January 28, 2012

Reporter challenges State Department official to explain how the U.S. Constitution gives Jay Leno the right to make fun of religion.

State Dept. spokesperson Victoria Nuland is grilled about a Jay Leno joke that has offended Sikhs. Here's the joke, which targets Mitt Romney:



The joke-writers probably did a Google image search for something like "fancy palace" without realizing that the glorious image they retrieved depicted a site revered to the exclusion humor.

I love the way Nuland keeps a fully dignified straight face as she encounters the challenge from the Indian reporter:
VIDEO.
As I conlawprof, I find this line the most amusing:
"As India celebrates tomorrow the Constitution Day of India, I have the copy of the U.S. Constitution, and it doesn't say anywhere anything that anybody can say anything or abuse or accuse anybody's religion."
Much funnier than a Jay Leno joke.

I also think it's interesting that CNSNews — which conceives of itself as an antidote to liberal news bias — seems to fault Nuland for citing, in her response to the reporter's question about the U.S. Constitution, the "freedom of religion and tolerance for all religions" but not the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Obviously, Jay Leno has a free-speech right to mock religion and to label the Golden Temple Mitt Romney's summer home. (Maybe Nuland fretted about whether Leno had violated the photographer's copyright.)

Should Nuland have boldly celebrated the American free-speech tradition or was it appropriately diplomatic to murmur assurances about respect for religion?

86 comments:

Meade said...

Send Biden.

PfMoen said...

When will a "mainstreet" entertainer make a joke about the SCOAMF? That would be news.

Ann Althouse said...

"When will a "mainstreet" entertainer make a joke about the SCOAMF?"

"SCOAMF" isn't funny. Jokes have to also be funny. That's the part you're forgetting.

MayBee said...

they retrieved depicted a site revered to the exclusion humor.

Is this a legal term?

pm317 said...

Religious guys everywhere get offended easily.

Jane said...

Well, look, it's not about whether she adequately defended the constitution. It's that, if she didn't reference the first amendment right prohibiting censorship of the press, then she didn't answer the question.

Carnifex said...

"Scoamf" isn't a joke, it's an accurate description.

But as to the story, I just love how denizens of third world hellholes try to criticize America, using rights guaranteed only in America. Sort of like the CAIR ass wipes.(another accurate description, the scoamf comment was a joke), or Amadidn'tdoit at some liberal simpleton school that invites dictators to preach to us how mean we are to them.

I guess it would have been offensive for the state department rep. to tell the reporter to chill out, have a hamburger with an untouchable, and worry about the next Bollywood hit.

Mark O said...

I'm not so certain. SCOAMF could catch on. It was funny when Fieldish Melling said "It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham."

"He's a failure. He's miserable. He' a stuttering failue. He's . . ."

Work with me, people.

But, to be sure, our State Department is funny, and not funny, ha-ha.

Sorun said...

I'm sure the State Department gets these whiny complaints from foreigners all of the time. Her job is to douse small fires and placate, not try to explain the Constitution to people who wouldn't understand it.

Mary Beth said...

A facepalm would have been a good response. Not diplomatic, but appropriate.

SGT Ted said...

The reporters question smacks of the ways Islamists delegitimize criticism of Islam by claining that freedom of religion demands that Islamic prohibitions against critiquing Islam be honored by secular authority.

Bender said...

Should Nuland have boldly celebrated the American free-speech tradition

There are a lot of folks in government, academia, the law, etc. who seem to think that freedom of speech does not apply to religious figures. That is, expression of religious ideas, etc. is not protected by the Freedom of Speech Clause.

You see this, perhaps most often, when someone tries to suppress the speech of a person wanting to convey a religious message, as for example, schools preventing students from speaking about or even mentioning God at a graduation or other event.

Should Nuland have boldly celebrated the American free-speech tradition or was it appropriately diplomatic to murmur assurances about respect for religion?

It's not an either/or proposition. Rather, it is a matter of both/and.

Tank said...

As Holder would say, we're a nation of cowards. It's sad that she could not explain to him, very nicely, that we believe, and the constitution explicitly protects, freedom, including the freedom to say (most) anything you want.

TWM said...

"Religious guys everywhere get offended easily."

True, but only one religion that I know of gets a statement from a State Department spokesperson - over a joke no less.

It's also the one religion today that routinely threatens to kill, and then follows through on those threats quite often, for offending its followers. And as is the case here, it's the one religion that routinely gets its ass kissed by out current administration.

ErnieG said...

The first thing that crossed my mind when I saw the headline was the First Amendment to the Constitution. Victoria Nuland's failure to cite the First Amendment is more than a simple lapse of memory. It's deeper than that. The Obama Administration, of which she is a part, simply does not hold does not hold the Constitution in high regard.

X said...

she should have just walked over and pointed to the part of the constitution he was looking for. I thought the government was there to help.

Bender said...

As for the response of the "freedom of religion and tolerance for all religions," I don't know what Nuland said in full -- I'm not going to go spend my time watching some video, rather than simply quickly reading a full quote -- but I can envision how the government having "tolerance for all religions" can quickly turn into government enforcement of "tolerance" for all religions by prohibiting private citizens from disrespecting other religions. That is, I can envision the government showing "tolerance" to Islam by trying to institute dhimmitude.

pm317 said...

TWM said...
----------

The reporter and the State department are NOT talking about Islam. They are talking about Sikh religion/temple in India. Sikhs have not threatened to kill anybody as far as I know.

edutcher said...

Keep in mind, this is Hillary's State Department saying this.

When she Pledged Allegiance to the America That Is Yet To Be, this is the kind of freedom she had in mind.

Maybe GodZero was the better choice.

Which doesn't say much for the Democrat Party.

pm317 said...

Religious guys everywhere get offended easily.

Which is why Catholics, Jews, and Southern Baptists regularly riot in all of our cities.

phx said...

From this clip I don't think you can tell because the first thing Nulan says is "Again, you" etc etc. So it seems we're in the middle of a discussion and we don't know what was said before.

But correct me if you know different.

JAL said...

We can appreciate that your country has a constitution.

While people can purposefully and inadvertantly offend and even insult others by language and beliefs, the intent of the US Constitution's Bill of Rights is to protect what we see as the natural right of people to liberty and property. This includes the individual freedom to worship, to speak, to write and commnicate -- the press, to gather together and to petition the government without penalty.

While the State Department understands that some things that are written and said in the United States, whether jest or not, can be taken as offensive, it is not the United States government's responsibility or desire to limit the freedoms that our country was established to preserve and protect and which are guaranteed in the United States Constitution.

Welcome to America.

?

It would have been nice if Ms. Nuland had been able to turn that into into a somewhat more elegant and accurate teaching moment.

So, Professor, how would you have responded if you were in Ms. Nuland's position?

Craig said...

If the picture had been of the Mormon Tabernacle it wouldn't have been a joke.

Bender said...

And if the Obama regime really did care about "freedom of religion and tolerance for all religions," then it would not be trying to compel the Catholic Church to violate its teachings by using its funds to provide contraceptives and abortifacients to people, or require that, as part of its services to victims of human trafficking, that they take those victims to abortion clinics; or require that the Church include in its adoption services the placement of children with same-sex couples or other situations that are contrary to Church teaching, not to mention the best interests of the children.

"Freedom of religion and tolerance for all religions"????

This is the most ANTI-RELIGION Administration in history.

pm317 said...

Which is why Catholics, Jews, and Southern Baptists regularly riot in all of our cities.
----------

which is why Newt is getting big applause when he talks about Christianity under attack..

Throw in some poverty and illiteracy you too will have riots soon. {Actually, I take that back -- if you had the diversity India has, you would not survive.}

Sorun said...

Whenever I refresh Althouse, that stoopid CNS flowplayer thing starts running. Annoying.

JAL said...

Rabbit trail:

Sikhs have not threatened to kill anybody as far as I know.

While generally this is resoundingly true (note the generally and the resounding ... nice, huh?) Indira Ghandi was assasinated by 2 Sikh members of her body guard in 1984 -- in relatiation for an attack on the Golden Temple.

There is/was a Sikh separatist movement and the allegation was that the Golden Temple was being used to store weapons and foment rebellion, so Indira Ghandi sent in the troops.

IIRC it got a bit messy in India after that with the Sikhs and several thousand were killed.

Mark O said...

Wasn't the Mormon Tabernacle made of wood and built in like 1850 or 60? Could have used the Vatican.

Obama is not a fan of free speech.

David R. Graham said...

Safari sees 34 coding errors in center of this post, mostly JavaScript. Blanks that part of post. Ipad2.

"Religious guys everywhere get offended easily."

No, religious guys everywhere are the only guys who are not offended by anything.

Taking offense is an attack posture. Religious guys never attack, but they do on occasion counterattack. The quoted statement is an attack, an offensive act from an offensive posture.

Indians are the next leader cadre in this country, already rising fast. Indian language and culture, which are one and the same, are the prototype of American language and culture, also one and the same.

Indians are bumptious from a mix of insufficient self-confidence, pride of scholarship and class-ism. They also are the only nation acknowledged to have defeated the Red Army. (USA defeated the Red Army in Korea but is not acknowledged to have because State Department convinced President to pull the punch, voluntarily making armistice out of victory.)

Microsoft would not exist without Indians.

Rabel said...

Maybe he had an abridged version without the amendments.

Hey looky here, the Sikhs and Mormons have more in common than I knew:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaccha

Matthew said...

Something I had drilled into me during high school: Being a dick is sometimes perfectly legal and allowable. You are, however, still a dick.

JAL said...

Some placcs I have worked in recent years have an employees handbook which the employees are expected / required to read.

I even have had to sign a statement that I read it, and that I was responsible for knowing what it said ... i.e. I couldn't say later I didn't know I was violating policy or breaking a rule if it was in the handbook. (When they were several volumes it was a bit of a joke for everyone.)

But -- I think it would be a good idea to require employees and representatives of the United States government (especially focusing on the State Department and the DOJ) to READ the US Constitution and be familiar with the Bill of Rights and maybe even a amendment or two. I mean -- 5 minutes?

Maybe even have them take a little test thing, like what they give new citizens, on the US Constitution, in particular the Preamble and the Bill of Rights?

Now that would be radical.

edutcher said...

pm317 said...

Which is why Catholics, Jews, and Southern Baptists regularly riot in all of our cities.

which is why Newt is getting big applause when he talks about Christianity under attack..

Throw in some poverty and illiteracy you too will have riots soon. {Actually, I take that back -- if you had the diversity India has, you would not survive.}


Hmmm,

Last I looked the only people rioting are the Lefties.

PS Notice how the Lefties, who always "know so much" about other countries are always telling us how inferior we are to them?

JAL said...

@pm317 Actually, I take that back -- if you had the diversity India has, you would not survive.

India has a very very bloody history of riots between Muslims and Hindus and Christians (though the first two are more likely to focus on each other, and the radical Hindus go after the Christians.) This occurred even when I was there and since. Doesn't make the western press unless it is very bloody.

One can start a riot in India with very very little provocation.

traditionalguy said...

If your religion rejects and attacks others who fail to bow and scrape before your all powerful god...then your god(s) ain't all that powerful after all. They is only as strong as your swords that cut off comediens heads.

I thought Leno was very funny, showing a palace worthy of a god's dwelling place to represent the Capitol of Capital complete with a Goldman-Sachs Wing, Bain bans proclaimed against all opponents, and braille signage to help the Blind Trustees find the way to Switzerland.

Kevin said...

Indira Ghandi was assasinated by 2 Sikh members of her body guard in 1984 -- in relatiation for an attack on the Golden Temple.

Also, Sikh extremists bombed an Air India flight from Canada to Britain in 1985, killing 329.

Not to worry, making fun of certain religions in the United States is increasingly problematic, and will soon be banned. (Imagine if Leno had used the Grand Mosque in Mecca instead of the Golden Temple.)

Craig said...

bane   [beyn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a person or thing that ruins or spoils: Gambling was the bane of his existence.
2.
a deadly poison (often used in combination, as in the names of poisonous plants): wolfsbane; henbane.
3.
death; destruction; ruin.
4.
Obsolete . that which causes death or destroys life: entrapped and drowned beneath the watery bane.
Origin:
before 1000; Middle English; Old English bana slayer; cognate with Old Norse bani death, murderer, Old Frisian bona murder, Old Saxon bano murderer, Old High German bano slayer, bana death; akin to Old English benn, Gothic banja wound

edutcher said...

The bloodletting in India goes back to the Moslem invasion and their long oppression of the Hindus, of which the Sikhs are something of an offshoot.

We haven't got that kind of history (unless you count the Irish and the Know Nothings), so this is more for PC purposes of speech suppression than anything else.

PS Merci, Madame

Ann Althouse said...

"So, Professor, how would you have responded if you were in Ms. Nuland's position?"

If I were in her position, I'd be a completely different person, with an entirely different orientation. I am impressed by how well Nuland handled it, and watching her, I fully understand that I do not belong in a job like that.

madAsHell said...

"They warned me not to google SCOAMF."

...but I did it anyways, and stumbled across Hitler, and the YouTube video. It's the funniest Hitler meltdown video I've ever seen.

"King Putt!!"

"Clusterfuckery!!"

"he couldn't answer his telephone without a teleprompter"

I'm sure I overlooked a couple of lines, but over good stuff!!

Jeff with one 'f' said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ann Althouse said...

I think it's appropriate that she did not extemporize about free speech in the broadcast media. She doesn't know offhand what policy the administration might want to pursue with respect to broadcast media. Perhaps they would want the FCC to apply pressure with respect to speech that disparages particular religions. The stations are licensed by the federal government. Obviously, free speech rights are important too, but how could Nuland opine on the fly?

ic said...

The Sikhs can always do an Islamist jihadist rant to quiet the faint hearted.

When they came for our racist jokes, we fired the jokers; when they came for our Islamist jokes, we hid under the rocks; when they came for our Sikhs jokes,...

Leno, like all jokers, should stay with white male, Christian jokes.

Tim said...

Bannister's point (the report is fairly cryptic, so I'll presume his point) is that the First Amendment explanation is the only explanation necessary. Furthermore, by failing to explain Leno's First Amendment protections on this point, Nuland missed what Liberals like to call a "teaching moment."

Anyway. ""SCOAMF" isn't funny." Indeed. It's tragic.

Let's all hope enough voters have learned their lesson, that electing the least-qualified man ever nominated for president by a major party, an affirmative-action beneficiary, an Illinois state Senate back-bencher who had no legislative accomplishments of note, was somehow remotely worthy of their vote for president.

But I'm not optimistic. People that stupid usually aren't smart enough to learn from their mistakes. I desperately hope I'm wrong.

Hagar said...

There is no need to bring the Constitution into it.

Just pointing out the silliness should be sufficient. No one would have thought twice about it if they had used a picture of, say, the Vatican.

madAsHell said...

SCOAMF has 4 entries on urbandictionary.com, and those are funny too!!

I love it when I surf here, and learn so many new things!!

Bender said...

Perhaps they would want the FCC to apply pressure with respect to speech that disparages particular religions.

Like I said, there is this odious strain of thought that religious-oriented speech is not protected by the Freedom of Speech Clause (unless, of course, the target of the disparaging speech is one of the disfavored groups, in which case hate speech is practically obligatory).

Ann Althouse said...

"Like I said, there is this odious strain of thought that religious-oriented speech is not protected by the Freedom of Speech Clause (unless, of course, the target of the disparaging speech is one of the disfavored groups, in which case hate speech is practically obligatory)."

My comment doesn't imply that at all. It implies that the FCC in reviewing licenses might take into account whether the station is serving the public interest. It's not this one official's role to make that policy or to assume that if the policy were made it wouldn't satisfy the First Amendment. Even if that is her informed and strong position, it's not her role.

Ann Althouse said...

When I said "particular religions," I did not mean some religions as opposed to others. I meant targeting any particular religion.

PaulV said...

Leno was also the tool who joked about Down Syndrome children by joking about Obama's Portugese Water Head puppy. Obama laughed.

pm317 said...

JAL said...
-----------

You seem to know more about India than many on this board and I am curious to hear your opinion. I come from there and I know its history and I also am very well aware of what goes on there day to day. People here have no idea of how diverse it is and how it is held together to the extent that it does. Oh hell, it is a fucking democracy and people here can't seem to appreciate that much either. You don't hear the positive stories because nobody cares how it works as long as it works.

{This Indian reporter and the Punjab protest is a non-story. It is as much of joke as Leno's.}

JAL said...

@ Bender -- check out
The Anchoress
for updates on the Federal Government stripping religious groups of their rights to exercise their relgion.

The recent SCOTUS slap down of the Obama EEOC was refreshing. (The one involving the Lutheran church -- Hosanna something -- in the upper midwest.)

Holder filling the DOJ with far left radical lawyers (check their vitas) is appalling.

So actually no surprise there that a clear and refreshing articulation of the United States' commitment to protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness defined in the Bill of Rights could not be made by the State Department's spokesperson.

JAL said...

Actually she could have just said "Take a number."

Or gigggled and said -- "Have you heard the one about the priest, the rabbi and the minister?"

"Next question..."

wv explent
Nuland explent American humor to the reporter.

Bender said...

It implies that the FCC in reviewing licenses might take into account whether the station is serving the public interest . . .

. . . by taking into account the religious content of the speech and making content-based decisions.

Kirk Parker said...

"Sikhs have not threatened to kill anybody in the US as far as I know."

FIFY. They (or, rather, a cultish subgroup of Sikhs) did have quite a run of it in India not too long ago.

Fr Martin Fox said...

I think she should have explained the First Amendment. Perhaps the President would have been listening in.

BTW, if Leno had shown the Vatican, no one would have been offended. Few would have laughed, I might add; it wouldn't have worked.

Pogo said...

One might suggest the First Amendment, certainly.

I'd favor the Second here.

Rabel said...

In her press briefing two days earlier Nuland did extemporize and handled it well, I think:

QUESTION: What is the U.S. Government’s stand on it? Will you address this? Will you go along with Jay Leno or will you – (laughter) --

MS. NULAND: Well, I think that Mr. Leno would be appreciative – I hope he’ll be appreciative – if we make the point that his comments are constitutionally protected in the United States under free speech, and frankly, they appear to be satirical in nature.

But from a U.S. official Government perspective, we have absolute respect for all the people of India, including Sikhs here, there. President Obama was the first president ever to host a celebration in honor of Guru Nanak Dev Ji, who’s the first Sikh guru, for example. And our view is, obviously, that Sikh Americans have contributed greatly to the United States.

Mary Beth said...

Leno, like all jokers, should stay with white male, Christian jokes.

1/28/12 11:07 AM


He was. The joke was about Romney. That picture was chosen for the building's beauty and grandeur, not to make fun of it.

MayBee said...

President Obama was the first president ever to host a celebration in honor of Guru Nanak Dev Ji, who’s the first Sikh guru, for example.

That's not helpful. His party for a Guru has nothing to do with the US Government's stance on religion. Do we have less respect for the religions that a US President has not had a party for?

TWM said...

"The reporter and the State department are NOT talking about Islam. They are talking about Sikh religion/temple in India. Sikhs have not threatened to kill anybody as far as I know."

Oops my bad, I misread and thought it said Shi'ite. My point still stands however as this administration coddles radical Islam. And yes, I know we drone the hell out of the Taliban, but in overall policy administration officials are quite accommodating to radical Islam.

I'll also point out the Sikhs have a history of violence and terrorism.

DADvocate said...

It seems the Tenth Amendment applies here, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Making fun of religion is neither delegated nor prohibited, thus reserved for the states or the people. People in this case.

I wonder, too, if the writers had any idea what the image represented. On the other hand, had Leno used the Vatican City in a similar joke, we all would have laughed and I seriously doubt any Catholic reporter would have asked such a stupid question.

There is not power in the Constitution prohibiting being offensive, nor right to not be offended. It's good that way and being offensive needs to be a protected right.

Chip Ahoy said...

The logic is so skewed that you wonder how people get on. There is no good place to start.

"Congratulations on your Constitution Day. I am very interested. Does your Constitution have a Bill of Rights?" How does it compare to ours? Does your constitution protect outrageous speech?"

Rabel said...

Following up on the guru "celebration", it appears that one was held in 2010 and again in 2011 at the White House. (It's sort of like the Sikh Christmas.)

Obama did't show up in person for either. "Host" means whatever the hell they say it means.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

The correct answer is Nothing in the Constitution gives Jay Leno the right to make fun of religion. What the first amendment does is prevent the government from interfering with the natural right that Jay Leno already had.

While part of the state department's job is to avoid unnecessary conflict with other countries, another part of its job is to advance American interests, including American ideals, around the world. This was a teachable moment.

Chip S. said...

I would presume, this exchange being on video and all, that the whole thing was intended for domestic consumption back in India, where the things people take offense at are part of the political facts of life to be taken into account.

It might even be the case that the State Dept. official understood that.

JAL said...

@ Rabel 12:17

Nice catch, Rabel.

That's more like it.

Maybe someone could forward it to the reporter?

JAL said...

Of course, in closing (I must do some real work today) the point wasn't the religion, the point was *making fun of Mitt Romney.*

I guess that was seriously lost on the reporter.

Sigh. Everything is not all about "me/us" all the time. Or even most of the time.

cubanbob said...

The spokesman simply could have replied you have your constitution and we have ours.

ken in sc said...

I know Sikhs. I talk with and interact with them on a regular basis. Our governor was a Sikh. I don't think many of them are offended by this joke. It would have been funnier if he had used a picture the temple at Salt Lake City or the Vatican, but there's nothing wrong with using a picture of the Golden Temple.

pm317 said...

They (or, rather, a cultish subgroup of Sikhs) did have quite a run of it in India not too long ago.
----------

Yeah, there was that. It was politically motivated and directed at the Indian government as they wanted to separate. But by and large that has subsided. Indian army has a large percentage of Sikhs. What killed Indira Gandhi was her order for the army to enter the golden temple where many secessionists were hiding and blood relatives ended up fighting on opposite sides.

pm317 said...

It would have been funnier if he had used a picture the temple at Salt Lake City or the Vatican,

But they are no way near as grand as the Golden Temple. Sikhs should feel flattered that they have such a grand and beautiful structure to fit Leno's joke.

pm317 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fen said...

Wake me when Leno speaks truth to Islam.

Fucking coward.

MayBee said...


Obama did't show up in person for either. "Host" means whatever the hell they say it means.


Funny, Rabel!

I had a friend who was invited by Kathie Lee Gifford to a party at Kathie Lee Gifford's house. Then KLG informed her she wouldn't actually be at the party.

Maybe it's something the ultra wealthy do.

Kirk Parker said...

ken in sc,

Your statement is a bit ambiguous. Your current governor is from a Sikh family, but she herself is following that grand American tradition of separating religion and ideology from ethnicity and locality, and now identifies as a Christian. (Same path as her co-South-Asian governor, Jindahl.)

Scott M said...

It's been a while since I've had me any learnin' on that there Constitution, but I'm pretty sure it's silent in regards to what will or won't get an Indian reporter's panties in a twist.

themightypuck said...

If the FCC can fine you for fucks and boobies because they cut against our cultural standards I can understand why a foreigner with different cultural standards might be confused.

themightypuck said...

Take the same joke but trade Hermain Cain for Mitt and trade a hot pair of naked D cups for the golden palace. Jay will get little protection from the constitution.

Ralph L said...

Throw in some poverty and illiteracy you too will have riots soon. {Actually, I take that back -- if you had the diversity India has, you would not survive.}
But Diversity is Our Strength!
Don't they preach that in India?

We solved our original diversity problem by giving our Indians small pox, whiskey, and lead.

Cedarford said...

I liked the Leno joke. It may have had some sly religious overtones but people wouldn't have laughed if a boxy McMansion belonging to some Democrat or Republican billionaire Sugar Daddy was shown as Mitt's summer home on Lake Winipessaukee.
The Golden Temple, the Taj Mahal, Versailles, one of Saddam Hussein's or Shelly Adleson's palaces - thats funny!

Gary Rosen said...

"one of Saddam Hussein's or Shelly Adleson [sic]'s palaces"

Except that nobody knows who the fuck Shelly "Adleson" is other than sweaty unhinged Jew-baiters like Fudd.

Kirk Parker said...

Well, that lets me off the hook, 'cause I don't know WTF Shelly A. is either!

wv - hamula - what Dracula likes in his sandwiches.

John McCrarey said...

"I think it would be a good idea to require employees and representatives of the United States government (especially focusing on the State Department and the DOJ) to READ the US Constitution..."

Actually, they do. When I worked for DOD, we had to take and pass an online course on the Constitution. It was always done in conjunction with Constitution Day.

JAL said...

Actually, they do. When I worked for DOD, we had to take and pass an online course on the Constitution. It was always done in conjunction with Constitution Day.

Who knew?

Or maybe that should be "Who would have guessed?"

Of course the DOD does seem to take things like the Constitution seriously.

Ken said...

"SCOAMF" isn't funny. Jokes have to also be funny. That's the part you're forgetting.

Is it not funny because they guy you voted for turned out to be a SCOAMF? SCOAMF jokes can be funny (still funny, even after all the others before it) if you do them right and the person listening isn't all tied up due to the fact that she's partly responsible for that SCOAMF. Particularly one who blogs constantly about politics, but insists her blog isn't a political blog.

SoulStraw3 said...

As far as “vile” groups are concerned, one need look no further than a blog wherein the term “SCOAMF” is used in reference to the President of the United States ignorantly used by Dog Fellaters and Retarded racist bigots scumbag hicks!