Shouting fire in a crowded blogosphre

Maybe we shouldn’t be that worried about government surveillance after all:

When Osama bin Laden issued his videotaped message to the American people last month, a young jihad enthusiast went online to help spread the word.

“America needs to listen to Shaykh Usaamah very carefully and take his message with great seriousness,” he wrote on his blog. “America is known to be a people of arrogance.”

Unlike Mr. bin Laden, the blogger was not operating from a remote location. It turns out he is a 21-year-old American named Samir Khan who produces his blog from his parents’ home in North Carolina, where he serves as a kind of Western relay station for the multimedia productions of violent Islamic groups.

In recent days, he has featured “glad tidings” from a North African militant leader whose group killed 31 Algerian troops. He posted a scholarly treatise arguing for violent jihad, translated into English. He listed hundreds of links to secret sites from which his readers could obtain the latest blood-drenched insurgent videos from Iraq.

The New York Times article says Khan isn’t breaking any laws. Treason away, Mister Khan.

Shouting fire in a crowded blogosphre

Maybe we shouldn’t be that worried about government surveillance after all:

When Osama bin Laden issued his videotaped message to the American people last month, a young jihad enthusiast went online to help spread the word.

“America needs to listen to Shaykh Usaamah very carefully and take his message with great seriousness,” he wrote on his blog. “America is known to be a people of arrogance.”

Unlike Mr. bin Laden, the blogger was not operating from a remote location. It turns out he is a 21-year-old American named Samir Khan who produces his blog from his parents’ home in North Carolina, where he serves as a kind of Western relay station for the multimedia productions of violent Islamic groups.

In recent days, he has featured “glad tidings” from a North African militant leader whose group killed 31 Algerian troops. He posted a scholarly treatise arguing for violent jihad, translated into English. He listed hundreds of links to secret sites from which his readers could obtain the latest blood-drenched insurgent videos from Iraq.

The New York Times article says Khan isn’t breaking any laws. Treason away, Mister Khan.

Sometimes I may actually be the slightest bit wrong

Don’t misunderstand — I’m not yet ready to declare myself a fan of Seth MacFarlane‘s work. But after being given no choice by two Germans, I found myself watching a DVD of “American Dad,” a show which I had steadfastly avoided. And while I’m still wary of a comedic foundation built on scattershot non sequiturs, more than a few were, gulp, clever.

You probably don’t require as much convincing, but this clip from “Family Guy” is downright inspired. I may actually watch one of those endless TBS rerurns now.

I just hope I’m not going soft. You’ll know if I start praising Drew Barrymore’s “adorable charm,” or Mitt Romney’s candor. And I ever say anything nice about Adam Sandler, please, pull the plug.

At least they didn’t call him a fag

So what happens when (sorta) conservative gay blogger Andrew Sullivan sides with Barney Frank in supporting an Employment Non-Discrimination Act excluding transgendereds? He’s called a bigot, natch.

Why are we not surprised? Sullivan’s not exactly the post child for equality, compassion or humanity.

I expected better from Queerty, but this kind of uninformed, childish name calling bears the unmistakable stamp of the Petty Queer Establishment. Disagree with them and you’re inhuman (I guess I shouldn’t be too upset at being called a self-loather). Not surprisingly, Queerty offered no evidence to back up their verbal assault.

Meanwhile, Barney Frank, a supporter of EDNA for 20 years, is also getting slammed by the professionally indignant, the kind of people who throw words like “traitor” around to make self-serving points. The Massachusetts congressman is merely bowing to reality — if transgendereds are included within the bill, it won’t pass.

The larger question is one few dare ask, as liberal activist John Aravosis discovered when he pondered out loud what many of us have been wondering (shhh!) for years:

I would argue that the gay community never collectively and overwhelmingly decided to include the T in LGB (or GLB). It happened because a few groups like NGLTF and GLAAD starting using it, and they and a handful of vocal activists and transgender leaders pretty much shamed everyone else into doing it. Now, that’s not necessarily a bad thing, and it doesn’t necessarily mean that the T shouldn’t have been added. I’m just saying that I don’t think the T was added because there was a groundswell of demand in the gay community that we add T to LGB. I think it happened through pressure, organizational fiat, shame, and osmosis.

Like Aravosis, I don’t wish to deny anyone their rights. I’m just asking — what does sexual orientation have to do with gender identity? A conversation addressing that debate is overdue.

Not if the PQE has its way. They seem more intent on appearing PC than actually accomplishing anything. If the gay lobby isn’t willing to make concessions in this case, you can kiss EDNA goodbye, at least for a couple of election cycles.

Sometimes I may actually be the slightest bit wrong

Don’t misunderstand — I’m not yet ready to declare myself a fan of Seth MacFarlane‘s work. But after being given no choice by two Germans, I found myself watching a DVD of "American Dad," a show which I had steadfastly avoided. And while I’m still wary of a comedic foundation built on scattershot non sequiturs, more than a few were, gulp, clever.

You probably don’t require as much convincing, but this clip from "Family Guy" is downright inspired. I may actually watch one of those endless TBS rerurns now.

I just hope I’m not going soft. You’ll know if I start praising Drew Barrymore’s "adorable charm," or Mitt Romney’s candor. And I ever say anything nice about Adam Sandler, please, pull the plug.