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.

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.

I would post

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

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.

THAT Meme

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.

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

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.)

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?

Personality test

But a short one:

Reckoning
Murmur
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.

Liar

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

Link for Leo

For Leo, who seemed to doubt my claim of reports regarding rising obesity in Europe - a pfd report can be found here. The file name is "Euobesity", which I found kinda funny.

Some fun trivia I found there:

"In parts of Europe the combination of reported overweight and obesity in men exceeds even teh 67% prevalence found in the USA's most recent measured survey. Finland, Germany, Greece, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Malta all have overweight rates which surpass that of the USA."

"In the United States of America, obesity stands at 28% of men and 34% of women, although this rises to as much as 50% among black women, including a very significant component of morbid obesity"

(that must be because we are a racist society, huh?)

But, for the money, the most satisfying figure was on the rising prevalence of overweight children (ages 5-11). Leo was kind enough to take a swipe at our kids, leaving a nice comment about not seeing kids eating apples and riding bikes over here in the good old USA. It appears, though, that England and the USA are nearly neck and neck (the chart shows the USA ahead by a percentage point or so) as far as having overweight children. Huh? I guess they're not riding bikes over there as much as you thought??

Time Out

I'm taking a time out from thinking about Schiavo ... a little bit of Pride and Prejudice to cure the soul. Yesterday, it was West Side Story ... and let me tell you, as a grown woman, I've grown to appreciate that movie in a whole new light. By "light" I mean, tight @sses on those male dancers. Hubba hubba.

The all powerful Religious Right Marches ON!

From The Washington Times:

The Supreme Court yesterday without comment declined to reinstate an Idaho law that required girls under age 18 to have permission from their parents to get an abortion legally.
    The rejection marked the second time in as many months that the high court has declined to weigh in on abortion matters. Last month, the justices refused to reopen Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that legalized abortion nationwide in 1973.
    Yesterday's development effectively lets stand a ruling by San Francisco's 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to permit teenage girls in Idaho to have abortions without their parents' permission. The Idaho law allowed abortions for minors without permission only in cases of extreme medical emergency.

Yes ... fear us ... the all powerful RELIGIOUS RIGHT.

Next on the agenda? Teeneage girls will no longer have to seek parental permission to stay out after 11 pm. Developing.

Sigh

Between Blogspot being a PILL (loading is slooow), and the Terri Schiavo stuff, there has been very little blogging. As you can see, I still haven't figured out how to get my blogroll back where it belongs (it's on the bottom).

Honestly, I think everything to be said, HAS been said regarding the Schiavo situation. But, I can't simply "move-on", at this point, because she is still down there, dying. It consumes my thoughts.

Q and A from Canada

Matthew Good, Canadian, had some questions for America. And Alarming News had some answers. Not sure, but the following might be my favorite :

4) How come most of your citizens supported the invasion of Iraq? Is it because they didn’t have all the facts or because they just wanted to see someone pay for 9/11 and were open to suggestions?

See, it's the way you're asking the questions that is the problem. It makes you come off as really full of yourself and kind of hateful and it makes me want to be mean to you. I'm guessing you and your friends get a big kick out of the 'stupid America' shtick but someone needs to tell you: your obsession with us gets a little old. We supported the Iraq war for many, many reasons. If you haven't heard of them, it's because you've chosen not to hear them.

As they say ... read it all.

UPDATE: Leo, I did see your comment on Good's blog ... and FTR, my neck is not bigger than my head, thankyouverymuch. Didn't you read the report last week that many countries in Europe were on par with the US for fatties? Put down your anti-American prejudices for a minute, and maybe your thinking will clear up.

BEWARE; the Religious Right

I've been reading and hearing, ever since W's reelection, that the RELIGIOUS RIGHT is in control. The populous is under the thrall of the bible thumpers (of course, not the liberals, who take their anti-thrall medicine, and are the only ones able to avoid the zombie-like affects of the religious right's rhetoric.)

Anyhoo ... I want to do a little run down of the accomplishments of the ALL POWERFUL RELIGIOUS RIGHT:

...


Ok, moving right along ...

Terri Schiavo - still no feeding tube.
Abortion - check, still readily available up until delivery.
Pornography - still "protected speech".
Offensive TV shows - available every night.
Prayer in schools (edit) - not on this continent.
Boyscouts -those little bastards have GOD in their pledge, let's kick 'em out of every park and building we can.


Shudder ... yes, that Religious Right ... I feel like I'm back in Footloose.

Don't unplug me

Just FTR, if my eyes are open, and even ONE member of my family thinks they see a special glint in my eye - DON'T UNPLUG. I don't care if I can't scratch my ass, and I'm drinking Ensure through a tube in my tummy ... for me, even seeing how my kids will turn out will be worth it.

Unless, of course, they all end up in jail, or married to creeps. Then, feel free to turn everything off.

Don't mince words ...

If she wasn't a girl, I would just kiss Blue-Eyed Infidel. You have to read the whole thing, but I'll tease you so you do :

Now that I know that in America, many many people (mostly liberals) are totally fine with starving living things to death - specifically, living things with "rights", which would imply some sort of sentience or consciousness or soul but apparently that includes vegetables - I've been thinking of all sorts of practical applications of that belief.

Let's see. I have a dog named Sunny, as many of you know. I signed a contract at the pound taking responsibility for her and I clearly am her legal "next of kin." Now, it's very likely that some day, Sunny will have arthritis in her hips and legs, and she might eventually be unable to move around on her own.

So! Who knows Sunny better than me? No one! So you must take my word for it when I say that I "know" Sunny would not want to suffer from arthritis to the point that she couldn't even walk around. Really, she wouldn't. I am telling you.

So here's my idea to (1) save time and money, (2) to fulfill Sunny's "wishes", and (3) to enforce her "rights": when she gets to the point where the arthritis in her hips and legs is so severe that she can't even stand up and/or walk over to the food and water bowls....WE JUST LET HER LAY THERE AND DIE!!

It's fucking brilliant, I tell you.

It gets better ...

h/t - John at wuzzadem

A response to the demonstrators

From Husayn to those that question the war in Iraq in his blog Democracy in Iraq:

Iraqis see the finish line, the finish line of freedom and democracy and a functioning nation. We can smell it, taste it, and like a sprinter, one who has broken his legs, but who has a heart full of passion, we will crawl there no matter what the cost. No matter what we must endure, we have realized what we can become, and that is the biggest result of the last two years.

Noone can take that from us. Not the terrorists, not those who want to question the good of the removal of Saddam, not those who want to reduce our glory for politics, none.

We have been brought from darkness to light. And not only has the future been made better for Iraq, but the martyrs of our nation, their blood is watering the roots of democracy across the world. We are watching our neighbors come closer to the light, and this only pushes us more, and makes us stronger in our burning desire to reach the finish line, to realize the dream that our people have had for so long.

No, we will not give up, and we will not say that the last two years were a waste. They for all their trouble have been momentus. They for us, have been a turning point in history. Whether or not you agree, this is how it looks from Iraq.

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Hit me with your best shot

I'm a home schooler. I think I should be able to enroll my kids for sports and extra-curricular activities (band, art classes) AND I think the state should give me money to help pay for my supplies. Whattayathink of THAT?

You know ...

I can change the templet as many times as I want, and it's still not going to fix my blogroll stuff .... sigh.

Update: Great - I'm just screwing this up more and more. I've lost my comments (well, I have blogger stuff, but I hate those.) DRAT. I'm pissed that I've lost old comments, because - really, the reason I blog is for discussion. So, I'm sorry :( I had read the most recent ... I don't know if I can recover, but I will try. YOu know, I should know better than try to fix stuff on a MONDAY.

Who?

I just want to know who F'ed up my blog??? I have not idea why all the "stuff" Is on the bottom, instead along the sidebar, but it's pissing me off.

Cherry picking ...

Since everyone else is quoting Krauthammer (can I call him "the Hammer"?), I thought I'd cherry pick my favorite part of today's Washington Post article :

The international left's concern for human rights turns out to be nothing more than a useful weapon for its anti-Americanism. Jeane Kirkpatrick pointed out this selective concern for the victims of U.S. allies (such as Chile) 25 years ago. After the Cold War, the hypocrisy continues. For which Arab people do European hearts burn? The Palestinians. Why? Because that permits the vilification of Israel -- an outpost of Western democracy and, even worse, a staunch U.S. ally. Championing suffering Iraqis, Syrians and Lebanese offers no such satisfaction. Hence, silence.

Until now. Now that the real Arab street has risen to claim rights that the West takes for granted, the left takes note. It is forced to acknowledge that those brutish Americans led by their simpleton cowboy might have been right. It has no choice. It is shamed. A Lebanese, amid a sea of a million other Lebanese, raises a placard reading "Thank you, George W. Bush," and all that Euro-pretense, moral and intellectual, collapses.

'The Hammer' is right about the first part, but I"m not going to hold my breath waiting for the left to acknowledges it was wrong.

Think of Terri today

Rev. Robert Johansen has written an excellent article for NRO about Terri Schiavo - but I went digging into other things he had written (he has a blog too) and found this good one : Killing Terri Schaivo. Excellent reading (both articles) which covers many of the facts of the case. The second article brings up a very chilling account of what happened to another PVS diagnosed woman, and of what this supposedly "peaceful death" is like:

Kate Adamson, who appeared on Fox News’s O’Reilly Factor on November 6, recounted her own chilling story. She had also been diagnosed as in a PVS, and doctors removed her feeding tube.
I could see and hear everything going on around me, and I had no way...of communicating with anyone…. I was completely paralyzed…. When the feeding tube was turned off for eight days, I was—thought I was—going insane. I was screaming out [in her mind], “Don’t you know I need to eat?” ...Michael [Schiavo] on national TV had mentioned last week that it’s a pretty painless thing to have the feeding tube removed. It is the exact opposite. It was sheer torture...
Thanks to the persistence of her husband, Adamson’s feeding tube was restored, and the doctors reluctantly began to treat her. Her recovery suggests that the untreatability of PVS isn’t as absolute as some would like to suppose.

If we can do this to Terri, I say Scott Peterson should be next.

Now, go read one, or BOTH, of his articles. Before it is too late.

Must read

Victor David Hanson, in NRO:

In fact, what do Linda Ronstadt, Harold Pinter, Scott Ritter, Ted Rall, and George Soros all have in common? The same thing that unites Fidel Castro, the European street, the Iranians, and North Koreans: an evocation of some aspects of Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany to deprecate President Bush in connection with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

At first glance, all this wild rhetoric is preposterous. Hitler hijacked an elected government and turned it into a fascist tyranny. He destroyed European democracy. His minions persecuted Christians, gassed over six million Jews, and created an entire fascistic creed predicated on anti-Semitism and the myth of a superior Aryan race.

So, if you are calling Bush "Hitler", take comfort in knowing that Castro, and the Mad Mullah's of Iran, and the Madman in Pajamas in N. Korea are of that same opinion.

And ... one more thought to ponder, while liberals claim our country is headed toward Fascism ... give me ONE example of the suppression of freedom of speech. Especially speech against the president. Cripes, one gets in LESS trouble for burning our flag in a public space, than hoisting up a crucifix.

Anniversary Plans

Amir Taheri in a recent article for The Australian:

Why are so many Westerners, living in mature democracies, ready to march against the toppling of a despot in Iraq but unwilling to take to the streets in support of the democratic movement in the Middle East?

Is it because many of those who will be marching in support of Saddam Hussein this month are the remnants of totalitarian groups in the West plus a variety of misinformed idealists and others blinded by anti-Americanism? Or is it because they secretly believe that the Arabs do not deserve anything better than Saddam Hussein?

Those interested in the health of Western democracies would do well to ponder those questions.

Appareantly, there are plans in the works for large demonstrations for the upcoming two-year Anniversary of the liberation of Iraq. Oops, I mean, the "occupation of Iraq." Say's Taheri:

The aim is not to celebrate the event and express solidarity with the emerging Iraqi democracy, but to vilify George W. Bush and Tony Blair, thus lamenting the demise of Saddam Hussein.

Taheri called up the organizers to see if it were possible to have representation for the support of the democracy movements in the Middle East.

In both cases the answer was a categorical no, accompanied by a torrent of abuse about "all those who try to justify American aggression against Iraq".

But was it not possible to condemn "American aggression" and then express support for the democratic movement in Iraq and the rest of the Arab world? In most cases we were not even allowed to ask the question. In one or two cases we received mini-lectures on how democracy cannot be imposed by force. The answer to that, of course, is that in Iraq no one tried to impose democracy by force. In Iraq force was used to remove the enemies of democracy from power so as to allow its friends to come to the fore.

There is not even room for dialogue that Democracy in the Middle East MIGHT be a good thing, and deserving of our support.

h/t: Littlegreenfootballs

Unwilling Martyrs

So ... what do you do when you start running a bit low on WILLING martyrs? Well, as Major K reports from Iraq, you have the assisted suicide form of the car bomb:

In Armyspeak, it is known as the VBIED(Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device).  The dirty little secret of the Islamo-fascists is that many of these car bombs are not the suicide sacrifice that they tell of in their recruiting propaganda.  All too frequently, the driver of many of these vehicles is unaware that he is doing anything more than smuggling supplies through a checkpoint or planting a car bomb for later detonation.  These murderers are often driving not far behind the VBIED with a remote control detonation device.  The bomb is detonated as soon as the vehicle gets close enough to the target, or, as in many cases, the device is about to be discovered and the mission compromised at a checkpoint.  The checkpoint becomes a target of opportunity, no matter how many innocents are there.  We refer to this as a Kervorkian, or an assisted suicide bombing.  It is loathsome.  I have only seen USA Today ever report on the practice.  It was a story about a maimed Saudi teenager in an Iraqi prison for an assisted suicide bombing that didn’t quite kill him.  The mind of the terrorist believes “the end justifies the means,” and innocent victims are “insha allah – the will of God.”  Any innocents killed in jihad go to Heaven.  I figure that jihadis go to hell to keep the afterlife ledger balanced.

.

Loverly.

Hollywood thinks you're stooopiid

Way behind current pop-culture here, but I just saw Troy over the weekend. Now ... the question that screams out at me is WHY (oh why) do they have nekkid Brad Pitt butt in the movie? Why the sex scenes? Well, of course,it's because us stoopid redneck Americans certainly won't go see Homer on the big screen unless there is gonna be some sex in it. So, in a 2 and a half hour movie, you add five minuets of "R" rated material to spice it up, and make it unwatchable for little boys (who would otherwise really dig a movie about Greeks and boats and war.)

The movie was otherwise pretty darn good.

And, don't even get me started on Alexander which I will never -ever- watch.

I got nothing ....

I got nothing ...

Talk among yourselves ...

In honor of the UAW

With regards to the action of the local UAW office and the Marines, my husband and I are almost 80% sure our next car will be a Honda. I just got back from the dealership (to make sure we'd all fit), and hubby will stop by after work.

THE UAW CAN KISS MY ASS. Now I can have the joy of driving a foreign car with a BUSH sticker on it.

They welcome diverstiy ... sorta

Wizbang brought this up, but it's too funny to pass on ...There is this happy-hippy vacation spot that BANS BUSH VOTERS!

Nature-friendly cleaning & maintenance. Committed to limiting human impact on nature. No Hummers, No RVs, No Bush Voters (due to his environmental destructive policies e.g.; nonparticipation in Kyoto Treaty, The Clear Skies Act, continuation of naval sonar in marine mammal habitats...) For more information, see the Advocacy Page.

Really, you can't parody this. I dare anyone to give me ONE example of a resort that restricts Dem voters, by POLICY. Whenever some wacky story comes up, the refrain always is "Well, both sides do it." Someone, please find me an equivalent "right" example. I'll post a mea culpa.

Another reason to hate the UAW

I heard this story, last night before I retired, and was so angry I couldn't sleep. The UAW in Detroit has long allowed Marine reservists to park in their lot for weekend training (of course, it needn't be said that the UAW doesn't have a FULL lot on the weekends.) Tuesday morning, they were told they were no longer welcome if they drove a foreign car, or if they had a Bush sticker on their vehicle.

"While reservists certainly have the right to drive non-union made vehicles and display bumper stickers touting the most anti-worker, anti-union president since the 1920s, that doesn’t mean they have the right to park in a lot owned by members of the UAW.

Now, I'll try to refrain from profanity, but it's difficult. If I had the means, I would NEVER BUY ANOTHER AMERICAN CAR. Unions are destroying our manufacturing industry. The UAW cares only for it's own existence. How can they say they care for the worker, when they allow factories to CLOSE versus making a few changes in personnel? Living in Detroit, I have more than a few stories about the abuses of union workers - punching in for work, and then spending their day reading the newspaper and drinking from a bag (something my husband witnessed EVERY day.) That is enough to piss me off. But, now for these pukes to get indignant about a bumper sticker on a reservist's car? FEAR THE BUMPER STICKER.

Was Bu$hHitler right?

THAT is exactly what many are asking themselves now ... could democracy spread throughout the middle east? Here, the Washington Post's Jefferson Morely compiles the mea culpas of various liberal writers across the globe - admissions that seem to be appearing with increasing frequency lately.

The tipping point came last week when Lebanon's pro-Syrian government fell. The international online media, much of which had been critical of Bush during his first term, had to acknowledge democratic developments on the American president's watch. Many commentators also cited free elections in Afghanistan last fall, Palestinian elections in early January followed by the Jan. 30 Iraq elections. Then came local elections in Saudi Arabia and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's announcement of constitutional changes allowing his opposition to challenge him electorally.
Given Bush's insistence that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq would lead to a democratic political order in the Middle East, many Europeans are "somewhat embarrassed" by these developments, Sorman wrote in Le Figaro.
"Hadn't they promised, governments and media alike, that the Arab street would rise up [against U.S. military forces], that Islam would burn, that the American army would get bogged down, that the terrorist attacks would multiply, and that democracy would not result nor be exported?"

Rüdiger Lentz, a writer for German Deutsche Welle, asks if it is time to stop laying blame, and admit what is happening ... is, like, GOOD.

"After all, one has to acknowledge that Afghanistan and Iraq might have been catalysts for what we see now happening in Lebanon, in Egypt and even between the Palestinians and Israel."

Goodness ... that had to have hurt.

Scary stuff

While we debate how America is "controlled" by the Religious Right - and the Fascism of Bush ... here is what the other side is plotting.

Ward Churchill: Still a jerk

I went and watched Ward Churchill's performance (or, should I say, Bill Maher's, because Maher didn't really let Churchill make or explain his own argument.) Many different comments on this can be found here, and here a probably a dozen other places. My problem with many libs (Micheal Moore inluded) is that they name/fact drop a dozen things in support of their position - BUT NONE ARE FACTUALLY BASED. Inaccuracies, distortions, and lies make up the entirety of their argument.

Watching the Maher/Churchill - the first thing that jumped out at me was when the duo where trying to set it up that there was "blood" on America's hands. "Slaves, America did that", Maher mentions, upon which they bandy about the figure of 30-60 MILLION slaves being on the bloodied hands of America (that crossed the MIddle Passage.) A rather impressive figure, huh? Well, 15 million (not 30- 60 Million) is the accepted figure of slaves that were shipped out of Africa (some say that is too high.) But, even that figure cannot be "pinned" on our Colonist hands ... just a tad over 500,000 African slaves landed on our shores- we got 6% of the exports. The bulk (38%) when to Brazil.

I could go on with discrepancies and intellectual dishonesties in this piece, but it's starting to bore me.

These two are anti-American. Maher suggests, at the end of the interview (as he's suggested before) that we erect a "Why they hate us" memorial. They have "valid reasons" to hate us, he says. I have yet to hear any intellectually honest reasons why they should "hate us." We are not perfect, but problems they (in the ME.E.) have in their society rest squarely on their own shoulders.

Bring it on.

One of the many given reprieve

Just an FYI - one of those who will not be facing the punishment befitting his crime:

On December 27, 1993, respondent stabbed and killed Margaret Owings while burglarizing her home. Respondent carried Margaret Owings' body to a wooded area near the home. Respondent then went back to the Owings' residence where he saw Margaret Owings' sixteen-month-old daughter, Kori Rae Owings, sleeping in her bed. Respondent carried the child, who was still sleeping, to the woods where he had left her mother's body. After retrieving a shovel from his residence, which was located across the street from the Owings' residence, respondent returned to the woods where he began digging a hole. The child subsequently awoke, started to approach her mother, and fell into the hole. Respondent buried Margaret Owings together with her daughter, who thereafter died of suffocation. Pet. App. A3, A4-A5, A9-A10. Respondent returned to the Owings' residence and removed a stereo, VCR, videotapes, and a bottle of tequila. Pet. 4-5

Stolen and Posted

This is totally stolen from SondraK: Jon Stewart interviewing former Clinton aid Nancy Soderberg:

  

As a microcosm of the Democrats' dilemma, the interview proved enlightening. One such moment came when Mrs. Soderberg said, "[A]s a Democrat, you don't want anything nice to happen to the Republicans, and you don't want them to have progress. But as an American, you hope good things would happen." To which Mr. Stewart replied, "Do you think that the people of Lebanon would have had the courage of their conviction, having not seen -- not only the invasion but the election which followed [in Iraq]? It's almost as though that the Iraqi election has emboldened this crazy -- something's going on over there. I'm smelling something."
    Mr. Stewart should be applauded for his intellectual honesty, as well as his obvious pride in America's accomplishments. Mrs. Soderberg, however, couldn't be deterred from her rank partisanship. Here's one of her more odious comments: "Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's still hope for the rest of us ... There's always hope that this might not work."

So - lemmegetthisstraight. This woman is hoping that bad things occur in Iran and North Korea because it would be good for her (party) politically?

Stats I just wanted to know ...

In the US there are 3,487 people on death row.

72 of those people are (or were when convicted, and before yesterday's Supreme Court ruling) under 18. Matter of fact, 58 of them were 17, and 14 were 16 at the time of their crime.


There are around 1,312,990 abortions a year (2000 most recent stats I could get)

In that year, there were 8,560 abortions for women under 14.

Same year, 15-17 age range - 84,770 abortions

Same year, 18-19- 150,770 abortions.

18 states do not require parental permission for girls under 18 do have an abortion.

In another 14 states, they only require "notification", but not permission to have an abortion.

So ... a very small number of underage criminals can not be put to death, because they were too young at the time of their crimes ... yet 150,770 babies can be aborted by those under 18 ... many of them (I'm sure) in states where their parents didn't need to be asked or informed, because these same youngsters are able to make such decisions? So, regarding youth and the killing of life -if that life is INSIDE you, that a young person can make a decision independent of "higher" authority (their parents), but if they kill someone ELSE -that is an entirely different matter? Only THEN were they not old enough to be judged for their actions?

The two thing that piss me off/Supreme Court Decision

I'll quote from the dissenting opinion Scalia:

 We need not look far to find studies contradicting the Court's conclusions. As petitioner points out, the American Psychological Association (APA), which claims in this case that scientific evidence shows persons under 18 lack the ability to take moral responsibility for their decisions, has previously taken precisely the opposite position before this very Court. In its brief in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U. S. 417 (1990), the APA found a "rich body of research" showing that juveniles are mature enough to decide whether to obtain an abortion without parental involvement. Brief for APA as Amicus Curiae, O. T. 1989, No. 88-805 etc., p. 18. The APA brief, citing psychology treatises and studies too numerous to list here, asserted: "[B]y middle adolescence (age 14-15) young people develop abilities similar to adults in reasoning about moral dilemmas, understanding social rules and laws, [and] reasoning about interpersonal relationships and interpersonal problems." Id., at 19-20 (citations omitted). Given the nuances of scientific methodology and conflicting views, courts--which can only consider the limited evidence on the record before them--are ill equipped to determine which view of science is the right one. Legislatures "are better qualified to weigh and 'evaluate the results of statistical studies in terms of their own local conditions and with a flexibility of approach that is not available to the courts.' " McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U. S. 279, 319 (1987) (quoting Gregg, supra, at 186).

And:

     It is interesting that whereas the Court is not content to accept what the States of our Federal Union say, but insists on inquiring into what they do (specifically, whether they in fact apply the juvenile death penalty that their laws allow), the Court is quite willing to believe that every foreign nation--of whatever tyrannical political makeup and with however subservient or incompetent a court system--in fact adheres to a rule of no death penalty for offenders under 18. Nor does the Court inquire into how many of the countries that have the death penalty, but have forsworn (on paper at least) imposing that penalty on offenders under 18, have what no State of this country can constitutionally have: a mandatory death penalty for certain crimes, with no possibility of mitigation by the sentencing authority, for youth or any other reason

And to tie the second point up with the first :

 And let us not forget the Court's abortion jurisprudence, which makes us one of only six countries that allow abortion on demand until the point of viability.

So, underage girls in America can get abortions without their parent's permission, but 17 year old cold-blooded murderers cannot face the death penalty because they are too young to understand their actions, because foreign powers think we're big baddies to have the death penalty in the first place but most of them don't have our liberal abortion rights (and a few of 'em stone to death 14-year-old-girls because they had pre-martial sex).

You follow?

Bushhitler does it again!

.Hundred Percenter

But, you know - as Jeanine Garafalo would say ... "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE WMDs?"

Yea, Jeanine ... it's all about the oil.

h/t - Vodka Pundit

It's more than just Bloggers ...

The post regarding female bloggers ... for me, didn't just include Blogging. That is where the debate on other blogs began. But for me, the question bleeds into "real life.' I was going to respond the following in comments, but decided to bring it up to the top- it is a continuation of the comment discussion.

I know a lot of people (women) involved in politics - don't misunderstand me to believe I am saying that women are altogether indifferent to politics. I also know there are a lot of female (political) bloggers. BUT - in the course of the last ten years of my life- the majority of women I have met are not interested in politics at all. Them aside, there are also thosee women that will talk politics, but are just too emotional to debate. It is not a discussion of facts and idea, but of emotional responses. When other women discover my views - honestly - they cannot separate their emotions regarding my politics from "me." I don't walk around with a t-shirt that says "Fuck the French" or anything, and in fact many people at first mistake me for a liberal, so I don't think their feelings are due to me having a some overtly aggressive political personality.

I've often wondered if it is factor of being conservative ... that conservatives are not only considered "wrong" by liberals ... but that they are also evil. I dunno.

It appears to me, though, that men are more easily able to debate their differing opinions w/o "hating" those with whom they disagree.

I suppose this whole post has been a lament - that dialogue (especially between women) from the two political sides is so difficult.

Random thought of the day

Why can't Barbie leave her damn pants on??? How come every time I see a pile of Barbies in this house, every last one of them is naked.

You know, every since Prince Charming Ken came into this house, there has been nothing but trouble.

Question of the Week: Where are all the Female bloggers?

Beside a few heavy hitters (Malkin, La Shawn Barber, and Michele's ASV) there are not a lot of big "female" bloggers. Certainly not many political bloggers (since Michele doesn't do politics anymore, she must be removed from that list.) I have two observations regarding this (correction, two "main" observations, and one extra bonus point).

The reason why there are so few female bloggers, is that the majority of women do not like politics. And, many are neither good at, nor do they enjoy, debating. While there certainly are women here and there that enjoy a nice intellectual debate, and are enraptured by all things political, most of the women I know fall under one of two categories: those that can't debate, and those that don't like politics.

The first group likes politics per sec, but are too emotional for rational debate. Their feelings get hurt, or they get angry, or placed in some emotional state that makes rational debate impossible (even debate via the internet.) When you disagree politically with these types of women, you become an ENEMY. You are a bad person. When it is discovered that you voted for Bush, or that you are pro-life, you will be avoided in the future. Blacklisted or blackballed. Whatever. Your political affiliation makes you EVIL. No amount of rational debate will make the smallest dent in these types, they are ruled and controlled by the politics of emotion.

The second group of women fall under the "I'm not interested at all in politics" model. They have little more than a passing interest in the news, and find politics BORING. They may vote, but that's the extent of their role in civic responsibility. They will talk babies, or tv shows, or PTA. They probably don't know a lot about history, and even less about current events. I say this, because I fail to understand how a person could know anything about those two subjects, and not find politics rather important.

My final reason ... not entirely related to the rest of this post - is that many men dismiss the opinions of women. Even in our day and age, most women need to "prove" themselves to men in a manner that is not required of other men. It can be rather discouraging to women bloggers who are trying to participate, only to find that they are talking into a void - be it on their blog, or on other blogger's comments (especially when the same points THEY make are ignored, until a man brings up a similar point.) IT is no wonder that many women choose screen names that lack sexual identifiers. Not all men in the blogsphere act this way, but the ones that do stick out (to me.) Not naming names here.

Anyway, that's my .02.

This just in ...

I just heard on Medved's show, that the average American watches 29 hours of TV a week? Could this be true? What the hell are they all watching?

Mommyhood

Interesting take here regarding being a mom. Ever since that Newsweek article came out. I've read various reactions over the blogsphere, and most I've met with a bit of antagonism. Moms decrying others for trying to be perfect, while claiming that THEY are doing things better.

Well, first of all - they should call the job of "mother" a practice, just like they do with law firms, because I tell ya, the day I learn it all, I'll probably be in my grave. I haven't read a million parenting books and tried every strategy blindly, but I have looked here and there when I had a particular problem.

To the chagrin of those who eschew the "supermommy" ideal - I nursed, co-slept, and cloth diapered (although, my middle children were disosie babies). I didn't do these things because I read about them in a book (and to make that accusation is rather insulting.) I did them because they were what felt right to me, and I enjoyed them. I home school. I don't make play dates for them, and one activity per child is plenty. They don't have tvs in their bedrooms, and none own a Gameboy. I wish I could open the front door and watch them ride their bikes to play baseball in the park, but sadly, when they arrived, they would be the only children present (unless, of course, there was some sort of organized team practicing at the time.) I also wish I could throw the tv away, but even I enjoy a bit of mindless entertainment from time to time, so that would be hypocritical.

Motherhood is hard. The days can be boring. You can feel isolated. At times you are a slave to the little demands they make, and I often wonder who really is in charge. Will I survive being a parent? Right now, it's touch and go.

But, I do know that I'm not faced with the same issues that the women in the Newsweek article face. These women are, actually, pretty foreign to me. Because, while they are all working, or shuttling their children from school, to play dates, to violin practice, to karate ... I'm sitting here in my house with my kids. I've opted out of the rat race. We don't drive the best car and don't have perfect clothes. I cut my kid's hair (and my husband's.) Vacations have been few and far between the last ten years, but they were fun when we could find the means. They never went too Kindermusic, and they didn't learn to swim when they were 6 months old. I'm a slacker mom.

I don't really know what my point is, but to say that many of these women do it to themselves. It isn't society's fault, and it isn't a "middle class" lifestyle that is to blame. People, imho, just want to much. They want the perfect house, and the perfect car, and the perfect children. Ain't gonna happen. Deal with it.

This is a wandering post, and I probably should just delete it. But I won't. For now.

Condi nugget

Deroy Murdock has an interesting article in today's NRO. In it, Murdock illustrates the fact that although American blacks vote in incredible numbers for the Democrats, the Republicans have been the party that historically fought for them. This issue is the subject of a book by Wayne Perryman, Unfounded Loyalty

While Condi Rice is treated like the House Nigger by the black community, her own personal history illustrates the absurdity of the juxtaposition of reality and myth of Republicans, Democrats, and blacks(from the Murdock article):

"The first Republican I knew was my father, and he is still the Republican I most admire," Rice has said. "He joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did. My father has never forgotten that day, and neither have I."

It is just amazing.

"I'm not sorry" nonsense

Random surfing this afternoon, and I came across this:I'm not sorry FAQ. I'm not sorry is a websit that posts stories about women who do not regret their abortions. Loverly bunch of gals. Anyhoo, I'm reading through the FAQ and I come to the following:

What about adoption? Why didn't you consider that as an alternative?

One of the anti-choicers' favorite arguments against abortion is that women who have abortions are depriving prospective adoptive parents. However, one only has to take a look at the literally hundreds of thousands of children in foster or state care to know that is not the case. Unfortunately for the great majority of these children, they will not be considered for adoption because they have committed a grave since they're no longer babies. It is rare that you'll hear a prospective adoptive parent sigh, "Oh, I just want a seven-year-old so much!" We have always had huge respect for people who adopt older or special needs kids. Contrary to popular belief, adopting kids from the state is not that expensive. Some states will bend over backwards to help out people who want to take in these kids. Yeah, it's definitely not easy to handle them, but those who can appreciate that parenthood isn't one long Hallmark moment and are willing to stay the course know that going in. Another reason for not going with adoption that's been cited by many of us is the thought of the now-grown child showing up on our doorstep expecting an Oprah-type happy reunion with their "real mom" or weepily demanding to know why we gave them up. As far as we're concerned, whoever signs the adoption papers is the parent, and we're completely for adoption records being sealed other than the medical history of the bio-parents. If you're going to give the kid up for adoption, accept that and move on. Don't write letters, don't send gifts, don't go for visits, and respect that fact that the kid is no longer yours. Adoptive parents also need to stop giving kids ideas that they are not his/her "real parents."

First off - I can't let the "anti-choice" thing slip by, since there are many choices that "PRO-LIFERS" advocate. Let's run down the list ... there is abstinence, birth control, adoption, and parenthood. The only "choice" we don't care for is the death of life in the womb. So, really, we are only "anti" one particular choice. Call us anti-abortionists. I'm fine with that.

Next ... adoption. The above paragraph would almost be laughable, if the issue weren't so serious. The HUNDREDS and thousands of children available in Foster care come with baggage. They have parents fighting to regain custody. Or, they have health and/or psychological issues that makes it unadvisable, for those not properly equipped and prepared, to take on such a challenge. Not everyone can handle a crack baby or one with FAS who will develop who knows how many problems as it grows into adulthood. Comparing raising a child with SEVERE disabilities to dealing with an unruly teen (parenthood not being a Hallmark card) is just laughable.

To say that women should get an abortion, because adoption is such a plague-ridden option? Please. And, as for the argument that women should abort so no one will show up at their door in twenty years looking for their mother ... honestly, I don't even know where to begin with that one.

I gotta crush

I love and hate my Satellite tv, but this month it is beaming into my house a performance but British cutie Jamie Cullum. His recorded stuff is a little stale/popish for my taste (at least, such is the case with his CD Twentysomething), but his LIVE stuff is great. Jazzy. Very enjoyable.

Things I wish I had said

But I didn't - here is Dorinda Bordlee in NRO on recent Chris Rock comments:

So here we are, five years into the new millennium, and a comedian has the nerve to say out loud what men across America know full well: that legalized abortion is great for their sex lives; that abortion on demand makes women into sex objects with the full consent of the highest court in the land; and that if their sexual use of a woman results in the unfortunate side effect of a pregnancy, then $300 and their "kindhearted" support of the woman's "right to choose" will take care of the problem.

What did Rock say? That he liked to go to abortion rally's to pick up women, because you know the women there are f-ing. Bordlee argued that abortion has set to increase of sexual exploitation of women. That women are more likely to engage in sex, because they can get rid of the results, and that men no longer worry that sex is going to lead to unwanted fatherhood. In fact, the very idea that sex's primary purpose is for the creation of children is STRONGLY debated (I've been in such debates). Sure, sex can be fun -it can be an expression of love -but I find it remarkable that people dispute that it is primarily tied to reproduction.

It is sad that we have allowed men to lower us to this level. I am not a prude, and I am NOT saying that women shouldn't (or don't) enjoy sex. But, somehow, men have sold women a bill of goods. They have reduced many women to the amoral status of the male dog; that sex is an itch to be scratched. Instead of women raising men up to their level, men have lowered many of us down to theirs.

Oops

Remember that baby (Baby "81") in Sri Lanka that was supposedly "claimed" by eight different women? Well, apparently there was only ONE family claiming that the baby was theirs. And, now DNA tests of proved that it is, in fact, their baby. TWO MONTHS LATER.

The court ordered the DNA tests after 31-year-old barber Jeyarajah and his wife argued they could not prove he was theirs because his birth certificate and other documents were washed away by the tsunami along with their house.

The cherubic infant was put under police guard after Jeyarajah was arrested and briefly detained for trying to forcibly take him from nurses.

When a judge then ordered DNA tests, Jeyarajah nearly fainted and threatened to kill himself.

Newspaper reports have said nine women claimed the boy as their son in the aftermath of the tsunami, but police say the Jeyarajahs were the only couple to claim the baby as theirs.

So, in reality, only ONE couple was claiming the baby as their own ... and ... as it turns out, the DNA tests prove the baby is theirs. They still haven't gotten the baby back, since they need to have it "finalized" in court. Shesh, as if two months apart is not enough. Sanity would dictate that baby be DIRECTLY returned to the parents with much apologizing.

(link to Reuters story in title)

The GRAMMYS!!!!

Well, apparently the Grammy Award show was on last night. Yes, definitely they were on because my sister called me at 10:30 to ask me how I liked them. To which I replied "Oh, the Grammy's are on tonight?"

I turned it on for about five minutes, then off it went. I got a great big YAWN for every award show. I don't care about the presentations, the performances, or most of those nominated.

I fall back on the John Derbyshire line - "Pop Culture is Filth."

But, not only is it filth, but it is also boring, predictable, and full of itself.

My kids are immature, so what?

This is just a general rant, meant to go out to no one in particular. But, my kids are immature. They don't dress in the trendiest clothes, and they don't know the hottest act on MTV. My boys are totally unaware that there is such a thing as "sneaker"-envy ... or the social value of wearing an expense coat. My oldest is only 10, but he doesn't wear gel in his hair, and I've never EVER heard him say he wouldn't play some game - be it freeze tag or anything - because it was "too babyish.'

Sure, you might say they are young ... just wait. But, when I am out (in church, or other places) I SEE kids his age, and younger ... with their cool hair, and cool clothes, and slack-jawed expression of being "oh-so above" whatever activity they are being forced to endure. They are smug, and whisper to each other snide comments about someone else and tease and are mean. I see these same kids at my daughter's dance class ... on the first day of the year, this group of future mean girls teased a little 6-year-old with such cruelty, that it was difficult for me to not intercede - a risky proposition in this day and age of 'overprotective-my-angel-does-nothing-wrong' parenting.

My kids are immature. They are friendly to everyone they meet, and would never exclude anyone for any reason (even if they were five years younger then them.) They are happy, and excitable. They are not perfect, and at times I'm ready to pull my hair out. And, they could spend an entire day playing PS2 if I let them (which I don't). But, they have not learned the nasty, back biting, exclusionary, overly mature for their years attitude I see so prevalent today. Whenever I second guess my decision to home school ( a decision that was motivated primarily by the fact that I live in an AWFUL school district) - I remind myself that they are not being taught their "social" skills at school.

Final word

On Churchill ... from NRO's Mark Goldblatt:

The fact that he has tenure must, I'm afraid, be taken into account. Firing him, or forcing him to resign, might be morally satisfying but would be a tactical error. It would confer martyr status on him, and it would be interpreted by his students, and by Churchill himself, as punishment for speaking the truth to power. Besides, the fault here does not lie with Churchill; he's a symptom, not a disease. The fault lies, generally, with the sick academic culture in which he has thrived, and, specifically, with the administrative weasels at the University of Colorado who have repeatedly rewarded his dubious critical achievements. What should be done with Churchill, therefore, is...nothing. His notoriety should stand as an ongoing monument to the decay of intellectual standards in higher education, and his professorship as an ongoing monument to the intellectual cowardice of the school which hired and tenured him.

It isn't the man that it is the problem, although he is odious. It's that he was teaching students, happily, at ANY University. And, that there are probably many more like him out there.

Ward Churchill: Useful Idiot

Ward Churchill is little more than a "useful idiot." In a press release from last week, he said " "The gross distortions of what I actually said can only be viewed as an attempt to distract the public from the real issues at hand and to further stifle freedom of speech and academic debate in this country." Well, I don't know how anyone could grossly distort the pretty "gross" statement in his screed :

A good case could be made that the war in which they were combatants has been waged more-or-less continuously by the "Christian West" – now proudly emblematized by the United States – against the "Islamic East" since the time of the First Crusade, about 1,000 years ago.

This is my first issue with Ward; his mentioning of the Crusades. Certainly the Crusades were the pinnacle of Christian Imperialism? Or, that was what I was taught. Imagine how shocked I was to learn that the Crusades were originally launched to "get back" what was previously taken by Muslims. Here is Bernard Lewis in The Crises of Islam.

The Crusade is a late development in Christian history and, in a sense, marks a radical departure from basic Christian values as expressed in the Gospels. Christendom had been under attack since the seventh century, and had lost vast territories to Muslim rule; the concept of a holy war, more commonly, a just war, was familiar since antiquity. Yet in the long struggle between Islam and Christendom, the Crusade was late, limited, and of relatively brief duration. Jihad is present from the beginning of Islamic history - in scripture, in the life of the Prophet, and in the actions of his companions and immediate successors. (p.37)

So, really - pick a side here. You are either on the side of Christians or Muslim, which side do you support? The Muslim "House of War" was /is intent on world conquest. It was in the seventh century, and it is (in some quarters) still today. Personally, I'd look fat in a Burqa, so I know which side I'm rooting for.

As for where Ward really loses it, here he talks about the victims of the WTC being "innocent":
 

True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.

The man's got some anger issues. Who do you think he is more angry with? The 19 terrorists, or the men and women who went to work on 9/11?

Can't Blog

I cannot blog today ... because, you see ... I got an iPod over the weekend. Must. Fill.

I'm reliving the last 20 years of my life through music. You understand, don't you? Politics will still be around tomorrow.

THIS is what I'm talking about

Da Goddess had a terrific rant the other day directed at the anti-American crowd:

You and the other protesters claim to be interested in the basic needs of people around the world. Yet, I have seen you do little more than stand around yelling angry slogans. I have seen no one reaching out a helping hand.

She asked for TANGIBLE example of what the left is doing besides protesting. She's still waiting for an answer, btw. Today,I came across this today in the Opinion Journal:

By the time the Berlin Wall fell, Andrei Sakharov, Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel and others were already household names in the world. In 1968 the New York Times had published Sakharov's essay, "Reflection on Progress, Coexistence and Intellectual Freedom." These were the years in which the word "dissident" entered the lexicon. What has the West--governments or media--done for the dissidents of the Middle East? Very little.

Not one of them is a household name. The closest is Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian woman who won the Nobel Peace Prize two years ago. When these dissidents get into trouble, the free world needs to shine a light on them, so that it's harder for their governments to make them vanish.

When this happened during the Cold War, with a Sakharov or Sharansky, the media was often in the lead, elevating their plight. In the wake of Iraq's election, the editors of the U.S. and Europe might consider getting off their anti-Bush fixation and getting on the cause of Middle Eastern dissidents.

A mighty YES screamed in my head. EXACTLY. This is how the media is doing what Da Goddess was talking about. The names (or very existence) of dissidents are unknown to anyone that doesn't seek this information out. They are too obsessed with hating Bush.

File this under, "useful information"

Convicted Murderer Stanley Williams has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 5 TIMES??? And, the Nobel Prize for literature?

Arafat ... murderers ... yes, yes, very interesting.

h/t Patterico

News from Iraq

This is TOTALLY stolen from SondraK, but I wanted to bring it up here:

The residents of a small Iraqi village have killed five insurgents who had attacked them for voting in last weekend's national elections.

Several other insurgents were also wounded.

The insurgents raided the village of al-Mudhiryah south of Baghdad after warning its inhabitants not to vote in the election.

The villagers fought back, killing five of the insurgents and wounding eight others.

The insurgents' cars were then set alight.

Al-Mudhiryah's tribal sheikh says his people are sick of being threatened by Islamic extremists.

So, Mr. Moore ... wanna talk about those Iraqi "minutemen" now?

Give me a Reason

To just not give away my TV.

I so miss Buffy.

As seen today...

Saw this loverly bumper sticker (on a car at my church) :

A PBS mind, in a Fox News World

So ... what was she insinuating? That her mind needed to beg for support; that it couldn't support itself in the free market?

Really, it's attitudes like this that prevent me from EVER giving money to PBS.

Davos

I just got around to reading Jay Nordlinger's account of Davos. It is, as usual, depressing. That, combined with my reading of Jean-Francois Revel's Anti-Americanism, and I'm ready to rip apart (verbally) the next European I come across. I won't rehash all the stories he tells; go read for yourself, if you can stand to hear about Europeans and American journalists putting the blame for just about everything on America's shoulders. BUT, I did want to to share this:

The luncheon topic is AIDS, and when Sharon — we're on a first-name basis — rises to speak, she gets a serious, actress-about-to-address-something-grave look on her face. She gathers herself. Then she makes the most charming prefatory remarks you've ever heard: "It's good to be here with all you smarty-pants. I don't have your education, and probably not your world experience, although I have a certain experience. But . . ." A masterly downplaying of expectations. Right out of the Speaker's Handbook, page 1.

The gist of her remarks is that AIDS is readily solvable, but that "greed and arrogance stop us." We — we richies — simply don't want to spend enough, simply don't care enough. We are stingy and callous. (No mention is made of the Bush administration's remarkable efforts in Africa — efforts that the most knowledgeable and fair-minded can't help hailing.) Finishing up, the actress says, "If we just stopped arrogantly killing people all over the world, and channeled the money into AIDS, we would have a solution."

Nordlinger does a great job ripping her apart, but I just wanna ask, what the heck are actors and musicians (Bono, and Lionel Richie) doing at an economic forum? And, why are they being taken seriously? Please, someone save me from the lecturing actors. "We richies" (I guess she's talking about herself, because I'm a SAHM mom of five - she can excluded ME from that "we") don't want to spend enough? I believe "we've" made great strides in AIDS research. But, solving the health problems in third world countries is just not that simple. Especially when you have corrupt, and often dangerous, leaders running things (and, no, I'm not referring to Bushhilter here). Nordlinger writes of listening to Bill Clinton (who performed very European while in Davos):

Back, once more, to Clinton: He says that anyone who complains about corruption in African governments — anyone who expresses caution about handing over money to these governments — "should be put in a closet, so no one has to listen to them."

WHAT??? We shouldn't care if we are handing money to a despot who is lining his toilet in gold? Of course, this type of talk was loved by the audience. After all, the Europeans don't care if American money actually helps anyone, as long as it is being redistributed around the world. Really, this is shameful. Why can't Nordlinger just stay home next year?