Friday, April 29, 2005

crouching toward Theocracy

A point I was sorta, kinda trying to make the other day, but I didn't really nail it on the head, but summed up well for me in the comments of this thread by commenter "Wild Monk":

Let's take a concrete example. Opposition to the current abortion policy is undoubtedly motivated, in large measure, by religious beliefs. By Aziz's reasoning, however, any attempt to change this policy in response to the demands of its (religiously motivated) opponents would necessarily be an illegitimate "alignment" of government and religion. Very conveniently, legislators must either agree with the pro-choice side or they are "theocrats" pursuing a "Taliban-style" oppression of innocents.

While my argument was limited to libertarians, the idea can (and should) be expanded to include liberals. Whenever a large segment of the population takes a stance that is supported by Christian churches in general, we hear the rallying cry that our country is on the verge of a theocracy. Despite the fact that religions are banned from public schools, and that religiosity is being threatened on every possible front. Is it a theocracy when a large segment believes similarly, yet there is not central governing power? Instead, merely many separate groups who feel the same?

Hypothetical question III

If it were determined that hard core pornography would turn a certain percentage of men into child abusers and rapist, should it be made illegal?

What percentage of child abusers and rapist do you think peruses hard core porn?

Thursday, April 28, 2005

Birth control pills for EVERYONE (in Quebec)

Now, is the time for a fisking. There is a link to the article in the title, but I do have the entire thing here. ON TO THE FUN.

Montreal — Teenage girls in Quebec can now get a prescription for birth-control pills directly from a school nurse or at a community health clinic, without having to see a doctor or seek parental permission.

The new policy is designed to make it easier for sexually active girls to access birth control, in the hope that doing so will reduce the abortion rate.

Well, it certainly will make it easier for them to have sex, now won't it? No parents, no doctors. WHAT a wonderful idea.

In young women under the age of 19, there are about 40,000 unwanted pregnancies a year in Canada, half of which end in abortion.

"This is a strategy to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. It's a practical solution to a real problem," Dr. Yves Lamontagne, president of the Quebec Order of Physicians, said in an interview yesterday.

He seemed bemused by the suggestion that some parents might object to teens having access to the pill without parental knowledge, saying public health must take precedent over morality. "Maybe we're more progressive here in Quebec, but we have to use our heads and acknowledge that teenagers are having sex," Dr. Lamontagne said.

BEMUSED? He's bemused that parents might be upset with this?? He's using his head, alright ... to look right up his ass ...

Gyslaine Desrosiers, president of the Quebec Order of Nurses, agreed, saying this is a health issue, full stop. " Young people, and girls in particular, feel it's easier to discuss sexuality with a nurse. . . . They want a conversation and practical advice."

YOu know what is REALLY easy? To talk to your friends about sexuality. Why don't we just make it so friends can proscribe birth control for each other???

Ms. Desrosiers stressed that nurses, like doctors, will only prescribe birth-control pills where appropriate. "This isn't an open bar. It's a consultation with a health professional."

Oh please ... it's not an open bar? What kind of standard are they going to use? Like if a girl comes in and says she is going to an orgie over the weekend, then obviously that would be inappropriate. But, if a girl is in LURVE and it's prom weekend, well, then let the contraception flow.

In Canada, unlike many parts of the United States, teens do not require parental consent to obtain birth control. In fact, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada recommends that anyone older than 14 be given a prescription, if it is medically appropriate.

And, for the above I am for the millionth time grateful to live in the USA.

But Mary Ellen Douglas, national organizer of the Campaign Life Coalition, said parents should be alarmed by the fact their children will have ready access to birth control in a school setting. "That this is given out without their consent, I think is outrageous," Ms. Douglas said in a telephone interview from Kingston, Ont. "They don't give these young people any credit that they control themselves."

AH, at least there is some rational thought up in the Great White North.

Decisions on whether parental consent is required for girls younger than 14 are made on a case-by-case basis, and that informal rule will apply for nurses as well.

I think my head just exploded.

About 1,000 Quebec nurses who work in schools, youth centres and community clinics will now have the power to prescribe birth-control pills. The change came about as the result of Bill 90, Quebec legislation that encourages health professionals to work in teams and share activities.

That "team" would be known as the "opposing team" from a parent's perspective.

Technically, nurses are being provided with a "collective prescription" from physicians. This is similar to the delegation of authority to pharmacists so they can prescribe the morning-after pill to women.

Francine Locat, a nurse at Montreal's Édouard-Montpetit High School, said the change is long overdue. "It's something we as nurses have wanted to do for a long time."

Lordy ... I hate to see what other things might be on their "do to" list.

Under the new policy, nurses can write a three-month prescription for a low-dose contraceptive, one with 35 micrograms of estrogen or less. To have the prescription renewed, the teen will have to see a doctor and have a gynecological examination, but that process will be facilitated by the nurse.

Teenage girls interviewed yesterday outside FACE (Fine Arts Core Education), a high school in downtown Montreal, welcomed the change, saying they would feel much more comfortable discussing sexual-health issues with the school nurse than having to make a doctor's appointment.

Well, if the teenage girls are happy, I guess I should be to, huh?

"It's easier," said 16-year-old Jasmine Arbour. "It puts us in a better situation."

It puts YOU in a better position? I would say it puts every teenage boy of Quebec in a better position, but I'm only saying ...

Abby Lippman, co-chair of the Canadian Women's Health Network, said the change in policy is sensible and good health practice. "The more readily available you can make birth control for women and girls, the better off they will be. . . . It's unfortunate this policy doesn't exist across Canada."

A refrain echoed by every teenage male in Canada, don't you think?

Dr. Lippman stressed that oral contraceptives are "just one piece of the puzzle. We've got to do a better job of sex education for boys and girls."

Yes, one piece of the puzzle indeed. How about, they hand out copies of Karma Sutra, and anal beads with those pills? That would make Quebec a truly enlightened province.

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Free Iraqi: Asking few questions makes a difference.

Ali's excellent blog explains:Free Iraqi: Asking few questions makes a difference.

After Saddam was toppled most Iraqis took a sigh of relief, "Now finally someone sane is going to run things here". They did think of America as a sane power totally replacing a mad one, at least for a while. I say they were relieved not just because they got rid of Saddam, as that meant incridible joy not relief. But It's been also a relief because it was scary to think that your fate is in the hands of an insane man while you can't do anything and you're not even used to such a huge responsibility.

But the Americans did not want to replace Saddam. They did not want to run things the way they wanted without sharing the responsibility with the people, even if they thought their management could fix things and even if this was for a transitional phase.
An iron evil fist was gone but it was not replaced by an "iron good fist" as many Iraqis wished, and things collapsed in a place that has been ruled with extreme force for decades when people were given freedom.

This is one of the main reasons why many Iraqis were and still are disappointed with America. No, these Iraqis do not hate America as most like to think, they're just disappointed with her for not fitting the image they had in their minds; the just tyrant that should've taken full responsibility for some time until they could find their own just tyrant who would make their life much better without forcing them to share a burden and a responsibility they never thought it was among their duties as citizens.

In the same sense, many Iraqis looked for the January elections to bring the long awaited Iraqi savior even if it meant many saviors not just one. They saw the advantage of multiple leaders/democacry and welcomed it but did not expect that these leaders would have so many differences and find a huge difficulty in agreeing on a common major goal.

h/t: Musings of a fat kid

Libertarian angst

I had this thought while i was out walking last night, and I'm not sure I can get all my thoughts out (because one can think MUCH clearer while walking a dog in the hood than when in charge of five fighting, yelling, playing complaining children.)

In the last few months, grumblings have been heard from some of the Bush voters. One major complain is that they are sick of the Religious right, and are threatening to take away their votes for the next election. They complain that the "Big Tent" isn't accommodating them. Well, I've got a few words for them.

WHAT the hell are you talking about? Is there some religious legislation going through that I'm not aware of ? Is that "Mandatory Prayer" bill going though? Is someone's Cinimax porn being pulled? Is Desperate Housewives being forced to change it's name to Repentant Housewives? Abortion is, apparently, about to return to the back alley. Yea, I know - Bush pulled the performance of Kid Rock for one of his inagural parties, and that was really repressive and all, but is it really such a big deal? Plus a ton of "card carrying" conservatives were critical of that move.

It seems to me, that the libertarians (and 9/11 Conservatives) can't even stand the debate regarding issues of morals. Such a conversation shouldn't even take place. What is so WRONG about a debate regarding declining moral standard on TV? I make a case, you make a case, then we come to a conclusion. What offends many of the above, it seems, is that the conversation even occurs. They don't even want to participate, and start screaming that they are being thrown out of the tent. Since when is a lively debate tantamount to kicking someone "out"? From my experience, the Republican "base" has differences of opinions on many issues. We don't walk in lock-step, never have. So, quit your whining.

Prison isn't bad enough

I've had this thought running through my head for a week or so. It started a few weeks back when that first girl disappeared from her home in the middle of the night. Then on the heels of that crime, another Florida girl is gone. It seems to snowball, and every other day you are hearing about children missing, and then found. Dead. This morning, I was awaken to the news that an 18 month old girl is missing from my own city. And, here's my thought. Prison just isn't a horrible enough place to outweigh the subhuman urges these men have. It's just, apparently, a risk they are willing to take, to get their rocks off.
So, I'm thinking we need to up the ante. Yes, I'm talking vigilante justice. These people cannot be reformed, and they obviously cannot control their urges. I say, after someone is convicted of kidnapping, sexually abusing, and then killing a child - we just drop them off into the custody of some ""parents." No chance of parole, so to speak.

Monday, April 25, 2005

I would post

I would post today, but yesterday's story is TOO BIG, so ... go read it.

Sunday, April 24, 2005

School Sex Abuse Scandal

From the front page of my local paper, The Detroit News, "State fails to stop teacher sex abuse." Not Catholic priests, but public schools teachers. Twenty-two men have been convicted, while 35 have been charge in the past 15 months ALONE. In just a little over a year. Thirty-Five men. And, I read through the charges, and they involve video taping of young boys in their locker room, or assault in a janitorial closet, or online solicitation of a minor (we're not just talking about a 24 year old teacher, taking on a young girlfriend.) In private conversations, I have been told that the rate of sexual assault by teachers on kids in school would make the Catholic scandal look tame by comparison, but I've never seen that uttered by anyone publically. I've never seen a story like this until this morning. To look at the numbers a bit, there were 4, 392 priests charged over a 52 year period. That breaks down to 870 (roughly) per state, with less than 2 charges per year (yea, yea, I know, there probably were some cases that didn't get reported, but most likely all priests that committed such acts were reported, and this number counts not the number of children assaulted, but the number of priests that were accused.) Two priests per state, versus 35 school employees. Do you think this is going to get the same sort of attention that the Catholic church scandal got? Are there going to be demands for the teacher's union to repair itself? Is it going to be vilified by EVERY talking head, and be the butt of every late-night talk show host? Is Letterman going to do a "Ten signs your teacher might be a pedophile" list?

I doubt it.

Friday, April 22, 2005


Five things I hate:

Extra piercing, tattoos - with a special place in my cold heart for tongue piercing. First of all -they are just plain ugly. Second, if there ever was a TREND, this is it. I always get a bit of enjoyment from people doing things that are supposed to set them apart, yet everyone else at the local coffee shops is doing the exact same thing.

People who home school for PRESCHOOL. I home school, and always have. But, it is trendy. What irritates me, are all these people who set out to home school their 3-year-old. Hello, but most people home school their preschooler. It also goes by the ever-popular term: "Parenting."

Ultra-competitive parents. This should just go without comment, because you know who they are, and if you are one.

TV- it's increasingly paining me. I hate reality shows. I'm sick of hospital shows, and law shows, and even mystery shows. The half-hour sitcom is DEAD DEAD DEAD. If it weren't for 24 and Brit Hume I could just disconnect the satellite. Which is why I hate it ...if there were absolutely nothing good on, I could say "goodbye" and sanitize my house. But, I'm teased by a few good shows.

How many do I have so far? Four? OK.

I know this is going to sound REALLY PC, but I hate SUVs. I hate that the neighborhood next to me is a SEA of SUVs despite the fact that there are snow plows the second a flake of snow touches the street, and that the terrain is about as rugged as a baby's but. And, that most of these families has a grand total of 2.5 kids, so they don't really need a HUGE GENORMOUS car (because it isn't the Cherokee's that are bugging me - it's all those freaking Escalades that really irritate me). I don't really care what people drive ... but when I see some of these SUVs pull up to a gas station that is selling gas for $2.50 a gallon, I just laugh and laugh and laugh. I'm evil that way.

Thursday, April 21, 2005

Lileks on Benedict

Far be it from me to point readers to Lileks, but heh:

To those who want profound change, consider an outsider’s perspective: the Catholic Church is the National Review of religion. You may live long enough to see it become the Weekly Standard. In your dreams it might become the New Republic. But it’s never going to be the Nation. And if ever it does, it will have roughly the same subscriber base.

H/t: Partisan Pundit

Tuesday, April 19, 2005

Benedict XVI

Andrew Sullivan here quotes the following:

"How many winds of doctrine we have known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking… The small boat of thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves – thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, and so forth. Every day new sects are created and what Saint Paul says about human trickery comes true, with cunning which tries to draw those into error (cf Eph 4, 14). Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and 'swept along by every wind of teaching', looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today's standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires." - Pope Benedict XVI, yesterday.

Sullivan doesn't greet this new Pope with welcome arms. In fact, he says the choice of this pope is " a full-scale attack on the reformist wing of the church. The swiftness of the decision and the polarizing nature of this selection foretell a coming civil war within Catholicism. The space for dissidence, previously tiny, is now extinct. And the attack on individual political freedom is just beginning." Well, gee, maybe the reformast wing is a "full-scale" attack on the Catholic church. I don't understand the sentiments of those who wish to "save" the Catholic church by changing it. If you change it, it is something different. Sullivan should go find himself a church that allows women priests and homosexual behavior if that is what he wants. I find it amazing that people expect the church to have the moral compass of a sail at sea.

Habemus Papam!

OH, I just have tears in my eyes over this- the whole event. Benidict XVI.

Monday, April 18, 2005

Yes, I know I said I was gonna plant some roses ...

But, I'll leave you with this from Ted Nugent at a recent NRA rally:

"Remember the Alamo! Shoot 'em!" he screamed to applause. "To show you how radical I am, I want carjackers dead. I want rapists dead. I want burglars dead. I want child molesters dead. I want the bad guys dead. No court case. No parole. No early release. I want 'em dead. Get a gun and when they attack you, shoot 'em."

ht: Alarming News

Hypothetical question II (there was another one a long time ago)

How can I blog today, when I have rose bushes to plant?

Friday, April 15, 2005

Hotel Rwanda

I just saw Hotel Rwanda yesterday. Excellent movie. Now, I have my opinions on the matter ... and I'm sure many of you could guess. But, I'm curious - what do YOU think we should have done in Rwanda?

Wednesday, April 13, 2005

AIDS and needle exchange

From "Common Sense for Drug Policy" :

Intravenous drug use accounts for the majority of HIV cases in China, Iran, Afghanistan, Nepal, the Baltic states, and all of Central Asia, as well as much of Southeast Asia and South America. In Russia, where there are now more cases of HIV than in NOrth America, as many as 80% of infections are attributed to injection drug use.

"A large body of scientific evidence suggests that nthe free provision of clean needles curbs teh spread of AIDS among drug users without increasing rates of addiction, " said the US Surgeon General. Needle exchanges have been endorsed by the AMA, the American Public Health Association, the National Academy of Sciences and the World Health Organization.

Despite these ringing recommendations, the State Department just sent a blunt message to the UN office responsible for drug education saying essentially: Shut up about needle exchanges or lose funding. Since the US is one of the major donors to the UN office on Drugs and Crime, the UN quickly folded. All references to harm reduction approaches are being deleted.

The New York Times summed it up: "Washington's antipathy toward needle exchanges is a triumph of ideology over science, logic and compassion. The United States should help pay for these important programs. If it cannot bring itself to do so, it should at least allow the rest of the world to get on with saving million of lives."

Ok ... now my first thought --- isn't intravenous drug use -like- bad for you? Wouldn't the added danger of getting AIDS -on top of the "it's a bad thing already" - contribute to efforts to keep kids off drugs??? Exactly what is the message when you say "Yes, drug use is bad, and could kill you, but if you use this nice clean needle, you won't get AIDS"? What are you saving them FROM? A long life as a junkie? I'm not exactly sure this is how I feel - but it was the first thing that came to me.

So ... discuss. Try to convince me it's a good thing.

Tuesday, April 12, 2005

Andrea Dworkin (1946-2005)

I was in college when I first learned about Andrea Dworkin, and her form of "radical" feminism. I was steeped in it myself. I was a pro-choice, pro-women, typical college female. I wore birkenstocks and patchouli. I never let my leg hair grow, so I guess I kept a bit of my dignity. But, what Dworkin wrote went a bit too far. Intercourse- male/female sex was rape. I just couldn't get my head around that. I eventually drifted away from my feminist ways (although I never abandoned my Birkenstocks) - and my husband BANNED patchouli from the house. I am 180 degrees from what I was as a feminist college kid - yet ... now I see the Dworkin did have some interesting things to say. She was violently against pornography - which makes her unhappy bedfellows with freedom-of-speech-liberals And, then there is this :

 I have a modest proposal. It will probably bring the FBI to my door, but I think that Hillary should shoot Bill and then President Gore should pardon her.
 The silence from other feminists in this country is deafening. There's no outcry against Clinton, there's no outcry against Hillary for fronting for him. I think a lot of feminists are very distressed and disappointed in him, but they don't want to say so publicly because many of them are connected to the Democratic Party. It's a problem. It was a problem when Bill Clinton threw poor women off welfare and used pregnant teenage girls as scapegoats as if they were causing the economic problems of our country. Clinton has good policies for middle-class women, but I don't think he has good policies for poor women.
 Male politicians' policies in respect of women are important, but sexual harassment is an issue, too. You don't say it's OK for the leader of your country to be having his cock sucked, by someone half his age, while he is in the people's house. Yes, the law says that if both parties are consenting, it's not sexual harassment, and it's not illegal. As far as we know, Monica was consenting, but I believe Clinton is culpable because I think he's guilty of exploitation. I care abut how men in public life treat women. Clinton shows a real callousness in what he was doing to someone who was just about his daughter's age.
 He may not have to resign, but I think he should and I think he will. I don't want him as my president. I think he's toast, I think he's done, I think he's outta there. And I'm glad about that. Most of my feminist colleagues won't be. They feel he's a good president and the country's in good shape, they feel he's a good guy. Yeah, he just did this one little thing that was wrong, but he's really a nice guy. Au revoir, Slick Willy.

What other feminist stood up against Bill Clinton? Ms. Dworkin, rest in peace.

Light blogging

As I enjoy the warmer weather, and try to get the kids to finish their school for the year (at this pace, though, we might not get a summer break.)

Friday, April 08, 2005

Vacation ?

Have some vacation time saved up? How about visiting the paradise that is Cuba? Home of 100% literacy and free healthcare ...

The Real Cuba

H/t: Babalu Blog

Update: This website has me transfixed ... this page shows Castro's health care system, with photos of "foreigner's hospitals" and those for cubans only. Un-fricken-believable.

Update II: the embargo myth

Update III: The site has a comments section - and there are a few very interesting discussions. This exchange has me riveted (sorry for such a long cut and paste:

I consider myself left-of-center in my politics, but to say that I defend Castro is quite a stretch.  What I cannot defend is a policy of an embargo that has provided Castro with the noose to choke his people.  I can say with determined certainty that if the embargo were to be lifted tomorrow, Castro's regime would begin to unravel.

(the site owner's response)Here I would have to disagree with you wholeheartedly. The reason Castro is choking his people is because he knows it is the best way to keep them under his totalitarian control. Castro knows that if you have to get up at 4 AM in the morning to start looking for food to feed your family, you’ll have no time to think about anything else, including finding ways to change the system. Castro has used the Ration Book (La Libreta) as one way of controlling the population.   Also, since the Cuban state is the only employer in the island, workers must obey Castro's orders or face the possibility of losing their jobs. That is why you see so many people participating in those marches in Havana and other Cuban cities. Workers and students are told where they need to be at a specific time, in order to be transported to wherever the demonstration is supposed to take place. Those who fail to do so and do not have a very good excuse, would be disciplined and they may even lose their jobs or their right to continue their education.
Are you so naive to think that Castro is going to allow the embargo to be lifted, unless it is lifted on his terms?   After all, he is the ‘máximo líder’ and he treats Cuba as his private farm and Cubans as his slaves. If the embargo is lifted, all those U.S. companies that are salivating at the prospect of having a well educated workforce of millions of slave workers that cannot ask for benefits, vacations, minimum wage, health insurance, right to strike, or anything else, and located only 90 miles from Florida, will go to Cuba and do business with Castro on his terms.  U.S. companies will pay Castro in dollars, he will pay his slaves in useless pesos and pocket the difference. This is exactly what he is doing now with all the European and Canadian companies that are doing business in Cuba. None of them are allowed to go to Cuba and place want ads looking for employees. They have to go to ‘Castro’s Employment Agency’ and sign a contract to hire the slaves through him.
Castro trades human beings, the same way other nations trade their national resources. If he needs to pay his Venezuelan partner, Hugo Chavez, for the oil that he is receiving, instead of cash Castro sends 2,000 doctors, 500 teachers, and 15,000 state security thugs to make sure that they do not defect.  When the USSR was subsidizing his regime, he was paying them by sending Black Cuban soldiers to die in the African ‘war of liberations’ where the Russians didn’t want to send their white children to die.  He even sent Cuban soldiers to protect American oil companies’ interests in South Africa and Angola, in exchange for $$$.
If the embargo is lifted, it would take only a few years for Castro to replace Bill Gates as the world’s richest person, but the Cuban people will not see any difference.  They will continue to be exploited, oppressed, without the most elemental human rights and their food will continue to be rationed.
Also, if the embargo is lifted, U.S. companies will be able to sell Castro on credit, instead of cash in advance as it is required now by law. And we all know that Castro doesn’t pay his bills.  All you need to do is ask the Canadians, the Spaniards, the Japanese, the Mexicans, the Venezuelans, etc. who have been dumb enough to sell to this crook on credit. So in the end, the American taxpayers will foot the bill for bailing out this corrupt and criminal dictator.
Is that what you want?

Thursday, April 07, 2005

Personality test

But a short one:

or Green

Merci, Mryna

Mryna Blyth in NRO responds to two books that have really irritated me lately -French Women Don't Get Fat and Perfect Madness. Both books, basically, attack American women. And this "attacked audience" has been buying the books in droves. Says Myrna:

In truth, both these books wildly over-generalize and make their much-hyped points based on the experiences and attitudes of small groups of elite women. Chic svelte Parisians, of course, not all French women are the ones who make sure they don’t get fat. And it’s not most American mothers, but a very few upper-middle-class moms whose religion of Motherhood makes them agonize over throwing the perfect toddler birthday party, complete with bouncy tent.

Now I, of course, would never generalize in the same way. That would be like my saying all French men lack courage on the battlefield. Or calling them, for example, cheese-eating surrender monkeys. No, Mireille and Judith, you Francophiles, I would never do that. Even if it might be true.

As I said, Merci, Mryna.


What I LIAR I am. I said I had something fun to blog about ...and then I come up with the big NOTHING. Oh well ... what can I say? Ceasarland did serve beer, and one thing lead to another. Let's just say, waking up in a playland with a hangover is not a memory I will cherish.

I think my oldest son drove me home - it's ok, he's 10.

(you know, of course, I'm joking.)

Update: they DID serve beer, but I rank drinking beer at a Ceasarland with swilling a 40 out of a paper bag. The kids had fun, and then we spent the rest of the day at a park ... it was play play play all day long. So - Springtime won out over blogging. Go figure.

Wednesday, April 06, 2005

Till later ...

I have something fun planned for later - if I can pull it off (don't get your hopes up, it's ain't THAT big.) But, ya'll will have to wait for my moderately entertaining thing until this evening, because I have a party to go to right now.

And, by "party" - I mean, I have to take the kids to Ceaserland to meet with their friends, drink way too much soda, and eat crappy pizza.

Woohoo. I wonder if they serve beer?

Tuesday, April 05, 2005

Married Priests?

This from an AP poll:

Sixty-nine percent of Americans and 60 percent of U.S. Catholics said the next pope should change church policies to allow priests to marry, while 25 percent of all Americans and 36 percent of Catholics said they preferred no change.

Most Americans, 64 percent, said women should be allowed to become priests, and 60 percent of the surveyed American Catholics agreed. Thirty-two percent of Americans disagreed, including 38 percent of Catholics

You know ... when that 69 percent converts to Catholicism, I might give a shit. As for the other 60% (the "Catholics" who say priests should marry, and women should be priests- two questions 1) which percentage are active churchgoers, and 2) why don't you to convert to another religion? Cripes. Catholic "lite." For shame.


Ace is being cruel, and threatening to quit. Since when is this a funny thing? Actually, it appears to be a bratty prank, but boy does it have people upset. Some things just aren't funny. People's emotions (or blogs) cannot be played with

I swear, when good blogggers go bad (and quit), I think they should wean us slowly ... you know, go down to a few posts a day ... then one . .. then one every couple of days. Allah quit pretty suddenly (although, if I remember correctly, he did go for spurts at the end.) Jeff is also moaning that it isn't as much fun. I can understand that, but what I don't understand is they disparagement of the whole "genre." Allah had some choice words (appearing in comment sections of other's blogs.) I suppose, perhaps, it's the nature of the 'quitting' beast.

Friday, April 01, 2005

When I die

I want to be buried hundreds of miles from my family, next to my ex-husbands family. And, make sure none of my family is invited. Yes ... make sure I'm put to rest by my inlaws and my husband's new wife and family. It's what I would want.

Riddle me this

As the discussion regarding WMDs in Iraq would appear to be over (it being accepted that Bush lied, people died, and all that claptrap) - a new report on Intelligence is released. NRO's James Robbins writes, regarding Iraqi's duplicitous behavior :

In more than one case inspectors would pull up to a site and be halted; surveillance would pick up vehicles being loaded in the back and hurrying away; inspectors would then be allowed in. What was being carted away so quickly? If nothing was there, what was going on? One theory behind the deception campaign was that it was itself a deception — it was not so much that Saddam had something to hide, but rather he wanted to make us think he had something to hide in order to deter us from attacking him. That rationale was clearly too clever by half if true, at least judging by the results. (It is better to act like North Korea and say you have nuclear weapons whether you do or not.)

But I don't buy that explanation. The deception campaign was too systematic, too thorough, in ways that went well beyond what would be necessary simply to generate suspicion. This activity continued during and after the war when it would make no difference. One case in point — an exploitation team went to check out an apartment in an otherwise unexceptional residential area that was allegedly being used as a WMD site. They arrived to find the apartment stripped. The floor tiles were missing, the walls cleaned, the plumbing fixtures gone, the pipes under the floors ripped out. This was not the result of looting — the apartment had been sanitized, disinfected. How many such sites could there have been in Iraq? Were they all found and checked? Strains of biological organisms that could be weaponized were found in a scientist's home refrigerator — how much such dispersal took place? Not to mention allegations that critical nuclear and chemical program components were taken to Syria, Iran, or Russia.

No one has proven that WMD never existed, but that stockpiles were never found. You cannot prove a negative. That Saddam didn't have huge caches of WMDS poised to strike is most likely true. That he was innocent of the allegation altogether, is most likely untrue.

Che chic

I soooo want this shirt. I can imagine me wearing it the next time I visit with my friend who so loved The Motorcycle Diaries. But, really ... it could be worn anywhere ... college campuses, liberal bookstores. The possibilities are endless.