 ALEX KOZINSKI KNOWS HOW TO HAVE A GOOD TIME
Being a big time judge can be pretty stressful. That's doubly true when you sit on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and find yourself caught in the crossfire of their war against logic. Speaking only for myself, I'm pretty sure that it would make my head hurt.
Anyone can tell you that the best remedy for stress is the ability to kick back and relax. Hobbies are vital in clearing the head and allowing one to focus on life's truly important issues when the time comes. For that reason I find myself defending anyone who has their hobbies attacked by the Goddamn Liberal Media, particularly when the hobbies in question are those of someone as important as Judge Alex Kozinski.
No one knows better than I the healing power of pornography. It brings what the Quakers call "peace at the center." I personally know that nothing makes a bad day go away quite like taking off your pants and watching Nikita Denise take a 9 inch tool in the dumper. It calms me and allows me to be the steady voice of reason that you read here each and every day.
As you might imagine, I own thousands and thousands of hours of pornography, almost none of it gay, and I have no idea where I would be without it. My father loved pornography and that love was transferred to me at an early age. I just don't know what kind of a man I would be without it, but it very probably wouldn't be at all pleasant. If you don't own at least some pornography, chances are that you're an asshole.
That's why I'm mystified by the shitstorm surrounding Judge Kozinski. He's obviously a man who knows how to relax and that couldn't be more important in this Dark Age of Bush.
Yes, Kozinski is presiding over a trial involving pornography, but that's hardly the issue at hand. Pornography, as we know, is protected speech in the United States. The Supreme Court has been pretty clear about that. What Ira Isaacs is on trial for is obscenity and the use of the mails to distribute it, which is another matter entirely.
The Miller Test makes obscenity an awfully tough nut to crack, which explains why there really haven't been any convictions in the last 20 years. But the Bush administration hasn't let history or common sense stop them in any other area of government, so why should they start with justice?
Even without the burden of Miller, obscenity prosecutions are idiotic and serve no useful purpose. Furthermore, anyone who suggests that those prosecutions are "to protect the children" are just too stupid to take seriously. You may or may not know this, but furnishing pornography to children is already a crime. And I almost never hear "states rights" conservatives decrying the federal government getting into areas of state jurisdiction such as drugs or obscenity. Did you know that fucking murder isn't a federal crime but obscenity is?
The simple fact of the matter is that adults like watching pretty people fuck. Alex Kozinski loves it, Clarence Thomas loves it, and I love it, too. I probably love it enough for all three of us.
The law itself is so weird and wrong that not only do we have to read about the pornography the judge in an obscenity trial has online, he has to suffer the indignity of demanding an investigation of himself.
Having said that, the porn is pretty ... interesting.
The computerized cache included a picture of two nude women on all fours painted to look like Holstein dairy cows, images of masturbation, a video of a man being pursued by a sexually aroused donkey and a slide show featuring a striptease with a transsexual. That's ... hot. Actually, it's comedy, you assholes! And that's something that Kozinski is rather well known for. As a matter of fact, in the L.A Times "expose" on the matter, this exchange occurred;
Among the sexually explicit material on his site that he defended as humorous were two photos. In one, a young man is bent over in a chair and performing fellatio on himself. In the other, two women are sitting in what appears to be a cafe with their skirts hiked up to reveal their pubic hair and genitalia. Behind them is a sign reading "Bush for President." "That is a funny joke," Kozinski said. And you know what? It is a funny joke. But now The Man is coming down on him and the censorship begins. The judge said he planned to delete some of the most objectionable material from his site, including the photo depicting women as cows, which he said was "degrading . . . and just gross." He also said he planned to get rid of a graphic step-by-step pictorial in which a woman is seen shaving her pubic hair.  There's the tragedy in this. If a young girl can't go to a federal appeals court judge to learn how to shave her crotch, where else is there for her to turn? Is the LA Times thinking of her?
Of course they aren't, the cocksuckers! Because Scott Glover has such delicate sensibilities, we'll all be subjected to the return of Seventies Bush, and nothing is worse than that. Seventies Bush is a clear and present danger to an orderly society and no conservative should stand for it.
But nothing described on Kozinski's website meets the legal definition of obscenity and no one is suggesting it does. That Laurie Levinson and Diane Feinstien are upset should surprise no one as Laurie Levinson and Diane Feinstein are idiots.
I'm weird in that I'm looking at something deeper than this. I'm wondering exactly where the Times got the story about Judge Kozinski's website. I know that you've all seen All The President's Men and think of reporters are diligent seekers of truth. However, they are usually lazy motherfuckers and not infrequently drunk ones at that. They don't collect information as much as they have it leaked to them.
Who would do such a thing? Certainly not the defense. If they knew about this, they'd save it for appeal and almost certainly get a new trial. Why disqualify the judge before a verdict if that verdict happens to be guilty?
But Kozinski has a reputation of being a libertarian and a smart ass to boot. The Bush administration famously dislikes iconoclasts and doesn't cotton to losing in court, although it's gotten awfully good at it of late. The administration also has a reputation of firing US Attorneys who piss them off. You may have read about it even if Alberto Gonzalez hasn't.
United States v. Ira Issacs is about some pretty serious shit, both figurative and literal. The material at issue is so offensive that it might just result in a conviction even if it doesn't meet the strict legal definition of obscenity. If you have a cowed liberal asshole or some conservative tool on the bench, it might even be a slam dunk. But it turns out that they can no longer do something as simple as denying due process to terror suspects or convict a smut-king, what the fuck are they good for? The answer? Get Kozinski off the case. The sad thing is that it just might work. Easy Listening Recommendation of the Day: Walking the Cow By: Daniel Johnston From: Hi, How Are You?Permalink Labels: I Fought The Law, Journalists Are Swine
|
