All Right, It's ON

Warning - I may lapse into swear words in the post. Can't say how angry I'll get as I write.

There's a piece at Raw Story published on Wednesday. It talks about how Republicans re-wrote the descriptions of some Democrat-proposed amendments to a bill.

"At least five amendments to this bill, which were designed to protect the rights of family members and innocent bystanders from prosecution under this bill, were rewritten as amendments designed to protect sexual predators from prosecution and were then included in the committee report as if that was the original intent of the authors. The thing is, sexual predators were not mentioned anywhere in any of these amendments. I asked the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee about this deception yesterday afternoon at the Rules Committee hearing.

"And instead of decrying what I certainly expected would be revealed as a mistake by an overzealous staffer...The Chairman stood by those altered
amendment descriptions.

"He made very clear to the Rules Committee that the alterations to these members' amendments were deliberate. When pressed as to why his committee staff took such an unprecedented action, the Chairman immediately offered up his own anger over the manner in which Democrats had chosen to debate and oppose this unfortunate piece of legislation we have before us today.

"In fact...He said, and I quote..."You don't like what we wrote about your amendments, and we don't like what you said about our bill."

Here's what this bill does - it makes damn sure that a minor who wants an abortion needs parental consent. In case you don't know how I feel about this, I personally do not believe that an unborn fetus is yet a viable life, and aborting a pregnancy does not, in my mind amount to murder in any way, shape, or form. Killing babies? Murder. Killing unborn fetuses? Not Murder.

So, if I hear of a MINOR who has become pregnant that wishes to have an abortion, my usual first thought is, "Good for her. She understands that she's too young to take on that kind of responsibility". Because having a baby is a responsibility, and even if you intend on giving birth and then giving the baby away, I know all too well that hormones are a stone cold bitch, and the experience changes you forever. Aborting a pregnancy is not the easy way out, it takes a different kind of toll, but a newly made person isn't then around to also have to suffer from the mistake. Some people can handle having a child, some people can give a child away. Some people can't. People who know that they're in the "can't" category do not earn scorn from me, but rather respect for recognizing the facts.

There are people who disagree with me. I understand and respect that, too. I would never force someone to have an abortion. Not if it went against their morals, if their conscience couldn't allow it. But people who would take that right away, well that pisses me off.

That's how I read these types of laws, you see, as controls over kids who would defy parents. Why require parental permission if you weren't assuming that in most cases it would be denied? If that girl - and remember, we're talking about girls, here, not yet 18 - wants to terminate her pregnancy, that says to me that it does not go against her conscience to do so. Does it go against the beliefs of her parents? Perhaps. But guess what? Their little girl is pregnant. That probably goes against their beliefs, as well.

I'm going to set aside the rape scenarios, here, because I can't fathom the concept of someone who would want to force a girl to bear a child begotten by violence. Yes, I understand that even in that situation there are those who would choose to continue with the pregnancy and have the child, and that's their right. Those who would not choose that path need to be able to take the other route legally without molestation. Period.

Lets go back to the scenario where a female under the age of 18 has had sex willingly, and has become pregnant. This female realizes that she does not want to become a mother at this time. I feel that making her do so is an unbelievable imposition. In fact, imposition seems to mild of a word to use. Punishment? Damnation? Curse? Motherhood is serious, and forcing it on unwilling young females is recklessly cruel. My rights stop where yours begin, and so it follows that the rights of the parents to impose religious restrictions upon their daughters stops where her body being forced into becoming a breeding ground begins.

So these amendments that were proposed, they were intended to protect parties who aided a pregnant minor by transporting them across state lines for the purpose of getting an abortion - whether they're a knowing party or not. If the bill passes as written, a parent of one of these girls could sue the taxi driver who drove the girl to her destination. That is beyond ridiculous. There's no protection for grandparents, or siblings, or cousins. This is a ridiculous open door for the litigious.

And how, pray tell were these amendment descriptions re-written? They all mention that the amendments would protect sexual predators, when they would do NO SUCH THING! There's no mention of sexual predators in these amendments. These re-writes are bold-faced lies, created by people who favor the idea of a parent being able to force their child into childbearing.

I cannot stand this idea. If this bill passes, if it goes through, I want teenage girls who would be affected by it to know - you can go ahead and call me. I'll drive you across state lines, threat of a lawsuit or not. No one should force you to become a mother against your will, and I'm willing to stand up and fight for you. It's on.

Good Points

Today Mahablog has an excellent point about calling a spade a spade. In doing so, you are not insulting the shovels or the trowels.

I noticed that both Maha and Shakespeare's Sister are quoting Al Gore today. I went and read the speech SS recommended. It's a good read.

Employment Opportunity

Today I have been informed that I should apply for this job.

I Think It's Politics as Usual

A friend pointed out this article to me:

Probe reveals Vatican priest's clandestine past
(note - why isn't this headline capitalized properly?)

An investigation into communist-era persecution of the Roman Catholic church in Poland turned up documents showing that the Rev. Konrad Stanislaw Hejmo, a Dominican, "was a secret collaborator of the Polish secret services under the names of Hejnal and Dominik," said Leon Kieres, head of the state-run National Remembrance Institute that investigated Nazi and communist crimes in Poland.

Hejmo’s Dominican superior, the Rev. Maciej Zieba, said he saw the files, which he termed "convincing and shocking."

No surprise to me. Maybe there are some people out there who think that priests are incorruptible, but those folks also believe that I'm going to hell, so I could care less about them. Unless they try and *send* me to hell, I guess, but I digress. People are people, and people like money and power. I personally believe that the whole concept of the confessional was set up so that the Church could have secrets to use against kings.

The idea that a priest was acting as a spy surprises me not at all. The fact that someone discovered it while he's still alive, well, that does.

Killing Me Softly

I work in Information Technology. I work for a big company. We have a whole department that deals with viruses and their removal from our environment.

Today, one of the guys in that department sent me an email about this hoax. Not about the hoax, just the actual hoax email, as he believed it.

Is that irony? It might be irony.

Older Than Dirt

But not older than rock art!

Experts put date to UK rock art

Experts have dated the UK's oldest rock art, at Creswell Crags in the midlands, to more than 12,800 years ago

Hey! I bet that REALLY pisses off the people who are so sure that the earth was created 6,000 years ago!

Who am I kidding. They'll just say that those rocks were created fully formed in a state that mimics what would have occurred during natural aging, and that the earth is young, young, young. Because religion is magic!

If I Was Laura...

I'd be pissed!

Hat tip Shakespeare's Sister and Running Scared:

Is This Really A Good Time For Bush To Look Buddy-Buddy With The Saudis?

Buddy-Buddy? That photo couldn't be more romantic if it were Brad and Angelina.

How in the world can the man justify holding hands with a foreign dignitary? They're not on a Sunday jaunt around the gardens for pleasure's sake. They're supposed to be discussing the serious business of oil production affecting the world economy, not how pretty the bluebells are this year. Poor choice of photo op.

Once Again, I'm Thrown

Syria is keeping their promise to withdraw from Lebanon.

Syria Intelligence Quits Lebanon HQ After 29 Years

ANJAR, Lebanon (Reuters) - Syrian intelligence quit its Lebanese headquarters in the border town of Anjar on Monday, virtually completing a pullout of Syrian forces from Lebanon and ending Damascus' 29-year domination.

Now, mind you, I do not know what this means for the area, I simply can't read it. Will it be a time of Lebanese unity, or will there be unrest caused simply by the idea that things are changing? Will the newly liberated Lebanese government continue along the lines it's been travelling, or will new and surprising revelations be made? I have no idea.

Strangest of all is the fact that I can't seem to recall the last time I heard news like this - news of a country making a military promise and then fulfilling it within the time period allotted. If you had asked me a few months ago what countries, under duress, could be counted on to behave like rational adults and not cause chaotic misery, I don't think that I would have come up with Syria right off the bat.

Template, Schmemplate

OK, making a whole new template from scratch was hard, and I'm lazy. Instead, I've come up with this re-colored, used-my-own-banner-version! Yay!

Joint Chiefs of Staff News

Jersey Blogging, National blogging, I got it all rolled up into one, today.
President Bush has nominated Marine General Peter Pace (He's originally from NJ, according to the bio) to be the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Not sure how I feel about it yet, all I remember is him on TV when the war was still "on", talking about how awfully Saddam's troops were behaving. That sounded true enough to me.

I can't say that I know much more about him yet than the bio that I've linked to. At least, though, as he is currently Vice Chairman, this nomination doesn't seem completely out of left field to me.

Ratzinger, Nazi

I get a ridiculously small number of hits each day. It's enough to make a girl feel unwanted. So, along with all you people who search for "Para Bailar la Bamba", I'd like to welcome all of you who got here through the "Ratzinger, Nazi" search.

Thanks, Barry, for the tip!

I'm still wasting all my time on a template. I may throw something that's only slightly different from this up tomorrow.

No Comment

Today, I am working on designing my own template. It's time. While my current template, designed by Jeffrey Zeldman is indeed quite lovely, the fact is that he designed it, not me. I can do this, and by now I really should have. Hope it doesn't take me weeks.

Different Sides of the Same Coin

I suddenly realized that I'm not spending enough time reading Anne Coutler's web site. This morning on the radio, I heard the DJ say that she brought "intelligence and wit" to the conservative political forum.

"What?", I thought, "I thought she brought unfair exaggerations and cruel remarks about killing people for disagreeing with her. Maybe I haven't been paying close enough attention!"

So, I went over to http://www.annecoulter.org and read what's up on the ol' front page. Jackpot - it's a piece about people throwing pies at her!

Late in the column, we find these wise words:

What might work better is some form of disincentive to liberals who engage in violent behavior whenever they hear an idea they don't like but can't come up with words to dispute.

My goodness, that's certainly right! People should not resort to violence! I'm with her! Except that I'd already read the paragraphs leading up to that one, like say, this bit:

Unfortunately for them, Republican men don't react favorably to two "Deliverance" boys trying to sucker-punch a 110-pound female in a skirt and heels. The geniuses ended up with bloody noses and broken bones.

- or this bit:

In the five months following the liberal ass-whupping in Arizona — I mean "fact-driven debate"

Ah, I see now. I've learned 2 things from this Anne Coulter piece:

1. Anne Coulter is really, really proud about how skinny she is, otherwise I can't see why she'd mention it. I mean, would it be more fair to throw pies at a heavier woman, or a big, strong Republican male who could bat away the pie as if it were the merest gnat? Is a pie a dangerous weapon when thrown at such a skinny woman, because if any got in her mouth, her pencil skirt might suddenly burst? Why is her size important?
2. Violence is wrong if it's being used against conservatives, but just fine - funny, even - if it's used in retaliation against men armed with LIFE THREATENING PIES!

Protesting the Old-Fashioned Way

...at a college.

Saw this at The Opinion Mill.

Tent State University

I think I'll stop by later today, you know, before I go vote in the Annual NJ School Board Elections.

It's in Public, Silly

Bloggers are not writing in diaries and keeping them in their desks. Well, maybe they are, but what I mean to say is that blogs are forums that are published in a place where anyone in all the public world with an internet connection might read them. It is not a private place.

When the Blogger Blogs, Can the Employer Intervene

As the practice of blogging has spread, employees like Mr. Kennedy are coming to the realization that corporations, which spend millions of dollars protecting their brands, are under no particular obligation to tolerate threats, real or perceived, from the activities of people who become identified with those brands, even if it is on their personal Web sites.

They are also learning that the law offers no special protections for blogging - certainly no more than for any other off-duty activity.

Of course not. If I were to write a letter to the editor of my local newspaper about how my project at work was going, and I talk trash, would I expect to keep my job? Why would I ever think that? Publishing your name, address, and employer, and then talking about the inner workings of your workplace is ill-advised. It can harm your company - the people who *pay* you - and probably will.

Yes, I suppose there's the concept that you can blog anonymously, but that's very tricky. Somewhere, someone will know who you are, and if the kind of things you're discussing are illegal, that person will be obliged to give you up, if confronted.

You work somewhere with conditions so bad that you feel they must be exposed publicly, and you feel it's your duty to do so? Fine. Do it. But do not expect to keep that job when it all comes out.

I do not talk about my work on my blog. You know why? Because I have the best job in the whole wide world, and I want to keep it.

In My Email Today

From MSNBC News Headlines:

"Cardinals hold special Mass
Roman Catholic cardinals held a solemn Mass praying for divine inspiration on Monday, preparing to lock themselves away from the world to elect a successor to Pope John Paul II. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7523254/"

"The new pope has already been chosen by the Lord. We just have to pray to understand who he is," Florence Cardinal Ennio Antonelli, considered by some to be a dark-horse candidate, told believers who gathered for Sunday Mass at his titular church in Rome.

Wow. I think this is the only time in recent memory that I actually believe that someone means divine inspiration when they say that. They're actually trying to listen to God! For real!

Too Lazy to Make My Own

Too lazy to make my own post, I'm hijacking one from Running Scared:

Avi and Russel - a love story

Jazz talks about an Israeli couple who have gone to Canada to marry. They state their intent of having Israel recognize their marriage. Jazz says:

I don't know if they will face an easier time than here in the current Christo-fascist climate in America, or a harder time. Perhaps some of our Jewish authors/readers can help me out there. I really have no idea what the prevailing view of gays and lesbians is in Israel. I sort of have the impression that most of the homophobic trends in religion came from the old testament... Leviticus and that crowd. Then again, I could be totally off base. Perhaps they embrace a far more tolerant society there than we currently have in the U.S.

Now, I've got me a bona-fide B.A. in Hebraic Studies, I do, so I answered in a comment:

Ooh, I suspect they'll have a real stone bitch of a time. The laws in Israel, unlike the laws here, really *are* Old Testament based. I mean, people aren't putting out each other's eyes for stealing goats, but there's a serious religious base, and it's on purpose. If these two gentlemen manage to get their status changed, I'll be really surprised.

Jews don't spend a lot of time talking about sin and punishment because the emphasis is that punishment for sins against man is given out by man, and punishment for sins against G-d (I had a really hard time deciding how to write that) will be given out by G-d, but you know that the Orthodox feel that we're on earth to "be fruitful and multiply". Homosexuality doesn't fit in with that agenda.

Personally, I think that if 2 men or 2 women want to get married, they should go on ahead. It doesn't hurt anyone for these people to be happy. This is a prime example of a reason why I call myself a bad Jew - I know all the rules, but I just can't follow them. Can't, or won't, but definitely don't. And yet, I know that I'm Jewish, I guess I should cut all the non-dogmatic people out there who call themselves Catholic a break, huh?

Recovering Economy

Reading an article on MSNBC about trendier items at Walmart, and I came across this paragraph (emphasis mine):

Unlike Wal-Mart, whose core customer still hasn't benefited from a recovering economy, Target is less vulnerable to consumers' financial constraints; it attracts a more upscale customer while keeping its budget shoppers.

Now, I've been working on a budget. A real budget, and I've been analyzing everything that I spend in a fashion that I've rarely done before. I compare it to costs, and to how much of a raise I got this year (less than cost of living, despite a good review). Gasoline is now 10% of my monthly salary. Milk is more than twice as expensive as nutritionless soda. Fresh foods are wickedly pricey when compared to frozen crap that I refuse to eat. When discussing how I am now making more and yet getting/having less, I asked, "How can this be?". My answer was, "Perhaps the economy's crap".

Are we really recovering?

RIght to Laugh My Butt Off

(Hat tip Mike over at Running Scared)

Terri Schiavo's parents have agreed to sell their list of supporters to a direct-mailing firm.

BAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

Right to life - in solicitation hell!

Party Time!

Happy second blogiversary, Running Scared. We loved you even before you let us join in your reindeer games.

It's Almost Enough...

...to make me think of becoming a Republican.

(via Atrios)
Erosion of Estate Tax Is a Lesson in Politics

Washington has been changing the estate tax. Heck, Republicans want to eliminate it. They speak of "death taxes" and equal treatment for "paupers and billionaires". Well, here's the thing - The portion of an estate exempted from taxation this year is 1.5 million dollars. Next year it goes to 2 million. Now, as things stand, my father's estate isn't anywhere near this. But hey, dad's not an old man, yet, he's got plenty of years to live. What if he takes his comfy nest egg and hits it big with one of his investments? Wouldn't I then want the amount exempted raised to 3.5 million dollars, or even eliminated, as proposed? Because, you know, as much as I love him, I understand that everyone eventually dies, and then, well... kaching!

Do you know me at all? Because if you do, then you know that my answer is "of course not". As much as I feel that tug in my gut that says "Hey, your dad made that money, now it should be yours - OK, mine and my sister's, I know better. I still seem to be one of the few people who keeps saying out loud that we need ACTUAL money to pay for the running of the country, and the rich are the ones who can afford to give it out. This money must come from somewhere, why not those who aren't subject to poverty without that certain percentage? If at some crazy point in the future, I was to find myself actually rich, I would understand that this comes with taxes to match, because I am not a spoiled child who wants to have all the benefits with none of the hard work.

Wait - that came out wrong, seeing as I do actually want all of the benefits with none of the hard work. I want it, but I understand that life does not work that way. If it did, I'd also be able to shoot lightning out of my fingertips and be able to communicate telepathically with animals.

Bolton, National Review, Vocabulary

Or, another chapter in the "What is Tami Reading Today?" primer.

There's an interesting article at the National Review, today, about how Bolton is not as unsuited to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. "OK", I thought, "I'll give that a read". And might I say, I don't know what kind of people read the National Review, but apparently they remember more SAT words than I do. I had to look up both "gravamen" and "vitiates".

The article is by Rich Lowry, and he makes a few solid points. Bolton has indeed been involved in many activities that involved more than one country:

In his current job as undersecretary of state for arms control, he worked on the Moscow Treaty, which codified steep reductions in the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals. He was instrumental in the passage of U.N. Resolution 1540, urging countries to crack down on WMD proliferation. He was central in the creation of the Proliferation Security Initiative, a multilateral effort to block the transfer of WMDs. He was the lead U.S. negotiator in the creation of the G-8 Global Partnership Against the Proliferation of WMD, an attempt to secure Russian WMD materials. Just how multilateral can one guy get?

I was reading without that angry red color clouding my vision, the article seemed to be presenting its point fairly well, so I kept reading. Well, I did take exception to the line "This attitude is the international version of the old definition of a liberal as someone who won't take his own side in a fight". That was a bit of a cheap shot. But more or less the article makes a decent argument. Then, of course, I got to the part that didn't ring as true with me.

The second is that Bolton's multilateralism is always in the service of advancing Bush's foreign policy. Since Democrats oppose that foreign policy, they pretend Bolton rejects international cooperation altogether. His version of multilateralism vitiates what for many Democrats should be its chief purpose — frustrating Bush goals abroad. Alas, John Bolton is determined to be Bush's ambassador to the U.N., rather than the other way around, making him the kind of diplomat the Democrats just can't abide.

I do indeed oppose most of Bush's foreign policies, I do. I feel that they smack of superiority complexes and imperialistic goals. To me, advancing these policies *is* rejecting international cooperation. Has Lowry heard some of the things that Rice has said? Does he think that she never really made those comments, or that no one else in the administration echoed the sentiment?

So, as I interpret it, Bolton's version of multilateralism is painted with the brush that builds nations and assumes that the U.S. should be in charge. Isn't having a version of multilateralism that actually translates to "making others play the way we want them to" exactly what we're complaining about?

I don't think that I'm not on my own side if I feel that the U.S. should be working as a member of the U.N. instead of the eldest son and heir.

When You Least Expect It

I never thought that this kind of thing would come out of the Pope's dying - seems that this morning (last night, today, whatever), that the leaders of Syria and Iran forgot to act like crazy separatists and treated Israeli President Moshe Katsav like a fellow human being. And he did it back!

"I told him 'Good morning' and he shook my hand," Katsav, who holds a largely ceremonial post as head of state, told Israel's Channel 2 TV on his encounter with Assad. The Israeli and Syrian delegations had been seated next to each other.

Iranian-born Katsav said he spoke in his native Farsi to Khatami about their common city of birth. Iran officially seeks Israel's destruction.

"The president of Iran extended his hand to me, I shook it and told him in Farsi, 'May peace be upon you'," said Katsav.

Good behavior seen at a solemn occasion? Do you think it might catch on?

Friday Not Pet Blogging at ALL

Sure, sure, they're burying the pope, but I was just over at Cynical Nation, and he's pointed out a really funny headline (if you're an American, at least).

Happy Friday!

Things That Make You Say, "What?"

This morning on my ride into work, I was listening to New Jersey 101.5. "But Tami," you may ask, "why?". Well, I usually listen to WPLJ, but this morning they were playing a "phone scam", and I hate those. It bothers the hell out of me when a radio show will call someone just to trick them, and I hate that people find that funny. I understand situational humor, and if I was watching that kind of scenario in a sitcom, I'd probably laugh along with everyone else. When I know that the outraged person isn't in on it, though, when I know that they're really *feeling* that anger, and not just pretending for comedic effect, well, it makes me feel all squirmy inside.

So, I switched to the classic rock station, because the iPod wasn't hooked up (and this reminds me that I left it in the car. Now I have to go down to the garage and get it, nuts), but they were playing commercials, and i have a short attention span. So, I flipped over to 101.5. I listen to them fairly often, knowing that almost always I will disagree with whatever host is on the air, but hearing discussions on local issues is never a bad thing, right? I figure I must be getting something out of it.

Today Jim Gearhart was talking about illegal immigrants, and the fact that banks are now working with the IRS to give mortgage loans to illegal immigrants (also here).

I was cool with this, I hadn't heard about the topic before, and I'm not really sure where I stand on the whole illegal immigration thing. Like everything else, I find that I'm a shade of grey. I'm against people coming here illegally and living without ID so that they can fade into the background and never get caught in their drug trafficking business. I'm against the person who lives here without papers because they committed a terrible crime in another country, even if they're harming no one now that they're here. I'm *not* against people who flee a bad situation the only way that they know how, because getting papers is almost impossible for them in their native lands, if those people enter into the immigration process upon arrival. Or even if they don't, out of fear, I'm still not against them if they're just people seeking a better life. And I'm sure there's a million levels of people in between the extremes, and I'd only give my opinion on them case-by-case. You can't lump people into a giant block like that, it's almost never true.

I was surprised how little the host was saying to contribute to the conversation. It was as if the callers were filling him in on stuff he'd never heard before. That was pretty surprising. I learned a lot of the stuff I know about this by watching cop shows and movies. Does no one watch TV any more?

OK, complete and total derailment (if you want to keep your train of thought, skip this): a woman in her 60's told me that her husband had tried to help out by doing the laundry, but had mixed the colors and the whites, and now all of his underwear was a lovely blush pink. He's in his 60's! Did the man never watch a sitcom in his whole life?! Surely Peter Brady should have taught him that lesson 30 years ago! How the &*!#$^ hell did this woman never show her husband how to separate laundry - EVER - in the 40-some years they've been married?!

Back to the show. Callers were calling in, talking about how they know people who had jobs where they paid taxes, but couldn't get refunds because they were illegals, how some illegals become legals, how our economy would crash without illegals, because they do jobs that other people don't want, and finally, I was close to work, so I listened to one last call.

It was a caller talking about how much money the hospitals of New Jersey have to put out yearly to care for illegal immigrants. He claimed it was projected at $200,000,000 for this year. He stated that illegals are paying taxes, but those taxes aren't being used to pay for the services that they use (now that I'm thinking about it, this isn't making a lot of sense). He finished up with the line, "The government is getting fat".

Jim Gearhart ended the call with his response, "Yeah, but who's the government? It used to be us."

What? What the hell does that mean?

Rational Measures

We all know that terrible things are going on in Darfur. I would venture to say that the majority of us would be glad to hear that the acts of genocide being committed had stopped, and that an entire race of people is no longer being systematically wiped out. I would venture even further to say that there's a goodly number of people who want something done about it. But what? Send over the military? That doesn't seem like such a keen idea ever since we got so bogged down in Iraq that we're beginning to understand that we're there for the long haul. So, without violence, what's a country to do?

Withhold other things. There's a bill sponsored by senators Corzine, Brownback, Dodd, Durbin, Feingold, Lieberman, Talent, Dewine, and Coburn that proposes doing exactly that. It includes things like an extension on the arms embargo (yes, we should STOP SENDING MORE WEAPONS), and sanctions against people performing these atrocities. Sanctions against people, against a government, not violence against innocent citizens. These are the kind of steps that should be taken before violence is resorted to. Sometimes they even work.

Probably Unnecessary

You know, everyone's writing about the pope. He was in every single mainstream newspaper in existence, yesterday. OK, I didn't confirm that, but I'd take the bet, if it was offered. So really, there's no need for me to blog about it. The thing is, I was having an email conversation with a friend, and I really felt like I managed to capture my feelings about the whole thing really well. You know how sometimes you write something, and then you look at it, and you think, "Yes, that's exactly what I meant to say"? Well, that's how I feel about the following paragraph.

...Me, well, you know that I like to take everyone individually, and look at them as a person. To me the pope appeared to be a really constant guy who honestly believed that he was bringing the word of God to people. While he was a complete bastard to women who wanted some kind of control over their bodies and homosexuals - a *complete*, unfeeling bastard - he was in fact simply acting in the way that he thought God wanted him to. He may have trampled all over people's rights, but when it came to the sanctity of life, he meant it with every fiber of his being. He would never support violence or war, and that was a good thing. So no, I can never "like" a pope, simply because I feel that Catholicism itself is a dominating, unfriendly force that does little good in the world. But John Paul II the guy? I could probably work with him on feeding the poor or something.

I'm Not Needed Here

There has been a bill introduced to "limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism".

Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal judicial code to prohibit the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over any matter in which relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government or an officer or agent of such government concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.

Prohibits a court of the United States from relying upon any law, policy, or other action of a foreign state or international organization in interpreting and applying the Constitution, other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of adoption of the U.S. Constitution.

...up to the time of adoption of the U.S. Constitution. Anyone else have a problem with ignoring 200 years of experience when making laws?

Anyway, as I've said in my title, I don't even need to write about this. All I have to do is point you towards Brilliant at Breakfast and Digby. They say everything that I would want to.

I'm a Joiner

I'd like to point out that I'm not angry with Wonkette for being cute and famous, but I do think that a

panel "to discuss the meanings of the words "journalist" and "blogger" and whether the two are different things or one and the same

should include some serious bloggers, and *no* fake journalists. In light of this, I've added my name to the list of signatures on this letter, found at The Agonist.

The Gentleman from New Jersey

(an article emailed to me by Tata)
Go, Frank!

Sen. Lautenberg rebukes DeLay over Schiavo remarks

Our nation’s judges must be concerned for their safety and security when they are asked to make difficult decisions every day. That’s why comments like those you made are not only irresponsible, but downright dangerous. To make matters worse, is it appropriate to make threats directed at specific Federal and state judges?

Damn skippy, it's inappropriate!

Friday, I'm all about the animals

It’s no joke: Even animals "laugh"

Studies by various groups suggest monkeys, dogs and even rats love a good laugh. People, meanwhile, have been laughing since before they could talk.

Elephants talk, rats laugh. How cool is science?

I truly love animals. Pets give us unconditional love and companionship, and cows are absolutely delicious.

Corzine and the Basics

Yesterday Jon Corzine officially announced his candidacy for New Jersey Governor.

"It's time for a leader who comes to state government from a different experience: someone who is not encumbered by an old culture, historical entanglements and the status quo," he said.

Truthfully, it's time for a leader who doesn't have to make deals with people who have their own agendas in order to get funding and votes. Sure, that's harsh, but it's my opinion that the support of those with less than the state's best interests in mind have played too large a role in getting our state-level leaders elected. I think that we've started down the right path of spending reform in the state with Codey, and I hope to see Corzine continue down it.

There are those who would criticize, of course. From the article above:

In a written statement, New Jersey Republican Chairman Tom Wilson criticized Corzine's record, saying it shows him to be "a classic tax and spend Democrat."

"Trusting Jon Corzine to cut New Jersey's budget would be about as smart as trusting Michael Jackson to babysit your kids," Wilson said.

Now, of course, if you've been reading me for any amount of time, you know how I feel about "tax and spend" - IT'S HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO WORK. What's the opposite of tax and spend, borrow and spend, so that we have massive debt? Tax and spend less, so that we have fewer programs? Tax less and spend less, so that we have fewer programs and no money in the bank to deal with emergencies? No. We, as a densely populated, successful state, pay taxes. With these taxes, we do things like pave roads, fund schools, provide social programs, and pay the salaries of all the people who arrange and provide these services. Without the taxes, the money does not come from the air.

Can we spend our money more wisely? Absolutely. Do I think that Corzine can fix all of our problems? No, of course not. This is government, after all, and every cut affects someone, every reform brings new challenges. But I do believe that he'll do his best, and that's all I personally ask. Perhaps his plans will "ease the tax burdens" of NJ citizens, as he says. I think we should give him the chance to try.

I Can Post again!

Sweet Charity, I can post!

Not that I know what to say, now, but *man* I'm glad I can post again!

Lame Excuse Time

I know, it's a lame excuse, but I've got an awful headache today and don't feel like expending the mental effort it would take to write an entire essay.

Dumbo Seems More Real to Me, Now

Elephants can talk! I knew it!

Elephants learn through copying

Elephant rumbles are known to be sophisticated and varied
Elephants learn some of their calls through imitation, scientists report in this week's Nature magazine.

Yes, I understand that they don't speak English... yet.

We need a reminder

That Tom DeLay is surrounded by scandal for improper political conduct. *I* was reminded by C.B.

DeLay at center of political storm

His troubles began last fall, when three political fund-raisers with ties to him were indicted in his home state of Texas. Then the House ethics committee admonished him, not once but three times. Since then, questions have been raised about whether he knew about the dubious sources of money behind trips he took to Britain and South Korea.

Right! I forgot he did those things! I was so busy being outraged at his pompous windbag speech about how the whole Terri Schiavo case is about *him*, I was distracted!

Oh, and I also forgot that he's not just nutty about that, but rather he's pretentious and holier-than thou in a general sense:

Ahead of the 2000 presidential race, he outlined a vision where "we march forward with a biblical worldview, a worldview that says God is our Creator, that man is a sinner, and that we will save this country by changing the hearts and minds of Americans."

What the hell is that all about? Is he saying that the USA is a nation of sinners, and it's up to congress to save our souls? That's appalling!

This man makes me feel like I have to say things out loud, like "The world can't be judged in black and white, every situation has shades of grey", and "Saying that you can take the side of Good or Evil is such a simplistic childish notion, that it cannot seriously be discussed on an adult level". I'm forced to iterate truths that I hold to be self-evident, you know what I mean?

Throw on top of that the fact that he's obviously weasely about money, and I'm at a loss to undertsand why people support him.

Can You Thrive Without Growth?

Interesting headline in the NYT today: Vibrant Cities Find One Thing Missing: Children

At first I thought it was just going to be about how no one can afford to raise children in Manhattan, but surprisingly, it focused a lot on Portland, Oregon. And more interesting figures were brought up

Nationally, the birthrate has been dropping while the overall population is aging as life expectancy increases. The problem is not just in cities. New figures released this month showed North Dakota losing more children than any other state.

By "losing more children", they mean that the population is aging, and new children are not being born at the same rates as they have in the past.

The article goes on to talk about how having children in a city really improves the quality of life there, but my mind wandered elsewhere. I was thinking of the concept of a United States that was not growing. Have we reached critical USA mass? Can we continue to prosper as a world superpower if we're not getting bigger? Without growth, will we lose our status? It seems possible to me, but I'm pretty pessimistic, lately.

Pink vs. Blue

The discussion about boys and girls being different continues over at Running Scared. The comments carry the discussion a little further.

So what am I on about? The idea that men and women aren't the same. The original impetus was a statement by Lawrence Summers of Harvard that women's and men's brains have fundamental differences. The other of the Herald's article jumps right from there to point out immediate physical differences. OK, the physical differences exist. No one can reasonably argue that. What really has women up in arms about this whole thing, I think, is that we can't stand to hear that men are better than us at math.

In the comments of his post, Jazz says

"A difference in how people best learn is still a difference in their mental structure, no? The example is not meant to say that women are intrinsically worse at math and science. It only says that they score more poorly on tests. This could easily be explained by a fundamental difference in their brains and the fact that normal school environments are competitive in nature."

I felt the need to answer.

To my way of thinking, structure is not the same thing as potential. I know that at math and science I rock. Call me arrogant, but I know that. I work in a technical field, and it's true, I'm surrounded by more men than women, but I know that I'm good at what I do, and so do they. I think that's why it bothers me personally to hear that "girls aren't good at math". It's because I am, and it makes me wonder if that means that I've got a different kind of brain, and that's a *really* uncomfortable feeling. So, what I maintain is just because we learn it at a different pace (boys - reading, girls - math) doesn't mean that we don't eventually reach the same levels, in accordance with our personal aptitudes.

Does that make sense to anyone else? What I'm trying to say is that each of us as an individual has a certain level of potential as to what we can learn. Some will excel at philosophy, some will excel at physics. Some will always be able to tell how other people are feeling, some will be able to understand how to build a structure with maximum support. The amount of time you take to reach that potential varies by individual as much as the potential itself. And while men's and women's brains may process items differently, that doesn't mean that those items won't both eventually be processed by both kinds of brains.

I know I'm ignoring the big stuff

But sometimes I like to blog about positive stories. I was reading over at JoeTerrito.com, and I liked this very much:

Hoping they click

The photographers -- people like William Coupon, whose pictures have graced the cover of Time magazine, and Martin Schoeller, who hasphotographed Brad Pitt and Jamie Foxx -- have volunteered their time to give these children a better shot at finding adoptive homes.

The collaboration is called the Heart Gallery -- an idea that began in 2001 in Sante Fe, N.M.,and soon spread to Massachusetts, Florida, Ohio and Connecticut. Last fall, in Hartford, Conn., 40 photographs of foster children led to 19 adoptions of hard-to-place children.

...

The main mission of the Heart Gallery, said Van Hemmen, "is to find homes for as many of these kids as we possibly can, but I also hope it will raise awareness. There are many great kids in the foster system who deserve a break. Many of them have gotten lost. Hopefully, the Heart Gallery will change that."

For more information about the children or the Heart Gallery project, go to www.heartgallerynj.com or call (800) 99ADOPT. Donations may be made to Heart Gallery of New Jersey, P.O. Box 4139, Clifton, N.J. 07012.

Helping kids find homes is a cause I like. Now you know.

Moral Conscience Mislaid

What happened to the days of the college campus protest? The sit-in? When students tool a stand for causes they believe in? Whatever happened, those days are gone, and apparently they've been replaced by students whining about shoving affluence in the face of others. Hello, this is America, folks! You're supposed to reach for whatever level you want? If you want to reach for the place where someone else does your vacuuming, then it follows suit that someone is actually going to have to do the vacuuming.

We have so many problems that need addressing before this ever should have been bothered with.

Things I believe, as of March 21, 2005

An unborn fetus that cannot survive on its own is not yet a person. Soul or no soul, it cannot think and breathe on its own. This is why I do not believe that abortion is murder.

People whose brains have been destroyed by illness or accident are indeed people, but if you can never think again, your life has been ended. The fact that your body doesn't know this seems inherently cruel to me, but there it is. With no upper brain function, no chance to think, or feel or know, I don't feel that you can claim that this is life any more.

Soldiers are people. Each and every one of them. Soldiers on both sides of any war are all people. Each has thoughts and feelings and reactions, no matter how intensely they suppress them in able to be good soldiers. Killing people is a terrible thing, no matter what the reason. Torture is not very far below the killing, as it is intended to remove the humanity of a person.

You cannot claim that you make decisions based on a culture of life and simultaneously support a war. It is contradictory and hypocritical. If you believe that unborn fetuses have the same rights as functional adults, then why don't soldiers have those same rights? It doesn't make sense.

Having said that, I also know that I do not live in a world of ideals. All those thoughts and feelings that I keep mentioning have dramatic and unexpected effects every day, every moment. Wars happen because people stubbornly refuse to believe that compromises can be made without retribution from an angry god, or worse, loss of dignity.

I wish there was no war, but I understand that there is. Beyond that, I wish that there was no war in Iraq, right now. I am NOT supporting Palestinians, or insurgents, or anyone who seems to be putting out an opinion that the only way to peace is the suppression of other people's rights, but I am also not supporting the acts of war that we're using to counter them. I don't think it's working, you see. We're not even keeping people safe by making them oppressed and miserable, we're only bringing more danger with the oppression, making it that much more unsavory.

I believe that we should make decisions based on what will lift oppression and misery, we should take the side of those that would battle poverty and injustice. When we've taken steps that we think are in this direction but turn out to be misguided, when we're on a dead-end and we cannot come out to a crossroads that will once again point us towards our goal, we should turn back so that we can once again find the correct path.

Like Minds

Well, as I was ranting about how idiotic it was for Congress to be involved in the Schiavo case, and how state's rights are something that I thought Republicans were supposed to be supportive of, and how calling a brain-dead woman to testify was grandstanding of the worst degree, so was Turnspit Daily. Only, maybe a little more cohesively than I did.

Dead or Alive

I have a post up at Running Scared about the latest development in the Terri Schiavo case.

Intolerance

And this time, the intolerant one is *me*!

Ron Beasley, from Middle Earth Journal, whom I usually enjoy reading, has put a piece called "It's not a matter of choice". Here, let me quote the part that's made me realize my intolerance:

Should abortion be legal is not a question of "choice". The only question is whether a fetus is a human being or not. For society as a whole that is a decision society must make and the laws will reflect that.
Do I think a fetus is a human being? Do I think that abortion should be legal? Those are not my choices to make any more than it is my choice to decide that one or more races are not human beings. It is Societies "choice" not my "choice".

See, there it is. The following paragraph is my pure, unadulterated, unaltered to make it less harsh opinion.

No, A fetus is not yet a human being. A born baby is a human being. A thing growing inside a woman's body without fully formed limbs or organs, or features is not a person. I understand that there are people who think that life starts at the moment of conception, and I would never *make* anyone like that have an abortion, but you know what? I think that those people are WRONG. I do. I think of them as foolish people who won't accept science over religion. I think of them as being led by the nose as opposed to thinking for themselves.

I've made my decision, and I find myself intolerant of those who refuse to agree. I really do expect everyone I like to agree with me on this. I do! It's right, how can you see things any other way?

It's a little uncomfortable knowing I've got an opinion that I'm not willing to consider the other side of, but it's true. I do NOT think that an undeveloped fetus is a person, whether or not the possibility for it to develop into one exists. Therefore, the idea that I would HAVE to make that into a person USING MY BODY makes me crazy.

Oh - and you know what else I'm intolerant of? Men who think that they COULD EVER UNDERSTAND. You CAN'T. Get over it.

Blogrrl Quote of the Day

No, I'm not going to do one of these every day, but the language was so succinct, the comment so refreshing - I refer to Mahablog, in her post "Take a Clue. Any Clue.", and the fabulous line:

OF COURSE IT’S TORTURE YOU STUPID SON OF A BITCH!

Nothing like pointing out that people are idiots. At least I always like it.

Inflated Ego Issues

Cross posted on Running Scared.

Today's reading is yesterday's NYT article on Bush's dealing with Iran, and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. It bothers me immensely that the U.S.'s position is to reinterpret a document and continue acting as if we're a parent to the world.

It's not that I trust Iran. I said in a comment further down the page that I can't "know" that Iran would make weapons with nuclear materials. I take that back. I expect that Iran would make weapons ina second if tey thought that they could get away with it. If I were in their shoes, I'd be thinking frantically what would be the best way to keep the U.S. the hell off my land.

I'm not even against limiting the enrichment of Uranium in the case of other locales that seem like they too would like to make themselves some shiny new bombs. The fewer nuclear weapons that exist in the world, the better, I say.

My problem is, rather, the way we come across.

After a visit to Tehran last week for a conference that Iran sponsored to explain its nuclear ambitions, George Perkovich, a nuclear expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, said he had concluded that Mr. Bush had the right instinct, but might not be taking the right approach.

The Iranians have decided to go on the offensive and simply assert their right, even if the treaty doesn't explicitly say that they have a right to enrich their own uranium," he said Monday. The view expressed by Iran's nuclear negotiators, he said, amounted to "We're not hiding it, we're not embarrassed by it, and no one is going to take our right away."

That's the gist of it. We threaten, and treat other countries like children who must be watched. We need to remember that we are *not* a parent to the world, and that pride exists everywhere, and will color people's reactions. We need to remember that we've called ourselves a superpower for a long time and yet we find ourselves unable to put down insurgency in one small country. We need to remind ourselves that we live in the world, not rule it.

Newsflash

U.S., Pakistan admit bin Laden trail is cold
Christ on a cracker, people, you just figured that out?!

The article talks about how "they almost had him" as recently as "about 10 months ago". Sure, you did.

So, what do I do, make the obligatory comment about how glad I am that we're concentrating all of our forces in Afghanistan, and that we've got our eye on the prize? Do I say something disparaging about people who don't know the location of their own rear-ends?

Nah. I'll just quote Dorothy Parker in a nice non-sequential ending:

Newsflash (by Dorothy Parker)
Men seldom make passes
At girls who wear glasses.

Uneasy Monday

Report: Israel has plans to hit Iran nuke plant
Quote one:

LONDON - Israel has drawn up plans for a combined air and ground attack on Iranian nuclear installations if diplomacy fails to halt Tehran’s atomic program, London’s Sunday Times said.

Well that's not good news. I get the feeling that Iran is an angry nation, much stronger than the ones we've currently been bullying. A military stirke by Israel would result in Iran fighting back.

Quote two:

U.S. officials have indicated they would not stand in Israel’s way if international diplomatic efforts to halt Iran’s nuclear projects fail, the paper said.

Oh, good. So I can't count on my government to be a voice of reason, here. Fabulous.

Quote three:

"We will defend our nuclear sites with all our strength and we are ready to ward off any possible aggression," Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani told the semi-official INSA students news agency on Saturday.

See? That's what I said!

Quote four:

Asked if there was a possibility that Israel could attack Iranian nuclear installations, Vice Premier Shimon Peres said: "I don’t think so."

Oh. OK, so that makes it nice and clear, then.

This is what has made me uneasy this morning. Does Israel have an attack plan? Has the U.S. OK'ed it? Is this just an awful rumor planted in the London Times by the U.S. that we'll use as an example of why we "had" to invade Iran, later on? What are the odds of something printed in the London Times being completely untrue? Completely? I'm guessing those are long odds. I don't actually see anything good coming out of an attack on Iran, so I'm hoping that all this talk reamins at the talk and rumor level - forever.

One thing that really bothers me about it, though, is that the Israelis have a reputation for running a top-level military operation. I kind of have it in the back of my mind that if they were actually planning on attacking Iranian nuclear sites, that the only way people outside the operation would find out is when the explosions started.

Peaceful Protests...

Wish they didn't have to protest in the first place., though.

Via Buzz Machine (and others whom he mentions and links to), there's some protesting going on in Bahrain about bloggers who've been arrested. For blogging. I know that we've all been having a hard time remembering lately exactly which rights we were supposed to be considering inalienable, but freedom of speech is one that most of us can remember, most of the time. Honest opinions and reporting of publicly available facts should be allowed. Period. These bloggers should be set free, and the people brave enough to stand up for them in a peaceful manner are my kind of people.

Am I Unfairly Biased?

This is the question I'm asking myself today. I ask myself this one a lot, in truth, because I try to balance the "I feel this way because it's the only opiion to have!" side of me with the "Everyone is an individual with feelings and rights" side of me. Crazy, I know.

Anyway, today's issue is a big one: Lebanon, Syria, and whether or not the US should support Hezbollah. Today's NYT has an article called U.S. Called Ready to See Hezbollah in Lebanon Role (registration probably required).

After years of campaigning against Hezbollah, the radical Shiite Muslim party in Lebanon, as a terrorist pariah, the Bush administration is grudgingly going along with efforts by France and the United Nations to steer the party into the Lebanese political mainstream, administration officials say.

The administration's shift was described by American, European and United Nations officials as a reluctant recognition that Hezbollah, besides having a militia and sponsoring attacks on Israelis, is an enormous political force in Lebanon that could block Western efforts to get Syria to withdraw its troops.

Wow. My first impression of this was that it was like a bad movie where they put the most out-of-control student in charge of the class, and the sudden responsibility sobers him to the point that he sees the error of his ways. But that seemed like it was too flip, this is a very serious issue, I shouldn't be making fun.

My second thought was "How can we possibly back a terrorist organization as a viable political force?" That one's more serious, and it seems to be how I actually feel. I'm always surprised when a right leaning tendency pops up in my brain, but I think that this one's wedged in there pretty firmly and isn't going to be leaving any time soon.

I want to think that the Lebanese people are all individuals with rights, but by all I hold dear, I can NOT get behind the idea of supporting a group of people who have used covert violence to further their cause. And, of course, their cause is the destruction of Israel. Destruction. They'd like to push the Jews into the ocean. If the U.S. could be destroyed as well, hey that would be just peachy! Because the U.S. is an ally to Israel, which makes us an enemy to Hezbollah.

The kindler gentler approach to "Palestine" is starting to make me angry. These people send out their own on suicide missions, they teach their young to hate, the leaders purposefully keep their populous in poverty in order to keep the hate festering, and over and over is repeated the "fact" that it's all the fault of Israel and the U.S. Well you know what -and you do actually know this - it's NOT our fault. We just want everyone to go about their lives, living in whatever the heck country they're already in. Apparently, this is too much to ask.

The article quotes an arab diplomat who wished to remain anonymous:

"Why don't they realize that once America makes a case for something, the Middle East will go in the opposite direction?"

And there you have it. Whatever it is, if the Americans want it, do NOT do it. These people don't want to work with us. It's time to take of the kid gloves and stop pretending that you can love everyone, which, by the way, coming from this administration is RIDICULOUS. It is time to stand up straight and say that the U.S. is an ally of Israel. It seems as if we're trying to play both sides of the fence, but we're only welcome on one of the sides!

I wish I could just say "Screw Lebanon, screw Hezbollah, let Syria go ahead and stay". I wish it was that easy. But since I can't, in good conscience, recommend that the best thing for a country is occupation, I find that I don't know what to say at all.

Email Conversation of the Day

I realy wanted to share this conversation with the world:

>>> And I want to help other people and further government social
>>>programs. People hate me for that, now, too.
>>
>>I can't remember where I saw it because I've been
>>hopscotching all over
>>the blogosphere at night but I found a great suggestion: the neocons
>>whole schtick is being serious and grownup and intimidation. What we
>>need is a world-wide game of Point&Laugh. It'd screw things
>>up royally
>>if we all just laughed at their every suggestion.
>>
>>Subtext: tiny wee wees = tiny brains.
>>
>
> I can just see my next post: Survey Shows Neocons have Tiny, Tiny
> Penises.

We've found our Gigi!

Around the World, Starting Here

Between seeing a piece on Joe Territo's blog that Jessie Ventura is backing Joe Piscopo for NJ Governor, reading over at Running Scared that Walmart is pushing for some new laws for truck drivers that I find appalling, and reading about even more beheaded bodies being discovered in Iraq, I could really use some good news.

To be fair, the death thing has me way more upset than the Joe Piscopo thing, but I don't particularly love that idea. Maybe if I read up more about his positions and qualifications... No, never mind, it's depressing.

Anybody happy about something? Want to tell me about it?

Laws of the Land

(inspired by Ron at the Middle Earth Journal, even though this isn't actually what he was talking about)

OK, quick quiz - what are the oldest laws you can think of. You know, ones that are so old that it's hard to think of laws older, so well known that pretty much everybody round these here parts has heard them over and over?

Give up? No, you know? That's right! The Ten Commandments.

So, may I ask, what's so wrong with having a set of really old laws made into statues and tablets and stuff and displayed in front of government buildings? Is there some sort of *new* law that says that because we display a religious symbol that symbols from other religions are somehow less important?

I just think that in this particular case, a display of the Ten Commandments is pretty much in context. Like the caduceus displayed on the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps home page. It is indeed a religious symbol, but because it's so associated with medicine, no one would ever think to be offended by it. OK, it's pretty much a defunct religion, but I'm trying to make a point, here.

Are we *really* supposed to keep all religious displays out of public places? Or, instead, is it OK to have a display from any religion - any religion - wherever the heck it seems appropriate? We're supposed to, as Americans, never suppress anyone's ability to practice their religion. This kind of thing, in my opinion, does not violate that spirit.

Head, Meet Desk. Repeat.

U.S. Says It Doesn't Send Off Prisoners for Torture

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Monday the United States would never send terrorism suspects to countries where they would be tortured but admitted once they have been dispatched to nations like Saudi Arabia or Egypt the U.S. government has little control.

Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang...

Confusing but Interesting

Munch Paintings Stolen in Norway

So, someone steals paintings that are way too famous to steal on the open market. Apparently, it's not even that hard, what with the lack of alarms, and a hotel staffer who actually interrupts the theft failing to actually stop it. Anyway, these people now have these famous paintings. What are they going to do with them, sell them to private buyers like the world is actually some kind of movie starring Steve McQueen or Pierce Brosnan? It's a bizarre thought.

Maybe We're Not *In* Kansas Anymore

Via Atrios:

Kansas Voters Keep Anti-Bias Ordinance

Voters on Tuesday upheld an ordinance that prohibits discrimination against homosexuals in municipal hiring, turning back a repeal movement led by a minister known for picketing the funerals of AIDS victims.

...

In final, unofficial results, 53 percent opposed the repeal, with 14,285 voting "no," and 12,795 voting "yes."

All right, I personally find this margin way too slim for comfort, but in an area of the country where I expect the majority of people voting to be terrified homophobes who refuse to be shown reason, I'm heartened.

Was that too harsh? Maybe. I don't actually know anyone who lives in Kansas, although I've known people who've left Kansas.

Either way, if you know me at all, you know that I feel that the municipality should hire the person who would do the best job of filing your home remodeling permits, no matter what race, religion, creed, or sexual orientation they may be. As long as the applicant with the absolute best command of alphabetizing gets the position, I'm satisfied.

In the article, Rev. Phelps is quoted as calling homosexuality a "filthy lifestyle". Oh, like being heterosexual in any way guarantees that you're not living a filthy lifestyle outside the office, but being gay does. This guy's a bigoted jerk.

A Move I Actually Approve Of

Rather than always post about things I disagree with, I try to every once in a while put up a post about something that I actually support. Today, I support not killing minors.

High court: Juvenile death penalty unconstitutional

The 5-4 decision throws out the death sentences of about 70 juvenile murderers and bars states from seeking to execute minors for future crimes.

The executions, the court said, were unconstitutionally cruel.

Yes, cruel. Snuffing out a life before it's even had 18 years to develop into something cohesive seems utterly wrong to me. Good going, Supremes!

Surprisingly, I'm not anti-death penalty. I am, however, very much in favor of only using it under the most severe circumstances. It's a heavy subject, and that should never be forgotten. Without life, there's no hope, and snuffing out hope should always be the very last resort.

Cross-Post time

I put up a piece over on Running Scared. Feel free to click this and go read it, if you're interested in my opinion about whether or not drugs like Celebrex and Bexxtra should stay on the market.

Conflicted at Heart

Friday Not-My-Pet Blogging

Gizmodo has a piece on a hamster-powered MIDI sequencer.

Really!

Morality Quiz

Am I a bad person if I'm thinking the words "Pope death watch"?

Author of a Vision

Warning, this starts out cohesively enough, then just devolves down to my usual pap about respecting others.

Hat tip Middle Earth Journal

Different Era, But Same Talk

Leon Hadar talks about Bush's vision of a New World, and he calls Natan Sharansky the author of that vision. I'm vaguely unsettled by this, because Natan Sharansky was an important figure to me when I was in my teens, he was the example Russian Jew Prisoner. We all wore bracelets with the names of Jewish men and women detained in the Soviet Union. Our goal was to raise world awareness of the unjust incarceration of people whose only crime was that they remained Jewish in a state that had forbidden religion. Well, maybe it worked. Natan Sharansky was freed, and was able to emigrate to Israel, and we all rejoiced. Now, His book is the professed favorite bedtime reading of GWB.

Hadar describes how the idea of advancing democracy is akin to advancing a Messiah, a concept that will save the world. This is "Big Picture" thinking, and the small details...

Forget those "little details": you know, no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and no Saddam-Bin Laden ties; the anti-American insurgency; Abu Ghraib; the rising political influence of the Shiite clergy; signs of civil war. What counts is the march towards victory of democracy in Iraq and the spread of freedom and liberty in the entire Muslim world. The theocracy in Saudi Arabia? The military regimes in Egypt and Pakistan? These are just two more examples of those "small details."

Although I am not actually a proponent of forcing democracy on people who haven't asked for it, I am a big fan of it, as a general rule. I love that I live in a society that gets to vote on things, important things, and I truly believe that no matter what corruptions live on the seedy underbelly of our government, the choices made by the people steer the way that our country moves.

Governments and ideologies evolve. People don't just wake up one day and think, "Hey, how come I don't live in a democracy?". Loyalty to leaders, and religious beliefs hold strong. How can anyone think that someone who has lived in a heterogeneous society all their lives would suddenly want to change all the rules so that people they consider to be unclean in the eyes of god are suddenly considered equal, and not punishable by the law? The concept of separating church and state is beyond immediate grasp.

People don't all necessarily gloss over this, but an attitude of superiority begins to rear its ugly head. Hadar describes Sharansky's vision as that of Israel as "parent", watching over the Arab nations until they're ready. As if they haven't grown up yet. This is not caring for other nations, this is occupying them. Despite the fact that having antagonistic vies about how people should live their lives causes conflict and violence, we can't just assume that we're the ones who are right, and that the rest of the world should get with the program. That nullifies the very nature of the diversity that we (the US) claim to celebrate. It stomps on the rights of the people of the world. Israel, no matter how much I love and respect Israel, is not a parent figure who can control the misbehaving Arab countries, they're just citizens of the world. We're all just citizens of the world.

I do understand the mindset that allows a person to think that because they really do want the best for everyone, that it's all right to impose new rules on people, and once they see how nice it is when everyone plays by those rules, that they'll be happy. I also understand that this simply isn't true. Forcing your ideology, no matter how "right" you're sure you are, is wrong.

Thought for the Day

No matter how cool some people might think the concept, the United States cannot possibly fight the entire world and win. No one's that big.

Benefits, Schmenefits

Taken pretty much whole cloth from an email a friend sent me:

The source is The Democrats, so it's biased, but it's still fun.
http://democrats.senate.gov/ss/calc.html

Pretty sure that Mike posted it over on Running Scared, too, but hey, in case you missed it.

It's depressing, of course. Good thing I have actual private accounts that I plan on living on after I retire.

A Short Exposition

I'm feeling cynical today, and not very loquatious, so just a short bit based on a conversation I had last night.

Every government is at some level corrupt. It just is. Deal with it.

Some forms of corruption disregard the needs of the community so blatantly that all forms of decent support collapse, and places become real cess-pits.

Some "corrupt" officials understand that they live in the communities that their decisions are affecting, and so they use their underhanded, often illegal methods to actually get things done. Alongside the legal, above-board ones, of course. I won't say that most governments are corrupt on all levels, that's just silly. There's plenty of honest people out there, it just seems that most often they're not the ones pushing for power.

New Jersey, most of the time, has the kind of corruption that gets things done. If you're stuck with it anyway, it might as well be the productive kind.

Hey!

Does anybody besides me find the following headline just a little inflamatory?

Truce-Bound Israel Stops Razing Palestinian Homes

Geez - take sides, much, Dan Williams? I admit I take sides, but nobody's paying me. The article, at least, is a bit more even-handed. I specifies that the homes belonged to Palestinian militants, and that the reason Israeli government gives is that it discourages attacks.

Hmph.

At Least There Aren't Any Ration Coupons

Yesterday afternoon over at Shakespeare's Sister, Mr. Furious posted a nice little bit that starts like this:

So Bush-supporting farmers don't like the raw deal they're being given with Bush's proposed budget?

That's Farmers Who Backed Bush Upset With Budget in case you missed the one-word link, there.

Know what I see when I read that article? I see yet another factor in the equation of why it's going to get more expensive to live in this country, really fast. There's less aid for farmers in a year when there's a Hessian fly infestation. Goodbye, reasonable wheat prices. And have you seen the price of milk lately? Staples are up, up, up. Aid is down, down, down. Deficit is up, spending must go down.

I'm thinking that it's really the beginning of a wartime economy.

Not My Cup of Tea

But that doesn't matter!

Justice Dept. Fights Ruling on Obscenity

WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 - In a case representing a major test of the Bush administration's campaign against pornography, the Justice Department said Wednesday that it would appeal a recent decision by a federal judge that declared federal obscenity laws unconstitutional.

Seems that there was a criminal case against a California video distributor for violating federal obscenity laws. It's a company that does, indeed provide what some would label as "hard core". Personally, I'd label it, "offensive".
The examples given in the article are "scenes of simulated gang rapes and other attacks on women". I don't want to watch that. I certainly don't know if any of my friends want to watch that.

Louis Sirkin, a Cincinnati lawyer representing the pornography distributor, said he believed the judge's opinion would be upheld.

"You can't legislate morality," Mr. Sirkin said. "You have to let people make their own personal decisions, and that's the important principle at stake in this case."...

...Judge Lancaster interpreted that ruling to mean that "public morality is not a legitimate state interest sufficient to justify infringing on adult, private, consensual, sexual conduct even if that conduct is deemed offensive to the general public's sense of morality."

That's it, right there. No, I don't want to buy this stuff, but this is a free country, and sometimes freedom means that people are allowed to do things that others find repulsive. Buying filthy videos doesn't hurt anyone. If the people participating in them are all there willingly, and the filmmakers aren't misrepresenting themselves, then they should be allowed to conduct business. There's just a fundamental difference between disgusting and illegal, and we, as Americans, have to respect that. It's part of what makes us a great country, right?

I find myself defending the most outrageous, unusual cases I can find, all for the purpose of making sure that the small, everyday freedoms remain safe far, far inside the container.

(Cross-posted at Running Scared)

Man Down

Jazz over at Running Scared has injured his left hand and is light on today's posting, so I felt it was my duty to get something posted over there. Go on over and read it if you like.

Not a Fan Letter

I'm the Only One in the World...

...who wants higher taxes.

So I was talking to my dad, and he starts telling me (again) that some sort of poll named Tom Kean the best New Jersey governor in recent memory. Apparently, tied for worst were McGreevey and Florio. This brought me to the realization that people are idiots.

Not about Kean - he was a very good governor, really. He was pretty (in my mind, at least) moderate, and fiscally responsible, and the state had a budget surplus when he was in charge. Good thinking, and good work.

And McGreevey, OK, I can see why people think he was the worst. In my mind, he wasn't actually the worst, but possibly one of the most recognizably corrupt. That's pretty bad. Real estate scandals, inappropriate appointments, and of course the whole "my governor is a gay American" thing, they don't speak well of the man. I don't think that he was a bad legislator, I just think that his personal conscience took a vacation without leaving a forwarding address. Not good thinking.

But Florio? People hated Florio because he raised the NJ sales tax by a whopping... 1%. One percent! It wasn't making that much of a dent in our damn pockets! I think it was 3 seconds after she got sworn in to office that Christie Whitman repealed that tax and brought us back down to 6%. I know that she's very moderate in many of her views, but she got elected the "traditional" Republican way - promise to cut taxes. And then she did. (Which actually, kind of speaks well about her character, but I'm talking about fiscal policy, here)

Why were people so up in arms about one more penny on the dollar? I know that a lot of folks say "I earned it, I want to keep it", but do they think that government programs pay for themselves? Because they don't! It's not getting cheaper to run the state, people, it's getting more expensive, just like everything else on earth, except DVD players. What would have happened if we had kept the extra sales tax? Would we be $4 billion dollars in the hole today? Probably not. I'm not saying that we'd have a surplus, but I'm sure it would have helped a great deal.

Republicans talk about streamlining government, but when push comes to shove, you see them spending just as much as Democrats - but with tax cuts, so less money is coming in. If we're going to have state-run programs that everyone seems to feel are a right, instead of the privilege that they actually are, then someone has to pay for it. I'd prefer the money to come from big business, but in today's climate that's not going to happen. And when it comes down to the choice of my state racking up billions of dollars in debt or me paying $107.00 for that wireless Ethernet adapter instead of $106.00, well, I'm willing to suck it up.

Another Good Point

Blogger would not let me in at *all* yesterday. That having been said, check this out:

Truth: The Great Liberal Conspiracy over at Shakespeare's Sister.

I love the way she digs in to a subject and just keeps going until you see how well thought-out her arguments are. She's not just spouting the first thing that comes to mind, her opinions are based on a healthy mixture of fact and experience. And yet, she seems so young! :o)

Take this excerpt for example:

There was a time when pointing out blatantly obvious political maneuvering would not have warranted charges of being a conspiracy theorist. We used to have a healthy mistrust of our government; we assumed that the flaws of humankind weren’t checked at the doorways of the White House and the Pentagon. When the shit hit the fan, we assumed that the people involved might do less than ethical things in the pursuit of self-preservation.

Check out the rest for yourself, it just makes sense.

Complete Lack of Respect

Prince Charles to Marry His Lover Camilla

Lover? Isn't that a little rude at this point?
I mean, OK, he ran around on his wife. No one else on earth ever did that. And, of course, his wife died, but after they divorced, and no one ever blamed him. So, now, he lives with the woman whom he supposedly has loved all along, and the press decides that slapping a label on the relationship is a way to go.

Nice.

Last I checked, he wasn't actually running England, was he? Why does the press care so much?

Interesting (to Me, at Least)

(Via Dail Kos:)

Franken expected to make announcement on candidacy

Al Franken to stop just making fun of politicians and actually become one. Huh.

Trying to Remain Hopeful...

Israel Set to Reopen Gaza Border After Truce Summit

While Palestinian militants said they were not bound by President Mahmoud Abbas's formal truce pledge, they said they would continue to show restraint for now -- and both sides sought to capitalize.

Argh. I knew it. Why are they not bound by an elected leader? Oh, because they have no leader but Allah! And whomever brainwashed them, of course. Still, despite the refusal to acknowledge leadership, they did say that they would stop blowing stuff up... for now.

Israel's heavily fortified Erez crossing at Gaza's northern end will be reopened and hundreds of Palestinians will regain employment in Erez's Israeli-run industrial zone.

Well, that's a good thing, at least. Allowing people to resume the jobs that provide them their livelihood is always a good step. I do indeed believe that the average Palestinian would like to just live their lives in a bullet-free manner, going to a job, coming home at night to their family, maybe catching a movie on a day off, or visiting friends.

Leaders of both sides agree Sharon's plan to "disengage" from conflict by evacuating Gaza this summer could kickstart the "road map" process if done in coordination with Palestinians. Yet with Sharon intent on keeping most of the larger West Bank, which Palestinians regard as the core of the viable state they seek, few expect diplomacy to yield a permanent peace deal in the near future.

...and there's our deal-breaker. I personally can't make up my mind about the West Bank. I'm of three minds; part of me thinks that the West Bank is part of Israel, and that these people have no right to it at all, part of me thinks that Israel should just give the damn land to them, if it will bring peace, and part of me thinks that Israel could indeed give up the West Bank, and that the fighting would continue, anyway. Still, because I do feel that most people in the world *don't* want to live their lives in a constant state of battle, I think that maybe there's a chance that people can work out some sort of a peaceful coexistence. It's a long shot, but I'm trying to remain hopeful.

Paint with a thinner brush

Not everyone in a certain place and time will feel the same way about the events taking place there. History will almost always be truncated to only include the majority, but majorities do not mean "unanimous agreement". A post over at Alternate Brain has reminded me of that.

Give Peace a Chance

Palestinians, Israel announce cease-fire

Well! A cease-fire! Bless my buttons! That's amazingly good! And yes, my tongue is in my cheek, but only a little tiny bit.

I've mentioned in the past, and my mind hasn't been changed, that no one is really in charge of the people who call themselves Palestinians. There are a million groups, and none of the really violent fringe ones have ever seemed willing to honor any kind of cease-fire agreed to in the past. But wait -

Rice also announced Monday that U.S. Army Lt. Gen. William Ward will act as a security coordinator and will visit the region in the next few weeks. Ward also will work on Mideast security issues with Egypt and Jordan, she said.

"Gen. Ward's mandate is on security, which after all, really has to get established and has to be moving forward in order for us to make progress," Rice said.

Ward's responsibilities will include helping the Palestinians train and equip their security forces. Among his duties, Rice said, would be monitoring compliance with Israeli and Palestinian security agreements.

"We are very clear that the parties need to live up to their obligations," she said. "We won't hesitate to say to the parties when those obligations aren't being met."

Palestinian security forces? Could this possibly mean what I think it does? That Palestinians are willing to admit that they have some responsibility to police their own people, and to try and prevent terrorist forces within their midst? Because that's the only way that peace in this region can ever work. Simply decrying terrorism in public forums is not enough, Palestinians must actually work to stop terrorists in their own ranks. Do they really want to?

Now, the next problem is, of course, getting the Israelis to stop the violence, too. How do you convince a group of soldiers who've lived their whole lives looking over their shoulders every minute to stop shooting at the suspicious? Reactions like that have kept them alive up until now, for more often than not, people were trying to kill them. Go ahead, call me paranoid, but I spent 7 months of my life in Israel, just being a student, and I got to see 2 real bombs left in the street and I once moved carefully in the opposite direction of a grenade attack one night in town. Sure, I got held up by bomb threats dozens of times and only 2 were real, and I was in town every night for 5 months, more or less, with only one grenade attack... I think you can see what I'm saying. It's been a violent place, people aren't used to the idea of not shooting.

I once again bring up the issue of feelings and desire. These people have been raised to hate each other. Hate. Not the namby-pamby idea of hate that we here in the U.S. use to express strong dislike, but the kind of hate that inspires you to try and end others' lives. We can say that there's a cease fire, but do the people want it? Is the desire for peace just something that is given lip service, because its real meaning has been lost amongst ancient feuding that outsiders can't understand? I kind of think so, and that's what makes me so pessimistic about this "road map". I'd like to see peace, but I haven't lived with the anger all my life.

Post-Superbowl blogging

Having a busy morning, haven't even had a chance to check out the proposed budget yet. I did, of course, take the time to go look at the Carnival of Cats over on Running Scared. I can't believe I forgot to take cat pictures!!

And, of course, I read the MSNBC article about the Superbowl and it's commercials. I was watching until half time was over. I adore Paul McCartney completely. I don't care if he was brought in because he's so "safe", he's really wonderful. I'm not 60, by the way, I just think that. Anyway, I also paid attention to the commercials, after all, they're usually really something. My favorite was the FedEx/Kinkos one, which is a little embarrassing because that's the main competitor for the company I work for, but it was a really good ad. The article talks also about the sub/hero/grinder* sandwich ads:

Finally, in the battle of hot, toasted sandwiches, it was Subway's couple in a car over Quizno's talking baby.

I totally agree. The talking baby with the hot girlfriend disturbs me, but the Subway ad was good for a lot of laughs and flirting for the rest of the evening. Many jokes were made about better places to do that, and purposeful misunderstanding about whether we meant "making out" or eating sandwiches. And, of course, explaining it like that completely kills the joke.

Ay, Carrumba

I was just reading The Rude Pundit. Did you know that there's a Republican Senatorial Hispanic Task Force? I didn't! Holy crap, there's an Uncle Tom finding task force.

Yeah, I know, I shouldn't have said that.

But I'm so hopping mad that the Republicans have stolen the wind right out from my party's "look how progressive we are!" sails.

I'm gonna go meditate on some pollyanna crap like "any progress is, in fact, progress".

Friday Plankton Blogging

New species of plankton have been found in the deepest part of the ocean!

New organisms found in deepest seas

Aren't they cute!

Convoluted Quoting

Shakespeare's Sister has an excellent, excellent point about the State of the Union Address, that Ron has commented on over at Running Scared. It's about freedom, and how equality is *supposed* to be all wrapped up with it together.

Pointy

Point one - I did not watch the State of the Union Address. I'm guessing that Bush talked about Social Security reform, and freedom being on the march. Feel free to email of comment if you think I missed anything important that I can't catch up on with my news reading.

Point two - I was reading Cynical Nation this morning, and he linked to an article about privatizing Social Security, and how the concept was brought up during the Clinton Administration. So I read it, and I thought, "Oh, good, the arguments against it were the same even when a president I liked was in office". So cheer up, Bush fans - it's not just the man I object to, it's actually the policy! Yay! You know, I bet GWB's very nice to chat with at a dinner table, when it comes down to it. You can't become the leader of the free world without knowing how to at least be polite over plates of rubber chicken.

Which brings me to a tangent, which is not a point at all: when Dr. Phil interviewed GWB and Laura on the teevee, I couldn't help but think how much of an ass Dr. Phil is and I hardly noticed how much GWB infuriates me at all. I so dislike watching Dr. Phil for too many reasons to even start listing them.

Medicine, As I See It

Reading "Are Health Savings Accounts Good Medicine?" I've come up with my own answer to the question: Not really.

I'm a person with health issues. I get a lot of medical things done on a regular basis. I can tell you right now that I'd be less likely to do them if the cost was coming out of my own money. It's not that I don't want to take care of myself, it's just that medical procedures cost so very much. Take, for instance, my hospital stay of last April - I was there for 6 days, and the insurance company reported that the last 3 were "unnecessary" and "alternate arrangements" could have been made for my care. I objected, by the way, seeing as I was being fed through an IV and feeling pretty damn bad. But my point is that the cost for those three days came to roughly twenty-seven thousand dollars. Just thinking about setting up a payment plan for that much makes me dizzy. There's no way I'd have that much in a personal health savings account, and I make a fairly decent living. What would a less fortunate person do?

The article quotes a doctor, Dr. William J. West, Jr., an obstetrician/gynecologist in Reading, Pa.. Doctor West says

"When I deal with a patient who has a health savings account, we make decisions about treatments together and we discuss costs," West says. "This is likely to mean doctors practice less defensive medicine, because if you have discussed a treatment with a patient they have agreed to it, it's harder for them to sue you over it."

Whoa. I forget that people treat doctors like some sort of magic person. I talk about treatments with my doctor and discuss costs *now*. Shouldn't this always be the case? Shouldn't the biggest concern be the most efficient, proper way to solve whatever health problem you're facing? My doctor and I discuss outpatient treatments vs. inpatient, and name-brand drugs that have no generic equivalent vs. a similar drug that does, and whether or not it will do the job.

Now, if the "deductible insurance policy to cover major medical needs" part of this plan would have covered my $27,000 bill, then maybe the health care spending account wouldn't look so bad to me, but I'm suspicious. I don't trust insurance companies to pay for the things that the policies say that they will, and I suppose that the spending account idea just makes me think that they'll even less willing to hold up their end of the bargain. I know it's complicated, and that our lawsuit-happy society is equally to blame, but in this case, I'm looking out for me first.

Lifestyle Issues

Mu at Running Scared has pointed out that Medicare now covers Viagra. OK, it's a lifestyle issue, no less valid that medications that relieve mild pain... yeah. That *better* be on a case-by-case basis.