"I'm solid as a sailor's wang on fuckin' shore leave!"

That phrase was just uttered on prime time television here in Australia. Not premium cable, or pay-per-view, or even basic cable, but over-the-air television. Channel 1 to be exact, at about 9:10 PM. It was during a scene in a political drama. That show was rated "M" for "mature."

One political operative, a man, was asking another, a woman, if she could be counted on in an impending crisis situation. "Are you solid?!"he yelled at her. "I'm solid as a sailor's wang on fuckin' shore leave!" was her reply. That was about the (seriously) 50th time the word "fuck" was said during the first 10 minutes of the show.

You can't say things like that on over-the-air television in America. The Federal Communications Commission will fine you upwards of $350,000 each time you say something like "fuck" or "shit" on TV. I don't know about you, but I can't afford that.

Isn't that interesting? How do you explain that difference between Australia and America? Aren't we (Americans) supposed to be "free"?

As a Doctor of Jurisprudence and a licensed attorney, I did a bunch of fancy book learnin' on this. There's this law, you might have heard of it, it's the First Amendment to our Constitution. It says, "Congress shall make no law ...  abridging the freedom of speech."

And yet, there it is, a law -- an FCC regulation, to be exact -- abridging the freedom of speech. Weird. If you go back and read the entire First Amendment, indeed the entire US Constitution, there's no exception to this rule. There's nothing like, "...unless it's a really bad word, which might make some people upset." It's just a very simple rule: The government has no authority to make a law abridging the freedom of speech.

So how does this figure?

To understand this, we have to take a step back. You know how conservatives frequently complain about "liberal activist judges" who "make law, instead of interpreting law"? Most recently, Newt Swingrich was using that little rallying cry to foment enthusiasm amongst his "freedom-loving" supporters. And lots of other Republican have leveled this complaint, specifically in regard to Roe v Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision holding that the Federal government lacks authority to outlaw abortion.

Well, "judicial activism" is the reason why you can't say "fuck" on TV in America! Except the "activist judges" who "made law, instead of interpreting law" were conservatives. Conservatives on the Supreme Court during the 1960s and 70s didn't like people using words that make the baby Jesus cry, so despite the crystal clear rule that the government cannot regulate free speech, they made up a rule that says "obscenity" is not part of "free speech" and so the government can prohibit "bad" words if the "average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the word (or words) is "obscene." That rule came out of another 1973 Supreme Court decision, Miller v California.

If you're thinking that sounds like a pretty difficult rule to interpret and thus enforce, you're right. The clear rule in the Constitution is now a squishy one that basically says the government can prohibit whatever the average person would find offensive. Admittedly, it's slightly more complicated than that, but that's basically it.

This intellectual turd from the Supreme Court is epitomized by Justice Stewart's offhand remark about how difficult it was for the Court to decide what constitutes (illegal) pornography. "I know it when I see it," he said. And he would know. Justice Stewart and the rest of the Justices spent hours watching pornography (seriously), strictly for research purposes of course, while deciding the 1964 case Jacobellis v Ohio. They eventually decided all that boning they saw was illegal and thus could not be viewed by the likes of you. Thank Jeebus for the Internet, amirite?

Anyway, next time some Republican starts complaining about "lib'rul activist judges," or some redneck starts belting out "God Bless America" ("...where at least I know I'm free..."), you can ask, "If we're so free, how come we can't say 'fuck' on TV?" It even rhymes. So maybe you can work it into the song, or something.

I stand corrected

The other day, I thought I had found the most ironic thing ever. But it turns out that I was wrong. Now I have found the most ironic thing ever.

Jane Harman is a Democratic member of the US House of Representatives from California. She has, ahem, allegedly been busted trying to sell favorable treatment for Israel in Congress in return for the chairmanship of an important Congressional committee. That's basically the same thing that put former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich in prison, except that it comes with the added facet of treason.

Rep Harman was supposedly caught doing her dirty deal via a warrantless wiretap. Rep Harman has taken to the media circuit to call on the government to release transcripts of her recorded conversations because, she says, she can't remember ever doing such a deal. She is "outraged" at this "abuse of power" by the government, and she demands to know "whether members of Congress are routinely wiretapped without their knowledge." Because the civil rights of members of Congress are more important than the rest of us...? Wow.

The answer to the question of whether you're routinely wiretapped without your knowledge is probably Yes, Jane -- just like the rest of us. Why? The Patriot Act, of course, which makes this practice "legal" (even though it's obviously unconstitutional). And because the paranoia in America these days apparently knows no bounds.

And here's where the most ironic thing ever happens. Jane Harman voted for the Patriot Act. That's right, she voted to allow the very practice that, when it targets her, is an outrageous abuse of power. Incredible.

And just so we are clear, the most ironic thing ever is not that she might have been busted using the same overreaching governmental power she voted to authorize, it's that she now has the balls to complain about it being used as a tool by law enforcement officials to catch foreign agents committing crimes in the United States, which is exactly what it was intended for, and presumably why she voted for it.

And here's a related question: Is this now the most hypocritical thing ever? Or is the most hypocritical thing ever still impeaching a US President for marital infidelity while you're committing adultery yourself? I can't decide.

Hawt

We are at 32 C right now, that's 90 degrees to you and me. And we will probably make it all the way to 35 later in the day. It's the hottest day of the summer so far, and the first time we have made it into the 30s.

Fifty-two percent humidity as well, but the breeze continues to keep things bearable.

It's not grandma's house-hot, but hot nevertheless. I'm thinking it's time for a swim.

Don't believe the hype

There is a great piece on the ABC News website this morning about the Australia Day incident involving the Prime Minister, Opposition Leader, and Aboriginal protestors I mentioned a few days ago. It's an eyewitness account of the incident written by a geophysicist at the Australian National University who just happened to be in the right place at the right time. Apparently, "riot," "violent," "angry mob," and "disgrace" are not the most accurate adjectives for what took place, yet that's what has been all over the media since the incident.

I'm pretty sure peacefully assembling and chanting loudly, banging on things, and burning flags is what democracy looks like. Why is it bold and courageous when it happens in, say, Egypt, but disgraceful and violent when it happens in America or Australia?

This incident actually reminds me a lot of the Little Beirut incident that took place in Portland in 2003 when George W Bush visited our fair city.

Here's one thing that's perfectly consistent between America and Australia: The corporate media lies to sell more papers. Their version events is accepted by the average citizen, which regards them as an authoritative and accurate source of information. The average citizen's views are thus distorted, and their opinions are hardened, making resolution of critical social issues even more difficult. The corporate media thereby serves the State's interest and the interests of those who benefit from the status quo. Sad.

This is a good example of how you just can't believe the hype.

Sepo

That's the derogatory term for Americans, Sepo or Sep. It's short for Septic Tank.

Septic Tank, Yank.

Why? Because you're full of shit.

Hollywood, GOP politics, etc. Its bang-on, for a generalized national insult.

Tellingly, I'm not even really offended at the thought of being called a Sepo. I haven't actually been called that by anyone yet, but I'm sure I will be eventually. It's more amusing than anything else. It's difficult for me to deny that many of us (most of us?) and probably our society as a whole are pretty full of shit. And I'm sure it seems even more so from the outside, where you get the media nonsense full-on.

Sometimes I cringe when I have to speak in public places. You know the old Mark Twain saying about how sometimes it's better to remain silent and appear a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt? As soon as I open my mouth, I can see the heads turn and gazes fix on me. I can feel the assumptions forming. Fortunately, I have found Australians to be pretty friendly, once you get talking, and they generally have a positive view of Americans.

It's funny how, when you're a foreigner, you can't really escape being associated with so many things you loathe just because they're also from the same country. Things like unabashed enthusiasm for firearms, reality TV, idiot politicians, illegal wars, country (and other really shitty) music, or the New England Patriots. You hate them, yet they're associated with you, because you're both American. You can't escape it. I guess it could be infuriating if you let it. You have to hope people can see past the stereotypes.

Blue Suede Shoe

Julia Gillard lost her (size 36 blue suede) shoe on Australia Day yesterday when her security detail dragged her away from what is now being described by the media as a "mob" of Aboriginal Australian protestors. The activists behind the protest have seized on this opportunity to air their grievance.

The Prime Minister can have her shoe back, they say, if she comes and picks it up in person:

"Julia will be eligible to make a shoe title claim which will take approximately 20 years or more before this is seriously considered. This will be dependant on Julia being able to show continuous connection with the shoe. This may be difficult to prove as she will not have had the shoe for 20 years. Julia will also have to provide evidence she is a full-blooded shoe owner. ... A very formal handback ceremony due to the great importance, will be held to return the stolen shoe in return for the stolen land."

OUCH.

Alone

Everyone I love -- everyone I have ever loved -- is at least 7,400 miles away, on another continent, across an ocean. Over ninety-nine percent of everyone I've ever known is in North America (or Europe). And here I am in Australia, so very far away.

It's a little bit of a weird feeling. My life takes place on a different day than yours. Sometimes it feels like I've gone to a parallel dimension, or like I've died and this is existence in the Greek afterlife. I get to observe America from a great distance. I follow its society from 30,000 feet, but I do not intercede in the lives of individuals.

This feeling is exacerbated by how Americans respond when I phone them. "You're calling from Sydney?!" They say it like I died and have returned to Earth through some cosmic ghost-connection.

I'm ready for my wife to come home.