If It Looks Like A Fetus

You know something? ... Oh, never mind!

We knew this was coming.

Two days after 9/11, Jerry Falwell took to the airwaves to proclaim that God had allowed the United States to be attacked because "the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians" had tried to transform America into a secular society. Just this weekend, wingnuts from the Westboro Baptist Church turned out at the funerals of two fallen soldiers to say that God is punishing the United States in Iraq for its tolerance of homosexuality back home.

So when Hurricane Katrina hit land yesterday, we knew it was only a matter of time before we'd be hearing from the lunatic fringe again. And now, here it is. In an e-mail message we just received, a group calling itself Columbia Christians for Life alerts us to the fact that a satellite image of Hurricane Katrina as it hit the Gulf Coast Monday looks just like a six-week-old fetus.

"The image of the hurricane ... with its eye already ashore at 12:32 p.m. Monday, August 29, looks like a fetus (unborn human baby) facing to the left (west) in the womb, in the early weeks of gestation (approx. 6 weeks)," the e-mail message says. "Even the orange color of the image is reminiscent of a commonly used pro-life picture of early prenatal development."

And in case you're not getting the point, the e-mail message spells it out in black and white: "Louisiana has 10 child-murder-by-abortion centers," the groups says, and "five are in New Orleans."
...

The Fat Thickens

I know many a person who has been told by their doctor that they need to shed some pounds. I know some people whose doctors need to tell them they need to shed a few pounds. So, I didn't have an issue with the doctor who was under fire for telling an obese patient that she'd be far more healthy if she lost weight. But, now it seems that "fat" wasn't the issue. It was her F'ability factor and "a black thing!"

The state is investigating a doctor accused of telling a patient she was so obese she might only be attractive to black men and advising another to shoot herself following brain surgery.

'Let's face it, if your husband were to die tomorrow, who would want you?' the state Board of Medicine says Dr. Terry Bennett told the overweight patient in June 2004.

'Well, men might want you, but not the types you want to want you. Might even be a black guy,' it quoted him as saying, based on the woman's complaint.

The board said it also is taking a second look at a 2001 allegation - deemed unfounded at the time - that Bennett told a woman recovering from brain surgery to buy a pistol and shoot herself to end her suffering.

Bennett made national news last week when the complaint from the obese woman became public without any mention of the racial comment. But Senior Assistant Attorney General Richard Head, who leads the state Consumer Protection and Antitrust Bureau, said Tuesday the woman complained about the racial remark, not about being lectured.

Now I am not sure if I am supposed to laugh or not. It's not like some sistahs haven't made constant reference to brothas taking up with "some fat, nasty, white woman." It's not like average black men (save the OJ, Wesley Snipes types) don't seem to prefer a little "meat on the bones." (Gees, was Kirstie Ally's remark about finding a black guy because she was overweight heard around the world)? I think I'd be more offended by "who else is gonna want you?" - period.

In any case, this sheds a little more light on the situation. The man's bedside manner has a lot to be desired. Some of his patients may need to lose some weight. He may need to opt for retirement.

Well Give That Man A Pretzel!

Let's see ... four states ravaged by natural disasters, nearly 100 more troops killed in Iraq and skyrocketing gas prices ... All this and FINALLY the President decides to cut his month long vacation short - 3 days short. Wow! What sacrifice!

President Bush will cut short his vacation to return to Washington on Wednesday, two days earlier than planned, to help monitor federal efforts to assist victims of Hurricane Katrina, the White House said Tuesday.

'We have got a lot of work to do,' Bush said, referring to the damage wrought by the hurricane along Gulf Coast areas.

The president had been scheduled to return to the nation's capital on Friday, after spending more than four weeks operating from his ranch in Central Texas. But after receiving a briefing early Tuesday on the devastation Katrina unleashed, the president decided that he needed to be in Washington to personally oversee the federal effort, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

Everybody's Store!

Ya know! Maybe it's just that I've never been in a natural disaster - or any disaster for that matter ... but I just plain don't understand the rationlale for looting ... in a flood ... when you probably don't have anyplace to take the loot ... What the hell is wrong with people?

"With much of the city emptied by Hurricane Katrina, some opportunists took advantage of the situation by looting stores.

At a Walgreen's drug store in the French Quarter, people were running out with grocery baskets and coolers full of soft drinks, chips and diapers.

When police finally showed up, a young boy stood in the door screaming, '86! 86!' - the radio code for police - and the crowd scattered.

Denise Bollinger, a tourist from Philadelphia, stood outside and snapped pictures in amazement.

'It's downtown Baghdad,' the housewife said. 'It's insane. I've wanted to come here for 10 years. I thought this was a sophisticated city. I guess not.'

Around the corner on Canal Street, the main thoroughfare in the central business district, people sloshed headlong through hip-deep water as looters ripped open the steel gates on the front of several clothing and jewelry stores.

One man, who had about 10 pairs of jeans draped over his left arm, was asked if he was salvaging things from his store.

'No,' the man shouted, 'that's EVERYBODY'S store.'

Looters filled industrial-sized garbage cans with clothing and jewelry and floated them down the street on bits of plywood and insulation as National Guard lumbered by.

Mike Franklin stood on the trolley tracks and watched the spectacle unfold.

'To be honest with you, people who are oppressed all their lives, man, it's an opportunity to get back at society,' he said."

The emphasis on some quotes is mine because I am just stuck on stupid. Everybody's store? EVERYBODY's store?

Pimp Jesus' Ride!

I first saw the slick Bishop Eddie Long on the annual "State of Black ..." on C-Span this past winter. It was being broadcast from his mega-church. Oddly, one of the highlights of the day was watching a number of left-wing ministers read him the riot act for being roped up in George (who wouldn't meet with the Congressional Black Caucus) Bush's cattle call of black ministers (undoubtedly to barter their support against same sex marriage for a few faith based initiative dollars). He sucked it up but had the cameras not been there, he may not have allowed someone to tell him off in his own "house."

Anyhow, it seems that the fruits of his ministry render him quite the harvest and that is raising quite a few eyebrows.

"Several nonprofit experts and watchdog group leaders questioned how the $1.4 million home and the Bentley contributed to the charity's stated purpose.

They cited IRS rules warning that a nonprofit religious group could lose its tax-exempt status if it provides excess economic benefits to an insider.

'An organization can be a tax-exempt entity or a for-profit entity, but not both,' said Rod Pitzer, a tax expert with Wall Watchers, a North Carolina-based watchdog group that monitors the finances of large Christian organizations.

Nonprofit experts and others who viewed the charity's records at the Journal-Constitution's request said that it did not appear to have an independent board.

'With a wife approving her husband's salary, it appears that this board's stamp is really just a rubber stamp,' said Grassley, the Iowa senator.
[...]
Long said he represented a 'paradigm shift' in the black church. He said he won't be like other pastors who died broke while giving everything to congregations that 'wanted them to live in poverty and preach to them about prosperity.'

Any problem people may have with his charity, Long said, was rooted in some people's expectations that pastors should be poor.

'I would love to sit with you and walk with you through the Bible to show that Jesus wasn't poor,' he said.

His congregation is inspired by seeing its pastor do well, Long said.

'I'm not going to apologize for anything. ... '

I was going to suggest that every generation needs a Rev. Ike but I see that Rev. Ike isn't dead so Eddie Long's "riches" are hardly a paradigm shift. For some reason, I just never considered going to church to be inspired by my pastor to "do well" materially/financially. Seeing his $1.4 million home and Bentley would hardly nourish my soul or make me want to attain the same.

Sadly, Bishop Long sounds a lot like our President with "I'm not going to apologize for anything." Perhaps he doesn't have to. He has a willing congregation who doesn't seem to mind his ostentatious display of wealth acquired through his ministry. Prosperity preachers aren't new and will probably never become old. My problem is that they bring Jesus into it. It matters not if Jesus was poor and I'd love to see the scriptural references he is using to justify his excess. I'm reasonably assured that Jesus wasn't styling and profiling on a "pimped out" camel or donkey and that he didn't have a different gold threaded "robe" for every day of the week.

Instructor Needed: Skills For Living

I meant to post on this some time ago.

I think the mistake many parents, schools and churches make is placing too much emphasis on the 'sex act' when so much more is required of oneself and one's relationships than the actual biblical deed. Children/young adults need to be taught to view things with a broader perspective and understand how all of their actions, sexual or otherwise, can have tangible, psychological and spiritual ramifications that not only affect them but others as well. I agree with this post I found at Wood Moor Village.

"But, I for one don'’t think schools need to be teaching anybody how to put on a condom. The information is easily available out there, and we can distribute it if that will help. But the exercises of putting a condom on a cucumber or a banana are to me laughable. I guess the benefit would be in getting kids used to talking about this and being open about the need for such candor. In which case, let us facilitate deep and meaningful dialogues about sexuality, diseases, abstinence, etc. rather than the hyper affectation of putting a condom on a vegetable and assuming that somehow that will translate easily to moments of passion.

Lust and desire do not care if you have practiced with vegetables. Good preparation to meet your hormones is not about dressing cucumbers for battle, but about preparing oneself mindfully about what it means to be a sexually active member of society, the risks and responsibilities. The longer we skirt those conversations the worse off we will be. The longer we have people denying HIV, blaming others, seeing gays as evil, etc., the longer we will continue as a repressed society with all the troubles that brings. So, it is high time we offered not a sex ed. class in schools at certain intervals, but a Living Skills class that is a permanent part of the curriculum. It ought to cover interpersonal relationships, communication, gender issues, race and ethnicity, sexuality, GLBT, primary health care, etc. Every kid should graduate from High School with a strong set of Living Skills."

The Great Oz Keeps On Yapping!

Please shut up!

President Bush on Saturday asked Americans to be patient with the U.S. military mission in Iraq, a request issued as less than half of those polled supported his war policy and thousands of pro-Bush and anti-war demonstrators competed for attention in his tiny hometown.

'Iraqis are working together to build a free nation that contributes to peace and stability in the region, and we will help them succeed,' Bush said in his weekly radio address.

He gave no sign of dismay at serious snags in Iraq's democratic process.

Twisted, Sick Minds

I'm trying to grasp this. The Fred Phelps crew is not protesting the war. They are protesting dead soldiers for serving America because it "harbors gays?"

"Members of a church say God is punishing American soldiers for defending a country that harbors gays, and they brought their anti-gay message to the funerals Saturday of two Tennessee soldiers killed in Iraq.

The church members were met with scorn from local residents. They chased the church members cars' down a highway, waving flags and screaming 'God bless America.'

'My husband is over there, so I'm here to show my support,' 41-year-old Connie Ditmore said as she waved and American flag and as tears came to her eyes. 'To do this at a funeral is disrespectful of a family, no matter what your beliefs are.'

The Rev. Fred Phelps, founder of Westboro Baptist in Kansas, contends that American soldiers are being killed in Iraq as vengeance from God for protecting a country that harbors gays. The church, which is not affiliated with a larger denomination, is made up mostly of Phelps' children, grandchildren and in-laws.

The church members carried signs and shouted things such as 'God hates fags' and 'God hates you.'"

This is part of the price we pay for Ronald Reagan putting crazy people (not pc, I know) out on the streets. God has nothing to do with this and God hates no one. These "believers" are unmedicated nuts who are following a bigger nut. Someone needs to round them all up and put them someplace where they can get some help.

(link via daffodillane.com)

Go To The Back Of The Bus!

If the American Taliban had its way, this would probably happen here too!

"For women, commuting across this ancient Islamic city has long been as easy as hopping into a minibus or climbing on the back of a motorcycle taxi. Both are cheap and readily available. Even if some female passengers found it unsettling to be so near strange men, who might make lewd comments or press their bodies close, such was the price of efficient transport.

But the days of casual travel are ending for the women of Kano, a bustling trading center of about 500,000 in northern Nigeria. Government officials, determined to halt what they see as the decline of public morality, are banning women from all but a handful of Kano's motorcycle taxis and are requiring them to sit in the back of public minibuses."
[...]
However, the second phase of the transportation policy, which will include the ban on women riding motorcycle taxis, threatens to be far less popular. In the next few weeks, police will begin fining motorcycle drivers caught carrying women who are not their relatives. Drivers licenses also may be suspended. And gender-based seating restrictions will extend to all commercial minibuses, even those that are privately owned.

That will leave women with far fewer choices for getting to work or school or going shopping. If the seats designated for women on a minibus are full, they will have to wait for the next bus or one of the new single-sex vehicles. The government has purchased 176 motorcycles and 500 three-wheeled vehicles with covered seating areas that are physically separated from the driver. Together, though, they represent a fraction of the tens of thousands of public transport vehicles that ply Kano's streets.

This is a dense, fast-paced city, with a centuries-old historic quarter whose narrow streets are not accessible to minibuses. Aisha Lawal, a 19-year-old student, said she will have difficulty making her twice-weekly visits to see her grandparents if the vast majority of motorcycle taxis are prohibited from carrying her. She predicted resistance from women.

On a sidewalk a few blocks away, Miriam Muhammed, 24, prepared to climb onto a motorcycle taxi. ``We don't want this,'' she said of the new system. ``Goodness, I'll be frustrated.''

Don't Start None ...

Won't be none! Heaven knows what the ultimate fallout of Pat Robertson's stupid remarks will be. But either symbolically or out of real concern, Venezuela is taking action against those Robertson claims to represent.

Venezuela's government has temporarily suspended permits for foreign missionaries after a U.S. televangelist said Washington should assassinate President Hugo Chavez.

The policy announcement came four days after conservative evangelist Pat Robertson said Washington should execute Chavez, a former soldier who often accuses the United States of plotting to kill him.

The chief of the Justice Ministry's religious affairs unit, Carlos Gonzalez, said Friday authorization of permits for missionaries would be curbed while the government tightened regulations on preachers inside Venezuela.

"The permits are suspended for a short time ... while we organize a system to see what additional data we need for people coming into the country to preach", Gonzalez told Reuters.

"We were already working on this, but these declarations have made us speed things up," he said.

Baby, Are You Really Gonna Wear Those Pants?

You can spank my hand with a wooden spoon right now but I have to say something ...



Okay, I can't find the words. But, between Star, Al and that miniature dog that she dresses up, I can't help but long for the "old days" when I played with paper dolls. The Jones-Reynolds family would have made quite a nice set. Alternating with my books, I would have been entertained for the entire day.

P.S. Wait! Will any straight man who'd wear those striped pants please email me?

The Plank In Your Eye

One thing that Pat Robertson's latest outrageous outburt has done is make people take a closer look at him and what a hypocrite he is. The fact that he cannot see that his views are a mirror image of the views of Islamic extremists is sad. Hopefully more people will begin to see it and also see how inappropirate it is to have him so dangerously close to the President of the world's sole superpower (a president who has yet to condemn or dispute anything Pat has said).

And yet, these spiritual bling-bling artists are not -- or at least, shouldn't be -- ignorable. We may say it in mocking tones, but these figures do indeed represent a striking parallel to the religious extremist movements that pose such significant threats in the Middle East. Consider the ever-expanding list of parallels...

• Though not strictly part of government, hold such substantial political power as to be able to dictate many government policies, with well-known religious figures holding forth in frequent public court on government policies and actions.

• Extremely distrustful of science as being contrary to religious values. Generally anti-intellectual.

• Intolerant of those with differing religious values; view other religions -- even generally closely related sects -- as illegitimate. Associated persecution complex which presumes religious-neutral or religious-absent law to be intentionally oppressive of their own beliefs.

• Attempting to weaken state-based education systems in favor of a government-funded network of religious schools dedicated towards the teaching of strict fundamentalist values.

• Demand government support for their religious agendas, including the passage of laws based on their particular religious beliefs, under the assertion that the country was "divinely founded" and therefore inherently subservient to their religious sect.

• Generally dismissive of the rights of women.

• Generally dismissive of the rights of minorities.

• Calls for God to "remove" political opponents by killing or otherwise rendering them unable to serve.

• An extensive worldwide fundraising network that includes financial connections to the bloody West African "conflict" diamond trade and other questionable financial activities.

• And finally, as we have seen in the last few days: willing to publicly endorse the utility of violence against international foes. Significantly, actions against purely political or socioeconomic foes are justified based on questionably religious grounds.

Who You Callin' A Chickenhawk?

It's so funny how these backseat drivers who want to dictate the rules of war but don't have a license to drive or a even car get so offended when you call them on it.

Cindy Sheehan has returned to Crawford, Texas, and brought back with her all the questions she's raised about the Bush administration's war in Iraq. One issue that's clearly ruffled the feathers of conservatives is the word 'chickenhawk,' which has risen in prominence since Sheehan began to demand that those who are gung-ho about the war should pick up a gun and replace a grunt in the midst of his third rotation.

Fresh-faced pundit Ben Shapiro and Jonah Goldberg of the National Review are among the conservative commentators who have pecked angrily at the 'chickenhawk' assertion, arguing that just because they're not fighting in the war doesn't mean they can't support it. Goldberg clucked last week that 'arguments must stand on their own merits, regardless of who delivers them,' while in a two-part series titled, 'Why the 'chickenhawk' argument is un-American,' Shapiro squawked that for liberals to mock supporters of the war who haven't served in the military 'undermines fundamental values of representative democracy.'
[...]

Chickenhawk, chickenshit or just plain chicken. People of age who feel so strongly about the war should enlist and serve! Period!

Just A Hunch

I've been looking at this guy's record from all different angles but I guess I'll be heading back to Dianne Finestein's website to urge her to vote against John Roberts. The rights of women and minorities are too much in question to err on his side. She says she's got a feeling? After seeing Bush and Condoleezza sell the women of Iraq (and Afghanistan) out to Islamic extremists, I've got a feeling that every one who has doubts about him should vote no - even if he ultimately gets the nomination.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, speaking to a large gathering of lawyers, made it clear Wednesday that maintaining a woman's right to have an abortion would be the litmus test she would apply in deciding whether to support Judge John Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court.

Feinstein, who has long supported abortion rights, has said Roberts' view of the landmark Roe vs. Wade abortion ruling would influence her decision on his nomination as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. But her comments to the lawyers and to reporters afterward marked the first time she has stated that her vote on Roberts' nomination would hinge on his position on this single contentious issue.

'It would be very difficult for me to vote to confirm someone to the Supreme Court whom I knew would overturn Roe and return our country to the days of the 1950s,' the 72-year-old Democratic senator said."
[...]
"It is my hope that Judge Roberts would play a role similar to Justice O'Connor's on the court and bring with him a voice defined by temperance and open-mindedness," Feinstein said.

Feinstein added that, while she has "a feeling" Roberts would not vote to overturn the Roe vs. Wade decision, she still is uncertain where he stands, even after a one-hour private meeting in Washington earlier.

"I am really not sure what his views are," she said.
[...]

"I did get a 'feeling' " Roberts supports abortion rights, Feinstein said, then added, "Well, you can't take a feeling to the bank."

End Of The Road

Really? I thought President Bush called them (from his vacation) and pressured them to come to a consensus.

An Iraqi government spokesman said early Saturday that talks on a draft constitution were hopelessly deadlocked and that 'this is the end of the road.'

A top Sunni Arab negotiator said said no agreement had been reached, and he called on Iraqis to reject it in an Oct. 15 referendum. The Sunni negotiator, Saleh al-Mutlaq, made the statement on Al Jazeera television after Sunnis studied compromise proposals offered by the Shiites on federalism and purges of former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party.

'The issue of division through federalism is on the table,' Mutlaq said. 'The Iraqi people have to give their word now and reject the constitution because this constitution is the beginning of the division of the country and the beginning of creating disturbance in the country.'

Oops Upside Your Head!

Dang! I know that going away to school can be stressful but DANG!

A college freshman was charged with assault after authorities say she beat her new roommate with a hot clothes iron, hitting her so hard she fractured the young woman's skull and broke the iron into pieces.

The 18-year-old victim told authorities her roommate attacked her following their first day of classes after accusing her of putting a hidden camera in their room.

Heather Haase suffered a skull fracture, bruises, cuts and a burn on her arm in the early- morning attack on Tuesday, university police said.

Her roommate, Sharronda Barkley, also 18, told officers Haase injured herself when she fell out of bed and hit the iron, according to a police report. Barkley was being held on $25,000 bond Thursday. A judge ordered her not to return to Bowling Green State University or have contact with Haase.

Freshmen arrived last week at the university, 20 miles south of Toledo. Barkley is from a Cleveland suburb; Haase is from a small town in northeast Ohio.

'You have two young ladies that go off to college with an expectation of obtaining an education and hopefully having a good time, and they're not here a week and one of them is severely injured and the other ends up in jail,' University Police Chief James Wiegand said. 'That's not the way it's supposed to go.

(Couldn't resist the title from a Gap Band Song).

And One More Thing

Just in case folks are clueless and want to jump on Bush's Billy Bad-Ass Bully wagon, let's understand that Chavez does have some leverage over us (and his threatening to use it is why Bushco hates him so) with that oil. There are too many other countries (like China) who are large consumers of oil who are only interested in a deal without all of our cowboy drama. People like Pat and the rest of Bush's croanies need to shut up because if folks start having to pay $5/gallon for gas, Hugo Chavez isn't going to be the only one getting death threats.

But Chavez holds cards that make remarks like Robertson's all the more incendiary on the Latin American street, where language like "U.S. imperialism" suddenly has currency again. One is the past: Latin Americans have too many vivid and bitter memories of U.S. intervention in their countries—operations that sometimes included brazen assassinations —which is why the Bush Administration got burned by accusations it backed a failed coup against Chavez in 2002 (the White House denies the charge). Another is democratic legitimacy: Chavez, for all his authoritarian tendencies, is a democratically elected head of state who last year won a national recall referendum approved by international observers.

Perhaps an even more important factor is populist backing: leftism is on the rise again in Latin America for a reason, namely the burgeoning feeling around the region that a decade of U.S.-backed capitalist reforms has simply widened an already epic gap between rich and poor—and that the Bush Administration is indifferent to it. As Chavez uses his multi-billion-dollar oil revenues to fund the kind of social projects that Venezuela's legions of impoverished never saw from his kleptocratic predecessors—and to subsidize cheaper oil for his cash-strapped Latin neighbors—more people are willing to defend him, as most Latin leaders did last spring when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice toured South America.

As a result, any cold war-style talk about "taking Chavez out" with "covert operatives," as Robertson suggested, just confers more Che Guevara cachet on the former army lieutenant colonel (who himself led a failed coup in 1992). And since Chavez has threatened to cut off oil exports to the U.S. at the first sign of gringo aggression, it makes America's important Venezuelan oil supply look all the more volatile.

We Interrupt Scheduled Programming ...

Okay! That's just nasty!

African-American Baptist Buddhist

I know a number of black Americans who have a hard time resolving accepting the "religion of white oppressors," and end up converting to Islam, Judaism or Buddhism. I vow not to "convert" to anything but consider myself a student of many religions. I have found Buddhism, though, particularly facinating so I see how this woman chose it and was able to resolve her issues with Christianity.

Jan Willis never felt drawn to the Baptist church of her 1950s Alabama childhood—a place where the preacher hadn't done his job unless he whipped parishioners into a spiritual frenzy that left them fainting in the aisles. She avoided the revival tents until her mother forced her to go for the sake of her soul. And though she was eventually baptized at 14—'a wondrous experience,' she admits—she quickly fell back into her old suspicion of Christianity as the religion of white oppressors. Who could blame her? So-called Christians in her hometown periodically blinded black children by tossing acid or hot lye at them. The Ku Klux Klan even burned a cross outside Willis's house, as she crouched inside, expecting to die.

Willis had always cherished the ideal of peace and in 1963 marched in Birmingham with Martin Luther King Jr. In college, inspired by the images of monks in Vietnam setting themselves on fire to protest the war, she became interested in Buddhism. But by the time she graduated from Cornell in 1969, Willis was faced with a stark postcollege choice: go to Nepal and study Buddhism or join the Black Panthers and fight for black rights—'peace or a piece,' as she puts it. She opted for peace. And everything in her life changed. Buddhism taught her compassion and self-acceptance. It led her to her current job, teaching Buddhism at Wesleyan University. And it even taught her how to make peace with the Baptist church.
[...]

The June 29th issue of Newsweek focuses on "Spirituality In America." Should be an interesting issue.

An Embarrassment To The Church

Pat Robertson is an embarrassment to Christianity and humanity as well. The only reason why he cannot be written off as a complete buffoon and caricature is because he is a key partner and representative of a major support base for this administration.

Robertson is known for his completely irresponsible statements - that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were due to American feminists and liberals, that true Christians could vote only for George W. Bush, that the federal judiciary is a greater threat to America than those who flew the planes into the World Trade Center Towers, and the list goes on. Robertson even took credit once for diverting a hurricane. But his latest outburst may take the cake."
[...]
It's clear Robertson must not have first asked himself "What would Jesus do?" But the teachings of Jesus have never been very popular with Robertson. He gets his religion elsewhere, from the twisted ideologies of an American brand of right-wing fundamentalism that has always been more nationalist than Christian. Apparently, Robertson didn't even remember what the Ten Commandments say, though he has championed their display on the walls of every American courthouse. That irritating one about "Thou shalt not kill" seems to rule out the killing of foreign leaders. But this week, simply putting biblical ethics aside, Robertson virtually issued an American religious fatwah for the murder of a foreign leader - on national television no less. That may be a first.
[...]
Robertson's political and theological reasoning is simply unbelievable. Chavez, a democratically elected leader in no less than three internationally certified votes, has been an irritant to the Bush administration, but has yet to commit any holocausts. Nor does his human rights record even approach that of the Latin American dictators who have been responsible for massive violations of human rights and the deaths of tens of thousands of people (think of the military regimes of Chile, Argentina, El Salvador, and Guatemala). Robertson never criticized them, perhaps because many of them were supported by U.S. military aid and training.
[...]
Robertson's words fuel both anti-Christian and anti-American sentiments around the world. It's difficult for an American government that has historically plotted against leaders in Cuba, Chile, the Congo, South Vietnam, and elsewhere to be easily believed when it disavows Robertson's call to assassinate Chavez. But George Bush must do so anyway, in the strongest terms possible.

It's time to name Robertson for what he is: an American fundamentalist whose theocratic views are not much different from the "Muslim extremists" he continually assails. It's time for conservative evangelical Christians in America, who are not like Islamic fundamentalists or Robertson, to distance themselves from his embarrassing and dangerous religion.

And it's time for Christian leaders of all stripes to call on Robertson not just to apologize, but to retire.

Please God ... Amen!

The Enemy Of All Religion

Just something to think about:

'Let me say to you again -- and let me say it once and for all -- that morality has nothing to do with religion. Morality does not depend upon the supernatural. Morality does not walk with the crutches of miracles. Morality appeals to the experience of mankind. It cares nothing about faith, about sacred books. Morality depends upon facts, something that can be seen, something known, the product of which can be estimated. It needs no priest, no ceremony, no mummery. It believes in the freedom of the Human mind. It asks for investigation. It is founded upon truth. It is the enemy of all religion because it has to do with this world, and with this world alone.'

-- Robert Ingersoll

Who Are The Terrorists Again?

'Cause I'm confused ...

In discussing Robertson's August 22 statements and the resulting controversy, guest and former CIA operative Wayne Simmons endorsed the assassination of not only Chavez but also Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and North Korean ruler Kim Jong Il.

From the August 24 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

HANNITY: But first, Pat Robertson caused a bit of a media firestorm this week when he advocated, some say, the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Now Pat Robertson apologized for those remarks today, but who is Hugo Chavez? Is he a threat to the United States that must be dealt with?

[...]

ALAN COLMES (co-host): Should we assassinate him?

SIMMONS: Well, listen, if a stray bullet from a hunter in Kentucky should find its way between these guy's -- this guy's eyes --

COLMES: Just by accident?

SIMMONS: -- no American --

COLMES: Who knew?

SIMMONS: Yes, who knew? No American should lose any sleep over it.

COLMES: Let me ask you this. Pat Robertson considers himself a good Christian. We -- some people consider us a Christian nation. Would assassinating a leader of another country be the Christian thing to do?

SIMMONS: Listen, this is not about Christians. I'm a Christian, as well, but I'm about protecting this country and protecting Americans.

COLMES: Do you want him dead?

SIMMONS: Anyone who -- I absolutely would -- he should have been killed a long time ago.

COLMES: By whom?

SIMMONS: And anyone who blames other -- by anyone, Alan.

COLMES: It's against the law.

SIMMONS: By anyone, Alan. It doesn't matter to me who kills this guy.

COLMES: It's against the law.

SIMMONS: He needs to go.

COLMES: We have an executive order, 12333, Executive Order 12333, put in place in the '70s. We don't do that to other --

SIMMONS: The president can -- the president can order that.

COLMES: Well, should --

SIMMONS: It should have been ordered. This guy -- this guy needs to go.

COLMES: Well, if we're going to kill him, aren't there some dictators even a little more dangerous to us? Khamenei in Iran? Should we kill him? Should we kill Kim Jong Il in North Korea? Should we knock those guys off, too?

SIMMONS:Yeah, absolutely. Listen -- listen, this is what's happened, Sean.

COLMES: This is Alan.

SIMMONS: I'm sorry, Alan. This is what's happened.

COLMES: If someone's a target, I want to know exactly who the target is. Don't get people mixed up here. It makes me very nervous.

SIMMONS: I'm sorry about that. OK, look, what's happened here is -- on a very serious note -- things are getting all convoluted and out of control. And what I mean by that is, terrorism is a very, very, very real part of our lives today. This is not something where we have a terrorist dictator that we can go negotiate with.

COLMES: But you want to go kill people. You want to go after a guy who's not an imminent threat to the United States. You want to be in the assassination business.

[crosstalk]

SIMMONS: Come on, Alan. Alan, you know that's not what I want to do.

COLMES: That's exactly what you said.

SIMMONS: I want to protect America. I want to protect America. These are our enemies.

COLMES: How many people should we kill?

SIMMONS: Alan, if I'd have had the opportunity to assassinate Hitler or Mussolini, I would have done it. This situation is no different.

What About The Women?

I'm not sure who the anchor/host(ess) was on MSNBC this morning but she was confused. She had an Arab woman on discussing the new constitution and the rights of women. For some reason she was speaking as though women would have more rights than under Saddam and that Saddam had them under Islamic Rule - which is the exact opposite of what is truly the case. It was much too early for me to be yelling at the TV ... but I was. This article is much closer to the truth as it stands today

Remember Safia Taleb al-Suhail?

She was the Iraqi woman George W. Bush trotted out for his State of the Union address earlier this year, the daughter of a man murdered by Saddam Hussein who provided the feel-good moment of the president's performance when, sitting up there in the balcony with Laura Bush, she embraced the mother of an American soldier killed in Iraq.

We wonder if she'll be invited back for next year's speech.

Bush says he knows that Iraq's still unfinished constitution will be a victory for women because Condoleezza Rice told him so. But if the president were to check in with Suhail, he might come away with a different story. According to a Reuters report, Suhail, who is now Iraq's ambassador to Egypt, believes that the draft Iraqi constitution represents a major setback for the women of her country.

"When we came back from exile, we thought we were going to improve rights and the position of women," she said. "But look what has happened -- we have lost all the gains we made over the last 30 years. It's a big disappointment."

She is concerned -- as many Iraqis are -- that the draft constitution allows religious sects to run Iraq's family courts, likely leaving decisions about divorce, inheritance and other issues important to women in the hands of Islamic clerics. "This will lead to creating religious courts," she said. "But we should be giving priority to the law."

Suhail said the United States has sold out Iraq's women in the drive to get a constitution -- any constitution -- approved by Iraq's National Assembly. "We have received news that we were not backed by our friends, including the Americans," she said. "They left the Islamists to come to an agreement with the Kurds."

The Equal Rites Awards

So close and yet so far:

And now let us pause to celebrate Aug. 26, the anniversary of women's suffrage in the United States. It's been 85 years since Harry Burn, a young Tennessee legislator, followed the advice of his mom and cast the deciding vote ratifying the 19th Amendment.

In this spirit, our one-woman committee met again this year to dispense prizes to those who labored mightily throughout the past year to set back the cause of women. Without further ado, we present the Equal Rites Awards:

We begin, as we must, by going overseas, where so many vie for the International Ayatollah Prize. This year it goes to the Islamic clerics in northwest India who ruled that a woman raped by her father-in-law not only had to leave her husband but had to marry his rapist father. To those pro-family clerics we lend a fatwa: Don't just blame the victim, marry her.

While we are abroad, the Double Standard Bearer Prize goes to our allies, the Saudis, who still refuse to give women the keys to the kingdom. The latest petition opposing women drivers explained, 'Women are less decisive than men and less capable of dealing with difficult situations.' To the oil-rich and common sense-deprived Saudis, we send Indy Racing League sensation Danica Patrick to chauffeur them to the 21st century.

[...]

Turning now to the court, we award John Roberts, President George W. Bush's nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, the Let's Hope He Grew Out of It Prize. As a teenager, Roberts editorialized against admitting women to his parochial school because he didn't want to study Shakespeare's racy passages with "a blonde giggling and blushing behind me." Ruth Ginsburg, beware!

Finally, our Knight in Shining Armor Prize goes to George Bush himself for so many reasons, but especially this one. He didn't follow his wife's advice to nominate a woman to the Supreme Court, but he did let her appoint the first woman chef to rule the White House kitchen. Who said there wasn't progress?

When A Good Butt Whuppin' Won't Do

If They Wanna Die For A Lie ...

Bush is able to rationalize his ignoring and bashing of Cindy Sheehan because the families he talks to don't feel the same way she does. He neglects to mention, however, that he only speaks to crowds of people who support him and the war effort. Cindy Sheehan supported him until his lies became neon signs.

Speaking in Idaho a few minutes ago, Bush argued that moms like Cindy Sheehan are a threat to freedom:

There are few things more difficult in life than seeing a loved one go off to war, and here in Idaho, a mom named Tammy Pruitt…knows that feeling six times over.

Tammy has four sons serving in Iraq right now with the Idaho National Guard — Eric, Evan, Greg, and Jeff. Last year, her husband Leon and another son Aaron returned from Iraq where they helped train Iraqi firefighters in Mosul.

Tammy says this — and I want you to hear this — “I know that if something happens to one of the boys, they would leave this world doing what they believe, what they think is right for our country. And I guess you couldn’t ask for a better way of life than giving it for something you believe in.”

America lives in freedom because of families like the Pruitts.

Notice that nary a one of his children, his siblings' children or his cohorts' children are in Iraq. This woman hasn't lost a family member - to date - but at the rate that we are going "staying the course," it's not too far fetched to say that she might.

Chief Thief!

Do we honestly think that we can snatch a country's riches right out from under people's feet? Apparently, Bush does!

"But what hasn't been on the table is at least as important to the formation of a new Iraq: the country's economic structure. The Bush administration has succeeded in maintaining a stranglehold on issues such as public versus private ownership of resources, foreign access to Iraqi oil and U.S. control of the reconstruction effort -- all of which are still governed by administration policies put into place immediately after the invasion. The Bush economic agenda favors foreign interests -- American interests -- over Iraqi self-determination.

Over a year ago, orders were put in place by L. Paul Bremer III, then the U.S. administrator of Iraq, that were designed to 'transition [Iraq] from a ... centrally planned economy to a market economy' virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat. Those orders were also incorporated into the transitional administrative law -- Iraq's interim constitution -- and the economic restructuring they mandate is well underway.

Laws governing banking, investment, patents, copyrights, business ownership, taxes, the media and trade have all been changed according to U.S. goals, with little real participation from the Iraqi people. (The Transitional Authority Law can be changed, but only with a two-thirds majority vote in the National Assembly, and with the approval of the prime minister, the president and both vice presidents.) The constitutional drafting committee has, in turn, left all of these laws in place.

A central component of the Bush economic agenda is foreign corporate access to, and privatization of, Iraq's once state-run economy. Thus, an early Bremer order allowed foreign investment in and the privatization of all 192 government-owned industries (excluding oil extraction)."
[...]
By all accounts, the draft constitution has failed to provide Iraqis with the means to control their economic future. As Iraq prepares for the October 15 referendum on the constitution, these crucial issues must be added to the debate, and the influence of the Bush administration countered, so that Iraqis can truly determine their own economic and political fate.

Just as discussions are finally emerging for ending the U.S. military occupation of Iraq, so too must the economic invasion be brought to an end.

I went to a grand opening of an Albertson's once and, of course, the store was brimming with free samples. In one spot there was a self-serve plate of brownie pieces under a plastic dome with a small opening for tongs to grab a sample. Some unsupervised child managed to get his hand in the hole and grabbed as many brownies as he could. Unfortunately, he wasn't able to get his hand out with the fist full of brownies. So, instead of releasing some of them, he held onto them and proceeded to scream for his mother (you know I opted against a sample after that).

I guess that is part of the reason Bush says we won't leave. Our plan was to grab as much pirate's booty as we could for his corporate cronies. His hands are full (only with destruction and mounting casualties) and he won't let go. As someone said early on in the war, he claims he didn't go there for the oil (or other riches) ... but he sure isn't leaving without it.

What Work?!

It seems to me that the only job our troops have in Iraq is trying not to get killed.

"In a speech to members of the Idaho National Guard and their families, the second this week by the president in an effort to rebuild support for the war, Bush emphasized the sacrifices military families make. He noted that Idaho has the highest percentage of National Guard troops serving in Iraq.

'We'll complete our work in Afghanistan and Iran,' Bush said. 'An immediate withdrawal of our troops in Iraq, or the broader Middle East, as some have called for, would only embolden the terrorists and create a staging ground to launch more attacks against America and free nations.'

'So long as I am president we will stay, we will fight and we will win the war on terrorism,' he declared.

Bush said the country faced a clear choice after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — either hunker down and retreat or 'bring the war to the terrorists, striking them before they could kill more of our people.'

'I made a decision. America will not wait to be attacked again,' he said. 'We will confront emerging threats before they fully materialize.'"

My God! This deafening chant of the same thing over and over again is absolute torture!

Mirror, Mirror On The Wall

Whose the most powerful of them all? Bush is trying to make sure that Chavez isn't. Chavez, is mobilizing all of Latin America to make sure the United States isn't.

Chavez, whom Christian televangelist Pat Robertson says the US should assassinate, has been traveling the hemisphere offering preferential oil deals, barters, and loans to leftist and left-of-center governments. In the past 30 days, the leader of the world's fifth-largest oil exporting country, has inked deals with Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay. Thirteen Caribbean nations signed a deal for cheap oil in June. And since April, Cuba has been getting almost all of its oil from Venezuela in exchange for doctors and gym teachers.

It is, Chavez says, his way of helping neighboring countries cut energy costs and improve living standards in the region. 'Altruism,' says Eric Wingerter, a spokesman at the Venezuela Information Office in Washington, D.C., simply. 'This is part of larger process involving regional solidarity and helping other countries economically.'

But critics charge Chavez is buying friends and influence with the objective of extending his regional hegemony - and undermining the US.

'Chavez is a man with a mission. He is determined to use the enormous windfall from record oil prices to pursue his Bolivarian Revolution on the regional stage as aggressively as possible,' says Michael Shifter, vice president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a think tank in Washington, D.C. 'He is intent on building a counterweight to US influence in the Western Hemisphere.'

Chavez's antiglobalization and anti-US discourse, which comes part and parcel with the petrodollars, adds Shifter, 'is resonating more and more with marginal sectors throughout the region, many of whom have been ignored by the US and are now looking for alternatives to their stubbornly acute poverty.'

Critics of Bush say he is trying to "extend hegemony" in the Middle East (check out the master plan at the PNAC site). But, Chavez's approach, whether seeking hegemony or not, has been far more effective than Bush's ill-fated mission in Iraq. Instead of trying to villify and discredit Chavez, perhaps he needs to take some notes from him.

Loopy Or In The Loop

If Pat Robertson were just some random preacher, I don't think his outlandhish remarks would have sparked such a reaction. But it is is close relationship with President Bush (and we all know how loyal he is to his friends) that makes his threats seem real and/or possible. I do think he's "losing it" but I also wonder if perhaps his loss of his grip is causing him to blurt out inside information. Does he know something we don't know?

There is something not only rotten but seemingly deranged in the state of mind of Republican leaders. I would call Pat Robertson a Republican leader. He did well in a few Republican primaries back in 1988 until scandal hit the whole Evangelical enterprise, which Mr. Robertson assumed was a Bush Sr./Lee Atwater conspiracy. It seemed convenient, he thought, that the scandal hit just as he was hitting his stride.

Reverend Pat made peace and perhaps a pact with the powers that be and currently has a direct line to the White House. He, with Jerry Falwell, claims to have helped make the double-barrel-two term Bush presidency possible. On Monday the iconic American Christian using the language of gangsters endorsed the assassination of Hugo Chavez so we could save 200 billion dollars. The assumption was that the only two alternatives to dealing with an elected leader who is critical of the military industrial complex running our country is to "take him out" or to wage a war. He presents the options and then chooses the less expensive one.

One does pause to wonder if he is not a loose cannon but that the direct line to the White House runs both ways. If in fact Venezuela and Iran are considering an oil embargo against the US, this may not be a random Christian perspective from the baby- faced aw-shucks father figure for the consumers of sign-on-the-dotted-line religion. Could this be a request from the top? Either Mr. Robertson is truly out of his mind or he is "useful," a word that Rumsfeld loves to use. When asked about the comment Rumsfeld referred to Robertson as a "private citizen" and rather than condemn the comment he said, "private citizens say all kinds of things all the time. Next question."Is Pat Robertson Out of His Mind or in the Loop? "There is something not only rotten but seemingly deranged in the state of mind of Republican leaders. I would call Pat Robertson a Republican leader. He did well in a few Republican primaries back in 1988 until scandal hit the whole Evangelical enterprise, which Mr. Robertson assumed was a Bush Sr./Lee Atwater conspiracy. It seemed convenient, he thought, that the scandal hit just as he was hitting his stride.

All I know is that if Chavez turns up dead anytime soon, by our hand or not, we're going to have a jihad raging from south of the border as he is trying to be a uniting force throughout Latin America to combat what they feel is imperialism by the US.

Gimmie Some!

I just paid $2.71/gallon for regular gas and I will be poor at this rate!

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, popular with the poor at home, offered on Tuesday to help needy Americans with cheap supplies of gasoline.

'We want to sell gasoline and heating fuel directly to poor communities in the United States,' the populist leader told reporters at the end of a visit to Communist-run Cuba.

Chavez did not say how Venezuela would go about providing gasoline to poor communities. Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA owns Citgo, which has 14,000 gas stations in the United States.

The offer may sound attractive to Americans feeling pinched by soaring prices at the pump but not to the U.S. government, which sees Chavez as a left-wing troublemaker in Latin America.

Gasoline is cheaper than mineral water in oil-producing Venezuela, where consumers can fill their tanks for less than $2. Average gas prices have risen to $2.61 a gallon in the United States, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Chavez said Venezuela could supply gasoline to Americans at half the price they now pay if intermediaries who 'speculated ... and exploited consumers' were cut out.

Venezuela supplies Cuba with generously financed oil and plans to help Caribbean nations foot their oil bills.

Chavez, in Cuba to attend the graduation of Cuban-trained doctors from 28 countries, was seen off at the airport by Cuban President Fidel Castro. Washington has accused the two leaders of being a destabilizing influence in South America.

Chavez and Castro offered to give poor Americans free health care and train doctors free of charge.

He Meant Kidnapping, Y'all

'Kay! We all misunderstood the word "assassinate." He didn't mean assassinate assasinate. He meant kidnap assassinate ... you know, like we did with Haiti's Aristide.

Conservative U.S. evangelist Pat Robertson, who called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, said on Wednesday he was misinterpreted and there were a number of ways to 'take him out' including kidnapping.

'I said our special forces could take him out. Take him out could be a number of things including kidnapping,' Robertson said on his 'The 700 Club' television program.

'There are a number of ways of taking out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted,' Robertson added.

Robertson, the founder of the Christian Coalition and a presidential candidate in 1988, said on Monday of Chavez, one of Bush's most vocal critics: 'If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it.'

'We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability.' He made the comments during his 'The 700 Club' television program.

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Tuesday dismissed Robertson's remarks, but the White House remained silent despite calls for repudiation from Venezuela and religious leaders including the Rev. Jesse Jackson. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack called 'without fact and baseless' any ideas of hostile action against Chavez or Venezuela.

The leftist Chavez has often accused the United States of plotting his overthrow or assassination. Alongside Cuban President Fidel Castro in Havana on Sunday, Chavez scoffed at the idea that he and Castro were destabilizing troublemakers.

Chavez survived a short-lived coup in 2002 that he says was backed by the United States. Washington denies involvement.

Venezuelan officials said Robertson's remarks, while those of a private citizen, took on more significance given his ties to President George W. Bush's Christian-right supporters.

'Mr Robertson has been one of this president's staunchest allies. His statement demands the strongest condemnation by the White House,' Venezuela's ambassador to the United States Bernardo Alvarez said.

Right, dude!

Positively Pathological

If there is even the slightest possibility that this woman's duplicitous track record allowed a possible child molester go free, then I am sorry. But, I doubt it. Her life, along with her childrens', have been one big scam after another.

The woman whose son accused Michael Jackson of child molestation was charged with welfare fraud Tuesday for allegedly collecting nearly $19,000 in payments while making false claims.

At Jackson's trial, the woman invoked her Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination and refused to testify about the welfare matter.

But Jackson's lawyers presented evidence that she and her family had received a $150,000 settlement in a 2001 lawsuit against a department store at a time when she was claiming to be poor. They also showed the woman was receiving money from her boyfriend to pay the rent on her apartment.

The complaint filed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office alleged that the woman hid from authorities the fact that she had received the settlement and also failed to report the receipt of $637 for payment of her rent in January 2003.

The Associated Press is withholding the name of the woman to protect the identity of her son.

The woman was a key witness for the prosecution against Jackson, who was acquitted of all charges. Many jurors said her lack of credibility on the witness stand was a major factor in their verdict."

Amstrong Williams Makes The Case For Feminism

Armstrong Williams seems to be working out some fantasy of his by claiming that women's liberation is the reason that bored housewives have taken up random sex with delivery boys and peace officers. To be fair, I have known a few people to get real dates with cablemen and other in-home service people. But, I guess I don't know any bored housewives as most of my married friends have careers.

Pop Quiz: You’re a Cop. You respond to a domestic abuse call. You bang on the door. The door opens. Standing before you, like a sight of ineffable grandeur, is a bored housewife. Her body rocks big time. She isn’t wearing anything. What do you do? That’s the choice my friend on the DC police force faces a few times a month. He wouldn’t say whether he ever laid down on the job. But he said more and more police officers are responding to calls for burglary and prowlers, only to find oiled housewives, introducing themselves with a salacious wink and suggesting a quick tryst against the sink. When the UPS or Federal Express persons make deliveries, they also experience similar occurrences.
[...]
And so one day the bored housewife decides to let life imitate art. She slithers down the steps wearing a silk negligee to pay the pizza delivery boy. But is this fulfilling? One of the great ironies of the sexual liberation movement is that in seeking to free women from repressive social customs, it also encouraged them to go about things as a young, male would. It seems that real sexual liberation won’t happen until society develops new social customs that allow young women to place enough value on their own emotional needs, so that they feel comfortable waiting for Mr. Right, instead of Mr. Right now.

But then again, I am old-fashioned. So, I’m curious as to what you think. Send me your thoughts. Email me at arightside at aol.com and let me know if placing fake calls to police officers is a sign of sexual liberation, or a sad sign that the feminist movement has betrayed women by encouraging them to go about things as a male would. I will print your responses in a follow up column.

Armstrong, baby, I think you are missing your own point. The typical liberated woman would not be a housewife (and may not even have a husband). She'd have a job, friends and more to do in life than mope around the house all day calling cops, firemen or pizza men looking for quick, sexual gratification. Moreover, what it might mean is that getting married and having some fat ass come home and plop on your couch everynight (only requiring rote sex and a hot meal), isn't all it is cracked up to be.

Request: As he suggests, please email him at arightside@aol.com and tell him he needs to rethink his premise.

(link via pandagon)

Get Him Some Vitamins

I've done my share of reading on reincarnation and even believe some of it. But, I'm not one of those people who think's that I'm the reincarnation of some great and mighty person. I'm not trying to say that Tom Cruise is crazy, but with all of his talk against pharmaceutical treatments for mental illness, I think he "doth protest too much!"

Scientologist Tom Cruise revealed that he is much older than the forty three years he has spent in his present body.

Tom Cruise noted that he is 'old beyond reckoning.' What's more, his current life is 'probably one of the least satisfying' he has led.

'I was much happier in previous existences when I wrote plays, composed music, conquered nations, discovered continents, and developed cures for diseases,' said Tom Cruise.

Cruise said he became aware that he 'had been here before,' when he read the complete works of Shakespeare in a month, despite being dyslexic, not long after dropping out of high school.

'Shakespeare was deja vu for me,' said Tom Cruise. 'It was so cool. I felt as if I had seen his words already, knew them all by heart. Then, after I began studying scientology, I realized the words had come from my heart in a previous life. That's why I say that as glorious and enviable as my present life is, making 'War of the Worlds' and all those other great movies can't compare to writing 'Romeo and Juliet' or the sonnets.

In addition to recognizing his days of future passed in the works of Shakespeare and Bach—and in the achievements of Columbus and Napoleon—Cruise recognizes the continuing reappearance of 'Anti-Thetanic forces,' such as Matt Lauer and Brooke Shields, with whom he has clashed in former lives.

If vitamins are what he needs, I think he needs to get to chomping!

If It Talks Like A Terrorist ...

Picture this: An Imam in an Arab state declares that George W. Bush should be assassinated. Fox New would spontaneously combust. Bush would hold a special press conference just to say "bring 'em on." Yet, we just want Venezuela and Hugo Chavez to ignore Pat Robertson (with his old, crazy ass)?

Venezuela's vice president on Tuesday accused religious broadcaster Pat Robertson of making "“terrorist statements"” by calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel said Venezuela was studying its legal options, adding that how Washington responds would put its anti-terrorism policy to the test.

"“The ball is in the U.S. court, after this criminal statement by a citizen of that country," ” Rangel told reporters. "“It'’s huge hypocrisy to maintain this discourse against terrorism and at the same time, in the heart of that country, there are entirely terrorist statements like those.”"
[...]
"“This man cannot be a true Christian. He's a fascist,"” added Venezuelan legislator Desire Santos Amaral. "“This is part of the policies of aggression from the right wing in the North against our revolution."

Santos said she thinks U.S.-Venezuelan relations could still improve but comments by "charlatans and fascists"” like Robertson only get in the way.

Somebody please get the hook and yank this nut, who's headed for complete dimentia, off of the stage!

Update: See, this is the problem. This man reaches thousands of people and they believe and defend everything he says. His remarks have caused a firestorm yet this is what one of his sheep who is on one of my discussion lists said about it:

"I saw that and I think that he was being sarcastic. He was merely saying no need to spend millions of dollars on another war for one man. We should just go and kill the man. I don't think he was really saying let's kill as much as he was saying having a big war because you don't like one man is stupid. That was my take on the show."

The chick doesn't have a clue!

Speaking Of Getting Old

These constant accusations of being non-patriotic or wanting failure because one disagrees with the ineptitude of this administration in this manufactured war on terror is getting quite old.

Meeting briefly with reporters Monday aboard Air Force One, Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman subbing for Scott McClellan, said that President Bush believes that those who want the U.S. to begin to change course in Iraq do not want America to win the overall 'war on terror.'

Duffy spoke on a day when a surprisingly large antiwar protest met the president during his stay in Salt Lake City, Utah, where he addressed a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention.

Speaking to reporters, Duffy said that Bush 'can understand that people don't share his view that we must win the war on terror, and we cannot retreat and cut and run from terrorists, but he just has a different view. He believes it would be a fundamental mistake right now for us to cut and run in the face of terrorism, because if we've learned anything, especially from the 9/11 Commission Report, it is that to continue to retreat after the Cole, after Beirut and Somalia is to only empower terrorists and to give them more recruiting tools as they try to identify ways to harm Americans.

Yeah, yeah! Yada, yada! Whatever dude! Nana nana poo poo!

Backing Away From Crazy?

What Norm and Mel fail to realize is that God probably told Pat (and Dubya) that it would be best to assassinate Chavez ... to save taxpayer money, of course. Bush should be the one to call Mr. Senility out on the carpet for this. (But, I forgot he is on vacation - riding a bike somewhere).

U.S. Senators Norm Coleman, Republican of Minnesota and Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida, said a call by U.S. televangelist Pat Robertson for the U.S. government to assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was ``irresponsible'' and ``incredibly stupid.''

The senators, visiting Brazil to meet with government and business leaders, spoke with reporters today in Rio de Janeiro.

``It was an incredibly stupid statement and has no reflection on reality,'' said Coleman, the chairman of the Senate's Foreign Relations subcommittee on the western hemisphere. ``I met with President Chavez on my last visit a couple of months ago and he related that concern to me, about how the U.S. was out to assassinate him. I told him not to lose any sleep about it.

We'll see how many of our elected GOP officials speak out against this kind of lunacy by one of Bush's key confidants.

Deny, Lie, Deny

If he really is this stupid, can someone crack open his head and pour in a clue? Even Canada was faced with the prospect of implementing Shariah in it's courts for Muslims. Does he honestly think, that without specific language to the contrary, women will have all of the freedoms and rights they once enjoyed under Saddam? Iraqi women were among the most progressive in the middle east under a repressive regime. Now, under democracy, they could face lives of inequality and brutality.

What do you say when 1,872 Americans have died in order to depose a dictator only to replace him with what's shaping up to be an Islamic republic where clerics get the final say on the rights of women? If you're George W. Bush, you simply say it isn't so.

The Iraqis still have a long way to go before they've adopted a new constitution. But if the draft that has been presented to the Iraqi National Assembly is adopted and approved by the Iraqi people, what they'll be left with is a lot less than the freedom-filled democracy the president has so often envisioned. The draft provides that Islam is the official religion of Iraq and prohibits the adoption of any laws that conflict with Islam's teachings, and it leaves open the possibility that issues regarding marriage, divorce and inheritance will be decided by clerics rather than judges. Howard Dean predicted the other day that Iraqi women may well end up worse off than they were under Saddam Hussein, and some experts suggest that he may be right.

The president's response? Simply deny that the issue exists. Speaking to reporters traveling with him in Idaho today, Bush said that 'the fact that Iraq will have a democratic constitution that honors women's rights, the rights of minorities, is going to be an important change in the broader Middle East.' Pressed to explain how a constitution 'rooted in Islam' will end up 'honoring the rights of women,' Bush said he knew it would work out that way because Condoleezza Rice had told him.

'I talked to Condi, and there is not -- as I understand it, the way the constitution is written is that women have got rights, inherent rights recognized in the constitution, and that the constitution talks about not 'the religion,' but 'a religion,'' the president said. 'Twenty-five percent of the assembly is going to be women, which is a -- is embedded in the constitution.

If Condoleezza is feeding her boss the lie that life will be bearable for women in Iraq under the new constitution, she needs to be shot (or stoned - as would be the method for betrayal over there). But, as usual, if women are subjegated by the new constitution, it won't be his fault. He'll just say Condi gave him bad information.

Take Him To The Hood

I guess I'll own up to a little stereotype that is based on a bit of truth. Black folks at the "picture show." I guess I didn't notice until I got older and probably used to participate as well (I think I remember an interactive experience during Cooley High and Sparkle) but I think most blacks would concede that seeing a movie in a black theater is going to be a tad bit different than watching the same movie in a predominately white theater. That being said, I have a solution for this disabled child who was kicked out of a theater for laughing too loud. Take him to a theater in a predominately black neighborhood and no one will notice. Just hope that everyone else isn't so loud that he can't hear the movie either.

"If you're a 7-year-old kid with cerebral palsy and autism, you have to take your laughs anywhere you can get them. Just don't have too much fun at the local movie theater, or you might get thrown out. That's what happened to young Anthony Pratti this week. To say his parents are upset about it would be an understatement. Anthony, who uses a wheelchair, was with his parents, his sister and his grandmother at the Loews Cineplex theaters in the Galleria at Crystal Run Sunday, watching a 1:15 p.m. matinee of the G-rated film 'March of the Penguins.' The family sat in the wheelchair section provided by the theater. Anthony was having a good time, said his mom, Gina Pratti. 'He was laughing, but he really wasn't much louder than any of the other kids,' she said. About 15 minutes into the film, one of the theater's managers approached the family, she said. 'He said our son was laughing too loud,' Pratti said. 'My husband told him Anthony didn't understand, that he was disabled, but that we'd try to quiet him down.' Not good enough, apparently – the manager brusquely told the family that Anthony had to leave, Pratti said. Outraged, the family followed the manager to the lobby, where they were told they all didn't have to leave – just Anthony, Pratti said. Pratti was dumbfounded. 'I said to him, what are we supposed to do, wheel him outside and leave him there?' she said."

By the way, one person can only be so loud. I would like to know whose bright idea it was to remove a child, who is autistic and has cerebal palsy, from a movie. That is just despicable!

Spain: All Progressive and Stuff

I guess there is something to be said for socialist, increasingly secular states. They realize that the church has no business in government and the government has no business in your drawers.

"Spain got its first married priest this weekend when a Canary island bishop ordained an Anglican pastor as a Roman Catholic priest, news reports said Monday.

Zimbabwe-born Evans David Gliwitzki, who has two daughters aged 30 and 40, was ordained Sunday in the town of La Laguna on the island of Tenerife by Bishop Felipe Fernandez, leading daily El Pais said.

The bishop said the marriage had the full support of Spain's Roman Catholic Church. He said it was an exceptional case to favor unity between churches and did not in any way signal a departure from the Catholic church's insistence that its priests be celibate.

''It's a gesture of respect toward the Anglican Church, which does permit matrimony (among ministers),'' El Pais quoted Fernandez as saying.

''In Britain, it's more common for Anglican ministers to become Catholic priests although this is the first case in Spain,'' he added.

Cutting off speculation that the move could signal some change in church policy, the bishop said the marriage was a ''one-off exception, adding that ''no door is being opened to the absolution of celibacy,'' El Pais quoted him as saying.

The State Where I Live

Share the happiness. Share the pain.

The California Supreme Court on Monday became the first in the nation to grant full parenting rights and obligations to gays and lesbians who have children.

In three closely watched cases, the justices set rules in an area where changes in family structure and advances in technology have outpaced the evolution of legal principles. In each case, they delivered a ruling that guaranteed that children born to gay couples have two legally recognized parents.

Each of the cases involved a lesbian couple who had children and later split up.

In one case, the court ruled unanimously that a lesbian mother cannot avoid paying child support for her partner's biological children who were conceived when the pair lived together.

That ruling puts lesbian couples on a par with unmarried couples whose relationships end. The California Supreme Court on Monday became the first in the nation to grant full parenting rights and obligations to gays and lesbians who have children.

In three closely watched cases, the justices set rules in an area where changes in family structure and advances in technology have outpaced the evolution of legal principles. In each case, they delivered a ruling that guaranteed that children born to gay couples have two legally recognized parents.

Each of the cases involved a lesbian couple who had children and later split up.

In one case, the court ruled unanimously that a lesbian mother cannot avoid paying child support for her partner's biological children who were conceived when the pair lived together.

That ruling puts lesbian couples on a par with unmarried couples whose relationships end.

Crazy As A Betsy Bug

Look, I know he's not being too far fetched in that Chavez has already accused us of trying to stage his overthrow and/or assassination. But, don't you think you've kinda reached the other side of crazy when you get on television, on the Christian Broadcast Network at that, and call for the killing of a sovereign leader?

Pat Robertson, host of Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club and founder of the Christian Coalition of America, called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

From the August 22 broadcast of The 700 Club:

ROBERTSON: There was a popular coup that overthrew him [Chavez]. And what did the United States State Department do about it? Virtually nothing. And as a result, within about 48 hours that coup was broken; Chavez was back in power, but we had a chance to move in. He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he's going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent.

You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United ... This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.

I'm not going to even try to look for the Jesus Christ in that.

(link via Shakespeare's Sister via Spontaneous Arising)

Not Safe Yet

Then when will we be safe daddy dear (in my best Cindy Lou from the Grinch voice)? Now, he's trying to slip this war - that was supposed to be an "in and out by Christmas" operation - in as a world war!

"President Bush compared the fight against terrorism to both world wars and other great conflicts of the 20th century as he tried to reassure an increasingly skeptical public on Monday to support U.S. military involvement in Iraq.

With the anti-war movement finding new momentum behind grieving mother Cindy Sheehan, Bush acknowledged the fighting in Iraq is difficult and dangerous. But he told the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention the fight is necessary to keep terrorists out of the United States.

As he did in last year's election campaign and more recently as war opposition has risen, Bush reminded his listeners of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 - reciting the date five times in a 30-minute speech.

'We're not yet safe,' Bush said. 'Terrorists in foreign lands still hope to attack our country. They still hope to kill our citizens. The lesson of Sept. 11, 2001, is that we must confront threats before they fully materialize.'

Besides his references to Sept. 11 and the war on terror, Bush also spoke of earlier global fights.

'In a single lifetime, many of you have seen liberty spread from Germany and Japan to Eastern Europe to Latin America to Southeast Asia and Africa and beyond,' Bush told the largely gray-haired crowd.

'The generation of men and women who defend our freedom today is taking its rightful place among the heroes of our nation's history.'

The speech was the first of two that Bush is giving this week to make his case for staying the course in Iraq. The second is Wednesday in Idaho, and in between Bush planned to take a day off at the Tamarack Resort 100 miles north of Boise."

You see he's taking that load of crap to places like Utah and Idaho. Home of a million sheeple. Why won't he try to play that tape in New York, Chicago or San Francisco? This President is the chicken shittingest, chicken hawk in the history of this country!

Down Boy!

I really don't understand the big, attack dog mentality of the Bush administration (particularly when our armed forces are at chihuahua level because of Iraq) and the constant selling of wolf tickets. I am glad that someone in the GOP has sense enough to at least try pull back on people like Rumsfeld's leash.

"A Republican senator asked Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Friday to lower his rhetoric against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to help win Venezuela's support for combating illegal narcotics.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa. who met this week with Chavez, reminded Rumsfeld in a letter that the United States needs Venezuela's help for effective action against drug trafficking in South America.

'In this context,' the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman wrote, 'it may well be helpful to, at least, have a moratorium on adverse comments on Venezuela.'

Pentagon officials said the letter had not been received by late Friday and refused immediate comment.

Rumsfeld and other members of the Bush administration have been linking Chavez with Cuban President Fidel Castro as destabilizing troublemakers in teetering Latin American democracies. En route home from visits this week to Paraguay and Peru, Rumsfeld told reporters Thursday that 'there certainly is evidence that both Cuba and Venezuela have been involved in the situation in Bolivia in unhelpful ways.'

Specter's letter, distributed by his office, referred to comments in a speech, but the remark to reporters was the extent of his Venezuela references Thursday. He has been blunter in the past, however.

The senator also has been visiting Latin American countries to discuss drug and immigration questions. He met with Chavez on Wednesday and talked about Venezuelan accusations that U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents were spying on the government, and the Venezuelan government's decision to suspend cooperation with the DEA, among other things.

In the letter, Specter told Rumsfeld he had detected 'a window of opportunity at this time to resolve the disagreement on drug-interdiction policies.'"

Between us invading (and suffering increasing casualties)Iraq and Afghanistan and constantly using threatening rhetoric against countries like Iran, Syria and North Korea, the last thing we need to do is make threats to a country in our hemisphere. Sadly, since the world knows about our stagnant troop levels, we are really starting to look like the cowardly lion - wildly swinging at any and everybody.

Put 'em up! PUT 'EM UP! Which oneaya first? I'll fightcha both together if you want! I'll fightcha with one paw tied behind my back! I'll fightcha standin' on one foot! I'll fightcha with my eyes closed!

Let's try not to look stupider than we already do.

Whose Hatin' On Communism?

Via Jesse at Pandagon, here's wondering why no one is giving shout outs to the communist nations that are making great strides.

Why isn't the media reporting all the good news about communism?

China is the new battleground for online auctioneering - will eBay allow the Chinese to sell their unwanted daughters at fair prices? Chinese industrial companies' profits are rising 21%. Cuba just graduated its first foreigners from ELAM.

And yes, I've heard tell that Cuba's having a new cafeteria built! Three, in fact! Beat that, Iraq!

If Bush Is Right ...

As Bush continues with his vacation, protesters at Camp Casey 2 (new site on Bush's neighbor's property), more and more people show up to provide support for this peaceful movement. Among them over the weekend was longtime activist, organizer and former staffer of the SCLC Rev. Peter Johnson who spoke at one of the rallies.

"This is amazing. We're right in Dubya's backyard. You know, Cindy had to go to California because her mother had a stroke. I was here last week, and I brought Cindy greetings from Rosa Parks and Mrs. King. Mrs. King had a stroke also and asked that you all would keep her in your prayers and remember her. She is the widow of our 20th century Moses.

Because Cindy had to go to California, the movement for peace did not go with her. In 1967 and in 1968, Dr. King asked us to move around the country and begin to organize the Poor People’s Campaign to go to Washington. On April 4, 1968, Dr. King had gone down to Memphis, Tennessee, to help garbage workers. Standing on the balcony on the Lorraine Motel, talking to Ben Branch, a shot rang out and our Moses fell. The Poor People's Campaign continued. We dried our eyes, buried our leader and went on to Washington and established Resurrection City. Because Cindy has gone to California does not mean that the movement for peace should end. We must dry our eyes and continue to work for peace.

Now, you know, if George W. Bush is right, that great philosopher from Detroit, Michigan was wrong. That’s Marvin Gaye, y'all. There's no need to escalate. War is not the answer, ‘cause only love can conquer hate. If Bush is right, then Marvin was wrong. If Bush is right, Mohandas K. Gandhi was wrong. If Bush is right, Henry David Thoreau was wrong. If Bush is right, Martin Luther King, Jr. was wrong. If Bush is right, Jesus of Nazareth was wrong.

[...]

I tend to believe the great voices of peace throughout history was right, and this voice from this little hamlet here in Texas is absolutely wrong. The world is watching what you do here. It is important that you be calm, that you be peaceful, but you be firm. My grandmother say, “Fight them ‘til hell freezes over, and when hell freezes over, fight them on the ice.”"

Bush is not right!

Selling Out To Save Face

Watching Meet The Press yesterday, I could not believe my ears when I heard this man say that he wasn't worried that women could be stripped of the rights they had under an brutal dictator. We've lost nearly 2,000 men and women on the ground in Iraq only to sell out half of the Iraqi population so that they can meet a US imposed deadline on creating a constitution.

MR. GREGORY: Fast forward to this morning. Gentlemen, we put this on the screen from The New York Times. "[American ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay] Khalilzad had backed language [in the constitution] that would have given clerics sole authority in settling marriage and family disputes. That gave rise to concerns that women's rights, as they are annunciated in Iraq's existing laws, could be curtailed. ... [The[ arrangement, coupled with the expansive language for Islam, prompted accusations from [a Kurdish leader] that the Americans were helping in the formation of an Islamic state."

Mr. Diamond, is that a change of position?

MR. DIAMOND: It would be, I think, a substantial change if it's true. We need to wait and see what exactly is true. All of these are just reports. Let me say, I don't think we have--and I think Reuel would agree with this--we don't have the power anymore to foreclose this, to veto this. We're not a veto player there anymore. But neither do I think the United States should be endorsing it. And I think our clear stand should be in favor of individual rights and freedoms, including religious freedom, as vigorously as possible. So I hope the ambassador on the ground is standing up for that principle.

MR. GREGORY: Mr. Gerecht, the consequences of this?

MR. GERECHT: Actually, I'm not terribly worried about this. I mean, one hopes that the Iraqis protect women's social rights as much as possible. It certainly seems clear that in protecting the political rights, there's no discussion of women not having the right to vote. I think it's important to remember that in the year 1900, for example, in the United States, it was a democracy then. In 1900, women did not have the right to vote. If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled. I mean, women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy. We hope they're there. I think they will be there. But I think we need to put this into perspective.

I find this attitude and logic downright arrogant, insulting and proof that we've never had the best interests of Iraq at heart in the first place.

(Also see this post at the Brass Blog Alliance)

It's All About Fox

Talk about self-absorbtion! I was up much too early this morning and, because I fell asleep on some Geraldo special on Fox last night, woke up with the channel still on Foxnews. These folks were 'dogging' Bob Costas ... saying that his refusal to host a show on Natalee Holloway was really a snub against Fox News.

"While some cable TV hosts are making their living off the Natalee Holloway case this summer, Bob Costas is having none of it.

Costas, hired by CNN as an occasional fill-in on 'Larry King Live,' refused to anchor Thursday's show because it was primarily about the Alabama teenager who went missing in Aruba. Chris Pixley filled in at the last minute.

'I didn't think the subject matter of Thursday's show was the kind of broadcast I should be doing,' Costas said in a statement. 'I suggested some alternatives but the producers preferred the topics they had chosen. I was fine with that, and respectfully declined to participate.' "

How 'bout he's as sick of hearing about this little girl as I am. Suppose he feels that some station, any station, should give viewers an alternative to hearing about the saga of a young high school student who went on vacation to another country, apparently had no friends who were looking out for her, and went off alone with a stranger?

What Are We Doing There?

Ali Nasir Jabur, 10, sits on the back of a truck loaded with the bodies of his family members, outside Tikrit hospital, north of Baghdad, Sunday, Aug. 21, 2005. Ali's parents, two brothers and sister were killed when unknown gunmen wearing Iraqi security forces uniforms raided their home the previous night, while he was hidden under a blanket. Person inspecting the bodies is a hospital worker.

(AP Photo/Bassim Daham)

Five Days Of Poo Pushing

Bush is going to play his broken record in an attempt to convince his doubting red staters that this war is an honorable cause.

"With anti-war protesters continuing their vigil outside President Bush's ranch, the commander in chief began a five-day push Saturday to tell Americans why he thinks U.S. troops must continue the fight in Iraq.

In his weekly radio address, Bush argued that the war in Iraq will keep Americans safe for generations to come. He'll try to drive that point home with speeches in upcoming days in Utah and Idaho.

'Our troops know that they're fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere to protect their fellow Americans from a savage enemy,' the president said in the recorded broadcast.

'They know that if we do not confront these evil men abroad, we will have to face them one day in our own cities and streets, and they know that the safety and security of every American is at stake in this war, and they know we will prevail.'

Bush is making a sell to a skeptical public. According to recent polls, a majority of Americans do not approve of his handling of the war."

Obviously there are still millions of stupid people so I am sure some will buy it. But the body count is getting higher in both Iraq and Afghanistan so we will see what prevails in the minds of those who still need more proof that their President is a liar.

Tigers Gone Tiger

Well, at least they didn't accuse the tiger of going crazy and killing the girl.

"The Labette County Sheriff's office identified the victim as Haley R. Hilderbrand, 17, of Altamont. A statement from the office said Hilderbrand was at the Lost Creek Animal Sanctuary posing for photos with the 7-year-old tiger, which was being restrained by its handler, when the animal turned and attacked her.

Officers and handlers killed the animal. Emergency personnel were not able to revive Hilderbrand.

Doug Billingsly and his family opened the 80-acre sanctuary in 1994. According to the sanctuary's Web site, its animals include lions, leopards, tigers and bears.

Billingsly didn't immediately return a phone call for comment."

People seem to forget that wild animals are, well ... wild animals. So, to quote Chris Rock on the tiger that mauled Sigfried (or was it Roy?), "That tiger didn't go crazy. That tiger went tiger!"

(link via daffodil lane)

The Freedom To Marry At Six

I guess there is no point in reiterating that the president and his administration should be ashamed for all of the lies they tell. But the utter and complete myth they are trying to create that Afghan women are somehow liberated or free is just sinful and unforgivable.

Howard Dean angered Republicans last weekend when he dared to suggest that Iraqi women may be worse off in the new Iraq than they were under Saddam Hussein. While Dean's paying attention to the sorry state of women's rights in countries the United States has forcibly "liberated," we hope he doesn't overlook Afghanistan.

The United Nations' newest report finds that underage marriage is a rampant problem in the country, especially in rural areas. "Nearly 45 percent of marriages in this country involve girls below the legal age of 16," the U.N. Population Fund said in a statement. "The tradition of marrying off daughters as young as six is still common."

Afghan girls are sometimes traded as chattel to resolve disputes with another tribal family. The children become the "property of the family or individual who receives them," the report says. The U.N. Population Fund will hold a two-day workshop with Islamic leaders to grapple with the problem later this month in Kabul.

The report reminded us of how President Bush and even Laura Bush sold the war with Afghanistan to the American people as a bid to end the horrific oppression of women under the Taliban. And, then, how on Women's Equality Day in 2002, a triumphant President Bush boasted: "Our coalition has liberated Afghanistan and restored fundamental human rights and freedoms to Afghan women, and all the people of Afghanistan. Young girls in Afghanistan are able to attend schools for the first time."

Afghan girls -- now free to marry at age 6. That's some liberation.

Can We Grow Up Now?

Oh, come on now! I don't know if Mr. Limbaugh is in one of his Oxycotin induced stupors when he allows this kind of ignorant rhetoric slide out of his mouth like loose stools or if he just likes to fuel the slow, hateful minds of his viewers but this is just getting silly, stupid and beyond juvenile.

"On the August 17 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio talk show, Rush Limbaugh refer to Native Americans as 'injuns.' After a caller suggested that legislation introduced by Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI), which would grant limited rights of self-government to Native Hawaiians, was a first step toward establishing Native Hawaiian-owned casinos, Limbaugh responded, 'So in your mind they're simply trying to duplicate the actions taken by the American injuns, and get themselves set up so they have casinos over there?'

Media Matters has documented at least four separate instances of Limbaugh using this slur on his program during the past year. In addition to his use of the term on August 17, Limbaugh used the term on the January 26, 2005, September 22, 2004, and November 24, 2004, editions of his program.

From the August 17 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

CALLER: I'm calling about the Hawaiian issue.

LIMBAUGH: Yeah.

CALLER: I'm thinking that we'd better chase the dollars and cents of this much like the American Indians had their reservation freedom, and the ability to have tax exempt status to run their own casinos. My guess is, I can see it now: the Tiki casino or Luau casino on Oahu. And therefore, established not necessarily a separate nation-state, but at least a separate taxing situation for the people of indigenous heritage.

LIMBAUGH: So, in your mind, they're simply trying to duplicate the actions taken by the American injuns, and get themselves set up so they have casinos over there?

From the January 26 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: You wanna hear a funny story? The left just keeps stepping in it. You put a pile of excrement out there, and they're just gonna step in it. Here's a story from Oakland, California: 'The sounds of birds may soon compete with the sounds of bets at a marsh in Oakland, Calif., where a landless tribe of Pomo Indians plans to move ahead with construction of a casino and spa next to a wetlands home to a dozen species of birds. 'This is really a wonderful jewel that provides a rare opportunity for people to connect with nature, and having a casino as a next-door neighbor would greatly degrade that,' said Elizabeth Murdock of the Golden Gate Audubon Society.'

'Tribe members' -- the injuns -- 'say they have great respect for nature -- their tribal symbol features the red tail hawk. But, they argue, they need the casino to get some land of their own and finally become economically self-sufficient.'"

I cannot even remember the last time I heard that word used but it wasn't from a real person. It was from someone on The Lone Ranger.

Eunuchs For Hire

They may as well be. This is just bizzare!

Former employees of a state-run oilfield in north China are jumping through a strange hoop to get their jobs back -- they are filing for divorce.

China's state-run giants, once the heart of the planned economy, have cast off millions of employees since the launch of market reforms two decades ago.

But the Huabei Oilfield Co., based in Renqiu, Hebei province, Friday issued a new policy saying divorced laid-off employees could return to work, the Chinese news Web site www.sina.com.cn said Wednesday, citing an article by the local Yanzhao Metropolitan News.

"Following these rules, laid-off employees just have to have a divorce certificate and they are qualified for re-employment," former oilfield worker Wang Ying was quoted as saying.

"To qualify to get my job back, I had to divorce my husband of 10 years, even though we have a wonderful relationship."

Divorce is on the rise in China but still unusual outside big cities. State media reported 1.6 million couples from the country of 1.3 billion people divorced in 2004.

But among Huabei employees, untying the knot had become so common that people had replaced the standard greeting of "Have you eaten?" with "Are you divorced yet?," the report said.

Around 20 couples connected to the oilfield, a subsidiary of CNPC, China's largest oil and gas producer, had formally split on Monday alone, an official from the local marriage registration bureau was quoted as saying.

The report did not explain the oilfield's motives for the pro-divorce policy and company management was not immediately available for comment.

"This policy is just in trial stages," an oilfield manager told the newspaper. "I can't say anything about it."

More Cry-nin!

Wow! Male hysteria over the advancement of women is really getting tiring. I am so sick of aging white men complaining about their shrinking dicks because most women aren't "home baking cookies".

Newsreader Michael Buerk has said "almost all the big jobs in broadcasting are held by women" who "decide what we see and hear".

The former Nine O'Clock News presenter told the Radio Times: "Life is lived in accordance with women's rules" and men are now merely "sperm donors".

Buerk added that the "shift in the balance of power between the sexes" had gone too far.

"The result is men are becoming more like women," he said.

He cited Tim Henman and David Beckham as examples.

His views are to be screened in a new channel Five series Don't Get Me Started! which gives some of the UK's leading opinion-formers a chance to sound off on the issues they feel most strongly about.

He said while making the programme he "came across what I considered a very personal example of the changes that have taken place".

"Almost all the big jobs in broadcasting were held by women - the controllers of BBC One television and Radio 4 for example. These are the people who decide what we see and hear", he said.

Former BBC One controller Lorraine Heggessey has left the BBC, and has been replaced by a man, Peter Fincham, while Mark Damazer is now the BBC Radio 4 controller, replacing Helen Boaden who is now head of BBC News.

The BBC declined to comment on Buerk's assertions.

Buerk added that it was time for society to admit there was a problem.

"Look at the changes in the workplace. There is no manufacturing industry any more; there are no mines; few vital jobs require physical strength," he added.

"What we have now are lots of jobs that require people skills and multi-tasking - which women are a lot better at."

While Buerk admitted a lot of the changes were for the better, he questioned whether things had gone too far.

"Products are made for women, cars are made for women - because they control what is being bought," he said.

"Some people might argue that this is a case of the pendulum swinging over the woman's side for a change, and eventually it will find a happy medium."

He added he felt men were being given a lesser role in society.

"All they are is sperm donors, and most women aren't going to want an unemployable sperm donor loafing around and making the house look untidy."

Oh poor, poor Alfalfa! The only difference between his comments and most of the other whining little babies I hear is that he is claiming that men are turning into women while I more often hear that women are turning into men. Either way. These big babies need to suck it up. Trying to change laws about abortion, contraception and griping about women choosing not to have children is not going to change the progress that has been made. So these losers either need to get over it or shut up, donate the sperm and sit down!

(link via feministing)

Wah! Wah! Wah!

This is rich! Civilization has been reducing women to T&A for an eternity and a couple little commercials air where women aren't props and the poor babies are whining.

Two recent controversial TV ads have provoked a rash of complaints to the Advertising Standards Bureau.

More than 30 people lodged formal complaints last month about a Morning Fresh dishwasher detergent ad that featured a woman striking a man over the head with a spanner.

"I find it offensive because it portrays the male in a demeaning manner," one complainant said.

Men were also said to be mistreated in a commercial for Country Cup soups, in which a policewoman detains a male mugger, landing a hefty kick to his groin. "If gender roles were reversed, there would be an outrage," a complainant said.

The bureau dismissed both cases. But men are complaining in greater numbers every year, according to the bureau's statistician, Neale Apps.

"There is a definite trend for more men to complain on the basis of discrimination," he said.

There was a storm of protest last year over a Volkswagen Polo ad in which a female driver sniggers when she sees the crotch of a male courier in her side mirror, which carries the message: "Objects in mirror may appear bigger than actual size."

RMIT senior marketing lecturer Con Stavros said almost every ad offended some part of the community.

Men being discriminated against probably counter-balanced the portrayal of women in advertising, he said.

A Thousand Saddams

Iraqi call in television shows are proving to be venting mechanisms for citizens who are fed up with the constant violence in their country.

"The show's anchor interrupted the program for a breaking news announcement that four men suspected of involvement in the bus station bombing had been captured.

'I call on the government to try these men on television,' said a caller.

Some Iraqis in the capital say they are taking the law into their own hands in a city plagued by criminal gangs.

In the Sadr City area of Baghdad, militiamen pulled a man from the trunk of a car and shot him and two women, saying they were running a prostitution ring, witnesses said on Wednesday.

Angry callers yelled while Iraqi officials sat at the negotiating table again after failing to meet an August 15 deadline to draft a constitution.

The anchor urged the officials to finish writing the document after telling Iraqis that Saddam Hussein's police state would never return, words that failed to soothe another caller.

'Instead of Saddam we now have thousands of Saddams,' he fumed."

That's just scary!

Catalyst For Crisis

Pat Buchanan's other conservative views were irking the heck out of me when I saw him on somebody's pundit show last week. He's still yearning for a return to the 50's, June Cleaver and this imaginary blissful culture that never really was. But, he's got the tragedy that was thrust upon us by the neocons down to a science and suggests that, just perhaps, anti-war mom Cindy Sheehan may be the catalyst for crisis for the Presidency of George W. Bush (whose still on vacation).

George W. Bush is approaching a similar moment of truth. And Cindy Sheehan may be the catalyst of crisis for the Bush presidency.

As a Gold Star mother of a soldier son slain in Iraq, Sheehan has authenticity and moral authority. Wedded to the passion of her protest, these make her a magnet for a bored White House press corps camped in Crawford for August. Cindy and the president are the only stories in town. And as a source of daily derogatory commentary on the president, Sheehan is using the media, and the media are using her, for the same end: to bedevil George W. Bush.

They are succeeding. When one considers the non-stop cable TV coverage given the mother of Natalie Holloway, the Alabama teen missing in Aruba, Cindy Sheehan will soon be a household name. The more media she attracts, the more people she draws to Crawford. The more people who join Cindy in Crawford, the more media coverage they will attract. It is hard to see what breaks this cycle before Labor Day and the president's return."
[...]
Put bluntly, the bottom is falling out of support for the commander in chief. What is remarkable is that no Democrat has stepped forward, as Gene McCarthy did, to lead an anti-war crusade and call for a date certain for withdrawal of U.S. troops. Cindy Sheehan is filling that vacuum.

As the White House seems to be losing control of the debate, our war leaders no longer seem to be singing from the same song sheet. When the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. Casey, spoke of "substantial" withdrawals of U.S. forces by spring, with Rumsfeld beside him, he was contradicted by Bush who dismissed this as "speculation" and reportedly rebuked.

To most Americans, it seems apparent that the United States and its allies do not have the boots on the ground to grind down and defeat this Sunni-jihadist insurgency. Yet, no one is talking about sending more U.S. combat brigades. How, then, do you win the war?

"As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down" is President Bush's exit strategy. But how can the Iraqis the U.S. Army is training defeat an enemy the U.S. Army has itself been unable to defeat in two years?

Americans do not want an endless no-win war, but they also do not want to cut and run, or walk away and leave a debacle, when they believe that 1,850 Americans have died and 13,000 have been wounded in a noble cause. If President Bush cannot describe "victory" in terms convincing enough to Americans willing to spend blood indefinitely, he will have to persuade them to stay the course by describing what a disaster defeat will mean for Iraq and for America's position in the world.

But to do that would raise a question: Why, then, in heaven's name, did America take such a risk, when Iraq was never a threat?

September could see the coalescing of an anti-war movement that both bedevils the White House and divides a Democratic Party that seeks to benefit from a losing war, without having to offer a plan to win it or end it, without being held accountable for having supported it, or responsible for undercutting it.

Our politics appear likely to become even more poisoned when the president returns from his troubled vacation.

Call Dr. Phil

Okay folks! This is abuse and the religious crackpots at focus on the family are telling you this is love.

On the other hand, a man’s competitive nature often leads to insecurity and jealousy. It’s not uncommon for an unbelieving husband to be jealous of his wife’s church and the time she spends there, jealous of other Christians — especially other Christian men — and to be jealous of God.

One woman confided that her husband is forever accusing her of cheating on him with men from her church. “He flies into terrible rages and says some awful things to me at times. I can’t even repeat what he says. One time he even set a trap for me by leaving a note on my car while I was in church. It supposedly was from a man at church, asking to meet me for coffee.” She said she knew immediately it was from her husband, although he denied it. “What would make him do such a thing?” she asked.

Jealousy arouses a husband’s fury, says Proverbs 6:34. “Who can stand before jealousy?” (Proverbs 27:4). The competitiveness of a man makes him protective of his wife’s affections, and when he feels threatened, he lashes out. However, when it’s God who threatens him, he doesn’t know how to compete. He can’t compete.

A wise woman will make an effort to appreciate her husband’s competitive instincts and will take his reasonable display of jealousy as a sign that he’s afraid of losing her. The best thing she can do is to assure him by her actions that loving God with her whole heart means having even greater love for him.

This is how women end up dead ... allowing someone to tell them that jealous rages and trap setting are a part of love ... and that somehow she can control it with her "Godly" behavior! I'm sure Dr. Phil would agree, along with multiple psychiatrists who know the signs of an abusive spouse, that there is nothing a wife can do to soothe a man who is so crippled by insecurity that he cannot control his anger and verbally abuses his wife. (The full article is basically a list of ways for a woman to compensate for her husband's frail ego).

Why Not?

This flip answer from the White House on why Bush has time to ride his bike and go to barbeque's but cannot meet with the mother one on one - not hearded in like a cow with other grief stricken families - got me to thinking. Why can't he meet with every family? Why can't he call every family? If the war is going as well as he keeps telling the people still stupid enough to believe it,why can't he take the time to call each and every one of those families? If he is so proud of these soldiers' sacrifice, why can't he sacrifice some of his time?:

"Mr Bush's media handlers are in a difficult position. One said: 'If the President meets with her, does he have to meet with every protester who camps out in Crawford or in Lafayette Park [in Washington]? Does he have a second meeting with every mother or wife who asks for one?'"

A PR op is not a meeting - which is what the first encounter was when she was in the early stages of grief. He needs to MAKE some time for the victims of his mistake!

Bored!

LOL!

Don't Date Him Girl

Come See, Come Saw

People are lining up on both sides to love or hate Judge Roberts and since it looks like we will probably be stuck with him, I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. This quote was part of a litany over on Pandagon and, though I initially recoiled at what sounded like blatant sexism, I stepped back for a second and thought about some of the geeky "boys"/men I have known or even know now. He sounds like a typical nerd who didn't have time for the distraction of girls when he was studying.

"An editorial the Supreme Court nominee penned for his high school paper in 1972 refers to the Latin texts of Cicero and offers a fervent argument against admitting girls to La Lumiere School -- then an all-boys school -- in northern Indiana.

'I tend to think that the presence of the opposite sex in the classroom will be confining rather than catholicizing,' he wrote. 'I would prefer to discuss Shakespeare's double entendre and the latus rectum of conic sections without a [b]londe giggling and blushing behind me.'

'Game times should be interesting too,' Judge Roberts, then a junior at the Catholic lay-teacher school, wrote in the Torch, the school's newspaper. 'Imagine the five cheerleaders on the sidelines, with block 'L's' on their chests, screaming, 'Give me a 'L'!' Give me a break!' "

He was a high school student and perhaps this was an early indication of a misogynistic or sexist view of women. But, I cannot help but be reminded of the computer nerd joke.

A computer programmer happens across a frog in the road. The frog pipes up, "I'm really a beautiful princess and if you kiss me, I'll stay with you for a week". The programmer shrugs his shoulders and puts the frog in his pocket.

A few minutes later, the frog says "OK, OK, if you kiss me, I'll give you great sex for a week". The programmer nods and puts the frog back in his pocket.

A few minutes later, "Turn me back into a princess and I'll give you great sex for a whole year!". The programmer smiles and walks on.

Finally, the frog says, "What's wrong with you? I've promised you great sex for a year from a beautiful princess and you won't even kiss a frog?"

"I'm a programmer," he replies. "I don't have time for sex.... But a talking frog is pretty neat."

It may be as simple as that. If not, there is a part of me that agrees with him. Given the number of, often destructive, distractions in highs school (not to mention sex specifically), same sex schools often prove more successful in educating young minds. Girls, for example, perform better in math and subjects generally dominated by boys. In that sense, I'm impressed that he was perceptive enough and focused enough to know that having girls in class might knock him off kilter and interfere in his "intellectual pursuits". He obviously carried that view far into life as both he and his wife didn't marry until they were 41 and then even took the adoption route instead of enduring pregnancies (don't know if that was choice or infertility).

I won't use that particular nail to crucify him as unfit to sit on the court. There are plenty of other hidden "gems" in his prior writings. With this one, I'm not particularly moved that it is telling.

Willful Barreness?

These people have lost their natural minds! It's one thing to be pro-birth ('cause these same folks will be the main ones denying assistance to poor women and trying to fund jails for their uncared for children later) and anti-contraceptive (okay, well that is just as stupid as this) but now this clown is actually deriding people who choose not to have children? Willfull barreness. Is he freakin' kidding?

"Christians must recognize that this rebellion against parenthood represents nothing less than an absolute revolt against God's design. The Scripture points to barrenness as a great curse and children as a divine gift. The Psalmist declared: 'Behold, children are a gift of the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the children of one's youth. How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them; they will not be ashamed when they speak with their enemies in the gate.' [Psalm 127: 3-5]

Morally speaking, the epidemic in this regard has nothing to do with those married couples who desire children but are for any reason unable to have them, but in those who are fully capable of having children but reject this intrusion in their lifestyle.

The motto of this new movement of chosen childlessness could be encapsulated by the bumper sticker put out by the Zero Population Growth group in the 1970s: 'Make Love, Not Babies.' This is the precise worldview the Scripture rejects. Marriage, sex and children are part of one package. To deny any part of this wholeness is to reject God's intention in creation -- and His mandate revealed in the Bible.

The sexual revolution has had many manifestations, but we can now see that modern Americans are determined not only to liberate sex from marriage (and even from gender), but also from procreation.

The Scripture does not even envision married couples who choose not to have children. The shocking reality is that some Christians have bought into this lifestyle and claim childlessness as a legitimate option. The rise of modern contraceptives has made this technologically possible. But the fact remains that though childlessness may be made possible by the contraceptive revolution, it remains a form of rebellion against God's design and order.

Couples are not given the option of chosen childlessness in the biblical revelation. To the contrary, we are commanded to receive children with joy as God's gifts, and to raise them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. We are to find many of our deepest joys and satisfactions in the raising of children within the context of the family. Those who reject children want to have the joys of sex and marital companionship without the responsibilities of parenthood. They rely on others to produce and sustain the generations to come.

This epidemic of chosen childlessness will not be corrected by secular rethinking. In an effort to separate the pleasure of sex from the power of procreation, modern Americans think that sex totally free from constraint or conception is their right. Children, of course, do represent a serious constraint on the life of parents. Parenthood is not a hobby, but represents one of the most crucial opportunities for the making of saints found in this life."

This obsession with people's sex lives, reproductive habits and sexual orientation is down right freakish. I think these folks are literally suffering from some kind of perversion. Since the bulk of these people are white men, perhaps this is really just innate fear ... Fear of becoming a dying breed given the fact two of the largest states in the Union have populations that are more than half non-white. I don't know but now declaring that women who don't want children are sinners destined for hell downright shameful. I cannot believe that a newspaper would give someone print space to publish this rubbish. I am actually disgusted that people like this are allowed to breed.

It's Not True Until You See It In "The Jet"

That's what folks say! Some folks don't believe it's gospel until it's in Jet Magazine. Though no longer a current subscriber to either (just don't have time or space for another magazine) Ebony or Jet they have been mainstays in my magazine collection at sometime or another. It's sad to see founder John H. Johnson go but he left a
long and proud legacy for his daughter and his "people."

"Pioneering black publisher John H. Johnson, who founded Ebony and Jet magazines, was hailed Monday as a man who left "an imprint on the conscience of a nation" during a packed funeral that drew Sen. Barack Obama and former President Clinton.

Mourners filled the 1,500-seat Rockefeller Memorial Chapel at the University of Chicago for the 2?-hour service. Johnson died Aug. 8 of heart failure at 87.

In addition to Obama and Clinton, Johnson also was eulogized by Gov. Rod Blagojevich and Mayor Richard M. Daley.

Among the pallbearers was I.S. Leevy Johnson. The prominent Columbia attorney, who is not related to the late publisher, was a longtime friend. The other pallbearers included Dennis Boston, Sylvester Briggs, J. Lance Clarke, Raymond Grady, Andre Rice and John W. Rogers Jr.

At the eulogy, Obama said the positive images of blacks that Johnson placed in Ebony and Jet inspired blacks across the country to strive to become doctors, lawyers and politicians.

"Only a handful of men and women leave an imprint on the conscience of a nation and on the history that they helped shape," Obama said. "John Johnson was one of these men."

Clinton, who helped escort Johnson’s widow to her seat, sought to place Johnson’s humble beginning into the context of the millions of blacks who left the South for northern cities like Chicago during the Great Migration.

"Out of this swarm of hardworking, family-loving men and women carving out their own version of the American dream, one man stood out because his dream was bigger and he had a vision for how to achieve it," said Clinton, who awarded the fellow Arkansas native the Presidential Medal of Honor in 1996."

Related Links:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/jesse/cst-edt-jesse16.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/16/national/main780679.shtml
http://www.chicagodefender.com/page/local.cfm?ArticleID=1938

Mr. Goody Two Shoes

Barring outrage and dissension from the right if they hear a rumor that John Roberts has gay friends, I guess I'll resign myself to John Roberts being confirmed as the next Supreme Court Justice. But, maybe he won't be so bad. In contrast to the arrogant hardliners that make up the band of conservatives already on the court, maybe he is just a fair minded individual who will take a strict look at the constitution and not interject ideology into it.

"I am enormously confident, however, that John Roberts has never smoked pot. And I know this because I knew guys like him in college and at law school; we all knew guys like him. These were the guys who were certain, by age 19, that they couldn't smoke pot, or date trampy girls, or throw up off the top of the school clock tower because it would impair their confirmation chances. They would have done all these things, but for the possibility of being carved out of the history books for it."
[...]

So, today's Washington Times story on Roberts' adolescence, including revelations by Roberts' former roommate, is hardly surprising: "As far as engaging in the sort of nefarious activities stereotypical of teenagers, Mr. MacLaverty said, 'In those days, the big thing was sneaking off into the woods to sneak a smoke. John was never anywhere near any of that.' "

And that's why John Roberts doesn't alarm me much. The same conservatism that leads him to decry judicial overreaching in the privacy and civil rights contexts is part and parcel of a larger conservatism that distrusts reckless grandiosity. The same quality, in short, that kept Roberts from sneaking off into the woods to smoke may be the same quality that keeps him from torching Roe v. Wade. The Clarence Thomases of this world—men unafraid of tearing down centuries of constitutional scaffolding in order to impose their own theories of constitutional construction—are far scarier to me. Those are the guys who probably did barf off the clock towers in college; guys with the hubris and drive to change the world without going through the confirmation process first. Scalia doesn't care what anyone thinks of him, and Thomas is happiest when he's provoking outrage. Roberts cares a lot about looking temperate, and that isn't a bad thing in a judge.

Uh, I'll Pass

This is how you know you live in a country where people aren't suffering with the basics of food and shelter. If I ever get so bored with life (or fixated on my private areas), I'll take up more charity work. These women have too much time on their hands.

“Some women will say, ‘Hey, you take this picture and hang it up in the operating room and refer back to it when you're sculpturing me,'” he said in an interview in his clinic overlooking hazy Los Angeles. “I say, ‘Okay, all right, fine.'”

Dr. Matlock is a colourful pioneer in a controversial — and growing — frontier of plastic surgery: nipping and tucking vaginas. Patients from the United States and more than 30 other countries pay thousands of dollars for his “designer vagina,” a purely esthetic procedure that includes shortening or plumping up the labia, or vaginal lips. He attracts even more women for an operation he claims improves sex by tightening, or “rejuvenating,” the vagina.

“There's a need for this,” he said. “Women are driving this. I didn't create this market, the market was there.”

Blech!

(link via feministing.com)

Men OTR

This definitely isn't news to me. After one of my last stints on nearly all male teams, I became convinced that men have some form of PMS or uncontrollable moodiness. I remember one guy being so bad that when another co-worker was asking basic questions about the status of his work, he kept shrugging like a non-communicative teenager. I worked with him enough to know he was having "one of his days." So I gently suggested that she ask him "tomorrow" because he wasn't talking "today." I've run into so many "moody" men that I lost all decorum and just started asking: "got your period today?"

"Millions of lines have been written about how women’s hormonal changes can cause mood swings. But what about when men get irritable and withdrawn? Psychotherapist Jed Diamond believes they could be suffering from irritable male syndrome, a condition he says is affecting a growing number of men. No, it’s not a joke. The IMS term was coined by a Scottish researcher who found that rams became irritable, withdrawn and irrational when their testosterone levels plummeted. After visiting Scotland and reviewing the research, Diamond, author of the best-selling 1997 book “Male Menopause” (Sourcebooks), thought the syndrome might apply to humans as well. He analyzed data collected from more than 6,000 men and found that about half said they were stressed, gloomy or negative most or all of the time.

A total of 40 percent of the overal survey said they were often or always irritable. Many of those who reported feeling the negative emotions, he discovered, were also experiencing certain hormonal fluctuations--namely, a drop in testosterone--as well as changes in brain chemistry, increased stress and a loss of male identity. Diamond’s research developed into a quiz and a book, “The Irritable Male Syndrome,” which Rodale Press will release in paperback next month. NEWSWEEK’s Jennifer Barrett spoke with Diamond about the causes, treatment, and skepticism of the condition.

Irritable Male Syndrome doesn't quite sound right. If it is clearly hormonal (as PMS is with women), it needs to be labeled as such. Why not LTS (Low Testosterone Syndrome) or MHI (Male Hormonal Imbalance)? There are thousands of jokes and sexist comments about women and their "cycles" and I think turnabout should be fair play when men act like "bitches."

Frist's First Betrayal

Well, it looks like the anti-stem cell crowd isn't the first to feel betrayed by Frist. In his upcoming book, former Senate Majority Leader, Trent Lott says he got a dagger in the back when Frist snatched his job.

"I consider Frist's power grab a personal betrayal,' the book says. 'When he entered the Senate in 1995, I had taken him under my wing. ... He was my protege and I helped him get plum assignments and committee positions.'

Aides to Frist said neither he nor his staff had read the book.

'The senator is focused on the future, and while he hasn't had a chance to read the book, so he can't directly comment, he certainly does appreciate Senator Lott's insights,' said Amy Call, a Frist spokeswoman.

Members of Congress, including Frist, are home in their districts this month, minimizing the immediate fallout from Lott's accusations.

Lott characterizes the racially insensitive remarks that led to his downfall ? he made the comments at a party for former Sen. Strom Thurmond ? as 'innocent and thoughtless.' But he said most of the 'vultures' in the media treated them 'as a hanging offense.'

Lott says he would have weathered the political storm if not for the 'manipulations' of Frist and other GOP colleagues. 'No other senior senator with stature would have run against me,' Lott said. 'If Frist had not announced exactly when he did, as the fire was about to burn out, I would still be majority leader of the Senate today.'

Lott also said Frist 'didn't even have the guts to call and tell me personally' that he was going to run for the majority leader position."

I was one of those folks who didn't think Trent's remarks to Strom Thurmond were meant the way they sounded. I think the way the GOP turned on Trent Lott was vicious and disingenuous and in no way changed the nature of the party that - apology or not - still uses the "southern strategy" to lure their racist white constituency come vote time. Bill Frist has now broken away from the President who shoed him in. I'm still not sure what his game is but he's certainly making some enemies.

Building Trust

This is not the way.

"A group of Iraqi workers in Baghdad came under fire from US troops who mistook them for insurgents.

An interior ministry source said US troops fired on a crowd of workers in the central Baghdad neighbourhood of Alawi, while a defence ministry source reported an exchange of fire between suspected rebels and US forces in the area.

But a number of casualties lying in Al-Yarmouk hospital told AFP that a US helicopter fired at them as they were gathered outside a hotel.

'The electricity went out at around 0500 (0100 GMT), so we exited the hotel to the street to have breakfast in the fresh air. A helicopter then opened fire into the street,' said Ali Mohammad, who sustained neck and leg injuries.

Makki Hassan, a 50-year-old resident of the neighbourhood, said that a number of people sleeping on the roofs of their houses were also struck by gunfire.

The US military, contacted by AFP, had no immediate information on the incident.

Also in Baghdad, two Iraqi policemen were killed and four others injured when gunmen fired on a civil defence centre in the eastern Canal district, the interior ministry source said.

In other violence Tuesday, an Iraqi working for a local news organisation was killed and his three colleagues wounded when their car hit a roadside bomb south of Baquba, 60 kilometres (37 miles) north of Baghdad.

Meanwhile, the office of former prime minister Iyad Allawi accused members of the Iraqi National Guard of assaulting his private guards late Monday, wounding two of them.

'Such attacks backed by the current Iraqi government ... increase (the Iraqi people's) lack of confidence in the leadership of the current government,' said a statement issued by Allawi's office.

Allawi's office told AFP the attack took place in Al-Zaytoon Street, where the office of the ex-premier is located, but declined to give further details."

Who Let The Yahoos Out?

First one of Bush's neighbors decides to test his gun by firing it into the air. He was within the confines of his own property but we know he was venting some of his frustration at protestors being near his property. But now, the yahoo chronicles have begun.

"A pickup truck tore through rows of white crosses last night near President Bush's ranch, where a woman has been protesting the Iraq war.

The crosses stretched along the road at the Crawford, Texas, camp, bore the names of fallen U-S soldiers. No one was hurt.

Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq last year, vows to remain in Texas through Bush's August vacation unless he meets with her. "

I wonder if he was yelling "yee ha" as he demolished the crosses!

Told You So!

I knew somebody else had sense enough to see the obvious. I think Louis is right (and all but got called an oreo when I said it) and "we" need to be partnering up with people like that cute new Mayor of Los Angeles while we have a chance. I could not believe all the energy some other folks invested in trying to shame Fox into apologizing.

"Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan said Mexican President Vicente Fox was right to say that Mexican immigrants take jobs 'that not even blacks want.'

Although Fox was sharply criticized for his remarks by some black leaders, Farrakhan said Sunday that blacks do not want to go to farms and pick fruit because they already 'picked enough cotton.'

'Why are you so foolishly sensitive when somebody is telling you the truth?' he asked the crowd at Mercy Memorial Baptist Church.

He said blacks and Latinos should form an alliance to correct differences and animosity between the two communities.

The Patriarchy's Real Problem

I know why my bitchy little ass isn't married. I'm too busy telling folks off! I once told a zealot(and a total hypocrite) who was forever whining about not being able to find a religious woman to marry that the only reason people like him wanted religious women was because they were so f'd up that they needed to find someone so indoctrinated that they wouldn't have the gumption to leave them when they realized what losers they were. Independence, self-sufficiency and, yes, a dose of feminism are proving to keep women out of harms way.

"Women are less likely to fall victim to murder today than 20 years ago because they are more willing to walk out of violent relationships, a new study has revealed.

While the murder rate for young men has almost doubled since 1981, that for women has fallen by more than 10% because of a sharp decline in the numbers being killed by their husbands or partners.

The trend, which was welcomed by women’s groups last week, was detected by a study which looked at the socio- economic backgrounds of all the 13,140 people murdered in Britain in the past 20 years.

Danny Dorling, the report’s author and professor of human geography at Sheffield University, said that marked changes in the social status of women explained the shift.

“The decline in the female murder rate is probably due to women being more likely and able to walk out of violent relationships,” he said.

“People have both became aware of how dangerous domestic violence is and how fruitless it is to stay in a violent relationship. In addition, women have become economically better off and so, in increasing numbers, they can afford to walk out.”"

The minute I hears some guy mention "religious," "traditional" or "old fashioned," I see a big red flag that says insecure, probable loser and would be abuser.

Pray At Home!

This whole prayer in schools is just a little beyond me. As I stated many times, except for two years in high school, I went to Catholic schools. Depending on the teacher and time of day, we said the Lord's Prayer, Hail Mary and The Apostle's Creed (I distinctly remember saying this one in 3rd grade every day at the end of the day). In college, I had an Econ professor who had us recite the Lord's Prayer before every class (he seemed rather fixated on the yarmulke wearing Jewish guy in the class each time too). But, what if they had "school prayer" when I went to public school those two years? The school had a large population of Jews. Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah were school holidays. Would Christian parents be happy with all students being required to recite some prayer in Hebrew?

If a school district was predominately Catholic, would all people be happy with students being required to say the Hail Mary? Who is going to lead the prayer? Aside from the other religions, there are many denominations and despite this lovefest (temporary, I'm sure) between devout Catholics and Evangelicals, there are some real biases amongst the groups and if they got a prayer law passed, those old differences would be right back at the forefront.

"Supreme Court nominee John Roberts showed sympathy for the idea of permitting prayer in public schools in 1985, according to a memo released on Monday, writing that a ruling to the contrary 'seems indefensible' under the Constitution.

As a young lawyer working in the Reagan administration, Roberts wrote he would have no objection if the Justice Department wanted to express support for a constitutional amendment permitting prayer.

Referring to a Supreme Court ruling issued earlier that year that struck down an Alabama school prayer law, he added, 'The conclusion ... that the Constitution prohibits such a moment of silent reflection - or even silent 'prayer' - seems indefensible.'"

I've been in this debate online with many people. Some say they would just be satisfied with a moment of silence. For what, I ask? The kids who come from prayer based homes, should have already prayed. Those who don't will be staring at the other folks with bowed heads or throwing spitballs. I think this entire debate is silly and is just another wedge issue. I don't need some person (who may not even be a faithful person) leading my children in prayer. That is my job. If these people are so pious, surely, they would have had family prayers at the family breakfast table.

I know a teacher who said the issue came up in her district (in a red state, mind you) and as it stands, there are more people of other faiths than of Christianity. As soon as it was stated that "others" made up the majority so they would have to indulge them accordingly, it became a non-issue. Let's get clear here! In fact and indeed, this is a Christian prayer movement. If a child wanted to chant "om" for 60 seconds, they'd probably be told to shut up or frowned upon. If it were really about God in school, everyone's faith would be acceptable and everyone would tell their children to take their own quiet moments during the day to pray if they so desired.

Nary A One!

Unbelievable! Sounds like he and Putin have more in common than we thought.

"Like pardons and executive orders, vetoes are among the cherished privileges of the Oval Office. Ike liked them. So did presidents Truman and Cleveland - and both Roosevelts.

But apparently not George W. Bush. In fact, well into the fifth year of his presidency, he has yet to issue a single veto.

It's a streak unmatched in modern American history, one that throws into question traditional notions of checks and balances.

Although the streak could end next month - Mr. Bush is threatening a veto if Congress eases his restrictions on federal funding for stem-cell research - the Bush era thus far underscores a historically high-water mark of collegial cooperation between Congress and the White House, experts say.

'We're pretty close to a parliamentary government,' says G. Calvin Mackenzie, professor of government at Colby College in Watervillle, Maine, referring to Congress's close alignment with the executive branch. 'We don't have much recent history with that.'

Other presidents have enjoyed majority support in Congress. But few, if any, have gotten the level of disciplined backing that Mr. Bush gets from House and Senate Republicans.

'There is unusual coherence between Republicans in Congress and the president,' Professor Mackenzie adds. 'So there's very little getting to his desk that hasn't been pre-approved by the Republican leadership.'"

Women Are Not Baby Machines

This is a serious and sad story that I wouldn't wish on anyone but it is also a reminder that pregnancy and childbearing (particularly in rapid sucession) is not always a safe or healthy proposition for the mother.:

Phillip Thomas, 42, worked full time at a non-profit foundation, while Ama Thomas, 32, home-schooled their four children and volunteered in their South Shore community.

Last November, they were expecting their fifth child. Their two daughters and two sons had been born at home with no complications. So Phillip Thomas said there was no reason for the couple to expect any problems with the new pregnancy.

But midway through Ama's second trimester, she had a miscarriage. After a series of other complications, she went into cardiac arrest, then slipped into a severely vegetative state.

For the first month of Ama's hospitalization, the women in her home-schooling group took care of their children--ages 8, 6, 5 and 2--shuttling them from one house to another. They were trying to restore some degree of normalcy at a time that was anything but normal.

'I was at the hospital every moment,' Thomas said. 'That was the scariest thing for [the children], just not seeing their mom and not knowing what was going on.'

Christmas arrived, and friends and relatives pitched in with toys and other gifts for the family.

The season ended, and Ama Thomas would spend five more months in the hospital. Thomas said doctors had told him early on that if his wife's condition didn't turn around in the first 72 hours after she lost consciousness, then he shouldn't expect much of a change.

By spring, he said he had to make a decision. Either 'pull the plug' or move her to a facility that would hook her up to a ventilator.

"There is so much equipment that she needed to survive," he said. "She also needed 24-hour nursing care. It's easy to understand why you lean toward the nursing home, but it was clear for me that she wasn't going to get the type of care [in a nursing home] I believed she needed. Pulling the plug wasn't an option. She's young and vibrant, and I know she's in there."

He decided to bring her home.

So here we have a virtual widower with four kids under the age of 10. Of course it was their choice (I assume) but this is one reason why I don't think that crackpots like Rick Santorum and other far right zealots need to come anywhere near laws about contraception or women's reproductive health.

So It's Not About Democracy Then?

In this ever evolving bait and switch agenda, that was initially supposed to be a search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it seems as though the declining status of Iraqi women is finally a blip on our radar - thanks to Howard Dean.

Appearing on "Face the Nation" over the weekend, the DNC chairman said that, while the situation could improve, "it looks like women will be worse off in Iraq than they were when Saddam Hussein was president of Iraq." Dean called it a "pretty sad commentary" on the Bush administration's "ability to do anything right."

The Republican National Committee responded with a statement in which it said that "Dean's wild assertion that Iraqi women would be better off living under Saddam Hussein than democracy is not only counterproductive to meaningful debate, it demeans the hard work of American servicemen and women serving in Iraq." The problem? As we noted earlier today, administration officials are beginning to acknowledge that removing Saddam isn't the same thing as installing a democracy. "We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic," a U.S. official familiar with planning for Iraq tells the Washington Post.

Will women be better off under "some form of Islamic republic" than they were under Saddam? That remains to be seen. As the Associated Press is reporting today, a study commissioned by the committee drafting Iraq's constitution found that most Iraqis support full rights for women -- but only if those rights are in keeping with the teaching of Islam. According to Bloomberg, a draft of the Iraqi constitution published last month provided that women would have equal rights with men "in accordance with provisions of the Islamic Sharia,'' which some women's rights groups took as a sign that clerics, not secular judges, would have the final say on rights granted to Iraqi women.

But alas, this new found democracy that was supposed to be a model for the Middle East may just sink into an oppressive Islamic regime that sets women back decades. Perhaps those other "models" in the region, like Kuwait and UAE, would provide a safe haven for women who don't want to be sent back to the dark ages and dark burkas.

Why is it that any disagreement, based on fact, with the GOP agenda is written off as counterproductive to meaningful debate or demeaning to the servicemen? The servicemen aren't drafting the constitution and getting real about possibly subjecting half the population of Iraq to an inequality they didn't experience before our invasion needs to be discussed in an honest fashion. They are just trying to hide the fact that this is just another fine mess Bush has gotten someone else into!

Setting The Scene To Cut And Run

Buscho will never admit it is wrong. So, now that Iraq is a complete failure and utter disaster, they are depending on the sheer stupidity of his sheeple to lower the expectations for and definition of success so that we can cut and run and pretend we didn't.

The Bush administration is "significantly" lowering expectations about what it can achieve in Iraq, finally admitting that its prewar plans were "unrealistic," the Washington Post reported on Sunday.

The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry, or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, US officials say.

Meanwhile on Friday, in an analysis for the Post, Peter Baker wrote that "Administration officials have given up all hope of militarily defeating the insurgents with US forces, instead aiming only to train and equip enough Iraqi security forces to take over the fight themselves."

While the Post article notes that the White House still feels it has accomplished a great deal in Iraq, Senator Joseph Biden (D) of Delaware, Sunday accused the Bush administration of trying to lower expectations as part of an exit strategy. "They have squandered about every opportunity to get it right," Sen. Biden told NBC's "Meet the Press".

The Holy Roman Empire Is Dead

As irritated as I am by Brits still calling the United States "The Colonies" and Southerners still waving the Confederate flag, I am equally as irritated by the Pope not realizing that the Holy Roman Empire is no more and that the Pope "ain't running shit" no mo'.

"Pope Benedict XVI has backed the display of crucifixes in public buildings, saying that God should be present in public life.

'It is important that God is present in public life, with the sign of the cross, in homes and public buildings,' the Italian news agency ANSA quoted the pontiff as saying during his homily in a parish church in Castel Gandolfo, the hill town outside Rome where the Vatican has its vacation retreat.

He made no reference to specific disputes, but the issue of whether religious symbols have a place in government buildings has been a divisive one in Italy and elsewhere.

A Muslim activist in Italy in past years had turned to the courts to seek the removal of crucifixes from public schools in Italy, which is officially secular.

Come on folks! Can we get current?

Life Goes On

The President understands Cindy Sheehan's (along with nearly a couple thousand other families) pain, however he's got to get on with his life:

'But,' he added, 'I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life.'

The comments came prior to a bike ride on the ranch with journalists and aides. It also came as the crowd of protesters grew in support of Sheehan, the California mother who came here Aug. 6 demanding to talk to Bush about the death of her son Casey. Sheehan arrived earlier in the week with about a half dozen supporters. As of yesterday (Saturday) there were about 300 anti-war protesters and approximately 100 people supporting the Bush Administration. In addition to the two-hour bike ride, Bush's Saturday schedule included an evening Little League Baseball playoff game, a lunch meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a nap, some fishing and some reading. 'I think the people want the president to be in a position to make good, crisp decisions and to stay healthy,' he said when asked about bike riding while a grieving mom wanted to speak with him. 'And part of my being is to be outside exercising.'

I still think he is a sociopath.

Dead Tired

For the second year in a row, I volunteered at the San Jose Jazz Festival and my body feels like its been clubbed. Some sorors, friends and I worked at the Wine/Beer/Soda booth at the Latin Stage and, though an absolute blast, is not easy work. From toning my arm muscles by opening endless bottles of Kendall Jackson wine with the old-fashioned cork screw, to constantly bending over to grab soda's from large, ice filled buckets I could barely walk to my car by the time the festival closed. We were quite busy and I didn't really get a chance to sample the tons of different kinds of foods from the various vendors. If I can walk today, I'll head back down there to rectify that.

Don't get me wrong, I will sign up again next year. It's a great way to people watch (Lawd it takes all kinds), meet new folks and fellowship with friends for a common cause. But me and a tin of Tiger Balm are having a good time about now. I was sore for a week last year. I hope it's only a couple of days this time.

I suspect it's time for a full body massage.

Let The Chuch Say Amen

Yes, I said "chuch"! That is how sick I am of this Natalee Holloway coverage. This chick was not Princess Diana. Her step father's name is Jug. I don't give a rat's ass, anymore, about her disappearance. :

COOPER: Well, in Aruba, not much happened in the 11th week of the disappearance of Natalee Holloway, but you'd never know that if you listen to just about every other cable news channel.

We did a number of stories after the American teen went missing and her family's anguish is and hard to imagine and we understand why they want the story to remain in the news, but we've been kind of stunned, because every night, our cable competitors devote hours and hours to this story, even though, sadly, nothing new is happening. We decided to start tracking their coverage, because to be honest, it's getting downright ridiculous. Here's what the other guys were reporting just last night... "

I like watching cable news (except Foxnews) and I am ANGRY that when I come home from work all I see is nauseating coverage of this child! People! Blond haired, blue-eyed, straight A students with promising futures can be dumb enough to run off with three "boys" in another country. Had her mother spent an ounce of the time she has spent down in Aruba trying to "find" her daughter teaching the girl not to run off with boys she doesn't know, we would not be here. Yes, this is tragic. Yes, those boys know what happened to that girl or know where they left her. But, this is not top story, every single night, "we've lost an American virgin" material. I AM OVER IT! I am starting to get insulted that this type of attention is not given to regular (colored) citizens who disappear. I am sick of the "dumb white girl" gone missing stories. So, yes Anderson, the coverage has gotten ridiculous!

Thank God for the dumb white woman in Tennessee busting her equally stupid, criminal black husband out of the clink for a couple days. I got a rest from Natalee and her "needs to get out of that sun" mama. Can we find another "crime" story to intercept again?

The Odd Couple

This is cracking me up! But they do have a point.

"Two longtime friends, neither gay, who recently announced plans to get married to take advantage of Canada's tax rules that give couples preferrential treatment have called off their nuptials, they told AFP.

Bryan Pinn, 65, and Bill Dalrymple, 56, have been best friends for 22 years. Both are divorced. Pinn has two adult children.

When Prime Minister Paul Martin's government enacted a controversial same-sex marriage law last month, the duo decided to take advantage of a loophole in the legislation and get hitched. The bill did not specificy that the couple had to be gay.

'We were in a bar doing our best impersonations of (actors from The Odd Couple television series) Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon and somebody said: 'You two guys sound like an old married couple' and a light went on and we thought we could be,' said Pinn.

'We thought we could get a house and live together,' he said."

That is quite a loophole!

Walk On By

I guess Dubya is taking Dionne Warwick's advice as he just drives on by the protestors and the mother he won't face.

"President George W. Bush got his first look at an anti-war vigil near his ranch on Friday as his motorcade took him by the protest site lined with small white crosses representing fallen American soldiers in Iraq.

When Bush's black sport utility vehicle carried him past the site to a Republican fund-raiser, the protest leader, Cindy Sheehan, whose son was one of the nearly 1,850 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, held up a sign that said: 'Why do you make time for donors and not for me?'

Other signs said: 'Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam,' 'Bring Them Home Now' and 'Meet With Cindy.'

The protest vigil began last Saturday and is being led by Sheehan, who has been demanding a meeting with Bush to discuss her opposition to the Iraq war.

Two rows of state troopers faced several dozen activists behind a cordon of yellow police tape as Bush's 15-vehicle motorcade cruised by without slowing.

About two hours later, the president passed by on the return trip and did not stop. Sheehan raised a white cross as the convoy passed.

Bush left his ranch to go to Stan and Kathy Hickey's Broken Spoke Ranch for a barbecue lunch to raise more than $2 million for the Republican National Committee. The 230 people attending were among the party's biggest donors.

Those folks ought to know, and I am sure they do, that Bush has bigger and better people to meet and greet - like the one's who are lining the pockets of this corrupt cabal.

A Bit Much, Don't You Think?

Maybe it's because I am for the right to privacy and that I don't like to be subjected to TMI (too much information) but somehow I think that wearing a t-shirt advertising "I had an Abortion" is a bit much.

"What would these women say without the fear of being judged, mistreated, cursed at or maligned? 'I'm relieved. I'm depressed. I'm elated. I'm numb. I'm angry. I'm asking God to forgive me. I miss my baby. I'm glad it's over. I'm scared. Thank God.' For too long, these voices and the multitude of emotional reactions have gone unheard. We need to hear the millions of women who do not regret their decision, but see it as necessary.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., recently put forth some unfortunate rhetoric, saying that abortion is a 'sad, even tragic, choice for many, many women.' While Clinton may believe that most women who have had abortions have made a sad, tragic choice, the real tragedy is that she clearly has bought into the anti-choice view of abortion.

This is also indicative of some current Democratic Party voices who are simultaneously conceding that abortion is an essentially devastating option, a necessary evil that should never be exercised, while also championing its survival as a safe, legal choice. 'Let it be safe and legal, but let's also hope that no woman ever has one.'

I believe it is a serious mistake to continue to stigmatize abortion and call it a 'tragic' choice, one from which women are irreparably 'damaged.' Clearly, our society must focus on education, self-help and concrete tools, such as effective contraception and medically accurate sex education, to help ensure that women do not become pregnant if they do not want to be. But if they do become pregnant, we need to understand that women view their abortions as a valid choice and a survival mechanism. We need respect, compassion and openness with the choice of abortion, not hate, violent threats and fundamentalist reprimands.

Abortion is but one of a variety of issue-related rights to women's bodies and lives for which we are struggling. However, it has become the apparent point on which the top spins. If a woman's right to a safe, legal abortion is to survive in this country, we must anchor our position in faith, love, and morality -- not apology and political rhetoric. The whole truth can be revealed only in the voices of women who have had abortions and those voices must be heard."

I actually do agree with Hillary on this one. I think that abortions - as well as unwanted children being conceived - should be kept at a minimum. In 2005, birth control isn't rocket science so, except for cases when the woman has no control over having sex and becoming impregnated, I don't see why the abortion rate shouldn't be lower and continue to get increasingly lower. I don't want to decide for anyone else what to do with their body - before or after sex. But, both birth and abortion are medical procedures that shouldn't be taken lightly. I've never had to deal with the range of emotions, or lack thereof, that may be associated with choosing to have an abortion. But, I also don't need to know that you had one. If the Roe v. Wade is, constitutionally, about the right to privacy, keep your sex life and your abortions to yourself.

Spare Me Please

It's not like we have a squeaky clean image in the Muslim world - or anyplace else for that matter. But, I'm not sure we need to add even more fuel to this raging fire of resentment. Just the mere acknowledgement by this article that there are some very, very bad photos is enough for them to "bring it on". I guess I have just had enough of Armageddon for the time being.

"Senior Pentagon officials have opposed the release of photographs and videotapes of the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, arguing that they would incite public opinion in the Muslim world and put the lives of U.S. soldiers and officials at risk, according to documents unsealed in federal court in New York.

General Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a statement in support of the Pentagon's case that he believed that 'riots, violence and attacks by insurgents will result' if the images are released.

The papers were filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan in a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union, which is seeking to obtain under the Freedom of Information Act the release of 87 photographs and four videotapes taken at Abu Ghraib. The photographs were among those turned over to army investigators last year by Specialist Joseph Darby, a reservist who was posted at Abu Ghraib.

The documents show both the high level and the determination of the Pentagon officials who are engaged in the effort to block the disclosure of the images, and their alarm at the prospect the photographs might become public.

In his statement, dated July 21, Myers said he had become aware on June 17 that the release of the photographs might be imminent. He said he had consulted General John Abizaid, the U.S. central commander, and General George Casey, the commander of the U.S. forces in Iraq. Both officers also opposed the release, Myers said.

His statement makes it clear that he has examined the images and finds them disturbing. 'I condemn in the strongest terms the misconduct and abuse depicted in these images,' he said in the statement. 'It was illegal, immoral, and contrary to American values and character.'"

I'm not for censorship nor letting this administration off the hook for allowing this type of heinous behavior by those who profess to be spreading freedom, but - if only to spare my eyes - I'd rather not catch a glimpse of anything worse than we've already seen.

Damn that George W. Bush!

It's A Normal Thing

When I hear people (including some women) who seem to be fixated on some 50s fantasy of love and marriage, I don't think they quite realize what it evolved from (and in many cases didn't). It wasn't so long ago in this country that women were considered property or second class citizens. But this wife beating as a way of life business is just old, tired and needs to be rectified.

'It is like it is a normal thing for women to be treated by their husbands as punching bags,' Obong Rita Akpan, until last month Nigeria's minister for women's affairs, said in an interview. 'The Nigerian man thinks that a woman is his inferior. Right from childhood, right from infancy, the boy is preferred to the girl. Even when they marry out of love, they still think the woman is below them, and they do whatever they want.'

In Zambia, nearly half of women surveyed said a male partner had beaten them, according to a 2004 study financed by the United States - the highest rate among nine developing nations surveyed on three continents.

In South Africa, researchers for the Medical Research Council estimated last year that a male partner kills a girlfriend or spouse every six hours, the highest mortality rate from domestic violence ever reported, they claim.

In Harare, Zimbabwe's capital, domestic violence accounts for more than 6 in 10 murder cases in court, a United Nations report concluded last year.

Yet most women remain silent about the abuse, women's rights organizations say. A World Health Organization study has found that while more than a third of Namibian women reported enduring physical or sexual abuse by a male partner, often resulting in injury, six in seven victims had either kept it to themselves or confided only in a friend or relative.

Help is typically not easy to find: Nigeria, Africa's largest nation with nearly 130 million people, has but two shelters for battered women, both opened in the last four years. The United States, by contrast, has about 1,200 such havens.

Moreover, many women say wifely transgressions justify beatings. More than half of women interviewed in Zambia in 2001 and 2002 said husbands had a right to beat wives who argued with them, burned the dinner, went out without the husband's permission, neglected the children or refused sex.

To Kenny Adebayo, a 30-year-old driver in Lagos, the issue is clear-cut.

'If you tell your wife she puts too much salt in the dinner, and every day, every day, every day there is too much salt, one day you will get emotional and hurt her,' he said. 'We men in Africa hate disrespect.'

They may be able to get away with that mess there and I've heard a few stories about a few black American women who found themselves on the bad side of a romance with people from similar places/backgrounds. Generally, though, the reactions were a wee bit different over here (wink, wink). I wish a nukka would ...

Common Sacrifice Is For Commoners

I don't think it is any big mystery that the armed services and those serving in Iraq are not from the Nation's elite families. I think Mayor Daley of Chicago is probably secretly seething that his son decided to enlist but he supports him. But this brazen lack of participation (and the host of excuses when asked about it) by those who are staunchly behind this war is all too telling that there is a double standard and a clear intention not to share the burden of the war they proudly support.

"Not surprisingly, the overwhelming majority of enlistees come from the lower-middle-class and blue-collar families. The affluent stand above and apart from military service, especially from the enlisted ranks -- the privates and the sergeants, from whose ranks have come more than 90 percent of the casualties and fatalities. This class exemption from service and from sacrifice produces an ethical failure that a democratic and moral people cannot tolerate.

[...]

That those who called most loudly for this war are not standing in line to volunteer at the recruiting offices is noted by the nation's premier military sociologist (and ex-Army draftee) Charles Moskos.

'Only when the privileged classes perform military service, only when elite youth are on the firing line, does the country define the cause as worth young peoples' blood and do war losses become acceptable,' observes Moskos, adding that 'the answer to what constitutes vital national interests is found not so much on the cause, itself, but in who is willing to die for that cause.'"

Superhead, Superho ... Difference Please?

I'm struggling with this one. I saw Karrine Steffans (aka Superhead) on The Big Idea on NBC when her book was first released. Donny Deutch wasn't all that nice to her either. But I guess it was okay for a man to dog her (since that is what she's used to) but she wants to snatch Tyra bald headed for implying that she is exactly what she already admitted to? Somebody help me understand?

A girlfight was about to jump off between Tyra Banks and your girl Karrine 'Superhead' Steffans on the set of Tyra’s new daytime talk show, which is scheduled to premiere in national syndication next month.

Steffans was there to promote her best-selling book “Confessions of a Video Vixen,” a memoir that includes vivid details of her sexual encounters with famous rappers, actors and athletes.

According to New York Daily News contributor Jawn Murray, Steffans says Banks dissed her, stating “I wrote ‘Confessions’ because I was angry and wanted revenge. ...She said, 'These are my colleagues. They're people I know well!’”

'Despite what she thinks, she and I are not that different,' Steffans tells Murray. 'I have even heard her being referred to as a 'Hollywood Hop' for the many men in Hollywood who have bedded her and moved on.'

Steffans says she was so mad, 'all I could think about was snatching her wig off!'

Banks’ manager Benny Medina came to his client’s defense, stating: 'Tyra certainly never slept around. You can count her relationships on one hand.'

According to Medina, the animosity between the two stemmed from Steffans not wanting to talk about passages from the book.

'She glorifies this lifestyle in the book,' Medina says. 'But on the show, I think she is ashamed of it.'

Ironically, Banks' former boyfriend, director John Singleton, is said to be interested in developing 'Video Vixen' as a feature film.

If this chick didn't want criticism and judgement, she should have kept her mouth closed ... before and after!

No Sir! You Are A Bad Signal!

Mr. President, go and tell Mrs. Sheehan to her face about the bad signal it would send to stop more young soldiers from getting killed.Tell her face to face.

"President Bush said Thursday he understands and respects the views of anti-war advocates like a California mother camped outside his Texas ranch to mourn her soldier son fallen in Iraq, but said it would be a mistake to bring U.S. troops home now.

'I understand the anguish that some feel about the death that takes place,' Bush said.

'I also have heard the voices of those saying: Pull out now,' he said. 'And I've thought about their cry and their sincere desire to reduce the loss of life by pulling our troops out. I just strongly disagree.'

Immediate withdrawal 'would send a terrible signal to the enemy.'

Cindy Sheehan has been camped along a road near Bush's ranch since Saturday, asking to talk to Bush about her son Casey and vowing to remain until his Texas vacation ends later this month. Casey was killed five days after he arrived in Iraq last year. He was 24.

'I sympathize with Mrs. Sheehan,' Bush said. 'She feels strongly about her position, and she has every right in the world to say what she believes. This is America. She has a right to her position, and I thought long and hard about her position. I've heard her position from others, which is: Get out of Iraq now. And it would be a mistake for the security of this country and the ability to lay the foundations for peace in the long run if we were to do so.'"

I don't believe he understands this woman's grief or that he gives a solid crap. Moreover, we are occupiers of a nation that we illegally invaded. WE are the enemy on their land. I honestly don't think we can bring the troops home without leaving Iraq in shambles and the Middle East in absolute chaos and the US being a target for decades to come. At the same time, staying ensures more casualties with no real way to prevent them. Talk about a bad signal.

Back To Monkey Time

It's hard to believe that we're basically back to the Scopes Monkey Trial era. This time they are masking the thirst to teach creationism in school with this "intelligent design" BS. I find the whole thing stupifying but know more than a few "educated" people who discount evolution for no good reason.

President Bush has endorsed the pseudo-scientific notion of "intelligent design" (ID) and declared it to be a legitimate alternative to the theory of evolution. This is not surprising, as he has always maintained that "the jury is still out" on the question of evolution.

But the jury is not out -- indeed it was well in before President Bush was even born -- and anyone familiar with modern biology knows that ID is nothing more than a program of political and religious advocacy masquerading as science.

It is for this reason that the scientific community has been divided on just how (or whether) to dignify the spurious claims of ID "theorists" with a response. While understandable, I believe that such scruples are now misplaced. The Trojan Horse has passed the innermost gates of the city, and scary religious imbeciles are now spilling out.

[...]

"More than 50 percent of Americans have a 'negative' or 'highly negative' view of people who do not believe in God; 70 percent think it important for presidential candidates to be 'strongly religious.' Because it is taboo to criticize a person's religious beliefs, political debate over questions of public policy (stem-cell research, the ethics of assisted suicide and euthanasia, obscenity and free speech, gay marriage, etc.) generally gets framed in terms appropriate to a theocracy. Unreason is now ascendant in the United States -- in our schools, in our courts, and in each branch of the federal government. Only 28 percent of Americans believe in evolution; 68 percent believe in Satan. Ignorance in this degree, concentrated in both the head and belly of a lumbering superpower, is now a problem for the entire world.

It is time that scientists and other public intellectuals observed that the contest between faith and reason is zero-sum. There is no question but that nominally religious scientists like Francis Collins and Kenneth R. Miller are doing lasting harm to our discourse by the accommodations they have made to religious irrationality. Likewise, Stephen Jay Gould's notion of 'non-overlapping magisteria' served only the religious dogmatists who realize, quite rightly, that there is only one magisterium.

Whether a person is religious or secular, there is nothing more sacred than the facts. Either Jesus was born of a virgin, or he wasn't; either there is a God who despises homosexuals, or there isn't. It is time that sane human beings agreed on the standards of evidence necessary to substantiate truth-claims of this sort. The issue is not, as ID advocates allege, whether science can 'rule out' the existence of the biblical God.

There are an infinite number of ludicrous ideas that science could not 'rule out,' but which no sensible person would entertain. The issue is whether there is any good reason to believe the sorts of things that religious dogmatists believe -- that God exists and takes an interest in the affairs of human beings; that the soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception (and, therefore, that blastocysts are the moral equivalents of persons); etc. There simply is no good reason to believe such things, and scientists should stop hiding their light under a bushel and make this emphatically obvious to everyone."

I learned about evolution in biology class at a Catholic school. I learned the biblical account of creation in Religion class. We were not taught (at least that I can recall) that the story of creation was to be taken literally and I never felt a sense of conflict while thinking that God could have created the world and it "evolved" into what it is today.

I try to stay out of debates with fundamentalist types because their literal interpretations of things drives me up a wall. The lame rational against evolution is that they "didn't come from no monkey." Perhaps, I reply, I didn't evolve from a monkey ... but I certainly wasn't made from some man's rib either!

Party Like It's 9/11

I gotta give these clowns credit. Once they find a tactic that works, they stick with it and chant it like a mantra. I think this, however, is wearing a little thin. Poll numbers are in the gutter so let's have a 9/11 party? They're going to need a limbo poll because I need to see how much lower they can go.

"Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced yesterday that the Pentagon will celebrate -- and really, there's no other word for it -- the fourth anniversary of 9/11 with a country music concert and an 'America Supports You Freedom Walk.'

We are not making this up.

You might think that the secretary of defense could come up with a more tasteful way to reflect on 9/11. And you might think that the Bush administration would be able to refrain, just this once, from linking the war in Iraq back to the attacks on 9/11. You'd be wrong on both counts. As the New York Daily News reports, Rumsfeld is planning a Fourth of July-style 'support the troops' extravaganza for Sept. 11, 2005. The day will start with a march from the Pentagon to the National Mall, and it will culminate with a concert by Clint Black.

Black is the man behind 'I Raq and Roll,' a country ditty that conflates Saddam Hussein with 'the devil' who attacked the United States on 9/11: 'We can't ignore the devil, he'll keep coming back for more ... If they won't show us their weapons, we might have to show them ours. It might be a smart bomb -- they find stupid people, too. And if you stand with the likes of Saddam, one just might find you.'

Did we mention that we're not making this up?

If Rumsfeld really wants to commemorate the attacks of 9/11 in some kind of meaningful way, we've got an idea for him: He could tell the truth to the 9/11 Commission about a report that the U.S. military had identified Mohammed Atta and three other hijackers as potential threats more than a year before the attacks."

Just shameless and sad!

Not A Christian Nation

I like TD Jakes sometimes. I don't agree with a lot of what he says but can find value in some of his messages. I particularly am pleased by this stance:

"Jakes, on the other hand, sees a clear distinction between his ministry and the role of the ministers of this nation's government. As we continue to try to politicize God, or market God, or say that America is Christian, or that God is with one (political) party, or that God is here and not there, it only further points to the fact that we don't understand how big God is and how great God is, he said.

Jakes has been wooed by people on both sides of the widening religious and political divide over the role of Christian beliefs in this nation's governance, but he has tried mightily to rise above this debate. He pastors, he says, to both Democrats and Republicans.

His Potter's House church has not aligned itself with either party, as some churches have done. His sermons aren't thinly veiled rallies for the political right or left. While he has counseled President Bush and befriended the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Jakes has tried to be his own man.

By saying that the United States is not a Christian nation, Jakes has, consciously or unconsciously, taken a position on one of the most contentious issues in this country a position that has taken him out of the stands and put him in the middle of the playing field of this debate."

The Catholic Church's Changing View On Abortion

Intelligent debate sparks curiosity so I decided to look up looked up the points that Mario Cuomo made on Meet The Press yesterday about St. Thomas Aquinas' and St. Agustine's abortion views. But, first, happened upon this little tidbit in the same article:

Pagan religions had a calm acceptance of abortion and contraception, including the use of barrier methods, coitus interruptus, and various medicines that prevented contraception or caused abortion.

Early Christian leaders, distinguishing Christianity from pagan beliefs, developed ideas about contraception and abortion, marriage and procreation, and the unity of body and soul. They taught that sex even for reproduction was bad and sex for pleasure heinous. Chastity became a virtue in its own right.

That definitely explains the current, rigid state of Catholic doctrine. But still, the history of the church's stances on abortion have changed over the years. This is what the two Saints thought:

St. Augustine (354-430) condemned abortion because it breaks the connection between sex and procreation. 1 However, in the Enchiridion, he says, "But who is not rather disposed to think that unformed fetuses perish like seeds which have not fructified" — clearly seeing hominization as beginning or occurring at some point after the fetus has begun to grow. He held that abortion was not an act of homicide. Most theologians of his era agreed with him.

In a disciplinary sense, the general agreement at this time was that abortion was a sin requiring penance if it was intended to conceal fornication and adultery.

The Council of Vienne, still very influential in Catholic hierarchical teaching, confirmed the conception of man put forth by St. Thomas Aquinas. While Aquinas had opposed abortion — as a form of contraception and a sin against marriage — he had maintained that the sin in abortion was not homicide unless the fetus was ensouled, and thus, a human being. Aquinas had said the fetus is first endowed with a vegetative soul, then an animal soul, and then — when its body is developed — a rational soul. This theory of "delayed hominization" is the most consistent thread throughout church history on abortion.

It's odd but I recently had a conversation about abortion with someone and mentioned that I thought that the soul entered the body at birth and, therefore one wasn't really destroying life as the body was still a shell. I think I drew that conclusion from some of the reading I used to do on reincarnation. But, maybe some of the lessons about St. Thomas Aquinas that I learned in Philosophy class slipped in too.

Read the history of the evolution of Catholic thought on abortion. You might be surprised.

I Sure Hope Not

This better just be an empty threat or a rumor. I don't think arresting this woman will go over well. They'll end up with a much bigger, angrier crowd of grieving parents whose children have been killed in the war.

Don't Burden Me With It

I missed Meet the Press yesterday morning but am glad I caught the repeat that comes on MSNBC in the evening. Mario Cuomo was on the panel speaking about the big abortion rights debate (still sad that you rarely see women on these panels and that old, white men seem to be rather obsessed with the issue) and I was reminded why I like him so much. It's good to see intelligent debate about a high voltage issue where someone is not talking about damnation and sin and using inflammatory language like killing and murder.

'Look, personally, I'm required to live my Catholic faith, and I will to the best of my ability.' That's contraceptives, that's abortion, that's stem cells, that's all of it. My church teaches life begins at conception. It used to teach something else. Thomas Aquinas believed something else. Augustine believed something else. Now, it says it begins at conception. That is not a scientific conclusion. That's a religious conclusion. I will burden myself with it. I won't burden you with it.

On abortion, here's what we should do. Nobody in this country, Tim--and this is why Catholics are not trying to get a constitutional amendment and why no Republican president has asked for one. Nobody in this country wants to vote for an abortion law that's the same as the Catholic law, which is: 'Even to protect the life of the mother, whether it's a rape, whether it's incest, no matter how horrible, there can never be an abortion, period.' I don't--that has no chance of succeeding. That's why the church is not talking about it. That's why the Republicans are not talking about it. So we all believe, however, at the same time, there are too many abortions. There are too many times when a woman has to make this judgment.

Here's what I talked about for years and wrote about in The New York Times and elsewhere. I said, 'Let's do this: Let's make sure that we give women the chance to avoid this terrible choice as much as possible, avoid unintended pregnancies. Let's teach our children to abstain.' Don't laugh at that, because if you don't talk to them about abstention, they think you're encouraging them. Knowing that they may go beyond that into early sex, let's teach them about sex, if their parents will allow us to. Let's use contraceptives. I can't; I'm a Catholic, and that is still the law, although most Catholics don't observe it. But for those who want contraceptives, use contraceptives to reduce unintended pregnancies. If one happens anyway, then let that woman who thinks she can't handle the child--if she's poor, get her to term; provide an adoption. And then after you provide an adoption, take care of that baby for the rest of its life and do that as a commitment. Now that's a positive agenda. That can be done, even while you're railing against the abortion."

I can respect his position and still be pro-choice. His key words: "I will burden myself with it. I won't burden you with it." That being said, I believe being pro-choice means choosing responsible behavior so that the question of abortion is a moot point. I always say that I think that some of the folks who have such rigid beliefs and want to impose them on every one else are really those struggling with their own self-control.

I had a co-worker who loved to talk about how religious/Catholic he was. One day, I guess he was seeking my nod on his ex-girlfriend's decision to keep a baby that she'd supposedly conceived during drunken, unprotected sex with a stranger she'd met on vacation.

But, instead of the "she's so brave for keeping the baby" response he'd supposedly received from all of the other people he'd told, I told him that I was pro-choice. By that I meant that had she really been "brave," she would have been brave enough to take precautions (too Catholic for that though) or brave enough to say no (not Catholic enough to obey the pre-marital sex rules). By being pro-choice, she would have been able to choose not to put herself in the potentially dangerous position of picking up a stranger in a foreign country (you see where that got Natalee Holloway and this woman was much older and should have been much wiser). So, no, I wasn't handing out rosary beads for her pro-life stance when my pro-choice stance would have circumvented the entire scenario.

This same guy behaved just as recklessly on a regular basis (drunken, unprotected sex with people he picked up in bars) but couldn't stop harping on his pro-life views. He figured he could go to confession to absolve the "sex" sin but I questioned how he knew that none of the women from his random encounters didn't wind up pregnant and abort his child? Wouldn't he still be responsible, through his careless actions, for the termination of that life - whether he knew about it or not? Had he been pro-choice, he would have chosen better, safer behavior that respects life before it is created. But I couldn't convince him of that because he thought I was being judgmental and made he and his girlfriend sound irresponsible and sleazy ... But, he wants laws to control my right to choose.

Greedy As Sin

Does the fleecing ever end? Isn't it funny how the two jurors who were the loudest and most vocal after they acquitted Michael Jackson are now squawking again with a different tune.

Eleanor Cook was the "don't point your finger at me lady!" (that line got her a spot on VH1's "Best Week Ever") who called the mother of the accuser everything but a child of God in the days after the trial ended, is now blaming the other Jurors for the acquittal. Mr. Hultman previously said that he thought that perhaps MJ did molest other boys but that they didn't feel they proved that to be the case with this particular boy. I recall hearing him, in one interview, saying that he didn't see how he could sleep with all those boys and not do anything. That creeped me out as a sad and scary commentary that anybody feels that an adult, male or otherwise, cannot be/sleep in the company of children without doing something. But, I digress ...

Two of the 12 jurors who voted to acquit singer Michael Jackson of child molestation and other charges said Monday they regret their decisions.

Jurors Ray Hultman and Eleanor Cook, who both have pending book deals, planned to appear Monday night on the MSNBC show 'Rita Cosby: Live and Direct.'

In a preview shown Monday on NBC's 'Today,' Cosby asked Cook if the other jurors will be angry with her.

'They can be as angry as they want to. They ought to be ashamed. They're the ones that let a pedophile go,' responded Cook, 79.

'Cuse me! Didn't this woman have a vote?

Hultman, 62, told Cosby he was upset with the way other jurors approached the case: 'The thing that really got me the most was the fact that people just wouldn't take those blinders off long enough to really look at all the evidence that was there.'

Hultman has said previously that when jurors took an anonymous poll early in their deliberations he was one of three jurors who voted for conviction.

On June 13, the jurors unanimously acquitted Jackson of all charges, which alleged that he molested a then-13-year-old boy in 2003, plied the boy with wine and conspired to hold him and his family captive so they would make a video rebutting a damaging television documentary.
[...]
Hultman's book will be called "The Deliberator" and Cook's is "Guilty as Sin, Free as a Bird," said Garrison. Part of the profits from their book sales will go to charity, he said.

I realize that the stress of the trial and the repercussions of realizing that a good number of people (particularly their white peers) may have thought they made the wrong decision. But this about face is ludicrous! They look like greedy, old people trying to make a buck!

I could never quite verbalize how I felt about the charges, the trial and the outcome. My views are pretty in line with this article. But, I basically believe that if Michael Jackson were a pedophile, the children would be coming out of the woodwork - as is the case with all of those priests, teachers and coaches who get caught. Two questionable accusers in 20+ years - and many other boys who testified to the contrary - does not a pedophile make. One child got paid handsomely. The other probably thought he would. Folks need to get off of the Michael Jackson gravy train ... And they call him the predator!

Bush's Exit Plan: Civil War

I had a link to this article in related post but think it is important enough to merit a post of its own. Could it be that the exit strategy - now that we've totally decimated Iraq and any hopes for a positive outcome - will be to usher in a civil war.

ARUN GUPTA: Well, I think that if you look at the situation in Iraq, there are indications that this is what the Bush administration may be attempting, because the whole occupation has been a disaster from the beginning. The disbanding of the army and the security forces, the failure of reconstruction effectively alienated the Sunni Arab population. And then, since then, what we have seen, such as like the blatant theft of Iraq's oil money, the use of various militias has increased the sectarian conflict.

Now, at the beginning of the year, few people considered a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites a possibility. There has been a lot of speculation all along that between Sunnis and Turkmen and the Kurds, that it was a much greater possibility because the Kurds run their own state.

But over the last six to nine months, the political process has intensified. The sectarianism in Iraq, rather than bringing the country together, the elections that were held in January solidified the sectarian lines. That was because the U.S. pushed the strategy that parties should run on slates, that they should cobble together these large groupings. And because the elections were held in this atmosphere of intense violence, very few parties could actually campaign in the open in much of the country. So, what that meant was that most Iraqis who participated in the election voted their ethnicity, such that the Shiite slate, the United Iraqi Alliance, and the Kurdish slate walked away with most of the votes.

Then, after the election, the U.S. pushed the strategy of parceling out government jobs according to ethnic quotas. You know, this kind of like 60/20/20. 60% Shiite, 20% Kurdish, 20% Sunni Arab. So, you had the whole government divided essentially in the way that the Lebanese government is divided. So, all of these actions have added fuel to this sectarian strife.

If that is our plan, and I wouldn't doubt it, it is purely evil ... and if you think the US won't rue the day ...

The Rock Meets The Hard Place

The troop body count was horrendous last week as the President played cowboy on vacation at his ranch. Regular folks, however, mourned the deaths of their loved ones and it finally seems to be sinking in that perhaps, just maybe, things aren't going nearly as well as the President would have the dumb among us believe. In fact, we may have few options as far as a positive outcome. The choices, as seen by this author, don't leave much to be desired. We're damned either way.

" ... Ever since I flunked puberty, I've dedicated my life to studying war. While the kids who grew up to be TV correspondents were fixing their hair, I was in the library memorizing Jane's Armored Vehicles and reading every issue of Armed Forces Journal and Aviation Week. And the more I read, the more I realized war these days isn't about hi-tech hardware, it's about urban guerrilla tactics. That's my specialty.

So for me, Iraq has been like a bad re-run. I knew it was going to be a disaster, and said so way back in 2002. And sure enough, the situation has gone to Hell strictly by the book, right on schedule.

Guerrilla war depends on two 'obvious' facts -- so 'obvious' nobody in the press even mentions them:

1. The people who live in a place care more about it than the foreign occupiers, and so they'll outlast them in a long guerrilla war.

2. So the only way to defeat the guerrillas is to wipe out or displace the population."

Leave or kill everyone! Will that be our "mission accomplished?" Neither of these two options are acceptable but I agree that it seems as though that is about where we are with this. The rock and the hard place have been fused.

Hy-Po-Crites!!

This is one of the hypocritcal things about some "religious" types that makes me angry. Here we have a seminarian who was having unprotected sex (because you know devout Catholics don't use contraception) with a woman. They conceive a child and now the Catholic church doesn't feel responsibility for the priest's child ... They claim that she should have protected herself.

A) What about him protecting himself? But I guess that him using protection would mean that he deliberately meant to sin (have pre-marital sex).

B) If contraception is against church doctrine, why would either of them use protection?

C) Why can't the church assume responsibility for one of their own.

"In 1994, then-Archbishop of Portland William Levada offered a simple answer for why the archdiocese shouldn't have been ordered to pay the costs of raising a child fathered by a church worker at a Portland, Ore., parish.

In her relationship with Arturo Uribe, then a seminarian and now a Whittier priest, the child's mother had engaged 'in unprotected intercourse … when [she] should have known that could result in pregnancy,' the church maintained in its answer to the lawsuit.

The legal proceeding got little attention at the time. And the fact that the church — which considers birth control a sin — seemed to be arguing that the woman should have protected herself from pregnancy provoked no comment. Until last month.

That's when Stephanie Collopy went back into court asking for additional child support. A Times article reported the church's earlier response. Now liberal and conservative Catholics around the country are decrying the archdiocese's legal strategy, saying it was counter to church teaching.

'On the face of it, [the argument] is simply appalling,' said Michael Novak, a conservative Catholic theologian and author based in Washington, D.C.

That the 'unprotected intercourse' argument was offered in Levada's name made it especially shocking to some Catholics. The former archbishop is now chief guardian of Catholic doctrine worldwide. The archbishop's new post as prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was last held by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger — now Pope Benedict XVI.

William Donohue, president of the conservative Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights based in New York, said the legal language was 'simply code for, 'What's wrong with you, honey, aren't you smart enough to make sure condoms were used?' '

And that, he notes, is completely counter to the church's teachings, which hold that using contraceptives is 'intrinsically evil.'

This is insane ... not to mention the ultimate in hypocrisy!

Be A Man!

I used to work with an Asian guy who was vertically challenged. I'm only five feet and I doubt he was much taller. He had a huge, black (won't go there) SUV that I don't know how he was able to climb into or out of. He also walked really hard and I could hear him coming a mile away. I was certain that he was trying to compensate for his lack of height which may have played into him feeling less than masculine.

"Men whose masculinity is challenged become more inclined to support war or buy an SUV, a new study finds.

Their attitudes against gays change, too.

Cornell University researcher Robb Willer used a survey to sample undergraduates. Participants were randomly assigned feedback that indicated their responses were either masculine of feminine.

The women had no discernable reaction to either type of feedback in a follow-up survey.

But the guys' reactions were 'strongly affected,' Willer said today.

'I found that if you made men more insecure about their masculinity, they displayed more homophobic attitudes, tended to support the Iraq war more and would be more willing to purchase an SUV over another type of vehicle,' said Willer said. 'There were no increases [in desire] for other types of cars.'

Those who had their masculinity threatened also said they felt more ashamed, guilty, upset and hostile than those whose masculinity was confirmed, he said."

I never really talked to him so I don't know his views on war, homosexuals or things of that nature. But I would giggle at my desk every time I heard his little feet "fee fi fo fum'ing" down the ailse. Neither that SUV nor that stomping were going to make him any bigger.

They're Cute. We're Whitney And Bobby!

For the first couple of weeks that this show aired, I felt like I was commiting some sort of sin by watching it. The "train wreck in progress" concept was fully operational. However, it seems that I am not the only one hooked on this guilty pleasure. As I predicted, the show has been extended and I am wondering what they are going to do about another season.

"Due to the overwhelming success and popularity of the hit cinema verit�style series 'Being Bobby Brown,' Bravo has added two additional episodes to the schedule. The new episodes will air in its regular 10 p.m. ET/PT Thursday timeslot with the season finale airing on August 25 at 10 p.m. ET/PT. The announcement was made today by Lauren Zalaznick, President of Bravo.

'The first eight episodes of 'Being Bobby Brown' have kept Bravo viewers buzzing and have even helped contribute to adding new catch-phrases to our pop-culture vernacular,' said Zalaznick. 'This is a highly compelling and engaging series, and we hope two new episodes will satisfy viewers' appetites for more Bobby and Whitney.

My guess on what catch phrases this article is talking about? Whitney's excessive use of "Oh hell (hay-ell) no!" and "Hell to the no (nawl)." No episode is complete without her saying it at least once.

Viewers will continue get the inside look at 'Being Bobby Brown' in the two additional episodes. The episode premiering Thursday, August 18, will take an inside look at Bobby and Whitney's Atlanta and New Jersey homes. The season finale, premiering August 25, will take a behind the scenes look at 'Being Bobby Brown' showcasing some of the favorite moments from the series and will also reveal never before seen footage from Bobby's life.

Every episode has its prize moments. This time was in the very last segment when Whitney and Bobby arrive on the red carpet for a Christian Dior event. Aisha Tyler was serving as reporter and in the process of their interview Bobby mentioned that they had a reality show in the making. Aisha asked if it was going to be like Nick and Jessica and, almost simultaneously, Whitney/Booby lurched back as if in horror and Whitney (looking like she wanted to say "hell nawl") said: "They're Cute!We're Whitney and Bobby!"

The reason why this show works is because they know exactly who they are and aren't afraid to show it.

Another Fallujah?

How many civilian homes have we demolished and how many innocent men, women and children have we killed in this "offensive"? Why is it that we don't seem to care that we are on our way to killing more of the people that we were supposed to be liberating than Saddam did when he was oppressing them?

"U.S. Marines and Iraqi security forces, backed by American warplanes, have launched an offensive in western Iraq's al-Anbar province, where 22 Marines were killed earlier this week.

The U.S. military said Friday, that about 1,000 U.S. and Iraqi troops have moved into the city of Haqliniyah to conduct 'Operation Quick Strike.' Haqliniyah, is about seven kilometers southwest of Haditha, where most of the Marines were killed."

Who Me? Couldn't Be!

Gee, I think he's onto something! Nothing is ever George W. Bush's fault

'It's not your fault,' they've told Bush. The blame, they say, lies with partisan Democrats who held up Bolton's appointment. Bush had no choice but to ignore the Senate.

So far, nothing in Bush's 4 1/2 years in office has been his fault. He's either been ignorant of problems that developed within his administration or he was forced by outside groups to take drastic action.

It wasn't his fault that an impostor kept the Denver 3 from attending a March town hall meeting at the Wings Over the Rockies museum or that the Secret Service has refused to identify the man. It wasn't Bush's fault that his adviser, Karl Rove, was involved in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

The intelligence failures prior to Sept. 11 weren't Bush's fault. Neither was the bad intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. It wasn't his fault that he insulted and alienated U.S. allies who demanded proof of Iraq's guilt prior to the war.

The abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison weren't his fault, nor was the establishment of an extralegal camp at Guantanamo Bay where Bush abandoned the Geneva Convention. A few rogue soldiers committed all the abuses, and the terrorists created the need for Guantanamo Bay.

It's not Bush's fault that there was no post-war plan in Iraq. Nor can he be blamed for our skyrocketing national debt, budget deficits and war costs. He can't be blamed for the more than 1,800 U.S. soldiers who have been killed in Iraq; the insurgents bear responsibility for that.
[...]
President Bush has been absolved more times than we can count, but he's never going to have a moment of introspective clarity, because the public is only confirming what he already believes about himself. Nothing is ever his fault.

So why not start a war? Why not cover up for Rove? Why not ignore the Senate and appoint Bolton? Why not take another vacation? His supporters will never blame him for anything, so Bush may as well do whatever he wants.

Freak Out!

I don't know why he did it and do not care! This is the funniest thing I've seen in a while! Love It!

"He yelled ' This is bullshit' and walked off the set after Carville did his usual ribbing of Novakula. Do you think the Valerie Plame affair is stressing out Bob? James didn't even give it to him like he usually does."

They Shouldn't Have Done What They Done

Years ago (had to be the 80's) there was a case of an Asian man who was beaten to death by some white, blue-collar types in someplace like Detroit. The issue was jobs and these white factory workers felt that the Japanese were the cause of them losing their livelihoods. So, after coming out of a bar one night, they decide to take it out on a Vietnamese guy ('cause you know they didn't know what kind of "ese" he was) and beat him - until he was dead - with a baseball bat. They got off with manslaughter convictions even though they killed a man - because they thought he was Japanese - in cold blood. The elder murderer's response: "They shouldn't have done what they done."

That's the same logic applied in this blog regarding the escalation of ethnic violence in England since the train bombings.

"One of the reasons that Birtish muslims have seen a “hate” crimes increase against them is because of their own actions, or lack thereof.

Non-muslims do not trust them because they have not done enough to fight terrorism within their own community. If people knew that support for terrorism was an anomoly within the Muslim community, they would be far less likely to vent violence toward them."

It's folks like that who make me "say to myself, what a wonderful world".

The House That GOP Built

It took a villiage (of GOP Presidents) to raise this monster .

Leave It Up

Lest we forget ...

"'Is Michael Jackson not guilty because he is a nigger or [because he has] money?'

This statement appears on a sign that greets patrons outside a bar in Paulding County, GA. The owner, Patrick Lanzo, says the First Amendment protects his right to have the sign up. The NAACP quickly pounced on Lanzo, launching a petition to urge District Attorney Drew Lane to enact legislation that would force the sign’s removal.

“The sign is racist, hateful, and disrespectful, not only to the African American community, but to all of us who cherish equity and unity in our one human race,” reads a statement accompanying the online petition. “In addition to that, the sign is also a direct slander of Mr. Michael Jackson. No American should have to feel offended, or threatened as they travel through, or within, your county.”

Lanzo, who has a number of racist images in his Georgia Peach Museum bar (including cartoons of Klan members lounging on lynched black men and items disparaging Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.), has been putting up signs for the past 10 years that pose questions about celebrities in the headlines. When asked why he chose to use the N-word on the sign, he said: “Because it’s my choice of word.”

Losing Reporters and Basra

We're going to end up evacuating Baghdad, Basra and Fallujah the same way American soldiers did with the fall of Saigon. It's not that I had read of the opressive theocracy that was emerging in Southern Iraq and it is no stretch of the imagination that militants might be joining the police force (kinda reminds me of asking Willie Sutton why he robbed banks and him replying "because cause that's where the money is" ). What better way to get guns, ammunition and "legitimized" power? However, I guess it is one thing to write stories like that from afar and quite another to write them in Iraq. You could get killed.

"In the article, Mr. Vincent described Basra as a city that was increasingly coming under the control of Shi'ite Muslim religious groups. He quoted an Iraqi police official who said that the city's police force had radical Shi'ite militia members among its ranks, who have been carrying out numerous assassinations of former Baath Party members in Basra.

During Saddam Hussein's regime, the country's majority Shi'ites were oppressed and persecuted by the ruling, Sunni Muslim-dominated Baath Party.

A leading secular Shi'ite politician, Mithal al-Alousi, says he can confirm that Shi'ite militia groups are active in Basra and believes they had a strong motive for killing Mr. Vincent. Still, the politician says it is difficult to know who actually pulled the trigger.

'I'm not sure what has happened,' he said. 'But I'm very sure we do have Iranian influence in Basra. We have to study the case and ask, 'Who really has the security control of this area?''"

This is truly sad and frightening. We may have lost the Basra to extremists. Is this the free and peaceful Iraq we were hoping for?

Christian Paradox

This is an interesting article from Harper's (via Sojourners) on the paradox of Christianity in America because most of our actions contradict the very basic principles set forth by the Bible.

Only 40 percent of Americans can name more than four of the Ten Commandments, and a scant half can cite any of the four authors of the Gospels. Twelve percent believe Joan of Arc was Noah's wife. This failure to recall the specifics of our Christian heritage may be further evidence of our nation's educational decline, but it probably doesn't matter all that much in spiritual or political terms. Here is a statistic that does matter: Three quarters of Americans believe the Bible teaches that "God helps those who help themselves." That is, three out of four Americans believe that this uber-American idea, a notion at the core of our current individualist politics and culture, which was in fact uttered by Ben Franklin, actually appears in Holy Scripture. The thing is, not only is Franklin's wisdom not biblical; it's counter-biblical.

[...]

Christ was pretty specific about what he had in mind for his followers. What if we chose some simple criterion - say, giving aid to the poorest people - as a reasonable proxy for Christian behavior? After all, in the days before his crucifixion, when Jesus summed up his message for his disciples, he said the way you could tell the righteous from the damned was by whether they'd fed the hungry, slaked the thirsty, clothed the naked, welcomed the stranger, and visited the prisoner. What would we find then?

In 2004, as a share of our economy, we ranked second to last, after Italy, among developed countries in government foreign aid. Per capita we each provide fifteen cents a day in official development assistance to poor countries. And it's not because we were giving to private charities for relief work instead. Such funding increases our average daily donation by just six pennies, to twenty-one cents. It's also not because Americans were too busy taking care of their own; nearly 18 percent of American children lived in poverty (compared with, say, 8 percent in Sweden). In fact, by pretty much any measure of caring for the least among us you want to propose - childhood nutrition, infant mortality, access to preschool - we come in nearly last among the rich nations, and often by a wide margin. The point is not just that (as everyone already knows) the American nation trails badly in all these categories; it's that the overwhelmingly Christian American nation trails badly in all these categories, categories to which Jesus paid particular attention. And it's not as if the numbers are getting better: the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported last year that the number of households that were "food insecure with hunger" had climbed more than 26 percent between 1999 and 2003.

This Christian nation also tends to make personal, as opposed to political, choices that the Bible would seem to frown upon. Despite the Sixth Commandment, we are, of course, the most violent rich nation on earth, with a murder rate four or five times that of our European peers. We have prison populations greater by a factor of six or seven than other rich nations (which at least should give us plenty of opportunity for visiting the prisoners). Having been told to turn the other cheek, we're the only Western democracy left that executes its citizens, mostly in those states where Christianity is theoretically strongest. Despite Jesus' strong declarations against divorce, our marriages break up at a rate - just over half - that compares poorly with the European Union's average of about four in ten. That average may be held down by the fact that Europeans marry less frequently, and by countries, like Italy, where divorce is difficult; still, compare our success with, say, that of the godless Dutch, whose divorce rate is just over 37 percent. Teenage pregnancy? We're at the top of the charts. Personal self-discipline - like, say, keeping your weight under control? Buying on credit? Running government deficits? Do you need to ask? Are Americans hypocrites? Of course they are. But most people (me, for instance) are hypocrites. The more troubling explanation for this disconnect between belief and action, I think, is that most Americans - which means most believers - have replaced the Christianity of the Bible, with its call for deep sharing and personal sacrifice, with a competing creed.

I've been called everything from a heathen to a Pharisee because I question peoples' true knowledge of the Bible and what Christianity is really based upon. On many of the discussion lists I to which I belong, I keep the holy rollers zooming out like bats out of hell everytime I forward articles like this one. Sure enough and on cue, this was one of the responses:

This should be titled how the world gets Christianity wrong. Being a Christian means that you were once a sinner but know believe according to the bible that Christ who is God and who was man came and died in place of your sin. He did not stay dead but rose 3 days later with the keys to hell in His hands. You know that because He did you can know live, if you believe that Jesus Christ came and died for sins and confession with you mouth, believe it with your heart you are saved. You know you did not earn it, it was Gods free gift, you did not deserve it that you deserved death but Christ said no I will die, You know that He is the way the truth and the light and no man can go to the Father accept by Him. You know that you still live in an earthly vessel but you are no belong to you but to Him and to live is Christ and to die is Christ. You know you still sin, your just forgiven. You know the lust of you flesh still exist but you know that you are more than conquer because now Greater is He inside of you than he that is in this world. You know the devil is already defeated. You know it is Gods love. You know there are different levels of Christianity. You know God is Love. As you become more like Him you become less like you, that you are able to love your enemies and pray for them who persecute you. You can never tell me who I am unless you are willing to be me, All the Christians say : YOU DON'T KNOW ME

She's right. I don't know her and I don't understand an ounce of this cultlike gibberish. What does that long diatribe, that sounds like it came straight out of her minister's mouth, have to do with anything in that article? How can you hear The Word if you don't listen?

Peace, be still ...

Speaking Of Random Breeding

I am almost as repulsed by aging men reproducing, simply because they can, as I am by hood rats with multiple "baby mamas" without adequate means to support nary a one. Geraldo needs to get over himself and get fixed.

Fox News anchor and correspondent Geraldo Rivera has a new baby daughter, TVNewser has learned. Gerlado's fifth wife, Erica Michelle Levy, gave birth to Solita Liliana Rivera Tuesday morning. Geraldo has two other daughters and two sons. (He hasn't been a new father since 1994.) Both mom and baby are doing well...

Yuck!