lying fat gasbag ex-Marine's web site is here.