Dear Mr. Donohue:

I learned of the Dana Jacobson-ESPN controversy on the website of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. I cheered you when, on January 22 of this year, you demanded that ESPN admit or deny that Jacobson had said, “F*** Jesus.” (Even in that redacted form the words are an abomination. I will hereafter refer to it as “The Epithet.”) I agreed with you that her perfunctory apology to Notre Dame was inadequate and that ESPN, in order to “put this issue behind them..must deal with this issue quickly, publicly and fairly, something it has yet to do.”

I agreed with you to such an extent that I posted on www.michnews.com a short essay in which I expressed my reaction to Jacobson’s tirade.
(http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_19132.shtml)

I applauded the next day when you insisted that ESPN release the video, which they admit they have, of Jacobson’s despicable behavior (I am not referring to her drunkenness, which is not despicable, simply boorish). And I was encouraged when you ended by saying, in a display of conviction and determination, “One way or the other, we are going to get to the bottom of this.”

Imagine my surprise when, on January24 I visited the League’s website and found that you and ESPN had kissed and made up. You dropped the whole issue (pardon my recourse to a cliché) like a hot potato! You informed your readers:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

I am happy to say that after speaking to two ESPN officials today, and having learned more about exactly what happened, that they are in fact taking this matter seriously.
…
The ESPN officials whom I spoke to answered the questions I had to my satisfaction.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

As if your happiness were what mattered! As if ESPN’s seriousness or lack thereof were the issue! And as if we were worried about YOUR satisfaction!

Before you left the field, you blessed Jacobson, absolving her from her bigotry and saying she merely “went off the rails at a raucous event.”

Were the issue not so serious; had Jacobson merely slurred Notre Dame’s football program instead of Our Lord; your sudden and abject collapse would be amusing.
Given the situation, it is pathetic.

I have some questions. Do you still believe (as you implied you believed on January 22 and 23) that ESPN’s refusal to admit or deny that Jacobson uttered The Epithet, and its refusal to make public the video of her remarks convict her and ESPN?

Why did you drop your demand that ESPN resolve this matter “publicly,” and grant them your absolution after private conversations, the contents of which you refuse to divulge?

Will you explain to your readers exactly how ESPN satisfied you? Was it by showing you the video? If so, why not tell us that?

Or did ESPN satisfy you by making a contribution to the League? If so, we can understand your not wanting to tell us that.

Very truly yours,

James F. Csank

P.S. For the record, this letter was faxed to the offices of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights on 1/25/08 approximately six hours before posting on www.michnews.com. Mr. Donohue corrected my error in spelling his name, but otherwise did not comment. JFC

I rarely watch ESPN. I find its coverage of sports to be highly biased in favor of New York, Boston, and Los Angeles; and what’s worse, it doesn’t even try to be balanced.
So I didn’t know until this morning who Dana Jacobson is. But like Kathy Griffin, she has attained instant fame by a little well-placed blasphemy.
Jacobson is a talking-head at the network. According to a story on WorldNet daily:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

Jacobson, reportedly intoxicated, was speaking Jan. 11 at an event in Atlantic City, N.J., to honor ESPN Radio personalities Mike Greenberg and Mike Golic when she unleashed a tirade, saying, "F--- Notre Dame," "F--- Touchdown Jesus" and finally "F--- Jesus."
(http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59838)

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

There was some backlash, of course, and ESPN took steps. It suspended Jacobson for a whole week, and made her issue an apology (of sorts) that reads in part: "My remarks about Notre Dame were foolish and insensitive. I respect all religions and did not mean anything derogatory by my poorly chosen words."
Sincere, ain’t it? The apology was probably written by the PR department at ESPN, who are apparently stupid enough to believe that such coarse and vulgar blasphemy can be whitewashed as “poorly chosen words.” What words would they have used to demean Christ and to insult all Christians? But I know I speak for all of us when I say how relieved I am to find that Dana respects all religions.

Notice that the apology makes no mention of Jacobson’s blasphemy of Jesus, only of her slur on the Notre Dame football program. Apparently ESPN reporters can insult religion or Jesus all they want, as long as they don’t say anything derogatory about a sports team. After all, football is sacred, Christ and religious beliefs are not.

You can also find on the internet another report of what happened at the affair. (http://deadspin.com/344450/dana-jacobson-has-the-sole-appropriate-reaction-to-the-mike-and-mike-roast)

< < < Q U O T E > > >

ESPN anchor Dana Jacobson made an absolute fool of herself, swilling vodka from a Belvedere bottle, mumbling along and cursing like a sailor as Mike & Mike rested their heads in their hands in embarrassment. [Comedian Eddie] Griffin came to the podium to defend her after she was booed by the crowd. Ross eventually had to pull her off stage, too.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

Jacobson is a class lady, isn't she?

My first reaction to the story was that Jacobson was not only a drunken bigot, but an ignorant drunken bigot. But I’ve thought about it, and now I think she isn’t all that stupid. After all, she didn’t say something REALLY outrageous, something that her employer and the culture wouldn’t stand for. She didn’t say, “F*** MLK,” for instance, nor did she say, “F*** Matthew Shepard.”
If she had said either of those, or something that demeaned another secular saint, we all know what would be happening. She would have been fired or at least suspended for months and demoted, and forced to take sensitivity courses to help her overcome her tendency to commit hate crimes. The president of ESPN would have appeared on television, shedding crocodile tears for the immeasurable harm caused by Jacobson’s thoughtless remarks, apologizing to blacks (or gays, or whatever) everywhere and begging their forgiveness, and pointing out that we ALL are at fault. We would be inundated for weeks, perhaps even months, with speeches, opinion columns, and editorials reminding us of the rampant bigotry in American society and our collective guilt.

No, Dana the Drunk was smart. She insulted Christ, which is okay in our culture.

Copyright 2008 James F. Csank
All Rights Reserved

This essay first appeared on www.michenws.com.

An Open Letter to the ACLU
(In-House Perverts Division)

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

(I emailed a copy of this to a number of ACLU offices,but have not received a reply. I wonder why!)

Dear ACLU:

As a firm believer in the sacredness of our Constitution (as interpreted by you) and in the wonderfulness of your work in supporting freedom for all mankind, including perverts, I hope you will take action to undo the injustice to Charles Rust-Tierney, an attorney who served as president of the Virginia chapter of your fine club until about two years ago.
Even though he pleaded guilty to one count of “receipt of child pornography,” anyone with an IQ exceeding 25 knows that his deviance entails more than just a few pictures or computer images. According to the right-wing fanatics at LifeSiteNews (who just don’t understand how freedom works) Charlie’s interests included “pornography including torture and sexual assaults on children as young as 6 (years of age).”

I mean, what’s the big deal? To each his own, right?

I’m sure you can find some reason to overturn his guilty plea. His attorney must have been unaware of the constitutional issues arising in the situation. Perhaps you can argue that everyone, even moral scum like Charlie, has a right to an ACLU attorney. (Or, wait a minute! Did one of your attorneys represent him? Do you have a policy on this? Is one of the benefits of working for the ACLU that you will provide free legal representation when an employee is charged with possession of child pornography? If not, maybe it should be.)

Charlie having pleaded guilty, you can’t very well argue that he was framed by conservatives or by George Bush or by Richard Cheney. What you should do, seeing that you have to accept the fact of his guilt, is educate the American people that watching others torture children for sexual pleasure is not only wholesome and fulfilling; it is a right guaranteed in the Constitution. The principle is: if you can’t defend the criminal, attack the crime.

Look hard, people! It’s in the Constitution somewhere. Have your young research assistants earn their money and justify their Juris Doctors with some innovative brief-writing. Choose your judge carefully. Surely there are judges, members or ex-officers of ACLU, who are perverts too, who will understand Charlie and sympathize with his hobby, and who will decide the case in your favor.

Good luck, and keep me informed of your progress.

James F. Csank

The Twentieth Century saw some historic criminal trials: O.J.; the Lindbergh kidnapping; Loeb and Leopold; Sacco and Vanzetti.
But what happened a few weeks ago in Worcester County, Massachusetts doesn’t have to take a back seat to any of those. There, in State vs. Cirignano, a forensic battle of epic proportions was fought.
To my knowledge, the trial has received no coverage in the major media. But the homosexual media covered it. My theory explaining the discrepancy is set out below.

In response to the Massachusetts Supreme Court dictating that “gay marriage” was a right residing somewhere in the state constitution, groups supporting normal marriage drafted a petition addressed to the legislators asking for an amendment to the constitution allowing the people to vote on the issue. Last December, supporters of the petition held a rally in Worcester. An opponent of the petition drive, one Sarah Loy, a member of the Board of Directors of the ACLU and a sensitive person, marched to the front of the crowd surrounding the podium carrying a sign reading, “No discrimination in the constitution." (These are code words used by the homosexual community, trying to protect a “right” conferred on it by a few liberal judges from being overturned by the people.)

Larry Cirignano, at that time Executive Director of Catholic Citizenship, approached Loy. According to her testimony, Cirignano demanded that she leave. He placed his hands on her shoulders, “pushing her backwards through the crowd for about five or six feet before she fell back onto the ground, landing on her side.” Cirignano claims he was trying to move Loy our of the way and the woman tripped over someone’s foot.

Offended by this discourtesy, Loy charged Cirignano with misdemeanor assault and battery. The trial occurred during the week of October 17, 2007 and resulted in the jury’s acquittal of Cirignano.
One witness said he thought Loy hit her head on the pavement when she fell, but if you click on this link:

http://massresistance.org/docs/events06/worcester_1216/index.html

you will see videos of the rally, including one showing Loy on the ground, talking to a police officer. Seconds later, she is on her feet complaining to the same officer as he tries to move her back to avoid further confrontations. You won’t see any blood; you won’t see Loy writhing in agony. You won’t see anything except---

Well, what will you see? What happened to Loy?
Did she break her leg? Did she have surgery? Were pins implanted?
Well, no.
Did she break her hip, necessitating painful and extended recovery?
Well, no, not that exactly, either.
Well, what then? Sprained her ankle, limiting her mobility for a week or so?
No
Twisted her ankle, limiting her mobility for three or four minutes?
Again, no.

What you will see is---Loy crying!
And whining.
Cirignano, the big bully, made her cry!
"(Loy) had burst into tears. She was clearly extremely upset and hurt,” said a witness. Well, upset extremely she may have been, but hurt not at all was she!
The tears explains a lot.
It explains, first of all, why the mass media ignored the trial during the past week. (We know of course why they are ignoring the trial’s outcome.) They prefer martyrs to liberal causes to be hurt, preferably killed, by conservatives and other un-American people who won’t kowtow to the moral authority of baby-killers and sodomites. Cry-babies just don’t cut it in the “I’m So Persecuted” Sweepstakes.
(Remember Shannon Faulkner? She was a major media star when a court ordered The Citadel, South Carolina’s famous military college, to enroll her in the [at that time] all-male school. She couldn’t take the physical stress of the program, and endured less than a week, most of which she spent in the infirmary before resigning, citing emotional and psychological abuse and physical exhaustion. After which, the media ignored her.)

Even though Cirignano is a Catholic, and had been an officer of a Catholic organization, the major media still won’t touch the story of a homosexual supporter being reduced to tears when she fell down and landed on her rump.
It explains also why the homosexual media, like Edge and 365gay, carried stories about the trial and Cirignano’s acquittal. Homosexuals like sensitive people. They like it when one of their supporters cries because someone looks at them cross-eyed. And they love it when the evil-doer gets away with his crime. They can wail and whine even more loudly and cry even more tears.
We can look forward to Loy’s filing a civil suit against Cirignano, Catholic Citizenship, the local bishop, and the pope, seeking recovery of millions for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Sensitivity is a wonderful thing. It makes the homosexual community and its supporters so superior to insensitive “straights.”
Like me.


Copyright 2007 James F. Csank
Fka Siger of Brabant
All Rights Reserved

This essay first appeared on www.michnews.com.

When I was in law school back in the ‘60s, a law publishing company used to send all second- and third-year students, free of charge, its “advance sheets” containing decisions by courts in the students’ home states. Nowadays, the company provides students, free of charge, access to its computer research programs.

It’s a very effective merchandising technique. When the students pass the bar exam and start practicing, they buy the company’s books and the up-date services, and subscribe to the expensive computer programs, because they are familiar with them. Thus begins a commercial relationship that may last forty or more years.

I can’t help thinking that this kind of marketing is part of the reason kids---and I do mean kids---are being encouraged to have sex at an earlier and earlier age. The Portland (Maine) School Committee recently approved a measure authorizing the dispensation of birth control pills and patches to students between the ages of 11 and 13. ( See the story by CNSNews.com Senior Editor Susan Jones, October 18, 2007.) At that age, girls should be playing with dolls, and boys should be playing with toy soldiers.
But wait a minute! I shouldn’t have written that. My suggestion violates the tenets of the rabid feminists. According to them, anything is better than little girls playing with dolls, and boys playing at soldiers, including their having sex with each other.

Portland’s policy regarding pills and patches does not break new ground. It merely widens the sphere of freedom for the children, since “condoms have been dispensed to students since 2002.” Maybe the condoms weren’t working. More likely, in today’s belief that all must be treated equally, the makers of the pill and the patch felt that their wares were being discriminated against, and they demanded equality of opportunity.

The Portland School Committee’s policy will make a lot of people happy.

Planned Parenthood will be happy: its baby-killers will have a whole bunch of new clients.

The manufacturers of birth-control devices will be happy; their products will be distributed to middle-schoolers, who, a few years from now, will buy them on their own and will do so for many pleasure-filled years to come.

But there will be a lot of misery, too. Maybe not right away. But soon.

The children will eventually be unhappy because their Disneyland of Sex will have consequences of which they were never warned. Many will contract deadly diseases and help spread these diseases to others before they die. All will learn to be selfish and irresponsible hedonists, living for the moment, unable to plan for anything past their next orgasm. Girls who are popular for a while in grades 7 through 12 will wind up abandoned, scorned, and lonely and passed over by the young men who want mature and loving relationships later on. Some eleven- and twelve-year old boys will be so emotionally devastated when they humiliate themselves trying to be adults that, when they mature, they will turn to sodomy in preference to a relationship with a woman.

Conscientious parents will be unhappy because they will have lost their children. They may try to teach them at home that life is more than pleasure, and that sex is more than having fun. But that message is subverted every day in schools and in mass entertainments; it is subject to ridicule and, in many places already, is prohibited by law.

And society will be unhappy, too. What all societies need to maintain their existence is that the younger generation learns self-discipline and self-control. The young need to learn the value of delaying gratification while working productively. They need to learn the value of family, of parenting, of mutual support, and of love for others. Instead, kids are being inundated with sex and violence, and being taught that they are entitled to what they want, when they want it.

Here’s how it works: first, you awaken the sexual drive earlier than nature intends, and then pander to it, keeping it aroused it with a constant barrage of sex and nudity on television and obscene lyrics in what passes for music. (Conscientious parents cannot even let their kids watch NFL Football games on Sunday afternoon because the commercials, especially those depicting “coming attractions,” are full of violence and sex.) You persuade kids that they are entitled to gratify their sexual urges, regardless of what their parents say. Then you teach the kids how to satisfy those urges with sex-ed classes, and you give them the toys to make it “safe” for them to do so. You teach them that sex is only a game, a pastime the only purpose of which is pleasure. And, for those situations in which the condom leaks, the patch doesn’t work, or the kids simply forget, you make abortion available to any girl (excuse the violation of Political Correctness; I should have said “any woman”) who needs one and wants one, with or without parental consent or even knowledge.

From the standpoint of the baby-killers and the pill makers, the wonderful thing is that the kids will do “the deed” over and over---and continue to buy condoms and get more abortions. The money will keep rolling in.
They call it freedom, but what it really is is a form a child abuse. It is the corruption of children for money. It is organized and constant; it is enforced by legislatures, city councils, and school boards; and it is protected by the courts, which have elevated it to a constitutional right.

And if someone should have the audacity to quote the Bible:


< < < Q U O T E > > >

But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.
(Matthew 18, 6)

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

you mock the messenger, and outlaw the message by statute or court decision because it is based on religious beliefs, and is therefore divisive and intolerant.

(As I write, this story comes from Stockholm, Sweden, October 23, 2007 as reported on LifeSiteNews.com:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

The government of Sweden has announced it will be banning any religious activities in schools except for those directly related to religion classes. It is also directing that in religious education, religious ideas must not be taught as though they are objectively true.
Swedish Education Minister Jan Bjoerklund told reporters that religious activity “can take place ... but only outside of coursework”. He said that teaching should “not be influenced” by religious beliefs.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

America is not far behind.)

Copyright 2007 James F. Csank
Fka Siger of Brabant
All Rights Reserved

This essay first appeared on www.michnews.com.