Soapbox Archive

This is an email I’ve received a couple times:

By Rick Mathes

Last month I attended my annual training session that’s required for maintaining my state prison security clearance. During the training session there was a presentation by three speakers representing the Roman Catholic, Protestant and Muslim faiths, who explained each of their belief systems. I was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam had to say. The Imam gave a great presentation of the basics of Islam, complete with a video.

After the presentations, time was provided for questions and answers. When it was my turn, I directed my question to the Imam and asked: “Please, correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand that most Imams and clerics of Islam have declared a holy jihad [Holy war] against the infidels of the world. And, that by killing an infidel, which is a command to all Muslims, they are assured of a place in heaven.

If that’s the case, can you give me the definition of an infidel?”

There was no disagreement with my statements and, without hesitation, he replied, “Non-believers!”

I responded, “So, let me make sure I have this straight. All followers of Allah have been commanded to kill everyone who is not of your faith so they can go to Heaven.Is that correct?

The expression on his face changed from one of authority and command to that of a little boy who had just gotten caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He sheepishly replied, “Yes.”

I then stated, “Well, sir, I have a real problem trying to imagine Pope John Paul commanding all Catholics to kill those of your faith or Dr Stanley ordering Protestants to do the same in order to go to Heaven!”

The Imam was speechless. I continued, “I also have problem with being your friend when you and your brother clerics are telling your followers to kill me. Let me ask you a question. Would you rather have your Allah who
tells you to kill me in order to go to Heaven or my Jesus who tells me to love you because I am going to Heaven and He wants you to be with me?”

You could have heard a pin drop as the Imam hung his head in shame. Needless to say, the organizers and/or promoters of the ‘Diversification’ training seminar were not happy with Rick’s way of dealing with the Islamic Imam and exposing the truth about the Muslim’s beliefs.

I think everyone in the US should be required to read this, but with the liberal justice system, liberal media, and the ACLU, there is no way this will be widely publicized. Please pass this on to all your email contacts.

This is a true story and the author, Rick Mathes, is a well known leader in prison ministry.

So you think Christianity is some how better than other religions?…Christians aren’t supposed to like infidels either just look at the your own holy bable - I mean bible…

2 Chr. 15:13
That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

Dt. 13:6 - 10
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

But you say, “Christians don’t have to follow the Old Testament!” Really?…Are you sure?

Mt. 5:18-19
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Lk. 16:17

And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Here’s what a friend says about Christians not following the Old Testament:

I’ve heard the argument that Jesus came to make a new covenant with man and in so doing, wipes away the OT, or something along those lines, but for any Christian to claim that the Old Testament isn’t relevant or whatever is just crap. If the Old Testament was no longer relevant, why was it canonized? For reference? It’s the word of God, no? Was God wrong for 39 books and a couple thousand years? The only reason Xians make that argument (about the NT replacing the OT) is as an excuse for all the hideous, angry-God, polygamous, incestuous, murderous shit in the OT.

Cursing, sexual innuendos, the explanation of current sexual slang, and playing a children’s potty training tape with the words “doodie and poopie” on the radio and showing nipples on TV will make your innocent child’s head explode but censoring internet porn would be a violation to free speech. I’m confused! Oh but sexual innuendos shown on commercials such as, the Herbal Essence woman faking an orgasm is absolutely fine. And the explanation of current sexual slang on TV is ok as long as it’s on Oprah, which airs right when kids get home from school. Do they just throw these things in a hat and mix it around to decide what they will claim is in yours and your child’s best interest? Either allow free speech or be more clear and consistent in governmental parenting!! If the thought police are to be invoked like in George Orwell’s 1984, make sure to pass out dictionaries containing the newspeak and remove all the horrible un-words.

I can’t figure out why Ashcroft is even pushing this again. There is software that can be placed on the computer a child uses…it works as well as hiding porno mags and sex toys in the top shelf of the master closet, or paying for full cable TV while expecting the kids to never sneak up late to watch HBO, Cinimax or some other late night soft porn station.  At some point parents will just have to break down and explain it all to the kids themselves, which is called parenting - it’s what parents should do not the government.

As a kid, the first time you were in a library with a group of friends what were the first two words you looked up in that huge unabridged dictionary that sits on that tall stand in the middle of the room?…Shit and Fuck… When you became a little more sophisticated, say in junior high, you’d look up fag, faggot, and maybe orgasm. Fag and faggot were actually a disappointment in the 80’s editions. Are we going to go back in time? Will censoring the dictionary be Ashcroft’s next conquest? Should Webster and the libraries that carry copies be fined $50,000 per book and instance of each profane word for placing material that is “harmful to minors” within easy reach since the dictionary defines slang meanings such as fuck off you fucked up fuck head?

High Court Upholds Block of Web Porn Law
Jun 29, 11:14 AM (ET)

By ANNE GEARAN

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a law meant to punish pornographers who peddle dirty pictures to Web-surfing kids is probably an unconstitutional muzzle on free speech.

The high court divided 5-to-4 over a law passed in 1998, signed by then-President Clinton and now backed by the Bush administration. The majority said a lower court was correct to block the law from taking effect because it likely violates the First Amendment.

In considering the issue a third time, the court did not end a long fight, however. The majority voted to send the case back to a lower court for a trial that could give the government a chance to prove the law does not go too far.

The ruling in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union was the last of nearly 80 cases decided in a busy court term that ended Tuesday with no announcements that any of the nine justices would retire. The year’s marquee cases involving presidential power to deal with suspected terrorists were announced Monday, and for the most part represented a loss for the Bush administration.

The majority, led by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, said there may have been important technological advances in the five years since a federal judge blocked the law.

Holding a new trial will allow discussion of what technology, if any, might allow adults to see and buy material that is legal for them while keeping that material out of the hands of children.

Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed with Kennedy.

Tuesday’s pornography ruling is more nuanced, but still a blow to the government. It marks the third time the high court has considered the case, and it may not be the last.

The ACLU and other critics of the antipornography law said that it would restrict far too much material that adults may legally see and buy.

“We’re very pleased with the decision,” ACLU lawyer Ann Beeson said. “The status quo is still with us and the court made it safe for artists, sex educators and Web publishers to communicate with adults without risking jail time.”

Beeson said that after repeated losses in court, the government may choose to drop any further defense of the law. There was no immediate word from the Bush administration.

The law, which never took effect, would have authorized fines up to $50,000 for the crime of placing material that is “harmful to minors” within the easy reach of children on the Internet.

The law also would have required adults to use access codes and or other ways of registering before they could see objectionable material online.

For now, the law, known as the Child Online Protection Act, would sweep with too broad a brush, Kennedy wrote. “There is a potential for extraordinary harm and a serious chill upon protected speech” if the law took effect, he said.

Kennedy said that filtering software “is not a perfect solution to the problem of children gaining access to harmful-to-minors materials.” So far, he added, the government has failed to prove that other technologies would work better.

In dissent, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer said the law is constitutional and should be upheld.

Restrictions about who would be covered by the law and how it would be enforced “answer many of the concerns raised by those who attack its constitutionality,” Breyer wrote.

Congress had tried repeatedly to find a way to protect Web-surfing children from smut without running afoul of the First Amendment.

The justices unanimously struck down the first version of a child-protection law passed in 1996, just as the Internet was becoming a commonplace means of communication, research and entertainment.

Congress responded by passing COPA, saying the new law met the Supreme Court’s free-speech standards.

The ACLU challenged COPA immediately, arguing that the replacement law was every bit as unconstitutional as the original. The law has been tied up in the courts ever since.

The ACLU challenged the law on behalf of online bookstores, artists and others, including operators of Web sites that offer explicit how-to sex advice or health information. The ACLU argued that its clients could face jail time or fines for distributing information that, while racy or graphic, is perfectly legal for adult eyes and ears.

Material that is indecent but not obscene is protected by the First Amendment. Adults may see or purchase it, but children may not.

A Philadelphia-based federal appeals court has stuck down the law twice, on both broad and fairly narrow grounds.

The case is Ashcroft v. ACLU, 03-218.

This is a snippet from a news report about Abu Ghraib:

Bush blamed a “few people” for the abuses and defended the conduct of U.S. occupation forces…

A friend’s comment on this portion of the news story:

That’s bullsh!t and Bush knows it. These abusers are a product of the system. The system trains soldiers to do violence while at the same time demeaning the enemy to make him easier to kill. What the hell do we expect? That U.S. soldiers would treat Iraqis with dignity and respect? What Bush finds appalling isn’t that this is happening, but that it got out and the public now knows about it.

My thoughts about how it may have happened:

I really don’t think it has anything to do with military combat training, or military dehumanizing tactics (I don’t think they use those as much anymore since most of the combat is done at a distance with “smart bombs” and stuff).

I have a friend who was sent to Afghanistan. He wanted to do his part to “pay them all back”. He felt that everyone in the Middle East had their own part in the terrorist attacks (he told me that himself).

Between living in Oklahoma, working as a cop, and being in the guard for ten years he’s been so thoroughly brain-washed by the “greatest President ever” that in his first email to me from Afghanistan he said something like, “You wouldn’t believe how these heathens live.” They weren’t even human to him. I don’t think this was the military’s doing…just the environment(s) he had been in. I didn’t bother answering that email. After being there for a while and actually interacting with these “heathens” I think he’s looking at it a bit differently.

I hate to say this about a friend, but he’s never been the brightest bulb (did I ever mention that on one of the many occasions that he was drunk, he thought it would be a good idea to parasail behind a car going down the Alaskan Highway?…he hit a tree…right in the crotch). In school he repeated the third grade, and the tenth, and then dropped out after that. He actually had to study before passing his GED, and he only joined the guard because his ASVAB wasn’t high enough for regular Army…unfortunately I’m not joking! (In his defense I must say he does very well when he’s interested in the subject, like flying.)

Having been in the military I can safely tell you he is a prime example of the majority of the enlisted…especially those that reenlist. Given the type of people I really don’t think it would take much on an instigator to convince a group to join in on humiliating the “heathens”. It probably started small and just kept escalating. BTW most cops are ex-military…*warning slight sarcasm approaching* really it’s America’s finest protecting us in all directions.

If you ever want to get paid to take a three to five-year course in sociology and human sexuality join the military…I didn’t say it paid much.

I don’t know when this happened. I must have slept though something. I can’t believe it isn’t just toddlers that have to be in a car seat, but any child under 8 years old or under 80lbs. (Car Seat Laws) It may be safer, but why does it need to be a law? Do we really care if someone else isn’t putting their kid in a perfect air purified, bullet proof bubble? Were consumers not spending enough on car seats?

A California bill has been proposed by Marco Firebaugh to prohibit smoking in a car with passengers under 18. I’m a non-smoker and hate the smell as much as the next non-smoker. I grew up with a father that smoked like a chimney. I hated the smell in the car and couldn’t get fresh air in the house. When I was twelve we were living in Juneau AK, where at times there were fire bans because cloud cover would trap the smoke, so even outside I couldn’t get fresh air. Durring that time there were two occasions when I woke up and felt like I couldn’t breathe in at all.

After graduating high school I joined the military. I was sent to in to get a fit test for a respirator to wear for my corrosion job. As part of the physical I had to blow into a tube as hard as possible to measure lung capacity. The doctor asked me, “Are you sure you’re not a smoker?” My lungs were at 80% of what they should have been, and I still think this is a stupid law. If this bill passes it’ll just be another form of random tax collection, like speeding tickets, seatbelt, car seat laws.

All we need are parents fighting a nic-fit with three screaming in the back adding to the pressure while they navigate through gridlock. This is bound to bring down the road rage!

Seriously though Smokers don’t just smoke in the car with their kids. They smoke at home too. What about all the other noxious fumes in the world like car exhaust and the “new car smell”, which by the way is created using formaldehyde.

Over the years it’s just slowly gotten stricter and stricter. First in the mid eighties airplanes became smoke free. Then there were designated areas at work places, now it’s banned in restaurants. Bars are starting to get pinched too. Bars!! Of all places – the place you go to get drunk off your ass. Why not just make smoking illegal, you know, like the other drugs? The war on drugs has worked so well for the rest of them. (Did you notice the sarcasm?)

Where kids are concern I think we should just stick to the basics: physical abuse, molestation, rape, and murder - things that are done intentionally to harm. What is the obsession with making everything safe for people we don’t even give a shit about? There are so many things that can kill us. We can’t control it all! We should have an agency that collects data, offers the information so people are aware of the risks, and the rest should be buyer beware!

Proposed bill would prohibit smoking in car with child passengers
By Alexa H. Bluth — Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 4:53 pm PDT Monday, April 26, 2004
California lawmakers are considering a bill that would make California the first state in the nation to prohibit smokers from lighting up in a private car when children are present.
The proposal by Assemblyman Marco Firebaugh, D-South Gate, has drawn the ire of Republican lawmakers who say it goes too far in attempting to police personal behavior.
Supporters, however, call it a crucial stride toward protecting the state’s children from the damaging effects of second-hand smoke.
“It just seemed to me that it was one effective, intelligent way to reduce the risk to kids,” said Firebaugh, who said that asthma is common among children in his home district in southeast Los Angeles.
Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy, R-Monrovia, called the measure “big brother government.”
“Government is going to raise our kids for us because parents don’t know what’s best? That’s a very scary thought,” Mountjoy said.
The measure would allow officers to ticket drivers found smoking a pipe, cigar or cigarette in a car with children 18 or under present.
For more details, see Tuesday’s Bee.

I can’t believe they think this will do anything. Cigarettes are illegal for people under 18, beer for people under 21, and dugs are all illegal (except in some states marijuana is ok for medicinal purposes). Ever notice how well these laws work? How regularly are they enforced? - Only when there are complaints of a party being too loud.

Now some dim-witted Louisiana state representative (Derrick Shepherd) thinks that a law will stop kids from wearing their pants below the waste. Shall we also make a law that says all females should all wear dresses below the knee? - Really though I’m wondering, what should people wear to the beach and swimming class? I haven’t measured the skin factor, but I’m thinking people show more when they’re not wearing pants at all. This law if passed will be just as effective as speeding laws. It’ll be just another selective and randomly enforced tax. Imposed only when some arrogant cop doesn’t like the way some kid talked to them or the way they looked. I’d be willing to bet the majority of cute girls will get off scott-free.

House Bill 1626

Proposed by Rep. Derrick Shepherd, D-Marrero

Crime: Prohibits wearing pants below the waist.

An Act: To enact R.S. 14:106.3, relative to offenses affecting the general peace and order; to create the crime of wearing pants in public below the waist; to provide for -penalties; and to provide for related matters.

Section 1. R.S. 14:106.3 is hereby enacted to read as follows:

106.3. Illegally wearing pants below waist in public; penalty

• A. It shall be unlawful for any person to appear in public wearing his pants below his waist and thereby exposing his skin or intimate clothing.
• B. Whoever violates the provisions of this Section shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.

An A-C-L-U spokesman says the bill goes too far. He says: “I can think of a lot of workers, plumbers, who are working and expose their buttocks.”

Publishing notices of gay marriages stirs controversy

By Lornet Turnbull
Seattle Times staff reporter
Editor’s note: This is part of a series of stories examining the cultural, social and political currents swirling around marriage.

News articles listing many of the rights and benefits denied gays and lesbians because they can’t legally marry may overlook at least one: having wedding announcements published in their hometown paper.

Content with reporting about the gay-marriage movement with neutrality, some newspapers — particularly smaller publications — are finding themselves pulled, unwillingly, into the fray.

As gays and lesbians in recent weeks have gone to Portland or San Francisco to obtain marriage licenses, papers have been left to figure out how to deal with requests to publicly announce their new unions.

Take the Yakima Herald-Republic, a 39,000-circulation paper in Eastern Washington owned by The Seattle Times Co.

The paper had written extensively about a local couple, Jane Newall and Deborah Vuillemot, who traveled to Portland in March to marry. Yet it found itself in a quandary when the women returned from Oregon and presented their wedding announcement for publication in the Sunday Life news section.

“They had no stated policy on the issue,” Newall said. “They had covered same-sex unions and written extensively about couples who had gone to Portland to marry. And their editorial position was in favor of civil unions. Given those things, we figured they’d put it in.”

But three days after the women made their request, editor Sarah Jenkins called to say their announcement would not be published alongside other wedding and engagement announcements. A new policy, Jenkins told them, established since the announcement was submitted, reserves those pages for state-recognized marriages only.

We don’t have a policy, so we’ll just make one up that doesn’t make us look too bad.

engagement announcements for same-sex couples because “they can’t at this time lead to a marriage recognized in Washington,” Jenkins wrote in a column explaining the paper’s position.

This lesbian couple is only good for a story on a heated topic, but we don’t really consider them the same as ourselves. And we don’t want to stick our necks out too far even though we’re the only new paper for miles we don’t want people to get angry when we treat everyone fairly.

“The conversation kept coming back to the point that these were not legally recognized in Washington,” said Bob Crider, Yakima Herald-Republic managing editor. “We’re not an arm of the state, no. But until the state figures out what it wants to do, we felt comfortable with the position we took.”

We just blame the state for not being progressive so we don’t look bad to the gay community and the saw-toothed rednecks in the area won’t burn crosses on our lawns.

The paper offered Newall and her partner and other gay couples the option of publishing announcements as paid advertisements in the “Celebrations” section.

We realize your money is as green as any that comes from a heterosexual, so if you want to pay us for discriminating against you that’s fine with us.

Newall and Vuillemot — insulted — called that “separate but equal” treatment. “We felt it was discriminatory, since the only weddings not legally recognized by the state were same-sex marriages. We felt that what they were telling us was that we were newsworthy but not worthy of being treated as human beings.”

An increasing number of newspapers in recent years have been publishing announcements of same-sex commitment ceremonies and civil unions. Many added wedding announcements last year after gay marriages were legalized in parts of Canada.

About 245 newspapers around the United States either run same-sex union announcements or say they would be willing to do so if asked by a local resident, according to the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

And while papers of all sizes are grappling with the issue since thousands of gay couples have wed in Canada, Portland, San Francisco, New York and New Mexico, smaller publications are having a harder time because many still run wedding and engagement announcements for free. It wasn’t that long ago that newspapers struggled with another gay issue — whether to list partners’ names in obituary notices.

“I don’t know anywhere where marriages are being performed legally,” said Rowland Thompson, executive director of the Pacific Northwest Newspaper Association, which represents newspapers in Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Washington and British Columbia.

In a conversation earlier this week, he said he’d not heard from member papers on the matter. “This whole thing began in anarchy. It’s a cultural war, and as a newspaper I can see where you’d not want to get in the middle of it.”

Kelly McBride, ethics faculty member at the Poynter Institute, a St. Petersburg, Fla., school dedicated to teaching and inspiring journalists, said that by publishing these announcements, newspapers aren’t making a statement about the legality of gay marriage.

“There are a lot of people about whose marriage we may raise an eyebrow,” she said. “But we don’t disenfranchise them from the paper.”

She said papers need to make sure they are applying the same standard to everyone who wants to announce a wedding: If they ask for legal proof of marriage from gay couples, they must ask that of all couples — a practice not in place at the Herald-Republic.

McBride recalled the decision a few years ago by the Spokesman Review in Spokane, where she worked at the time, to separate same-sex unions from other wedding announcements. “The editors decided (same-sex union announcements) would not be treated equally, they would put them under a different heading and they would not get a photo.”

McBride said she argued about the historical significance of what the paper was doing: “There was a time when other people also could not get access to those very pages: people of color and in interracial marriages. Given that, we should err on the side of equality.”

Ok what she’s saying is good, but “people of color”? I guess only the transparent people were treated as humans. I don’t care if it’s the latest politically correct phrase. It sounds stupid. White and off-white are colors too damn it!

The Seattle Times and Seattle Post-Intelligencer this summer will launch sections that will include paid wedding announcements. Because the idea was conceived before gay marriage licenses were issued, advertising officials need to evaluate how same-sex wedding announcements will appear, Times spokeswoman Kerry Coughlin said.

Meanwhile, at The Oregonian in Portland — ground-zero for recent legal skirmishes on gay marriage — all paid wedding announcements, from gay and straight couples, run together in the Celebration pages of the paper’s Living section.

Advertising Director Dennis Atkin said the announcements, which the paper began running less than a year ago, are for any couple with a legal bond: “If a couple wants to pay for it, we’ll run it,” he said.

Commitment ceremonies and civil unions are listed separately.

At the Wenatchee World, in Central Washington, editors are trying to come up with a policy nearly two months after a local gay couple requested a wedding announcement.

Ken Robertson, executive editor of the Tri-City Herald, said his paper had the outline of a policy a few weeks ago when a local gay couple asked to announce their wedding. Marriage notices from gay couples are listed under a separate heading — “Announcements” — from those for traditional unions, which are listed under “Weddings.”

Robertson said the two men withdrew their request after learning their announcement would be treated differently. “We understood their concern,” Robertson said. “We were trying to address reader concern that these aren’t officially weddings, since state law doesn’t recognize them as such.

“This is clearly a hot-button issue here and in every town in the country.”

From the CNN web site:

SEATTLE, Washington (AP) — A cargo worker whose photograph of flag-draped coffins bearing the remains of U.S. soldiers was published on a newspaper’s front page was fired by the military contractor that employed her.

Tami Silicio, 50, was fired Wednesday by Maytag Aircraft Corp. after military officials raised “very specific concerns” related to the photograph, said William L. Silva, Maytag president. The photo was taken in Kuwait.

Silva declined to identify the Pentagon’s concerns but said Silicio violated company and federal government rules. He declined to comment further.

Silicio said she hoped the photo of the 20 flag-draped coffins awaiting transport from Kuwait to the United States would show the relatives of soldiers killed in Iraq that civilian and military crews return the remains of their loved ones with care and devotion.

“It wasn’t my intent to lose my job or become famous or anything,” Silicio said.

Silicio’s husband and co-worker, David Landry, was also fired, but the company gave no reason for his dismissal.
Under a policy adopted in 1991, the Pentagon bars news organizations from photographing caskets being returned to the United States, saying publication of such photos would be insensitive to bereaved families. Critics say the public is being denied information by not being able to see photos of coffins coming back from Iraq.

OH jeezzus-F**king-christ!! It’s not like she graffitied, “Your son lies here” on the caskets!!! or used a double exposed picture of whatever was left of a soldier that stepped on a mine and the 20 some coffins…like I would do if I could.

I find it interesting that the pentagon policy was only adopted in 1991.

Silicio took the photograph in a cargo plane about to depart from Kuwait International Airport earlier this month. She sent the photo to a stateside friend who provided it to The Seattle Times, which then obtained permission from Silicio to publish it without compensation.

The photo appeared in the center of the newspaper’s front page in its Sunday’s editions, along with an article on the war in Iraq and a feature on Silicio’s job in Kuwait. It was then posted on Web sites and has been widely discussed on the Internet.

The Times reported Thursday that its decision to print the photograph was supported in most of the e-mails and telephone calls it has received.

Executive Editor Michael R. Fancher wrote about the decision to print the photograph in his weekly column in Sunday’s editions and he appeared Wednesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America” with U.S. Rep. Mike Castle, R-Delaware, who supports the Pentagon ban. Delaware is home to the military mortuary at Dover Air Force Base, where all remains first arrive in the United States from overseas.

“Some will see the picture as an anti-war statement because the image is reminiscent of photos from the Vietnam era” of caskets with casualties arriving in the United States, Fancher wrote, “but that isn’t Silicio’s or The Times’ motivation.”

Don’t publish the picture. People might start to think declaring war on a sovereign nation for no reason is wrong when they realize that soldiers; including our own actually die when we play world dictator.

Driver protests bring down racy billboards

MATT MISTEREK; The News Tribune

For one Edgewood resident, a pair of billboards that recently sprouted along state Highway 161 were an eyesore that crossed the centerline of public decency.

“Harder, faster, louder,” the lettering declared under the bare backs of three attractive women, a black censor bar covering their rear ends.

“It was just distasteful to drive by and see that,” said Steve Cope, who was in the car with his wife and two of their six children the first time he saw the billboard. “It’s like something you’d see on a magazine with a black plastic cover on the front.”

But for the radio station manager behind the signs, they are a sight for sore eyes - an advertising campaign that perfectly expresses the high-octane personality of one of the Puget Sound area’s mainstay hard-rock stations.

“The reality is, there are a lot of guys in their 20s and 30s who love them,” said Dave Richards, manager of KISW-FM. “There are a lot of people who look at them and say, ‘That’s cool. I get it.’”

If there’s one thing Cope and Richards can agree on, it’s that the billboards are effective at making people look - and look again.

“It absolutely catches people’s eyes,” Cope said.

But no longer in Edgewood.

The two billboards at the highway’s intersection with 36th Street East and 18th Street Court East were taken down early this week after Edgewood City Manager Henry Lawrence asked KISW to respect the sensitivities of a few complaining residents.

The city has little regulatory control over billboards on the highway because they predate Edgewood’s incorporation in 1996. Both Richards and Lawrence said the sign removal was simply the result of a cordial conversation.

Richards said he first received a call from Cope, which he regarded as threatening and ignored. But he later took a polite call from the city manager, whose wishes KISW decided to respect.

“We’re not going to start a war over two billboards,” said the manager of the station, which brands itself “The Rock of Seattle” and broadcasts the unapologetically raunchy “Howard Stern Show” weekday mornings.

Highway 161-Meridian Avenue East is at once the spine and the heart of Edgewood. It carries the bulk of the traffic that moves through the city - more than 17,000 vehicles a day. But it also symbolizes the divisions between the pro-growth property owners who want it widened to five lanes and the slow-growth residents who want to preserve their quiet bedroom community.

Billboard advertising along the highway might seem like a relatively small matter, but the city is gradually gaining control of it. In 2002, the City Council passed a sign code that prevents any new billboards from being built and puts the others on schedule to be removed by the end of 2007, Lawrence said.

“There will be a public notice process about three years from now,” he said.

Nationally, the movement to control billboards began about 50 years ago during the highway beautification crusade led by first ladies Mamie Eisenhower and Lady Bird Johnson. Washington was one of 16 states to voluntarily comply when it was still optional, said Pat O’Leary, outdoor advertising coordinator for the state Department of Transportation.

Today, there are varying degrees of sign restrictions depending on whether a road is an interstate, a primary highway or a scenic highway. The state regulates structural features - size, shape, illumination, spacing - but it rarely bans the content of a sign unless it promotes illegal activity, O’Leary said.

It is a patchwork approach with some obvious gaps.

On the Puyallup Tribe’s unregulated reservation land, for instance, billboards are clustered along Interstate 5 - including the flashing video screen north of Fife, which wouldn’t conform with state law.

“You can’t miss them,” O’Leary said. “They are two or three times larger” than what’s allowed elsewhere.

Highway 161 also is unregulated north of the Puyallup River bridge to where it connects with Highway 18, including the entire stretch through Edgewood.

O’Leary said this week’s billboard removal in Edgewood is a good example of the industry policing itself and showing responsiveness to the people who live there.

As one of those residents, Steve Cope is relieved that he won’t have to divert his children’s eyes from what he considers an overstepping of the First Amendment.

“That really crossed the line,” he said.

Meanwhile, the KISW ad campaign rocks on with well over 100 billboards in the Puget Sound area, including in Fife and Tacoma’s Nalley Valley. There are three variations of the signs, each with three local KISW “Rock Girls” exposing heavy-metal tattoos.

Richards, the station manager, downplays the sexual imagery.

“The ‘harder, faster, louder’ is not about the girls,” he said. “It’s about the music.”

This is ridiculous I’m sure the six children of these people have seen just as much skin and sexual imagery on a beer or shampoo commercial. Herbal Essence comes to mind…with a woman moaning as if she’s having an orgasm.

These don’t have nearly as much skin as something you’d see on a magazine with a black plastic cover on the front…I wonder if he plans on protesting Playboy when his kids find his stack of magazines. Here are the - oh so racy billboard pictures…

What the hell do people think they’re protecting their kids from anyway? Why is nudity such a horrible thing? I find it strange that between birth and nine months kids are attached to their mother’s breast and all is natural and beautiful. Once the kids are old enough to ask questions it’s all bad and evil.