Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[James Dasher <jdasher AT ibiblio.org>]

On Sep 10, 2004, at 11:59 PM, Joe Komenda wrote:

> Oh, that's nothing. Here's some inflammatory stuff:
>
> http://mywebpages.comcast.net/atrios/jesusbush.jpg

Inflammatory, sure.  But, like the Washington/Paddle Boat Veterans For 
Truth thing, funny - after a fashion.

Coming from Atrios, it's a little less funny, because he's pretty 
intolerant of Christians.  I don't see him posting something like that 
at Muslims' expense.  Also, I don't see Atrios (whose blog I read 
somewhat regularly) being able to engage in a debate about 'jus ad 
bellum' vs. 'jus in bellum', or the Thomistic arguments for and against 
the use of force.  (The Scholastics crafted most of the philosophical 
arguments that, 700 years later, were codified as the Geneva 
Conventions.)  But that's neither here nor there.

The real point I think this thread brings up is that people should have 
the right to make these ads, regardless of political affiliation.  And 
make no mistake: both efforts posted to this thread required time, 
resources, and effort (money), and are designed to persuade.  But 
should the people behind them be allowed to say these things?  And what 
are the connections to the presidential campaigns?  I'll bet the 
degrees of separation aren't than wide.

Look, if George Soros wants to give $10 million to MoveOn.org, or 
former MoveOn.org execs want to work for the Kerry campaign, who cares? 
 And if a couple-hundred Swift Boat vets want to raise half a million 
dollars to run ads criticizing Kerry, or a lawyer for the Bush team 
wants to give legal advice to them, again: who cares?

So the Jesus-Bush thing was posted to the Web.  It wouldn't take much 
more effort to make a 30-second commercial out of the images.  And if 
somebody wanted to buy advertising time in, say, Lizard Lick, NC (or 
Raleigh) -- should we really be passing laws telling people that their 
opinions don't matter?  That they're not allowed to buy time, because 
they're not rich enough to be a candidate for President of the United 
States?

Say what you will about McCain-Feingold, or John Kerry, or George Bush, 
or Atrios -- but then, that's the point.  At least, that would be the 
point, if the First Amendment mattered more than the misguided faith of 
true believers that people who disagree with them shouldn't be allowed 
to participate in the free exchange of ideas.

Me, I say, to echo both George Bush and John Kerry: "Bring it on!"

Cheers, peeps!