UPDATED Below

Yes, you read that right.  Yawn.

To clarify that, yes I think it was insensitive.  But I am not surprised, shocked or outraged, any more then I have been by several dozen other outrageous and insensitive things South Park has done in the last year or two.

The background here, for those not aware, is that South Park recently had their Halloween show and it featured Steve Irwin, the recently deceased naturalist and star of the Crocodile Hunter show, in hell with a small sting ray poked into his bleeding chest.  Here are the essential elements of the story:

Oh my god, South Park mocks Irwin

The South Park episode called Hell On Earth 2006, which was broadcast in the US this week, shows Satan preparing to host a Hallowe’en fancy dress party.

Hundreds of dead celebrities are invited, including rapper Notorious B.I.G., Princess Diana and Hitler.

But at the party Satan receives complaints from his guests that someone is inappropriately dressed up as Irwin.

Satan confronts Irwin but the Aussie environmentalist protests it is really him, not a guest in a costume.

Come on people, this is South Park we are talking about.   The section in which Irwin is lampooned is actually a small bit, and is not the basis of the episode, not that that justifies it, but it is good to keep it in perspective.

But again, this is South Park, and they make a routine business of shock and skewering sensitivities.  I don’t even watch the show regularly, and I get it.  South Park makes its central and core philosophy that there are no topics untouchable where humor is concerned, no politically correct categories or topics that are off limit.  No Sacred Cows.  And they have succeeded in being clearly and consistently unfair to everyone.

Religion?  Chirstianity, Catholicism, Islam and even Scientology:  All have been terribly treated.  Homosexuality? Yep.  Individual stars and politicians?  Yep.  Countries?  Very much so.  Vietnam vets?  Hunting?  Gun control? All the above.

Read the list of celebrities lampooned, and you will se a completely who’s who of pop culture, all impersonated without permission, badly.

Jim Webb, for the uninformed,  is the congressional candidate who is under attack over his writing, where he uses images that many believe to be pornographic, sexist and generally socially repugnant.  Interestingly, at least one of the books at the center of the maelstrom is also endorsed by many prominent politicians.

So apparently he must have some talent even if he does take it in directions people object to.

Well today he proved it.

He was speaking at a rally and made a statement that was a wonderful work of fiction.

Webb: Democrats will provide Iraq remedy

The only remedy to a series of Iraq policy failures by President Bush is a Democratic takeover of Congress in the Nov. 7 election, Virginia Senate candidate Jim Webb said Saturday.

Speaking concisely, I think he is full of it.  The democrats so far have not suggested in any way that they have a better solution.

Be clear:  I am more then a little unhappy with the leadership we have in Iraq.  I think our country has done a lot of good, but has also misjudged the situation and made some mistakes.

But the only two policies that have seemed to have emerged from the campaign trails of the democrats is immediate pullout and a time line for pullout.

Immediate pullout is the most foolish choice of all:  It would be telling the terrorists that all they have to do is make it uncomfortable for us and we will run; it would leave the Iraqis in a terrible state, much worse then the sectarian violence now, it would be a full scale civil war;  It would be a complete breach of responsibility to complete the job we started.

And an open time line just gives the terrorists a schedule and motivation to wait for us to leave to do their worst efforts.

In my opinion, the insurgents may be motivated by anti American hatred, but they are also motivated by returning Iraq to a non democratic state.

I took a slightly different tack on the whole Dixie Chicks debacle.  When Maines shot her mouth off in Europe it didn’t particularly offend me.  Yes, I thought it was a stupid point to make, but I am somewhat jaded to Hollywood people doing the same (relentlessly), so seeing a group from Nashville do the same was a big yawn.

In other words, I just noted it as status quo.

Moreover, I am a firm believer in free speech.  I served for over a decade in the Air Force, and in a sense, I did so to give people like her the right to speak her mind.  I may disagree, and I may think she is an idiot, and I will obviously express that (as I just did), but I also have to give her license to be an idiot.  The fact she was in Europe made it a bit more stupid to me, but I don’t believe free speech stops at the border or the international dateline, and again, there is not a particular lack of people talking trash there.

In the initial blast, I felt some of the backlash was overboard, but heck, that is more freedom of expression isn’t?  Her fans had every right to vote with their wallets.  They eventually expressed their regret, and I thought it was a done deal…until the new album came out, and they opened all the cans of worms up again by unapologizing and declaring they were not ready to play nice.  That to me was stupid as well.

Personally, I think they like the controversy.  Their new movie seems to rely on it, and this latest issue with their ads being refused is clear proof that they are as interested in playing to the public on this as they are to making a point.

We start with the reports about the ad refusal via Drudge:

NBC REFUSES ADS FOR DIXIE CHICKS MOVIE

In an Ironic Twist of Events, NBC and The CW Television Network Refuse to Air Ads for Documentary Focusing on Freedom of Speech

I do not have the video to post here, but Hot Air does.  She was appearing to promote her new kids book and was asked about many other issues including the waterboarding issue and Jim Webb’s counter attack on the sex book issue, where he uses her in defense.

She takes Wolf to task over CNN showing the sniper videos (videos showing snipers shooting American soldiers from the sniper’s POV)

Her comment is one that I wish more people would ask, in all corners, arenas and positions:  Do you want us to win?

I think in the rush to polticize the war we need to take a pragmatic look at it.  We are in it.  All the the whining about why is moot. 

So do we want to win it or lose it?  I think there is potentially more benefit to all if we win.  But that is me.

One other thing I will point out is that Webb using her as his excuse is weak for two reasons.  First she is not a political candidate, he is.  His actions are more likely to be held to that higher standard.  The other resons is her supposed lesbian references were fleeting at best, according to all excerpts I have seen.

What he wrote may be useful for judging character, but it is a weak "October Surprise" at best.  That anyone is harping on this at all is just the media in a feeding frenzy.