When Zainab Bibi’s husband threatened to rape her daughter, she took things into her own hands… and oven. Although her husband had never acted on his twisted desires, he had made suggestive comments when drunk. As Bibi states, “I killed my husband before he dared to touch my daughter.”

She never planned to eat him, apparently. The husband-korma was merely a way to dispose of the corpse. Bibi said she was going to dispose of the “mystery meat,” telling people it was spoiled. Her plan ultimately backfired when neighbors complained of the stench, leading police to investigate.  It has also been suggested that Ahmed Abbas was planning to take a second wife, which complicates the narrative.

How to respond to Bibi’s actions, particularly after the Penn State scandal in which adults utterly failed to report the abuse that was going on under their noses (to say nothing of the Catholic Church’s decades-long indifference to sexually abused children)? Why didn’t Bibi report her husband to the police? Her husband, whose side of the story we will never hear, did not rape his stepdaughter. And, no matter how degrading polygamy is to a woman—if that was indeed a motive behind the killing—does it warrant a death sentence?

But let’s give Bibi the benefit of the doubt and assume she acted out of a desire to save her daughter Sonia from sexual assault. Could Bibi really have turned to the police for protection? Or, what if she’d ignored her husband’s comments and her daughter was raped? What kind of justice would Sonia have received under the Pakistani legal system?

Not much, according to blogger Sana Saleem, who recently published an excellent article called “Your Rape Culture is not My Religion.” The 1996 abolishment of the Hudood Laws (which required the presence of four witnesses to prove a rape occurred) has faced continued opposition by the political party Jamaat-i-Islami. Theoretically, the “women protection” legislation introduced the same year encourages victims to come forward and prosecute their rapists provided there is medical and forensic evidence. Yet, prominent Jamaat-i-Islami member Munawar Hasan argued on TV that a victim “should keep quiet if she has no witnesses.” This guy makes John Boehner look like Gloria Steinem.

As Saleem argues, it is unthinkable that those who witness a rape would not come forward, if not stopping the assault from happening in the first place. Therefore, the four witnesses requirement is “irrational and absurd.” She adds, “the callously flaunted idea that women use rape as a tool for popularity, fame, and money or simply to attack Islamic principles is devoid of logic. For all we know, taking a rapist to court in Pakistan can put you behind bars, after dealing with the severe moral policing, of course.” It is likely Bibi knew all this when she committed the crime.

Although Bibi’s actions were extreme and vigilantism is not to be applauded, they make a kind of grim sense, given Pakistani women’s lack of social and legal equality. As Mark Twain wrote, “I’ve never wished a man dead, but I’ve read many an obituary with pleasure.”

Then he looked up at his disciples and said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.” – Luke, 20-21

I have a cousin who is a born-again Christian. I haven’t seen her in years, but she is, of course, on Facebook. Recently, I came across one of her status updates, compelling the OWS protesters to “occupy a job,” and poking fun at the mass arrests. Now, this sentiment doesn’t seem particularly Jesus-like to me, but then again, I am entirely confused by contemporary interpretations of the New Testament.

I’m also fascinated by the shift from the social gospel and its emphasis on community and cooperation to the me-first, “Jesus-as-life-coach” culture of modern evangelicals. And I’m scared shitless by their political influence. (There is some great literature on the subject, including a book I’ve recommended before, The Family, by Jeff Sharlet.)

Even more mind-boggling to me is that another Facebook acquaintance, a self-professed LaVeyan Satanist, made a comment on my wall in defense of my cousin’s initial statement. He used five economical words: “She’s right. Deal with it.” Then he proceeded to unfriend me.

Isn’t it interesting that the contemporary evangelical movement espouses the same moral perspective as a religion whose express purpose is to eliminate Christianity? Both groups owe a tremendous amount to Ayn Rand, and preach individuality above self-sacrifice. That’s fine for Satanists, as their beliefs reflect no internal contradictions. But how does any of this jive with the Gospel of Christ?

Clearly, it doesn’t.

The Jesus of the Bible railed against money-lenders and “redistributed” loaves and fish to the hungry. He tended to the needy and sick. Moreover, he encouraged others to do the same.

Compare that to the sweeping push by those aligned with the evangelical movement to eliminate social programs meant to aid our society’s most needy. These are the same folks who loudly and proudly tout their so-called “Christian values” and claim a moral high ground.

Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” – Mark, 10:21-25

Let’s see here… Jesus instructed his disciples to redistribute their personal, material wealth to the poor as a key means to entering the Kingdom of God. It’s right there in the Bible. I hope I don’t need to mention that Jesus freely healed the sick with no regard to “pre-existing conditions” like leprosy.

These teachings were carried on by the disciples after Jesus’ crucifixion. It would be amazing if the Christians of today were to take them to heart instead of celebrating the suppression of speech and liberty.

My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don’t show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong? – James, 2:1-7

To me, the more frustrating thing than the outright hypocrisy is the unwillingness to engage in even moderate self-reflection. No need to account for your actions, no reason to adjust your personal behavior to be more in line with the articles of your supposed faith. The act of becoming “born-again” simply guarantees your place at the Lord’s table. I can see why this belief system is attractive, as it requires practically zero effort. But it is absolutely not in keeping with Jesus’ actual teachings.

And anyone who tells you otherwise is deluded or disingenuous.

Look, I have some sympathies with the OWS movement. I certainly think that my cousin’s statement is ignorant, and that there are hundreds of reasons why people in an economic depression (when one in 16 are below the poverty line, that’s what it is) may want to publicly demonstrate their dissatisfaction with wealth inequality in the United States. But this isn’t about my political views. It’s about the tendency of the modern evangelical movement to mask their disgust for their brothers and sisters behind a veneer of faith.

I don’t care if you happen to be related to me. I’m calling bullshit.

As far as hoary, oft-repeated sayings go, it’s hard to beat “rock is dead.” The origin of the phrase is shrouded in mystery — like the etymology of “heavy metal” — but it’s not hard to picture Lester Bangs coining it while reviewing the latest Lou Reed long-player in his underwear, specks of Robitussin drying on his mustachioed upper lip.

In reality, people have been claiming “rock is dead” since the genre wriggled its way into the repressed loins of America’s bobbysockers. Every so often, a new pack of scruffy young kids with guitars are labeled as its saviors, but it never lasts. ROCK IS DEAD. Long live paper and scissors!

But what if we had empirical evidence that rock really was dead? Or at least in a state of such dissolution that its resurgence was a probabilistic impossibility? To know for sure, we’d need data.

Now we’ve got some.

This article in The Hollywood Reporter indicates that rock is a spent force in the marketplace, squeezed out by more persistent pop forms. Based on a recent study highlighting the ubiquity of synth-pop, the news may be the final nail in rock’s coffin. (I’m just shocked that there was room for one more.)

According to Hit Songs Deconstructed, 79 percent of top 10 pop hits used a synthesizer as the song’s primary instrument. That’s up from 62 percent a year ago and seems to signal that the current electro-pop fad is here to stay — at least a little while longer. Further boosting that theory: the fact that 88 percent of Top 10 songs used electric-based instrumentation. As for the least popular instrument? The guitar, which hit a low of 4 percent during the second quarter of 2011….

…as for lyrical themes in pop music, “hooking up” is the most popular so far in 2011, prevalent in 38 percent of hit songs, followed by “inspirational” songs, which have steadily increased to account for 25 percent of the Top 10 in the second quarter of 2011, “partying/clubbing” (21 percent) and “love/relationships” at 17 percent. Curiously, any “other” categories of lyrical themes have failed to register at all, coming in at zero percent so far in 2011. Last year, when music listeners were seemingly interested in a little more than sex, it was at 9 percent.

Now, it’s easy to come right back and say that the vast majority of rock songs have been about fucking. That may be true, but the flexibility and durability of the form was such that it could include both “Wango Tango” and “Roundabout” in the same canon. I’m not sure that today’s pop will evolve to the same extent.

For those of us who still traffic in this antiquated form, there are more troubling indicators:

Other curious trends pointed to a steep drop in solos, down from 17 percent to 5 percent of hits, and the once popular bridge portion of a song now only exists in 42 percent of songs, down from 54 percent last quarter and 55 percent a year ago.

You may think that it’s perfectly fine to eliminate the guitar solo. Years of co-existing with jam bands elicits a certain sympathy for that worldview. I still enjoy them (if they’re well-placed and say something), but they aren’t a musical necessity. I have more of a problem with the idea that nobody employs bridges anymore. Sure, some of them are useless, but they are a time-honored construct that helps to give songcraft a form. I’m all for experimental art, but eliminating the bridge is kind of like saying we’re no longer going to bother with paragraph breaks. Can you get away with it? Probably. But it says something about our society if we abandon such formalities. It’s a short hop from here to anarchy. Anarchy, I tell you!

One thing that I like about having quantitative data on the death of rock is that it liberates me to keep making it. I am The Contrarian, after all. It would hardly befit my status to toil in a popular genre.

As always, we’re interested in your reactions. What do you think of this data? Was rock dead all along, and we’re just now noticing? What if it turns into a zombie? Are we prepared for that?

Let’s not beat around the bush anymore: this is a depression. America’s current economic situation is beyond grim, and there are few political or market-based prospects for a turnaround anytime soon. The room for error has never been slimmer, yet our political system seems incapable of action.

Meanwhile, climate change deniers are oblivious to the fact that an increase in unpredictable weather could create additional pressures on our economy and general security. Even those who accept what science tells us are unwilling or unable to produce policy results. On the other hand, it’s probably too late anyway.

And let’s not forget the preponderance of pro-apocalypse politicos who are actively agitating for the End of Days. Because Jesus ain’t gonna return under any other conditions.

So what can the rest of us do? You know, the ones who have difficulty with the idea that spiritual faith requires a commitment to hate homosexuals and eradicate the public sector? Real Americans like you and me, who recognize that science might be a pretty handy tool when it comes to understanding the universe? Folks who might not have been born into money and who therefore realize the benefits of a basic social safety net?

Seriously, I’m asking you guys. Because I have no frigging idea.

It goes against most of my editorial ethics to simply cut-and-paste an entire piece by another writer, but in this case I am going to make an exception (and link back to the original article, which includes some other worthy stuff).

But let’s have a little preface before my pilfering.

Some of you may have seen an Op-Ed in Sunday’s New York Times by Drew Westin,  professor of psychology at Emory University. Westin is also the author of a great book called The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation. His NYT piece is about how President Obama has squandered key opportunities to tell Americans a story — to offer a narrative that resonated with his affected countrymen and make his message stick even in the face of crass political opportunism. This is truly the best piece of political writing I’ve come across all year, and I urge you to read it. Here’s one choice bit:

To the average American, who was still staring into the abyss, the half-stimulus did nothing but prove that Ronald Reagan was right, that government is the problem. In fact, the average American had no idea what Democrats were trying to accomplish by deficit spending because no one bothered to explain it to them with the repetition and evocative imagery that our brains require to make an idea, particularly a paradoxical one, “stick.” Nor did anyone explain what health care reform was supposed to accomplish (other than the unbelievable and even more uninspiring claim that it would “bend the cost curve”), or why “credit card reform” had led to an increase in the interest rates they were already struggling to pay. Nor did anyone explain why saving the banks was such a priority, when saving the homes the banks were foreclosing didn’t seem to be. All Americans knew, and all they know today, is that they’re still unemployed, they’re still worried about how they’re going to pay their bills at the end of the month and their kids still can’t get a job. And now the Republicans are chipping away at unemployment insurance, and the president is making his usual impotent verbal exhortations after bargaining it away.

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how emotion governs political decision-making. The Left has an almost ingrained belief in “rational actors” — individuals who make choices based on facts without succumbing to emotionally-charged (and logically suspect) narratives. This faith is entirely misplaced, not to mention a losing strategy. Yet because the other side is so good at exploiting emotional arguments, progressives associate narrative framing with outright deception. This doesn’t need to be the case. Stories based in truth can still resonate. I truly believe that candor and honesty can be made into wedge issues.

That said, I’m happy to become the Lee Atwater of the Left if anyone wants to hire me. Let’s just say my moral disposition is… unique.

Anyway, back to that outright lifting of another writer’s material. I can find no better example of how conservatives succeed where progressives fail than this piece by Dr. Cynthia Boaz, called “Fourteen Propaganda Techniques Fox News Uses to Brainwash Americans.” Keep in mind that I subscribe to the Edward Bernays definition of “propaganda” — that it’s merely the technology of influence. Like all technologies, it can have positive and negative applications.

Have a thorough look at the following techniques employed by the Murdoch Cabal to see exactly why things are the way they are. You want real change? Come up with a countervailing meme.

———–

Fourteen Propaganda Techniques Fox News Uses to Brainwash Americans

1. Panic Mongering. This goes one step beyond simple fear mongering. With panic mongering, there is never a break from the fear. The idea is to terrify and terrorize the audience during every waking moment. From Muslims to swine flu to recession to homosexuals to immigrants to the rapture itself, the belief over at Fox seems to be that if your fight-or-flight reflexes aren’t activated, you aren’t alive. This of course raises the question: why terrorize your own audience? Because it is the fastest way to bypasses the rational brain. In other words, when people are afraid, they don’t think rationally. And when they can’t think rationally, they’ll believe anything.

2. Character Assassination/Ad Hominem. Fox does not like to waste time debating the idea. Instead, they prefer a quicker route to dispensing with their opponents: go after the person’s credibility, motives, intelligence, character, or, if necessary, sanity. No category of character assassination is off the table and no offense is beneath them. Fox and like-minded media figures also use ad hominem attacks not just against individuals, but entire categories of people in an effort to discredit the ideas of every person who is seen to fall into that category, e.g. “liberals,” “hippies,” “progressives” etc. This form of argument – if it can be called that – leaves no room for genuine debate over ideas, so by definition, it is undemocratic. Not to mention just plain crass.

3. Projection/Flipping. This one is frustrating for the viewer who is trying to actually follow the argument. It involves taking whatever underhanded tactic you’re using and then accusing your opponent of doing it to you first. We see this frequently in the immigration discussion, where anti-racists are accused of racism, or in the climate change debate, where those who argue for human causes of the phenomenon are accused of not having science or facts on their side. It’s often called upon when the media host finds themselves on the ropes in the debate.

4. Rewriting History. This is another way of saying that propagandists make the facts fit their worldview. The Downing Street Memos on the Iraq war were a classic example of this on a massive scale, but it happens daily and over smaller issues as well. A recent case in point is Palin’s mangling of the Paul Revere ride, which Fox reporters have bent over backward to validate. Why lie about the historical facts, even when they can be demonstrated to be false? Well, because dogmatic minds actually find it easier to reject reality than to update their viewpoints. They will literally rewrite history if it serves their interests. And they’ll often speak with such authority that the casual viewer will be tempted to question what they knew as fact.

5. Scapegoating/Othering. This works best when people feel insecure or scared. It’s technically a form of both fear mongering and diversion, but it is so pervasive that it deserves its own category. The simple idea is that if you can find a group to blame for social or economic problems, you can then go on to a) justify violence/dehumanization of them, and b) subvert responsibility for any harm that may befall them as a result.

6. Conflating Violence With Power and Opposition to Violence With Weakness. This is more of what I’d call a “meta-frame” (a deeply held belief) than a media technique, but it is manifested in the ways news is reported constantly. For example, terms like “show of strength” are often used to describe acts of repression, such as those by the Iranian regime against the protesters in the summer of 2009. There are several concerning consequences of this form of conflation. First, it has the potential to make people feel falsely emboldened by shows of force – it can turn wars into sporting events. Secondly, especially in the context of American politics, displays of violence – whether manifested in war or debates about the Second Amendment – are seen as noble and (in an especially surreal irony) moral. Violence become synonymous with power, patriotism and piety.

7. Bullying. This is a favorite technique of several Fox commentators. That it continues to be employed demonstrates that it seems to have some efficacy. Bullying and yelling works best on people who come to the conversation with a lack of confidence, either in themselves or their grasp of the subject being discussed. The bully exploits this lack of confidence by berating the guest into submission or compliance. Often, less self-possessed people will feel shame and anxiety when being berated and the quickest way to end the immediate discomfort is to cede authority to the bully. The bully is then able to interpret that as a “win.”

8. Confusion. As with the preceding technique, this one works best on an audience that is less confident and self-possessed. The idea is to deliberately confuse the argument, but insist that the logic is airtight and imply that anyone who disagrees is either too dumb or too fanatical to follow along. Less independent minds will interpret the confusion technique as a form of sophisticated thinking, thereby giving the user’s claims veracity in the viewer’s mind.

9. Populism. This is especially popular in election years. The speakers identifies themselves as one of “the people” and the target of their ire as an enemy of the people. The opponent is always “elitist” or a “bureaucrat” or a “government insider” or some other category that is not the people. The idea is to make the opponent harder to relate to and harder to empathize with. It often goes hand in hand with scapegoating. A common logical fallacy with populism bias when used by the right is that accused “elitists” are almost always liberals – a category of political actors who, by definition, advocate for non-elite groups.

10. Invoking the Christian God. This is similar to othering and populism. With morality politics, the idea is to declare yourself and your allies as patriots, Christians and “real Americans” (those are inseparable categories in this line of thinking) and anyone who challenges them as not. Basically, God loves Fox and Republicans and America. And hates taxes and anyone who doesn’t love those other three things. Because the speaker has been benedicted by God to speak on behalf of all Americans, any challenge is perceived as immoral. It’s a cheap and easy technique used by all totalitarian entities from states to cults.

11. Saturation. There are three components to effective saturation: being repetitive, being ubiquitous and being consistent. The message must be repeated cover and over, it must be everywhere and it must be shared across commentators: e.g. “Saddam has WMD.” Veracity and hard data have no relationship to the efficacy of saturation. There is a psychological effect of being exposed to the same message over and over, regardless of whether it’s true or if it even makes sense, e.g., “Barack Obama wasn’t born in the United States.” If something is said enough times, by enough people, many will come to accept it as truth. Another example is Fox’s own slogan of “Fair and Balanced.”

12. Disparaging Education. There is an emerging and disturbing lack of reverence for education and intellectualism in many mainstream media discourses. In fact, in some circles (e.g. Fox), higher education is often disparaged as elitist. Having a university credential is perceived by these folks as not a sign of credibility, but of a lack of it. In fact, among some commentators, evidence of intellectual prowess is treated snidely and as anti-American. Education and other evidence of being trained in critical thinking are direct threats to a hive-mind mentality, which is why they are so viscerally demeaned.

13. Guilt by Association. This is a favorite of Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart, both of whom have used it to decimate the careers and lives of many good people. Here’s how it works: if your cousin’s college roommate’s uncle’s ex-wife attended a dinner party back in 1984 with Gorbachev’s niece’s ex-boyfriend’s sister, then you, by extension are a communist set on destroying America. Period.

14. Diversion. This is where, when on the ropes, the media commentator suddenly takes the debate in a weird but predictable direction to avoid accountability. This is the point in the discussion where most Fox anchors start comparing the opponent to Saul Alinsky or invoking ACORN or Media Matters, in a desperate attempt to win through guilt by association. Or they’ll talk about wanting to focus on “moving forward,” as though by analyzing the current state of things or God forbid, how we got to this state of things, you have no regard for the future. Any attempt to bring the discussion back to the issue at hand will likely be called deflection, an ironic use of the technique of projection/flipping.

In debating some of these tactics with colleagues and friends, I have also noticed that the Fox viewership seems to be marked by a sort of collective personality disorder whereby the viewer feels almost as though they’ve been let into a secret society. Something about their affiliation with the network makes them feel privileged and this affinity is likely what drives the viewers to defend the network so vehemently. They seem to identify with it at a core level, because it tells them they are special and privy to something the rest of us don’t have. It’s akin to the loyalty one feels by being let into a private club or a gang. That effect is also likely to make the propaganda more powerful, because it goes mostly unquestioned…

…As honest, fair and truly intellectual debate degrades before the eyes of the global media audience, the quality of American democracy degrades along with it.

[more here]

Hi! My name is Sheela!

Watching the “Hail to the V” commercials leaves me feeling conflicted.

They are certainly:

• Idiotic and annoying. But hey, what advertising isn’t?
• Considered racist by many people.
• Offensive to all women, everywhere, forever.

Why offensive? Well, their marketing has created and then preyed upon the idea that all women’s vaginal areas are inherently so dirty, stinky, icky and unsanitary that they require special products just to make the natural stench of women tolerable to the general public. One might hope we’d left that kind of misogynistic bullshit advertising back in the Women’s Day magazines of the 1950s, but sadly no. Just last fall, Summer’s Eve published ads for their feminine wash stating that douching is #1 thing every woman should do before asking for a raise. Le Wow.

Not only are these companies unethical for exploiting a fear that they created, their products are actually bad for women’s gynocological and general health. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommend against douching and using heavily scented chemical products in your vagina and on external genitalia. Using that garbage increases your risks of developing vaginal irritation, vaginitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancy, bacterial vaginal infections and certain STDs.

Now these adds are taking their nefarious campaign to the next level. Now they are groveling priests of the Cult of Vag offering gifts to your glorious vagina! It’s not about men or jobs anymore, it’s about what’s best for you. Only a company that advocates such overt worship of all that is the Sacred Feminine could produce a gift worthy of laying on the Alter of Vagina! Right? Except the gift is a toxic smoke bomb that kills everything inside the temple and corrodes the walls.

So why am I conflicted? They’re all bad, right? Well… I feel like I can take away at least one good aspect. In the past most feminine hygiene products were pure vague innuendo, euphemism, and metaphor. Unless you had pre-existing knowledge of the products and their uses you would have no idea what the ads were for. Here are some examples:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ro2mKtw77Sc

www.youtube.com/watch?v=potXaDoFZHQ

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvD0X-mFk4U

www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR8fyh7QgPM

So I can’t help but think it’s ultimately a good thing that these ads are actually saying the word vagina and even using a quasi-realistic portrayal of a talking vulva. What I wish they would have gone with instead is this covert ad campaign they’ve started online, which I think is much funnier and more assertive. While I still find their marketing to be inherently offensive, I actually like this ad a lot compared to everything that’s come before it.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ss8uUbvprk

That kitty puppet sounds sincere, and I believe he would strongly condemn Summer’s Eve if he knew how bad their products are for vaginas. What do you think?

This is essentially a feminist site, but as its male proprietor, I confess to being utterly out of my depths when it comes to stuff like this new ad campaign for Summer’s Eve.

Hail to the V:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_zJwLZ49zM

And look, they made some for different races!

White:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKvLd_XxFuw

Black:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DcFjbELeW0

Latino:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=szausZLMZuY

Readers (and contributors) please help me out here. Are these sexist, racist, ridiculous or some kind of hitherto unexplored combination?

I don’t know what is happening in this photo. It seems like it might be rapture related?

• Serial Killer of the Week. Sorry I’m late. It was because I decided to make some changes to the serial killer feature this week. I am so alarmed and sickened by the blatant Islamophobia displayed by Republican primary candidates like the simpleton hate monger Herman Cain. Why should all Muslims have to apologize for the actions of some fringe extremists? Have Christians in this country ever been called on to apologize for explicitly Christian terrorist organizations or individuals? All the rape, murder, assaults, bombings, lynchings, arson, pedophilia, and intimidation that white, Christian extremists have perpetrated? Of course not. Anyway, I’m so annoyed that instead of featuring a serial killer this week I’m going to highlight some general American Christian atrocities. I want to make sure good Christians like Cain get all the points they deserve for their homegrown terrorism!

The Ku Klux Klan: America’s original terrorist group — formed just after the Civil War and still around today. They’re known for their violence and bigotry, but what rarely comes up is the fact that the KKK is a Christian organization that considers their faith and interpretations of the Bible to be the root of their beliefs.

The Army of God

Mormons

The Lambs of Christ

Concerned Christians

Hutaree, and more about Hutaree and Christian terrorism in general

The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord

The Montana Freemen

Phineas Priesthood

“Patriot” conspiracy theorists and militias.

The Order

Operation Rescue

Aryan Nations -- I doubt it was a Muslim who planted this bomb along a Martin Luther King Jr. parade route.

• Religion of the Week. Christian Identity. One-stop shopping! It’s a religious movement, white supremacy group, apocalypse cult, and terrorist organization all wrapped up in one convenient ideology. “Conquer we must, for our cause is just.” Don’t forget to stop at the gift shop.
• Fetish of the Week. Gut flopping. An aspect of fat fetishism.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rglg4lsdWl8

• Links!

Did you hear what has happened to Harold Camping? Kinda sounds like the work of a vengeful God, if you believe in that sort of thing.

Too bad it didn’t happen sooner, maybe this wouldn’t have happened. Or this. Or this. Or this:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vj8-_jhFAA

Nothing the FCC can do about it. People are on their own to figure out who is credible and who is looney tunes. Like our future Mrs. President.

Who wants to learn about a singing penis?

And an inflatable shark!

And here’s your feel-good story: an update about the Nazi twins.

]]> http://www.thecontrarianmedia.com/2011/07/sex-mayhem-report-5/feed/ 0 http://www.thecontrarianmedia.com/2011/07/sex-and-mayhem-report-4/ http://www.thecontrarianmedia.com/2011/07/sex-and-mayhem-report-4/#comments Tue, 12 Jul 2011 20:53:53 +0000 Miss Molly http://www.thecontrarianmedia.com/?p=14185

• Serial Killer of the Week. There is a series about female serial killers called “Lady Killers” airing on BBC Knowledge right now. But BBC Knowledge doesn’t air in the U.S. so I’ll just have to wait for it to show up elsewhere. In the meantime, I can feature one of the murderesses from the show, Myra Hindley, England’s first convicted female serial killer. You might recognize Hindley’s photo, as it has been used in many forms of popular art, from t-shirts to album covers.

Maybe you’ve wondered who those people were on this Sonic Youth record?

It is an artist’s rendering of a photo of the two key witness in Hindley’s trial. The woman is Myra’s younger sister Maureen Hindley with her first husband David Smith. Smith was friends with Myra’s boyfriend and co-murderer Ian Brady. He was actually somewhat complicit in one of the murders, but shortly after the act he freaked out and confessed to the police. It’s a good thing he had this attack of conscience because it resulted in the arrest and conviction of Hindley and Brady.

• Fetish of the Week. Vorarephilia aka “vore.” A vore fetishist is sexually aroused by the idea of humans eating and being eaten by each other. Not every vore fetishist likes the same stuff, though. There are distinct subcategories. It would be very interesting to me to find out what your first thoughts or mental images were upon reading the first sentence of this fetish entry! If you are willing to share, please post in the comments. I was imagining cannibalism like Hannibal Lecter or that time Moss tried to take a German cooking class.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ij0d0t1fDv0

Here are the two main vore types — there are more out there. Human deviance is so gloriously abundant and diverse.

Soft vore: Being swallowed alive and whole, orally. Sometimes they get digested, rescued, suffocated, vomited back up, or survive a trip through the entire digestive tract (called “full tour”), but as far as I can tell the fantasy most often ends with the subject being warm and moist, happily nestled inside a stomach. Like most vore, this is purely fantasy and exists only in art, fiction and animation because it is not practically possible. A form of soft vore is a fetish I’ve covered before, macrophilia, but a lot of the artwork seems to depict cartoon creatures and furries, not humans. Here’s a collection of soft vore furry art:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=2r83TtcfRKc

Hard vore: In hard vore fantasy the idea of consumption is the same, but the tone is very different. The prey is not swallowed whole but rather violently eaten. There is typically a great deal of blood — biting, tearing, slashing, etc.. This seems to show up in human more than furry forms.

• Religion of the Week. Iglesia Maradoniana: the Maradonian Church. This a relatively small religion in Argentina which reveres former Argentine footballer Diego Maradona as a deity on earth. They have their own commandments and use his autobiography as their Bible!
• Links!

Trepanning is an ancient and obsolete… or is it?

I posted a list of improbable deaths, now here’s the Tudor version.

FOX News might have run a phony story about poop burgers? Here’s one more humble contribution to Rupert Murdoch‘s troubles. Ha ha haaaa evil fucker! I hope he dies broke and alone of slow, wasting stomach cancer.

We recently got cable and it’s the first time in my life I’ve ever had it. I’ve come to the conclusion that SpongeBob Squarepants is the best role model on television.

Cool art thingy wow!

There is a guy who lives near us who painted in huge letters across the front of his house “Cut consumption not foreskins.” No, really! Lookit:

I bring this up because I wonder if he’s heard of Foreskin Man.

TOT TRIAL TAKES TOPSY TURN!

Did you hear? Casey Anthony has been found NOT GUILTY of killing her two year-old daughter, Caylee. The internets are aflame with outrage! Nancy Grace‘s head ACTUALLY EXPLODED on TV! Forget the Tea Party, this decision is the real spur to revolution!

I didn’t follow the case closely, but after the verdict, I did a little bit of research into the evidence and arguments. While I understand the jury’s decision, I will cop to being a bit troubled by the fact that our justice system is seemingly content with letting the death of a toddler go unsolved. It just doesn’t sit right on a fundamental human level.

The jury’s decision is fun to parse for a legal nerd like me. But that’s not what I’m really fascinated by. I’m more interested in how the proceedings played out in both the mainstream media and social networks. Recent history is peppered with highly controversial cases — from OJ to MJ to JonBenét — which have provoked strong reactions in observers. But the Casey Anthony trial was different. This isn’t because of the stomach-turning particulars, but rather the confluence of old-school media and user-powered platforms like Facebook and Twitter. It makes you wonder what the Rodney King aftermath might have looked like if it had happened yesterday.

People like to talk about “old” media vs. “new” media, as if one didn’t influence the other. But surely, the nation’s interest in the Anthony case was encouraged by TV pundits like the relentlessly shrill Nancy Grace, a woman who deserves an award for hyperbole. (Note to self: launch the Annual Contrarian Media Hyperbole Awards).

Now I know it is our duty as American citizens to respect the jury system. But I know one thing: as the defense sits by and has their champagne toast after that not-guilty verdict, somewhere out there, the devil is dancing tonight.

Isn’t that something? Such sustained, sensational coverage no doubt contributed to the way people perceived the case. A quick scan of related Twitter hashtags reveals multiple death wishes to Casey Anthony. This isn’t to say that she’s not potentially guilty, but it does hint at how strong emotions can be shaped by mass media reporting.

What might have been an opportunity to examine how our legal system functions instead became a powerful demonstration of mob mentality. One can be skeptical about whether justice was served and still be disturbed at the bloodlust just beneath the surface of our supposedly civil society.

And that bloodlust isn’t limited to the Great Unwashed. Corporate media feeds on it, opportunistically repackaging our obsessions as easy fodder for ratings. This creates a worrisome feedback loop that plays to our basest collective instincts.

I’m not a believer in a “fixed” human nature, but rather a spectrum of potential behaviors that are rooted in any number of factors. These phenomena are not limited to individual expression. As Carl Jung observed of the rising specter of Nazism, groups of people, too, possess a “shadow” personality that is subject to collective agitation. Here is the seed of the so-called “mob mentality” (or “participation mystique,” in Jungian terms). This phenomenon often presents itself as chaotic, but can be harnessed and directed to very destructive ends (as borne out by the Third Reich).

I’m not suggesting that the reaction to Casey Anthony verdict bears any direct relationship to Nazi brownshirts. Yet as the linkages between German propaganda and mass behavior were once poorly understood, much remains unclear about the interaction of traditional and networked media. At the right time and under the right conditions, the combo could produce calamitous results. This is the flipside to the “Twitter revolution” that  tech evangelists point to as driving democratic change in the Middle East. (The fact of the matter is that little actual organizing happens on these networks; most of it is Western echo chamber.)

At the dawn of the Internet Age, many of us overestimated the power the new platforms would have in remaking our media landscape. Certainly, they have upended business models and created an unprecedented environment for individual expression. But they have yet to replace traditional media. This could be due to the relative influence these corporations have over public policy, but I think it also has to do with ingrained consumer behavior and expectation. And by the time that a critical mass of the populace is fully acclimated to the new channels, old media will have figured out a way to control the underlying architecture — through law or corporate collusion. (For those playing along at home, this battle is raging as I type, and is the main reason for my existence in Washington.)

What I’m getting at is this: the continued strength of traditional media, coupled with the unique contours of the social web, creates an entirely new world for information. Like anything, there’s bound to be a good and not-so-good side.

To truly address the feedback loop described above would require a more open and participatory media environment, and not just in the realm of social networks. Whether this is possible or not, given marketplace and political pressures, remains an unanswered question. How that question is answered will determine nothing less than the future of information exchange.

Take that, Nancy Grace.