BETTIE PAGE, 85

Legendary pinup. Died Thursday night in Los Angeles, where she had been on life support since a Dec. 2 heart attack.

The Los Angeles Times reports:

"Bettie Page captured the imagination of a generation of men and women with her free spirit and unabashed sensuality," said Roesler, chairman of the Indianapolis-based CMG Worldwide, who was at Page's side when she died. "She was a dear friend and a special client and one of the most beautiful and influential women of the 20th century."

A religious woman in her later life, Page was mystified by her influence on modern popular culture. "I have no idea why I'm the only model who has had so much fame so long after quitting work," she said in an interview with The Times in 2006.

She had one request for that interview: that her face not be photographed.

"I want to be remembered," she said, "as I was when I was young and in my golden times. ... I want to be remembered as the woman who changed people's perspectives concerning nudity in its natural form."

The best way to be remembered.

WIKIPEDIA MONKEY BUSINESS

Someone within the Department of Justice wants to mess with our heads. A typist using an IP address belonging to DoJ made edits to an article about the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, also known as CAMERA.

The scrubbed info: How CAMERA was trying to "cooperate with prominent Wikipedia editors to promote a Zionist viewpoint and oppose pro-Arab viewpoints on Wikipedia."

The Wikimedia Foundation has been all over the story. According to this report from mister-info:

After the IP address belonging to the DOJ was blocked, Wikipedia editors informed the Wikimedia Foundation's Communications committee about the incident. Both Wikinews and Wikipedia are projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. In addition to the DOJ IP address, several Wikipedia users determined to be cooperating with the CAMERA campaign to influence Wikipedia had also previously been blocked by Wikipedia administrators.

Wikinews requested a statement from the Department of Justice on the edits to Wikipedia, but as of this article's publication had not received a response.

The (for now) anonymous DoJer also made edits to articles about Tracy Jordan, Roger Ebert and James E. Akins.

The DoJ address was blocked for "repeated vandalism," but someone else in D.C. is also making the same edits to the CAMERA article. Nice to know CAMERA is a government front, and we always suspected there was something odd about Roger Ebert. But Tracy Jordan? Maybe the Black Crusaders are real.

AN AGONIZING COLLISION

Say this, if nothing else, about the current administration -- it really does create its own reality. Not as tasty as making your own gravy (unless you believe Nick Lowe was right about that whole cruel-to-be-kind business), but it's fascinating to watch. Almost funny in a macabre way, until you realize it's happening in the United States.

Thursday's New York Times rolled with a deep, detailed story about the redefinition of torture by this country's leaders. The skinny: Congress outlawed “cruel, inhuman or degrading” treatment of prisoners. In a legal opinion, the U.S. Department of Justice agreed. But in a secret opinion, Justice said things like waterboarding, sleep deprivation, sensory overload and blows to the head are not cruel, inhuman or degrading.

Problem solved. Secrecy preserved -- until The Times opened a few windows so all of us can see what the government is doing in our names.

Do yourself a favor, if you haven't already. Read the story and go from there.

BUNCHA DINKS

In Merlin, Ore., the Udink family has been stripped of its identity, thanks to bureaucrats with no sense of reality.

The Udinks have been ordered to turn in their vanity license plates because their last name could be viewed as offensive.

The Associated Press reports:

The plates, UDINK1 UDINK2 and UDINK3 are on the vehicles of Mike and Shelly Udink and their son Kalei. Two of the plates are five and seven years old. One was issued last year.

Last summer, Kawika Udink's application for UDINK4 was rejected and the state ordered that the other three plates be returned.

"DINK has several derogatory meanings," Yvonne Bell, who sits on the Department of Motorvehicles panel that approves vanity plates, told the Daily Courier newspaper.

DMV spokesman David House and Bell said the word can be treated as a verb, which gives it a sexual reference, and also can be a racial slur targeted at the Vietnamese.

Udink is a Dutch name. Hope the Hardik family doesn't have vanity plates.

BELIEF OR BIGOTRY?

Or both? Ted Doudak, president of Riva Jewelry Manufacturing in Queens, N.Y., reportedly quoted the Bible around the office. One of his employees, John Fairchild, said Doudak talked about gays and lesbians being "repulsive."

One day, Fairchild mentioned that his daughter is a lesbian -- and by the way, he's gay. The next day he was fired, Fairchild said.

Fairchild sued. A judge ruled that he can quiz Doudak about his religious beliefs. The New York Daily News reports:

Fairchild's lawyer, William Kaiser, sought to quiz Doudak about his religious beliefs before trial, asking if Doudak "believes that 'homosexuality is a sin against God' ... believes that 'gays and lesbians are doomed to eternal damnation' ... [or] regards homosexuals as 'repulsive.'"

[Doudak's attorney, Todd] Krakower said that being forced to answer those questions would violate Doudak's First Amendment rights, and Fairchild would try to use Doudak's beliefs as proof he intended to illegally discriminate.

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Carol Edmead last month ordered Doudak to answer, saying no one can use their right to religious freedom "as a cloak for acts of discrimination or as a justification of [discriminatory] practices."

Doudak has every right to his beliefs. He just can't use them to discriminate against another human being.

For a unique perspective from historians on gay discrimination in the U.S., click here. It's not as age-old an issue as you might think.

BRENT WARD, PORN CRUSADER

Brent D. Ward is 61. He's married, with seven kids.

He thinks pornography is one of the country's biggest evils. That explains why he's the leader of a Bush Administration task force within the Department of Justice. The group's sole purpose: Enforce federal obscenity laws.

In Ward's mind, "enforcing" the law means crushing all sexually explicit businesses in the United States. He acknowledges the futility of his actions:

"We're not going to prosecute it away, but it's important, I think, that Americans see their government trying to do something about it."

A profile in the Salt Lake Tribune reveals Ward's ultra-prude personality:

While practicing law and serving on the board of Utah Citizens for Positive Community Values, Ward fought for a state law aimed at strip clubs that would have required dancers, as well as art class models and others, to wear at least a bikini. The Legislature never passed it.

Many normal adults use porn for arousal. Ward and the prude patrol use power to get off.

'INTELLECTUAL DIVERSITY'

Emily Brooker's 15 minutes of infamy are surely up by now, but the former Missouri State University student refuses to give up the spotlight.

Brooker testified this week at a hearing in Jefferson City for something called the Emily Brooker Intellectual Diversity Act, a piece of legislation that bastardizes the meaning of "intellectual" and makes a mockery of "diversity."

Brooker, as you probably remember, sued MSU after claiming her "Christian beliefs" were being trampled (she refused to write a letter to state lawmakers, voicing support for gay marriage). The university quickly settled the claim and cleared Brooker's academic record. The head of the social work graduate program stepped down from that post but continues to teach at MSU.

Republican lawmakers pushing the Brooker Act swallowed a load during the hearing. A News-Leader account of the meeting included this claim from witness Mindy Ellis, an Ozarks social worker:

"(Another professor) made several statements leading several students to believe that a good social worker must engage in a homosexual act at some point."

Where are the "several students," when was the statement made, where's the proof that this is anything more than an outrageous lie?

But that's the way the radical right operates in Missouri and across the nation. Throw out a spectacular claim, rely on the media to report it without skepticism, and then point to the ensuing media frenzy as proof that there's more to the story than smoke. This, by the way, is the only time they like the media -- when it does their bidding. The rest of the time it's the liberal media and you can't trust anything they say.

(The radical right likes to shout a lot about discrimination against Christians, a major point of Brooker's beef. Last we checked, Christians accounted for 85 percent of the U.S. population. That's more than 224 million people, and they much rule the national roost.)

The radical right's other specialty is wordnapping -- stealing perfectly decent words and twisting them into something contrary to truth. Take "intellectual diversity." Under the Brooker Act, it's defined as "the foundation of a learning environment that exposes students to a variety of political, ideological, religious, and other perspectives."

C'mon. Do you really believe they mean it? A "variety" would include perspectives from across a broad spectrum. Brooker and her supporters in the Missouri General Assembly want to squelch perspectives that differ from their point of view. They're pushing for less diversity, not more. That's anything but intellectual.

RFID CHIPS AHOY!

Who needs privacy when you can get a tracking tattoo? Computer Weekly has the story:

A US company has launched a chipless RFID (radio-frequency identification) Ink that can be used to track both animals and humans.

Visible or invisible Ink "Tattoos" can be applied to the skin and tracked by RFID readers positioned a few feet away.

The company, Somark, said it had successfully tested its Biocompatible Chipless RFID Ink product.

Most troubling is the fact that some people will think we need this.

TALK, OR WE ARREST YOU

If a police officer stops you and asks where you're going, do you have a right to say, politely, "It's none of your business"?

Apparently not, at least in St. Louis. Brett Darrow, 19, was detained as a drunken-driving checkpoint because he declined to tell an officer where he was going. Darrow's answer: "I don't wish to discuss my personal life with you, officer."

That was enough to get Darrow ordered out of his car and detained for about 12 minutes. According to this write-up in the Newspaper.com, billed as "a journal of the politics of driving," Darrow videotaped the encounter, and has a transcript of the stop:

Darrow is considering filing suit against St. Louis County Police.

"I'm scared to drive for fear of being stopped at another checkpoint and arrested while doing nothing illegal," Darrow told TheNewspaper. "We're now guilty until we prove ourselves innocent to these checkpoint officers."

On that late November night, videotape confirms that Darrow had been ordered out of his vehicle after telling a policeman, "I don't wish to discuss my personal life with you, officer." Another officer attempted to move Darrow's car until he realized, "I can't drive stick!" The officer took the opportunity to undertake a thorough search of the interior without probable cause. He found nothing.

When Darrow asked why he was being detained, an officer explained, "If you don't stop running your mouth, we're going to find a reason to lock you up tonight."

The threats ended when Darrow informed officers that they were being recorded. After speaking to a supervisor Darrow was finally released.

Was Darrow being a smart-ass? Probably. Did he make the cops feel uncomfortable, even angry? Probably. Are we living in a free country? With stories like this, that's up for debate.