« February 2005 | Main | April 2005 »
March 31, 2005
Stop your lurking ya bitches!
The Heretik, in his infinitely hellfire and brimstone way reminds us that it's International Blog Comment Week.
That means if you've been reading PK but have been too shy to give us a pixel or two, now's the time.
Give us a shout out. Make yourself known. Put up, don't shut up.
Comment quick so I can quit posting platitudes.
Posted by Carla at 04:32 PM |
Let's hear it for -- Kevin Drum!
"There are only two ways to significantly improve Social Security's finances: benefit cuts and tax increases. Bush is too gutless to propose either one, so he's desperately trying to sucker someone — anyone — into proposing them first. Nobody with half a brain should oblige him."
Read the rest of The Roadshow Continues.
Trying not to be cynical, but why do I expect Joe Lieberman to step up and oblige W with some kind of less-than-half-a-brain proposal?
Posted by Jeff at 01:58 PM |
Evolution has a new name
EVIL-ution!
We may soon be hearing holy howls of hellafied outrage from the Christian® Right about this: Sex Speeds Up Evolution, Study Finds
As if they needed more reasons to freak out, here's National Geographic serving up a story some use for orgasmic self-righteous pleasure.
Posted by Jeff at 01:34 PM |
Group of University Professors Urge Investigation of 2004 Election
PSoTD first allerted me yesterday to a new study that was to be released today, via Scoop, on the 2004 Presidential Election. Analysis of the study, which focused strictly on the discrepancies between exit polling data (which favored Kerry by 3%) and the official election results (which favored Bush by 2.5%), has just been posted by Scoop.
Scientific Analysis Suggests Presidential Vote Counts May Have Been Altered
Officially, President Bush won November's election by 2.5%, yet exit polls showed Kerry winning by 3% [1] . According to a report to be released today by a group of university statisticians, the odds of a discrepancy this large between the national exit poll and election results happening by accident are close to 1 in a million.In other words, by random chance alone, it could not have happened. But it did.
Two alternatives remain. Either something was wrong with the exit polling, or something was wrong with the vote count.
We've all heard the hypothesis first floated immediately following the election which asserted that the discrepancy is nothing more serious than a reflection of Bush voters being hesitant to respond to exit polling questions. But according to the authors of this new study that hypothesis is virtually a statistical impossibility. “The required pattern of exit poll participation by Kerry and Bush voters to satisfy the exit poll data defies empirical experience and common sense under any assumed scenario.”
You can read the report online (PDF): Here
An executive summary (also PDF) can be found here.
Posted by Kevin at 12:37 PM |
Sculpture & Symbolism, by John Ashcroft
"A Dutch war memorial that goes up and down, and spurts flames may be scrapped after complaints it looks like a giant penis.
The Liberation Monument is a giant copper obelisk that rises and falls depending on the level of sunlight, and spurts flames out of the top during important festivals."
Insert joke about "standing tall for freedom" here. Followed by Beavis & Butthead-style snickering.
Sex and death and war and patriotism, all mashed together into one mighty, misguided Macho Death Cult phallic symbol.
I guess we already have our Washington Monument here in the U.S., but when it was built the technology just didn't exist to make flames shoot out the top. Or Ashcroft would've had the world's largest drop-cloth deployed.
Posted by Jeff at 10:50 AM |
Az Governor's race shades blue
AP:
Janet Napolitano (D), Incumbent: 70%
Fife Symington (R), former governor: 16%
Napolitano: 57%
Rick Romley (Maricopa County Attorney):26%
Undecided: 17%
Poll was conducted March 23-26, 5% margin of error
And on a side note, Democratic rising star Barak Obama raised $634K for Robert Byrd's reelection campaign in less than 24 hours.
The fundraising was conducted over the internet.
Yowsa.
Posted by Carla at 08:19 AM |
TV a go-go
One of my favorite memories as a child was the Saturday morning routine we established in our family.
My brother and sister and I would get up really early, usually around 6AM. We'd turn on the TV, tuck ourselves under a pile of blankets (my mother would turn the thermostat down at night to save money) and watch cartoons.
We watched Scooby Doo Where Are You? and The Jetsons. We also watched The Flintstones and the old Looney Tunes cartoons.
But my favorite...the king of Carla's cartoon Saturday, was Jonny Quest. Jonny, his good friend Hadji, "Race" Bannon, Johnny's Dad--Dr Benton Quest and the dog, Bandit.
My Quest fetish is probably the precursor to my love for James Bond, come to think of it. It also dates me. Yes, I'm 40.
TV memories like this are often a snapshot of our childhoods. I love those memories. Those lazy Saturday mornings were a way to unwind after a week of school and church and other activities.
It occured to me last evening while listening to my daughter talk about how she used to love watching "Lizzie McGuire" as a little girl (she's 11 now, fyi). She loved laying on the floor in her jammies, watching "Lizzie" and drinking orange juice.
It got me to thinking about how much TV is a snapshot into our childhoods and the other stages of our lives.
When I was a very little girl it was cartoons. When I was an adolescent it was Happy Days and Laverne and Shirley. In college it was All My Children and David Letterman.
What TV snapshots are meaningful to you? Tell us in comments.
Posted by Carla at 07:31 AM |
Rest in peace, Terri.
Terri Schiavo, the severely brain-damaged woman whose final years tethered to a feeding tube sparked a bitter feud over her fate that divided a family and a nation, died Thursday, her husband's attorney said.
Posted by Carla at 07:10 AM |
March 30, 2005
"'Dumb As Dirt', for $800, Alex..."
Answer: "Snow, in remarks to the Chamber of Commerce in Bozeman, said he believed personal accounts for young workers would be cost-free for the existing Social Security system and would not affect benefits to retirees or near-retirees."Why wouldn't we do this? I have not heard one good reason not to and it's hard to figure out why anybody would oppose it," he said."
Who is Chrissy (Christmas) Snow from 3's Company? No.
Who is Hank Snow? NO.
I'm sorry -- the correct answer is U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow. Choose again, please...
"I'll take 'Birds Of A Feather' for $500."
Answer: "Bush administration chose him as acting director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service"
Who is Matthew J. Hogan?
Correct! A former chief lobbyist for Safari Club International (an extremist trophy-hunting organization which promotes the competitive killing of rare species) is now in charge of protecting fish and wildlife.
We'll take a short break and be right back with more BushWorld Jeopardy!
Posted by Jeff at 01:28 PM |
Dem leadership AWOL on Schiavo and elsewhere?
Arianna Huffington thinks so.
Ever since November, Republicans (aided and abetted by a poorly worded exit poll) have not only succeeded in defining the last election as having been about moral values, they’ve succeeded in defining moral values. In the GOP’s extraordinarily abridged moral dictionary, fighting against gay marriage is morally valuable; fighting against 12 million children living in poverty is not.Democrats, meanwhile, have been going through the most embarrassing public identity crisis since Anne Heche couldn’t decide if, when it came to the bedroom, she preferred surf or turf. They’ve been mastering the feeble arts of second-guessing themselves and ducking for cover.
While real political leadership is determining the direction the country needs to go and convincing the public to follow you down that road, Democrats keep choosing the path of least resistance. Party leaders have been sticking their fingers in the air, feeling which way the political wind is blowing, and then chasing after these zephyrs of public sentiment. Which is bad enough. But making matters much, much worse, they are consistently misreading the wind — an affliction that has led to their being blown away in three straight elections.
Meanwhile... David Corn in his twice monthly column for TomPaine.com argues that the cowardice of Congressional Dems might actually pay dividends should Senate Republicans pull the trigger on the so-called "nuclear (that's nu-ku-lar to Dubya) option" over Bush's judicial nominations being stymied by Senate Dems.
It's possible that by not creating a big political fuss, the Democrats unintentionally helped shape the Schiavo affair into a one-party controversy. This was a Republican deal, and a large majority of the public—including many Republican citizens—came to believe that crass politics, not values, were motivating Bush, DeLay, Denny Hastert, Bill Frist and the others. And if the Republican campaign was indeed values-driven, then why did DeLay and the rest not seek further action (even Supreme Court intervention) when the federal courts refused to revisit the Schiavo case? Was it because that by this point the first wave of polls had hit? It's true, as many pundits have stated in recent days, that those most likely to mutter "Remember Terri" when they enter a voting booth in 2006 will be people who fervently looked for the DeLay crowd to intervene. (They'll probably be appreciative of the GOP efforts, though the more extreme advocates of Schiavo's parents might resent the Republicans for having not done enough, such as sending in the National Guard.) But perhaps the DeLay maneuver will also shift the terrain in Washington in a favorable direction for Democrats concerning at least two high-profile battles to come: judicial nominations and stem cells.
Corn makes a really good argument there, in my view. Republicans have really set themselves up with a potential double-whammy. On the one hand a very large majority of average everyday Americans seem to fault them for meddling in the Schiavo case for presumed (majority agreement on that too) political rather than moral reasons. And on the other hand the extremist Right has been galvanized by the Schiavo case and may very well not passively accept less than their entire wish list, with respect to judicial nominations - a sore point for them, as they have in the past. That really could potentially put the GOP in a very difficult position where they're almost damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Meanwhile Reuters reporter Alan Elsner argues that the Schiavo case has hurt both parties.
In a country bitterly divided between Republican "red states" and Democratic "blue states," many citizens seemed angry with both parties and have made up their own minds, pollster John Zogby said.Republicans who uphold principles of limited government, states' rights and the sanctity of the marital bond were upset their leaders had become involved. Democrats seemed upset that their leaders had mostly stayed silent on the issue.
I think what he's getting at there is that the same large majority who fault the GOP for meddling in what they see as a private affair also blame the Dems for not standing up and defending that right to privacy. In essence, the same issue is motivating anger at both parties, albeit for different reasons. However, if David Corn's scenario comes true then I should think that would almost totally mitigate the anger at Dems by focusing it solely on Republicans. But, that can only happen if Congressional Dems find their backbone between now and then.
Posted by Kevin at 12:13 PM |
Winning at all costs means never having to say you're sorry
Republicans keep winning by choosing their battles carefully. They go hard after issues that frame well for them and beat the opposition into submission.
In fact they tell you what's most important to you. They work in it through their echo chamber and talk you into believing it, too.
It doesn't matter if say, terrorists are building homemade dirty bombs and sending them on ships that travel to the US in uninspected cargo containers. That's not a winning issue for Republicans and they can't frame it in a way that reflects well on them.
One of my "inside the beltway" sources sent me an email yesterday quoting Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. The quote came via a VOLPAC email update:
"You hear about the big issues we are dealing with everyday on the Senate floor through conventional media. But this morning I want to let you know about an issue we are hitting head on ... the Boy Scouts"
That's right. The Boy Scouts of America are THE top priority for the Republican Senate Majority Leader. Not terrorism. Not school shootings. Not even Terri Schiavo (the GOP is actually running from that one since it's apparent they've overreached).
God. Guns. Gays. The trifecta of the GOP's foundational winning strategy.
Massachusetts governor and wannabe 2008 Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is launching a radio ad massaging the God plank.
The multi billion dollar Big Dig project to ease traffic congestion in Boston is basically falling in on itself.
Massachusetts has had to make deep budget cuts in health care and education and public services.
But Romney has money in the budget for TV ads against stem cell research. Culture of life, yannow.
Winning at all costs for Republicans means ignoring and perpetuating major infrastructure and security issues. An American electorate overwhelmed by the every day and underwhelmed by the constant barrage of political bovine feces tossed their way on the 24 hour cable news networks can't and won't keep up.
This is another reason why moving to the center doesn't help Democrats. Only strong leadership and strong message will.
Posted by Carla at 09:38 AM |
March 29, 2005
Wanker of the Day
I blatantly stole this subject title from Atrios. There isn't a better one. So with that little bit of plagiarism out of the way, on to the snark.
John J Miller of NRO writes this pissy little remark:
ASBESTOS AWARENESS DAY [John J. Miller]
It will be celebrated by all, and I suppose especially by trial lawyers (emphasis Carla), on April 1. I am not making this up.
Well kiss my grits, John. Maybe if you pulled your head out of your conservative backside for awhile you might notice people who've had their lives ruined by asbestos:
Residents of a Klamath Falls subdivision who discovered they live on an asbestos waste burial site are asking the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to relocate them now that a new study says exposure to the soil could put their children's health at risk.
The request comes as the Oregon Department of Justice has hit the site's developer with a $3 million racketeering lawsuit, alleging he fraudulently sold properties without telling buyers about the asbestos burials.
In addition, newly released court records show that the developer, Mel Stewart, testified last month that he disregarded a warning about asbestos at the site more than a decade ago.
The estimated 60 residents of North Ridge Estates have lived with growing anxiety after learning about the site's history following a worker's discovery of a buried, asbestos-wrapped pipe in 2001. Recent events have sharpened the determination of many to leave, even as the courts and regulators grind through legal issues surrounding the subdivision.
Carolyn Winn said she and her husband, Dennis, want to move but can't sell their home. Like other North Ridge Estates residents, their property values have been virtually wiped out by discovery of asbestos debris.
Abestos schmasmestos, right John? Asbestos lawsuits serve no other purpose except to line the pockets of trial lawyers. John says so.
And we all know that Republicans-have-absolutely-no use-whatsoever for trial lawyers.
Posted by Carla at 05:06 PM |
An Open Letter to the National Press Club
The National Press Club wants to have a chat about Gannongate and the impact of bloggers, without actually having any liberal poltical bloggers.
How can you hold a proper event to discuss the impact of blogs on the Gannongate story without actually having at least some of the bloggers there who exposed the story?
You can't, of course.
The Agonist has put together a letter to the National Press Club, signed by a list of liberal political bloggers, who want to have participation in this event by liberal political bloggers.
There's also a list of phone numbers provided. Let these folks know that liberal bloggers need to be included in these roundtable discussions about them:
Please call Julie Shue or Rick Dunham at the The National Press Club and politely insist that they include John Aravosis of Americablog.org at their event. Here are there numbers: 202-662-7500 or 202-662-7501 or email at tglad@press.org and info@npcpress.org.
And just to keep things saucy,Americablog finds a catfight brewing on this issue between the MSM and Editor and Publisher.
Time for popcorn and Junior Mints, kids.
Update: Just got word in email that the National Press Club has decided to also invite moderate lefty blogger Matthew Yglesias.
Update 2: Yglesias' appearance confirmed.
Posted by Carla at 02:29 PM |
Waging A Guerilla War Against The Republic
Social Conservatives are increasing the tempo of their attacks against the form of government which the Founders gave us. Specifically by attacking the judicial branch of government and seeking to undermine it's credibility. The Terri Schiavo case is only the most recent bandwagon they've jumped on in order to further their cause.
T.R. Goldman of the Legal Times explains:
For the politicians, protesters and talk radio hosts, it hardly mattered that well-known legal scholars on both sides of the political divide believed that U.S. District Judge James Whittemore's March 22 decision not to order Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted was sound.Or that a day after Whittemore's decision, a three-judge panel from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the full court -- a majority of whose members were appointed by Republican presidents -- endorsed Whittemore's reasoning.
Or that the U.S. Supreme Court then tacitly affirmed Whittemore's decision by refusing to hear the case.
Instead, the series of legal decisions that played out over a dramatic four days last week only bolstered their sense that the judiciary is not only too independent, it is out of control. "The judges," Robert Schindler told reporters after a day of adverse rulings, "are running this country."
Last week Lindsay at Majikthise summed it up like this (which I cited earlier):
Some people ask why Terri Schiavo matters in the grand scheme of things. Why should we care about the fate of one oblivious individual and her squabbling relatives?Because behind the Republican veneer of crass political opportunism lurks a much more sinister agenda. The Republicans aren't just pandering to evangelicals this time. Their real objective is to crush the authority of the judicial branch.
I don't care what you think about feeding tubes or Michael Schiavo's private life. If you support the actions of the federal government in the Schiavo case, you are undermining a fundamental principle of our democracy: the separation of powers.
She's absolutely right. But the public doesn't support what Social Conservatives are trying to do via Congress. 82% of Americans disagree with how both the Social Conservative-dominated Congress and the Social Conservative President Bush have meddled in the Schiavo case. But the unholy alliance of the extremist religious right and NeoCons don't care. They glibly ignore reality and continue framing the issue as if it were the Judiciary against the people.
Goldman continues...
Added House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, on Thursday, shortly after the Supreme Court denied certiorari: "Once again, they have chosen to ignore the clear intent of Congress."But conservative legal scholar Douglas Kmiec saw it differently -- as a triumph of the courts over the passion of the moment.
"It is with great credit that every level of the federal courts recognized that law rather than emotion and politics has to prevail," says Kmiec, who teaches at the Pepperdine University School of Law. "[W]e are also a nation of law, and there is a right way and wrong way to advance the protection of our fundamental rights. ... And I say that as someone very much inclined to favor Terri Schiavo and her parents."
Imagine that... "The rule of law" is a good thing, says Kmiec. You'd be tempted to think that after the whole Clinton Impeachment thing that the Social Conservatives who strongly backed it would be first in line to stand up in defense of the rule of law. But, you'd be mistaken. Occam's Razor seems to strongly favor my theory that Social Conservatives don't give a damn about the law. They only care about ruling. As an old acquaintance from my days debating Creation/Evolution would put it, they're "lying for Jesus."
Just a little bit more here from Goldman's article:
Congress has recently attacked the independence of the courts on a number of fronts.A House-sponsored measure to defend the Ten Commandments declares that their display is protected under the Constitution's establishment clause. The bill, which has 118 co-sponsors, explicitly requires the courts to accept that assertion and forbids them to rule on its constitutionality.
Another bill, the Pledge Protection Act of 2004, amends the U.S. Code to deny jurisdiction to any federal court, including the Supreme Court, to decide any question about the interpretation of the Pledge of Allegiance, "or its validity under the Constitution." The bill, which passed the House last September, 247-173, is awaiting action in the Senate.
And a pending constitutional amendment defining marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman expressly forbids any court -- state or federal -- from deciding whether the federal Constitution or any state constitution holds otherwise.
Notice the theme there. Social Conservatives have a very narrow, very specific agenda - circumventing the rule of law in order to impose their religious doctrines upon those whom they can't persuade to willingly accept and practice those same doctrines. Not surprisingly this approach runs directly contrary to the example and very explicit directs given by the God/man that Social Conservatives are fond of giving lip service to - Jesus.
Posted by Kevin at 10:58 AM |
(insert expletive here)
This is what obscenity looks like:
Suppressing free speech"So to emphasize -- the White House uses taxpayer dollars to finance these propaganda events. THEN, in order to keep out anyone who might be critical, they 'outsource' ticketing and security. That way they can label the events 'private' and kick out anyone they want in violation of the First Amendment."
BushWorld: Where gay, not gray, is the new black; and the 2nd Amendment is the new 1st Amendment. Obviously we don't need the old 1st one anymore.
Posted by Jeff at 10:57 AM |
My Baptist parents are going to hate this
I consider myself a Deist, fyi. I don't think Deism was one of the options.
Found via LabKat:
Which religion is right for you?
Carla's result:
Your beliefs most closely resemble those of Buddhism. Do more research on Buddhism and possibly consider becoming Buddhist, if you are not already. In Buddhism, there are Four Noble Truths: (1) Life is suffering. (2) All suffering is caused by ignorance of the nature of reality and the craving, attachment, and grasping that result from such ignorance. (3) Suffering can be ended by overcoming ignorance and attachment. (4) The path to the suppression of suffering is the Noble Eightfold Path, which consists of right views, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right-mindedness, and right contemplation. These eight are usually divided into three categories that base the Buddhist faith: morality, wisdom, and samadhi, or concentration. In Buddhism, there is no hierarchy, nor caste system; the Buddha taught that one's spiritual worth is not based on birth.
Buddhism
75%
Islam
71%
agnosticism
63%
atheism
63%
Satanism
54%
Paganism
54%
Hinduism
46%
Judaism
38%
Christianity
29%
Posted by Carla at 08:37 AM |
"Obscenity? OBSCENITY?!?" - Bulworth
"NORWICH, N.Y. -- A man and a teenager have been charged with forcibly tattooing an obscenity on the forehead of a 17-year-old boy, police said Monday.Officer Craig Berry declined to describe the tattoo, except to say it was a phrase.
'It's just ludicrous that someone would do something like this to another person,' Berry said."
It's ludicrous that they won't tell us what it says. What is this, the ultimate mystery? We'll be offended? Dick Cheney used the F-word on the floor of Congress and we hear all about it. W is on video giving the camera the finger. And (whispering) Janet Jackson's (small type) b(o)(o)bie popped out at that Super Bowl.... the horror.
Show us the tattoo! We MUST know! and we WILL know!
Posted by Jeff at 05:55 AM |
March 28, 2005
Clowns to the left of me..
The brouhaha over women political writers seem to be on a low simmer today.
We've decided perhaps in part due to the perception of a lack of women writing about politics, to highlight female political writing in the blogroll.
I can list oodles of women on the left who write about politics. But I don't read a lot of rightwing political stuff..so I don't know very many on the right.
I know about Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin and Laura Ingraham. To be candid, I'm not going to promote their stuff. I find them disgusting and unreadable. But I am interested in finding more moderate right leaning women who blog about politics.
With that...I need an assist. If you know of some good women bloggers that lean to the right (but don't go over the cliff), let me know in comments.
Posted by Carla at 01:57 PM |
Americans Approve of Doctor Assisted Suicide
(via Blue Oregon):
SRBI Public Affairs conducted a nationwide poll for Time Magazine that has direct implications for Oregonians. Aside from the fact that the President's approval rating is down 5 points in a week, take a look at these numbers:
Q16. UNDER OREGON LAW, TERMINALLY-ILL ADULTS MAY REQUEST THAT A PHYSICIAN ADMINISTER A LETHAL DOSE OF MEDICATION TO END THEIR LIFE. DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THIS OREGON LAW?
Agree -- 52%
Disagree -- 41%
Don't Know -- 7%
While the wording of this poll (leaving out the term "suicide") undoubtedly affected the results (when does it not, though?), it's nonetheless significant that a majority of Americans agree with our law.
It's time for Physician Assisted Suicide advocates and others in favor of this law to rev up the PR machine.
After the Schiavo situation, the "culture of life unless we don't like your politics and then we'll murder you where you stand" crowd is out for blood. Oregon's law is a target they've long sought to bullseye.
Thankfully, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden has been working hard to keep Congress' hands off of our law. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Portland) has also been on the case. But the rest of Oregon's legislative contingent must get on board immediately.
I don't want the Republican Party deciding my end of life issues. I don't want the Democratic Party to do it either, for that matter. These issues are best left to the individual families and loved ones involved.
Posted by Carla at 09:00 AM |
Losing Salt Lake
The Salt Lake Tribune has some harsh words for House Leader Tom DeLay:
Tom DeLay says he wants Terri Schiavo to live. And there is no reason to doubt that. But it is clear that the House majority leader is not above using the suffering of a woman he has never met to promote his own, increasingly shaky, political career. The Texas Republican has gone so far as to suggest that Schiavo's situation is a gift from God that he can use to defend himself against charges brought by his political enemies - enemies whom he all but calls, in an echo of a defensive Hillary Clinton some years ago, a vast left-wing conspiracy. In remarks to a Washington meeting of the conservative Family Research Council last week, DeLay made it clear that his cause is God's cause, and that those who oppose him oppose God.
When religious conservatives in one of the most hard right communities in the Union can see you're a pandering asshole...you know you're screwed.
Posted by Carla at 07:26 AM |
March 27, 2005
Time for a woman Executive Chef at the White House?
Juliette at superchefblog is building on her earlier successful poll to bring guest chefs to the White House by opening up a new poll to choose the first ever woman executive chef for the White House.
Although I love to cook and thoroughly enjoy devouring the latest issue of Food & Wine, I'm not familiar with all that many top chefs, at least by name. The incomparable Jacques Pepin, the late, great Julie Child, Jacques spirited daughter Claudine Pepin (her hubby Roland Wesin is Chef at Portland's own Rivers Restaurant) are names and faces I'd recognize anywhere. But alas I am not as familiar with most of the many other top chefs of either gender. Largely it's a matter of short-term recall. I'm a fan of cooking shows, cooking magazines and avidly collect cookbooks. But, the names don't stick in my memory very well.
Juliette helps by putting up pictures of the candidates in her poll. So, don't be afraid to let the pictures help jog your memory. Plus, if you hold your cursor over a picture it gives you the chef's name and which restaurant she works at. Just click on the picture(s) of your choice to vote. But, don't try to stuff the ballot by multiple votes for one chef or your votes will be disqualified.
Go Vote!
Posted by Kevin at 07:09 PM |
Oh my mama loves me, she loves me, she get down on her knees and hug me
This post may make me very unpopular with a lot of women. It might in fact make me unpopular with most of them.
The very well written blog run by Trish Wilson has been doing a series of posts on custody issues. Specifically the rights of men and women to have custody of the children in the event of a divorce.
The main thrust of Trish's latest post is interesting. According to Trish, statistics showing that fathers are a key element in keeping kids stable have largely been debunked.
Much of Trish's writings on this issue seem an effort to expose a father's group in Australia, who are using a vigilante style of justice to bring attention to men's rights for custody.
A couple of commentors on the blog have made statements that to me, are troublesome. This is the most egregious, in my opinion:
Well I consider ANY father that attempts to get custody from a child's mother as abusive, by definition, UNLESS he does it because abuse or neglect is involved...
I strongly disagree with this statement.
There are many fathers out there who are wonderful. Some of them are arguably better parents that the mothers. Yet unless there's a situation of rampant abuse, the father is expected to give up custody?
This sort of statements sets feminism back 200 years as far as I'm concerned. Why should any men consider women their equals when women won't do the same?
From a different commentor:
If you are like a lot of mothers, you have also lost out on promotional opportunities, got mommy-tracked, freelanced, or went part-time for a while-- that is if you didn't leave the work force altogether for a time. (And if in fact you didn't do any of these things, you can be painted as an unfeeling monster at court.) The income of married fathers tends to increase, while the income of married mothers decreases. As Ann Crittendon has pointed out, our income sacrifices accumulate over a lifetime and affect what we recieve in retirement and social security. As a culture, we seem to vaguely accept this as the price we women pay to have more family time, whether you considered this right or not. And yet all of this will be swept under the rug and ignored when consideration is weighed as to custody?
A married couple makes choices when they have children. Sometimes one of those choices is for the mother (and sometimes it's the father) to work fewer hours and take lessor outside-the-home jobs in order to parent the children. If it's the woman, this therefore entitles them to custody? Even if they agreed together on the roles? I find that incredibly unfair.
Sacrifices are a part of parenting for BOTH genders. Both sides tend to work very hard. Both sides tend toward specific, agreed upon roles. Sometimes the father has the breadwinner role. Sometimes the father has the nurturer role (admittedly not as often). This means to me that both are doing the job of parenting, but in different ways.
Custody issues should be decided on a family to family basis. It shouldn't be part of a larger gender war where embittered individuals attempt to one-up the opposite gender because they didn't get to buck for a promotion at work. Custody isn't a "reward" for taking on the role of nurturer while the spouse brings home the check. Custody is the situation that's best for the children. Sometimes it's with the woman, sometimes it's with the man.
I was accused on Trish's blog of being a father's rights advocate by making these sorts of statements. I'm not advocating for mother's or father's rights per se. I'm advocating for equality.
Some of these commentors appear to be pushing for an all out gender nuclear style war. The truely injured in that situation will be the children.
And right after that will be feminism. Seeing men as some sort of enemy for wanting to take custody of their children is no different than seeing women as the enemy for wanting to fly F-16s.
Posted by Carla at 01:14 AM |
March 26, 2005
Busy weekend here. Parties to attend, appointments to keep.I have a topic that's rolling around in my cranium. But I need some more time to let it cook. Thus I send you to peruse the musings of others who enlighten:
The Cranky Liberal finds the death tolls in Iraq to be numbers someone is probably pulling out of their ass.
The culture of life makes more death threats. (see Oliver Willis).
The "morality and personal responsibility" crowd tries to flout the rule of law. (see Attaturk)
Write a caption for Beelzebub and TweedleDee over at Rox Populi
Cyndi at mousemusings frames the Republicans.
Posted by Carla at 08:37 AM |
March 25, 2005
Too much of a good thing?
A teenage boy in Massechusets has won his three year legal battle to divorce his father.
Patrick was one of the first children to initiate a parental-rights termination proceeding against one parent for killing the other. He argued Daniel Holland forfeited any right to be his father the night he shot Liz Holland eight times.
So far, so good. I completely agree that his father abdicated any moral or ethical right to be the boy's father at that point.
What I don't agree with is the court having agreed to issue a new birth certificate which lists the adoptive couple as the boy's parents...
A birth certificate isn't a "Good Parenting" award. It's a simple document listing biological and chronological facts which aren't open to interpretation of argument. Tossing out the original and issuing one that contains different biological "facts" doesn't do anything more than to turn birth certificates into a rather pointless award rather than a useful, objective document based solely upon the facts.
Correcting a factual error on a birth certificate is one thing. But, that's not what has happened in this case. It's been turned into a moral football.
I think it's great that this kid was able to terminate his biological father's rights. I support that 100%. But... the birth certificate thing just turns it all into a damn three-ring circus.
The family said its next goal is to push for the passage of "Patrick's Law," which would suspend the parental rights of any parent convicted of murdering the other, and give the couple's children a say on whether the rights would be terminated permanently.
Again, I applaud this effort. What they're saying about the proposed "Patrick's Law" makes sense to me. I'd vote for it if I could. Notably missing from this brief blurb is the phony birth certificate scheme, though.
What do you think? Should fact-based documents be turned into moral footballs?
Posted by Kevin at 12:49 PM |
Isn't it ironic?
The culture of life is sending death threats to Majikthise.
Posted by Carla at 10:40 AM |
Absolute power corrupts
NYT:
Help Save Terri Schiavo's Life!" says the Web site of the Traditional Values Coalition, a Christian conservative group best known for its campaigns against gay rights. Next to a link to the Web site of her parents' foundation is a pitch to "become an active supporter of the Traditional Values Coalition by pledging a monthly gift."
Get Terri Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted by giving money to an anti-gay Christian group. Nice.
The money changers are gathering at the Temple.
This case is bringing out the uglier elements of the Republican Party. Not that it's especially difficult to get them to show up, as First Reads at MSNBC details:
But consider what's going on now. The judges involved are under protection. Schindler family ally and anti-abortion activist Randall Terry is threatening political retribution. Pat Robertson on CNN said the case approaches "judicial murder." A man was arrested in Seminole, FL after wielding a box cutter in an effort to steal a gun so he could, as he said, rescue Schiavo. Some advocates for the replacement of Schiavo's feeding tube are urging Governor Bush to attempt to do so by force.
It's like the Republicans are handing out insane pills. And when Randall Terry is involved, violence is entirely possible.
Worse yet though, is the "activist judiciary" meme. Rep. Steve King (R-IA) is complaining that the "The judiciary has circled their wagons, not around the Constitution, not around the law, not around justice, or jurisprudence, but around themselves," said King in a written statement. "They have set themselves up as Supremacists, accountable to no mortal force and in denial of the Immortal Force. No law, however Constitutional, will be beyond the reach of this malignant form of judicial activism."
The activist meme is wearing thin. The citizenry is supposed to believe that all of the judges who've ruled on this case have ruled against the Schindlers based only on their ideology and personal opinion, not the law?
Isn't it possible instead that we're encountering a President and a Congress so drunk with it's own power and so arrogant in it's irresponsibility that they no longer care about the rule of law?
Posted by Carla at 09:01 AM |
"Because we LIKE overkill, that's why!"
Gay Alabamians hoping to adopt children in this state may never get the chance. A group of state lawmakers is pushing a measure to stop them.The Alabama Legislature is considering a proposal that would make it illegal for a person who is gay to adopt a minor. Currently, there is no state law that would prohibit a person who is homosexual from adopting children. However, because of the state's Marriage Protection Act, which only acknowledges marriage as being between a man and a woman, same-sex couples are effectively prohibited from adopting children.
Howard Bayless, a gay Alabamian, says he's often thought of adopting a child and is outraged by the proposed ban, sponsored by Sen. Hank Erwin Jr., R-Montevallo.
"The government does not need to dictate to us what a family should be made of and what a family should look like," Bayless said Tuesday. "I have three sisters, and every single one of them have children, and they have asked me to raise their children if something happens to them. This would not allow me to raise their children."
So, the current law effectively stops same-sex couples from adopting. But there's a demon behind ever' door! So once again our legislators are duty-bound on a mission from God to protect us from E-VIL, real or (mostly) imagined. I feel safer; don't you?
When will they pass that overdue teacher pay raise? and get a working budget? Right after they pass all these, of course:
1. Outlaw Bear Baiting (not because it's cruel to the bear -- rather because the spectators obtain orgasmic pleasure)
2. Outlaw Prisoners Frivolous Lawsuits (over soggy sandwiches, broken cookies, etc. -- unless there's an anti-abortion angle to be milked)
3. Resolution to Keep Gambling Profits Coming in To Us (Under the Table Where They Belong)
Posted by Jeff at 06:11 AM |
March 24, 2005
Shorter Peggy Noonan
Liberals are all bloodsucking vampires who'd just as soon pull your plug as look at you.
(See Echinide for the long version.)
Posted by Carla at 07:14 PM |
Where have all the flowers gone
This week has been one in which I've greatly pondered the state of our culture and society as Americans.
What's happened to us?
We are a society that has learned to extend our physical lives by years. In some cases, decades. Yet for all our concentration on the physical, we seem to have completely lost sight of caring for the emotional and spiritual.
Religion in the US seems to have morphed, at least in part, from caring for the poor and dealing in compassion to an extension of political bodies and government entities. Or as someone wrote to me in email..the focus for religion is now on the corporeal body.
Where is the feeding of the soul? Where is the nourishment for the mind and the spirit?
I'm not intending this to be a slam on religion. I think though that there is a serious lack of examination by those in religious circles about their reasons for existing. And our society at large appears to need a high level navel gazing exercise here as well.
This week's scrutiny of the Terri Schiavo case is a reminder of how far medicine has advanced. But it's also a reminder of how eroded compassion, common sense and basic respect for individual choice have become.
We didn't used to have feeding tubes to keep us alive when our brains stopped functioning properly. I was reminded today that we used to be hooked up to a morphine drip that would end the pain and even hasten the death of those we loved. No longer.
We now (except in Oregon), force the terminally ill in excruciating pain to stay alive at all costs. Except for the costs of Medicaid and Medicare...that we'll slash.
We didn't used to have school shootings, either. Somehow we're able to fix the broken bodies of our youth. But their broken spirits, in many cases, remain shattered. Our society has deemphasized nurturing children in school and at home. Now we focus on testing and academics and responsibilities.
At one time in this nation we felt it was important to provide a safety net for our elderly and our sick. The top priority now is tax cuts and slashing spending.
We used to be a nation of laws. Now in certain quarters we have those who give lip service to law while advocating for incarceration without probable cause and no access to attornies. Or worse, for torture.
We are a nation in a state of serious moral decline. And many who claim to be the spiritual, political and governmental leaders are sending us down this path.
Posted by Carla at 04:05 PM |
Magic 8 Ball
Tomorrow's USA Today:
Bush's approval rating at 45%, the lowest of his presidency. Developing....
"It is decidedly so.."
Update: Kevin has located some new stories on how Team Bush f'd up the hunt for Osama. To use him for a boogeyman when polling numbers take a dip?
Posted by Carla at 12:29 PM |
Deja Vu all over again
Medicare is completely screwed, so let's tinker with Social Security.
WaPo:
The two independent trustees overseeing Social Security and Medicare broke with the Bush administration's trustees yesterday, saying Medicare's financial problems far exceed Social Security's and are in urgent need of attention.
Republican Thomas R. Saving and Democrat John L. Palmer said Social Security's condition has changed little since they joined the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees in 2000. But in the trustees' report released yesterday, they wrote that Medicare's prospects have "deteriorated dramatically" with rising medical costs and the addition in 2003 of a prescription drug benefit.
"The financial outlook for Social Security has improved marginally since 2000," wrote Saving and Palmer. "In sharp contrast, Medicare's financial outlook has deteriorated dramatically over the past five years and is now much worse that Social Security's."
In what I can only describe as a shocking development, the two independent trustees are telling the public that the people Bush hired as trustees to inform them on Social Security are lying out of their asses. Who else is stunned?
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Just look at the guy with the big head, the loud voice and the fire shooting out from the fake canisters on either side of him. He'll tell you what's what.
This episode makes me wax fondly for the days leading up to the invasion of Iraq.
Remember?
Those that hijacked airplanes and flew them into buildings on 9/11 worked for Al Qaida. Al Qaida is led by Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden's base is Afghanistan. Bin Laden's training grounds were in Afghanistan. The Taliban who assisted Bin Laden are in Afghanistan.
Where did the US concentrate it's efforts?
Iraq.
Same song, second verse. (A little bit louder and a little bit worse)
Posted by Carla at 08:28 AM |
Schiavo Update
SCOTUS refuses to hear Schiavo case.
Posted by Carla at 07:46 AM |
March 23, 2005
Real Life Decisions
There is a lot of hubris out there about Terri Schiavo. And arguably from both sides of the issue. So I thought it might be useful, or at least instructive, to see how others have dealt with the same basic gut-wrenching decision with respect to members of their own family.
I've ran across two in the blogosphere from just the last few days. Both are gut-wrenchingly honest and without guile.
Bush and Schiavo and my experience at buddenblog tells of the anguish inflicted on the family members when a spouse chose artificial means of maintaining life.
A personal story over at Courting Destiny tells of the flip side... the choice to withdraw artificial means of maintaining life and how that impacted the family.
I applaud both of these women for having the courage to publically post their own very personal experiences.
Posted by Kevin at 10:07 AM |
Can't get enough of that Culture of Life stuff!
Social Security outlook worsens slightly
Trustee report says Medicare woes even more severe
Bolton / U.N. trivia
"Bolton was among the most ferocious in promoting the fake story that Iraq had sought to buy nuclear material in Niger, long after intelligence agencies had discredited it..."
U.S. Consumer Prices Jump, Spark Inflation Worry
You get the idea.
Auto-generated 16 minutes ago at that "liberal media" noise machine Google News, their Top 2 Stories:
Parents Press on in Brain-Damaged Woman Case
Terri Schiavo's Parents File Supreme Court Appeal to Save Daughter
Inside the politics of the Schiavo bill (CNN)
Minnesota High School Shooter Lived Troubled, Lonely Life
As noted elsewhere, every day it seems we become more a Culture of (Your Money or Your) Life. MaxSpeak also did a live-blog of the SS Trustees report today, you should give it a look.
Posted by Jeff at 09:45 AM |
Guilty
Guilty as sin,
yes I confess
I can't deny
Strong in the heart,
weak in the flesh
I watch American Idol. I confess. I know it's stupid. I know it's contrived. But I can't help it. I love the idea of people "off the street" getting a shot at stardom. I also love the competition. And most of all I love seeing gifted singers strut their stuff.
I've never called in to vote, though. I'm not that far gone.
I also love James Bond movies. Yes some of the old ones are a little mysognistic sometimes. And I realize that women are objectified. And there's violence and at least as much stupidity as American Idol. I don't care.
Sean Connery is handsome and dashing and strong in the early Bond films. And that Irish accent...it makes me swoon.
I've never been as big on Roger Moore although I do like the humor he brought to the character.
George Lazenby's attempt at Bond was decent but I could never get past him wearing that kilt. Timothy Dalton was handome but sometimes too serious.
Pierce Brosnan...delicious. Very Conneryesque. He cuts a dashing figure in his tuxedo. Always keeping his cool. Strong. Funny. Sexy.
I own every single James Bond movie ever made. On DVD. I am that far gone.
These are two of my guilty pleasures in life. If we added Lindor Truffles to the list, my trifecta of guilty pleasures would be complete. If you have never had a Lindor Truffle...run, don't walk to the nearest chocolate shop and get some. They are chocolate orgasms.
Sometimes I let the news and political events of the day get to me. I've laid awake at night some this week..stewing over the Schiavo situation, deaths in Iraq, the US political process, etc. These guilty pleasures help take my brain out of that "stewing" mode.
We need to take a break now and then from news junkiedom and relax.
Posted by Carla at 07:46 AM |
Terri Schiavo Update
11th Circuit Court denies reinsertion of feeding tube.
You can read the court's decision here.
Posted by Carla at 07:24 AM |
Juan Cole knocks it outta the park: "Ayatollah DeLay"!
The Schiavo Case and the Islamization of the Republican Party.
Amen and preach it, brother! In a non-judgemental, non-denominational, live-and-let-live way, of course.
Posted by Jeff at 06:22 AM |
March 22, 2005
Classifieds: Help Wanted at Centerfield
My favorite nonexistent ideological set (aka centrists) of bloggers is on the hunt for some nonpenis sporting political writers.
Contact Rick Heller at blog@centristcoalition.com if you're a woman and you think you might be one of those nonexistent political centrist types.
Posted by Carla at 07:21 PM |
The Doctor Is In
(Via Oliver Willis)
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, who practiced internal medicine, called Republicans' efforts to pass the bill "grandstanding" and criticized the majority leader's comments.
"For Sen. Frist to say he could make a diagnosis based on the videotape certainly is not medically sound," Dean said. "I would not want my doctor making any diagnosis of me on videotape, and I'm speaking as a doctor."
So there is an ethical MD in the political world. Go figure.
Sheesh.
I should let Digby know.
Posted by Carla at 04:10 PM |
Freudian Slip?
Gov. Mike Rounds said Monday that a glitch in legislation he had earlier signed will erase all abortion restrictions in South Dakota unless it is fixed by the Legislature.
Oops.
Posted by Carla at 01:02 PM |
Someone's knockin' at the door
Somebody's ringing the bell...
The other day when I got my back up regarding the contention that there's a dearth of good, linkable female bloggers, I smacked Kevin Drum for making that argument.
I've since been taken to task in email, on the blog and in person by individuals who say that part of Kevin's point is right: there aren't as many female bloggers as male bloggers. That piece of the argument I have to give to Kevin (and Cranky Liberal and PK Kevin...and everyone else who made that point). There are fewer women bloggers than men bloggers.
Where Kevin really lost me was the idea that there's a dearth of women who don't do hardcore political writing. And that women are somehow put off by the tone..or in other words...they don't like to get "dirty".
Katha Pollitt guest blogs over at Drum's site and offers some insight:
To understand the absence of women's opinions, I look at the gatekeepers. Because the women are already there! As I argue in my column, there are actually quite a few fabulous women opinion writers who are more than ready for prime time, but who seem mysteriously invisible to the editors who are now saying they will try to "find" women. Barbara Ehrenreich is a hugely best selling writer whose been hard at work and famous for decades. She wrote great columns on the New York Times op-ed page when filling in for Tom Friedman — so why isn't she at The Times (soon to be seven men plus Maureen Dowd) or the Washington Post (18 male pundits plus Anne Applebaum)? Other names off the top of my head: Debra Dickerson, Ruth Rosen, Dahlia Lithwick, Nina Totenberg, Rebecca Traister, Joan Walsh, Sharon Lerner, Wendy Kaminer, Ruth Conniff, Laura Flanders, Natalie Angier, etc. etc. etc! Why doesn't Time (11 columnists, no women, even in Arts and entertainment) give Molly Ivins a slot?
They're there. They're good. They submit. But they're being ignored by editors. Or as I noted to Drum in my piece....they're there...JUST LINK TO THEM.
Katha addresses the "women are afraid to get dirty" notion too:
Sexism, which is what we are discussing here, often justifies itself by assuming that women don't want the thing that is being denied them. Before Title IX, which opened up high school and college athletics to women, the common wisdom was that girls didn't like sports — girls weren't competitive, they were weak (remember girls basketball?), they didn't like to get sweaty and dirty, they feared being hurt, they were always getting their periods. Once the opportunities were there — thanks to the women's movement, not to gym teachers promising to keep an eye out for talented female players — girls turned out in droves. Now we see girls even in quintessentially masculine sports like soccer and rugby. Today nobody says girls are shrinking violets on the playing field.
Exactly.
As I've noted before, I'm no pro. I write for this blog because I make the time to do it inbetween parenting, my real job, gardening, school volunteer work and other hobbies. I do it because I have a passion for it. There's other women out there who's work is much more read than mine and probably a lot better.
But noone can say that I don't get in there and mix it up. I'm not afraid to get "dirty". There's a lot of other women out there that "get dirty" with political writing as a profession. Open the doors, fellas. We want in.
Posted by Carla at 11:44 AM |
Using Newt
The Dems are going to try to use the 1994 Gingrich/GOP playbook (subscription required) against them:
“The Democrats’ best chance of winning back the House (as well as the Senate) is to do what the Reagan Republicans did: oust or convert like-minded members of the opposite party,” they wrote in the January issue of The American Prospect. “The Republicans won the southern seats that were held by conservative Democrats; similarly, the Democrats need to take over the seats outside the Deep South that are now held by moderate Republicans.”
Seems a reasonable plan.
But the Dems will continue to spin their wheels, in my opinion, unless the leadership steps up and articulates the principles of Democrats and liberals. The candidates running for these offices must do the same thing.
This isn't going to be about running to the center. This is going to be about leadership and principles. Articulating them. Standing up for them.
Interestingly, the Schiavo issue gives Democrats some ammunition.
The question to be asked:
Do you really want someone representing you in Congress who's willing to take away the ability individuals to make their most personal decisions for no reason but naked political gain? That's what you get when you vote Republican. They don't care about individual rights. They care about the far rightwing groups that pad their political coffers.
Start there.
Posted by Carla at 09:35 AM |
Schiavo Update
Federal Judge refuses to order feeding tube reinserted.
Read the decision for yourself.
Posted by Carla at 07:33 AM |
March 21, 2005
The "F" Word...
Tristero, via Lindsay at Majikthise, spells it out succinctly.
Well, it happened.On March 21, 2005 12:44 am, the extremists in charge of the US Government showed the world that when they don't like a law or a legally valid court decision - ANY law, ANY court decision, for ANY reason, no matter how carefully adjudicated - they are prepared to rip it up. There is a word for this.
The word is fascism.
Nineteen judges examined the details of a heartwrenching medical case, numerous expert witnesses on all sides were called. The judgment was affirmed and unequivocal. No matter. In an entirely unprecedented move, and merely to demonstrate its overwhelming power, the extremists in this government told the American judiciary to take a hike. We're doing it our way from now on.The extremists said to the courts and state legislatures of the land, "For heaven's sakes, there's a war on, don't you know? Give up those quaint, naive, too-subtle-for-my-mind notions of "Justice" and take a break, don't bother judging anymore, that's not your job, never really should have been, frankly. From now on, we'll simply tell you what justice has to be. It'll be easier on everyone."
While Tristero lays the situation out very well, Lindsay gets to the heart of the matter:
Some people ask why Terri Schiavo matters in the grand scheme of things. Why should we care about the fate of one oblivious individual and her squabbling relatives?Because behind the Republican veneer of crass political opportunism lurks a much more sinister agenda. The Republicans aren't just pandering to evangelicals this time. Their real objective is to crush the authority of the judicial branch.
I don't care what you think about feeding tubes or Michael Schiavo's private life. If you support the actions of the federal government in the Schiavo case, you are undermining a fundamental principle of our democracy: the separation of powers.
Left unsaid by both Lindsay and Tristero is one of the most compelling evidences that we are dealing with at least a form of fascism: Neofascist Conservatism (check out the list of common characteristics on the left-hand sidebar)... Specifically the demonizing of Liberals.
Some examples:
Patriots for Bush: "When you tear down all the arguments you are left with two simple facts. Liberal judicial activists are out of control and the left will do anything short of violence to keep conservatives from taking their places."
Patriots for Bush: "I mean seriously, they are directly responsible for 40,000,000 deaths through abortion alone."
Liberals Argue For The Murder of Terri: "The Democratic Party, which has become the Party of Satan (as I am now 100% convinced), is hell-bent on murdering Terri Schiavo. Lucifer has convinced them that a husband has a right to starve his wife to death because "the law" says so..."
Sons of the Republic: "Amidst public outcry and support from loving parents who want to care for the daughter to whom they gave life, liberal activist judges have sentenced her to death."
Write Wing Warrior Creed: "We will fight to eradicate liberalism... one vote... one liberal at a time!"
Posted by Kevin at 01:57 PM |
Republicans lie
And before you all start whining at me about how "Democrats do it too", don't bother. The Democrats have never been this bad:
"She talks and she laughs and she expresses likes and discomforts," he said Sunday evening. "It won't take a miracle to help Terri Schiavo. It will only take the medical care and therapy that patients require."--disgusting GOP pig Tom Delay.
And Bush's marionette:
The legislation he signed is consistent with his views. You know, this is a complex case and I don’t think such uninformed accusations offer any constructive ways to address this matter…[P]rior to the passage of the ‘99 legislation that he signed, there were no protections…The legislation was there to help ensure that actions were being taken that were in accordance with the wishes of the patient or the patient’s family.--White House helmet head du jour, Scott McClellan
Tell the truth, Scott. That law specifically allows doctors and hosptials to stop treatment even if it goes against the wishes of the family. Your nose is growing, wooden boy.
"I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office," he said in a lengthy speech in which he quoted medical texts and standards. "She certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli."--pandering, unethical surgeon Senator and Majority Leader Bill Frist
A whole hour, Bill? Did you have hot buttered popcorn and Junior Mints with your Schiavo video, too? This one is a liar and a creep. He actually thinks he's going to convince people he knows the diagonsis better than multiple experts who've examined Terri based on watching a video for an hour?
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman..." is child's play in comparison.
Posted by Carla at 01:04 PM |
Who's your daddy?
Naw....it's not about politics::
"In a memo distributed only to Republican senators, the" Terri Schiavo "case was characterized as 'a great political issue' that could pay dividends with Christian conservatives, whose support is essential in midterm elections such as those coming up in 2006.",
It dawned on me last night just how little about Terri this is. In fact there's nothing in this at all about Terri. Tom DeLay doesn't care about the fact that Terri Schiavo would linger for years in a vegetative state she said she never wanted. Bill Frist isn't interested in whether or not Terri Schiavo suffers. George W Bush doesn't lie awake at night pondering whether or not Terri is in pain or wasting away.
This is about votes.
A cynical effort to remind Christian Conservatives who their daddy is.
Update: Digby has decided to check out the political affiliations of prospective physicians, just to be safe. Given how easily Republicans flout science and medical ethics for political gain, you can never be too sure.
Posted by Carla at 07:59 AM |
March 20, 2005
Support the troops or support Bush.
Guerilla warfare is hard work.
And not just for the guerillas. It's slowly grinding the US military to a bloody pulp:
The unexpectedly heavy demands of sustained ground combat are depleting military manpower and gear faster than they can be fully replenished. Shortfalls in recruiting and backlogs in needed equipment are taking a toll, and growing numbers of units have been broken apart or taxed by repeated deployments, particularly in the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve.
I drive a lot for my job. I see those "support the troops" magnets parked next to "Bush/Cheney" bumperstickers on lots of cars. It's a twisted reality that puts people in a position of supporting this President who uses American soldiers to score political points.
Actions speak louder than words, or at least they used to. Supporting the troops and supporting Bush don't go hand in hand.
Bush is using the Defense Budget as an excuse to starve domestic spending. The money isn't going to outfit the troops, either. Large chunks of taxpayer dollars are being flushed down the Halliburton toilet. Or more mysteriously, money is just unaccounted for.
Wave your flag. Plaster those magnets and bumperstickers all over your car. Vote for Bush. But don't kid yourself.
You're not supporting US soldiers.
Posted by Carla at 06:18 PM |
The Rightwing Assault on the Middle Class
AKA: Demagoging support for the military
The AP reports: "While we the governors do all we can for our vets and our returning soldiers, our federal government has the primary responsibility for meeting the needs of our veterans," Gov. Ed Rendell said in his party's weekly radio address. "And that's why I find the president's budget cuts for critical veterans services to be unconscionable." And that was the earlier increase. Now Bush wants to more than double it again.
The White House's proposed budget includes charging certain veterans a$250 annual registration fee. It also includes raising the prescription drug copayment of those same veterans from the current $7 to $15 for a 30-day supply. Note that the current $7 figure is the result of Bush tripling the copayment two years ago. The budget also would cut $293.5 million by limiting the veterans whose care in state-operated veterans homes is reimbursed by the federal government.
On the 2003 copayment increase Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ) said the proposal raises questions about the impact on "near-poor" veterans whose incomes are just high enough to require that they pay the new premium. The American Legion called it "utterly ridiculous."
Where it gets interesting is this little nugget towards the end of the short AP story: The proposed cuts in veterans health care are generally oriented toward veterans with higher incomes..., officials said.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't Bush and congressional Republicans rest the tax cuts on their own argument of fairness: It is the prosperous who pay the bulk of income taxes, so they should get most of the tax relief? Of course these reductions in veterans benefits are not "taxes" strictly speaking. But, they do reveal the slight-of-hand that Republicans are using to demagogue taxation while materially undercutting their own rationale by increasing fees elsewhere.
So what we have is a Bush-led GOP that on the one hand claimed that those who are more affluent shouldered the greater tax burden and therefore deserved the greater tax cuts (ie. deserved to have more money in their pockets) and yet on the other hand they are actively trying to stiff veterans who, although not even approaching what we would call "affluent," are nevertheless not in as dire of economic straits as other veterans... This during a time of "war."
Posted by Kevin at 12:04 PM |
Oregon legislators step up on Schiavo case
Update: Mahablog finds that many of those legislators and bloggers who are hand wringing over the removal of Terri's feeding tube were the same ones who are frothing for slashing Medicare. Consequently, Medicare foots the bill for long term care for many sick and elderly in similar conditions:
We need a list of politicians and commentators, including bloggers, who have been calling for cuts in Medicaid but who now have joined in the "save Terri Schiavo" cult. These people need to be challenged to take her off Medicaid and pay for her maintenance themselves. If you know of any such people, please add their names to the comments.
The righties are going to say, it's not about money, it's about principle. But the principle is that there are people right now who are not receiving health care that they need because they can't afford it, and their lives may be shortened as a result. But there is plenty of taxpayer money to keep Terri Schiavo alive, even though she has no hope of ever being conscious.
Why? Because she's politically useful, that's why. That's your "principle."
Tonight is one of the nights I'm most proud to call myself an Oregonian.
As the federal government ridiculously insinuated itself into the Terri Schiavo case, Oregon legislators stepped up in protest against those same actions:
Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., was among those organizing opposition to the proposal.
"This bill would have the federal government intrude into the most private, personal and painful family decision," Blumenauer said. "What people need to think about is how would they feel if Tom DeLay or some other politician decided to second-guess your doctor, or your husband."
Oregon Senators Ron Wyden (D) and Gordon Smith (R) also played important roles to the chagrin of NRO's Beltway Buzz:
Last night, things got worse with Ron Wyden making a personal effort to prevent the preservation of Terri Schiavo’s life. Because the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case concerning Oregon’s assisted suicide law, Wyden is afraid that legislation to protect Schiavo would damage Oregon’s case before the court. Of course, if one reads the language proposed in the House and Senate, it would be clear that no threat to Oregon’s law was included.
But Gordon Smith is missing from this debate as well. Smith personally advocated Justice Department intervention to block the assisted suicide law in 2000. John Ashcroft acted, but was blocked by a circuit court. While the Supreme Court has taken action Smith has been silent. The Beltway Buzz and numerous other media organizations have put in comment requests to Smith to no avail.
This is shameful on Smith’s part, both in respect to the Oregon voters who twice voted for the legislation (whether you agree with it or not), and to those who advocate the preservation of life. If Smith had been vocal in his support of the court’s move, he would have possessed moral authority to speak up in Schiavo’s case. Instead, this week has left Smith appearing fiscally irresponsible and morally tepid.
If both of my Senators are pissing off the wingers, I know we're on the right track.
I find the contention that Wyden intervened in order to assist Oregon's Assisted Suicide law a rather specious argument. It's being argued on Constitutional grounds with the SCOTUS and has nothing to do with Congress overstepping it's bounds on this most personal of issues. Right wing sour grapes from the author.
What's more telling is the profound absence of Gordon Smith in this debate. Smith is a conservative, prolife Republican who has bucked the party trend in the last week. Smith was the chief sponsor of an amendment to strip Medicare budget cuts requested by the White House. And now he's MIA on Schiavo.
I don't like Gordon Smith's issue positions very often. But props to him for this week's efforts.
Perhaps Smith didn't show up for this one because he knows it's absolutely ridiculous for the federal government to involve itself in this issue.
Since when did a hypocritical pig like Tom DeLay earn the right to invoke God when it comes to the life and death decisions of human beings that he doesn't know?
And speaking of hypocrites, the Republican Party claims to be the party of smaller government. Getting government out of our lives. Except if you decide you want to die. Then watch the hell out. Smug, arrogant, rightwing religious zealots (aka the Grand Old Party) will come riding in on a rail with a bill of attainder to interfere with your most personal and painful decisions.
Posted by Carla at 07:48 AM |
March 19, 2005
PK's move - Update
Some of you might have noticed that some of the comments are gone. That's due to the move. Our content was moved earlier today and everything posted after that - most comments and the other update post I'd put up - were lost when our domain name was moved from the old domain host to the new host. Many of the comments made it thru, though. So... that's better than I'd expected an hour ago. I figured everything from this morning was lost.
Special thanks go out to Dave Aiello of Weblog Improvement for his superb technical skills and services in executing the actual move. He has been our hired gun for this move. Frankly, he's worth more than we could afford to pay him. To say that he's the consumate (and competent) professional would be something of an understatement.
I should add that while Dave's Weblog Improvement business specializes in Movable Type and TypePad weblog platforms (both are products of Six Apart, along with the Livejournal weblog platform), it is but one of his IT offerings. He also runs CTDATA which offers comprehensive IT services well beyond just weblogs. And he tells me that they'll soon be offering domain hosting too.
Speaking of domain hosts... A word to the wise: Friends don't let friends host their domains, or anything else, on 0catch.com. That's who was hosting PK this morning. Over the last several months the functionality of our MT platform progressively degenerated due to it's interaction with 0catch.com's server set-up. Exactly why things degenerated, I don't know. All I know is that they did and that it was an endless source of frustration to Carla and I. Note how every single post we've ever put up is listed individually on the sidebar. That came about because of these very problems I'm talking about. At first we had them listed by month, which didn't take up so much space. But, then things degenerated and we had to change to the present set-up just to be able to continue blogging. And even then we had problems. But, at least we were able to limp along. In addition to that, Dave had trouble working with 0catch.com in executing the move too. Moving the content should have taken minutes. Instead it took hours.
Now we're hosted by TotalChoice Hosting, who came very highly recommended. Principally via an informal survey of Movable Type Friendly Web Hosts. Not only does Total Choice Webhosting offer significantly improved functionality, specifically with the MT platform. But, we're now paying 1/3 as much for a comparable hosting plan (bandwidth, storage space, etc.) to what we had with 0catch.com.
Better service... more functionality... less money! Any questions? LOL
Friends don't let friends host their domains, or anything else, on 0catch.com.
Posted by Kevin at 02:33 PM |
March 18, 2005
Open Thread - PK moving to new domain host this weekend
We're moving PK to a new domain host. The actual switch of our domain name from our old host to our new host will happen sometime later this afternoon.
My understanding is that not every server and router in the internet will recognize the change immediately. Many and maybe even most will. But, be warned that until they all do there is a small chance that your comments won't post. It'll really depend on the server and routers being used by your ISP to connect your computer with our blog here.
Nothing will change. The link and everything will remain the same. We're just picking up everything and moving it all to a new host.
Our plan is to leave this open thread up thru Sunday night. It may take until Monday night before our new digs are recognized by the entire Internet.
Posted by Kevin at 01:13 PM |
Yup.
Kevin Drum can kiss my lilly white liberal ass:
Sure, there are plenty of battle hardened female opinion writers, but, by definition, we only see the ones who are comfortable in the fray — and their numbers are fairly small if Dahlia Lithwick's experience with comparative submission rates is any guide. I think a lot of women — the ones we don't hear from — really are put off by the tone and substance of opinion writing, and we do them a disservice by pretending they don't exist. There are plenty of issues in play here, and we should do our best to honestly identify all of them, not just our own favored subset.
Huh?
A lot of women are put off by the tone of opinion writing?
Apparently Drum doesn't get out much. Or at least doesn't bother to click his mouse to blogs that are written by women. Not only is there provocative opinion writing and biting commentary with original work, there's also outstanding political information and great writing.
Giving Kevin the benefit of the doubt, he probably just wants to understand why there's not more blog writing by women that make the "upper tier" blogs. It's a valid question, I suppose. But maybe Kevin could jump start things by making it a point to really take a look at what these women are writing and then LINKING IT TO IT.
Posted by Carla at 11:26 AM |
Friday guilty rock & roll pleasures
Can't think what music to download or search for next? Tired of everything on your playlist? I've had ear flu lately -- can't be satisfied. Go here and click Random Entry.
Maybe you'll get a band you've never heard of, or forgotten all about. It's good for ideas. I found the Raveonettes this way, for example.
Current favorite band name (though I haven't heard their music yet!): I Can Lick Any SOB In The House.
Posted by Jeff at 06:50 AM |
March 17, 2005
Toasting the inconvenience of liberalism
If you've followed my writing on this blog for any length of time, you probably know that I don't buy into the notion of centrism. In a nutshell, centrism is a moving target. What was once the center of American political ideology is now far to the left. The idea that we must constantly strive for some middle ground that never sets a fixed location is an exercise in futility.
This brings me to a piece today by Rick at Centerfield.
Rick riffs off of a fake DLC letter seen at the Left Coaster. The letter begs Democrats to quit embracing the Theory of Evolution and embrace Intelligent Design..because 19 states are trying to counteract Evolution.
The letter is meant to be a joke. But not for Rick:
Thus, it's pretty clear that the middle ground on God, avoiding the extremes of scriptural literalism and atheism, is where Democrats need to be. In a polarized national election between a biblical literalist and an atheist, the literalist would likely win. That's why an atheist like Ron Reagan has no plans for a political career.
So if this is where the votes are, why shouldn't Democrats embrace the position suggested by the fake DLC letter?
The Discovery Institute's theory of Intelligent Design(ID) is based on a notion of irreducible complexity, postulating a God of the Gaps to produce small miracles in order to allow evolution to go forward. This is certainly a minority view among scientists, and could be seen as an eccentric viewpoint. Even the Discovery Institute recognizes this, so they are currently focusing on critiquing standard evolutionary theory, rather than proposing a positive alternative.
While ID sticks in scientists craws, it wouldn't be so bad if Intelligent Design theory became more popular--if the movement was out of the biblical literalism camp toward Intelligent Design. The toxicity that we see in religion comes primarily from the close attachment to ancient Scriptures. Opposition to homosexuality, for instance, is based on Leviticus, as well as some interpretations of the New Testament. Whether ID is true or not, ID rejects the literal biblical account of creation. Once one rejects the literal truth of one portion of the Bible, one opens up the question of the veracity of every chapter and verse of the Bible. To a biblical literalist, ID could be a step onto the slippery slope toward (gasp!) liberalism.
And thus "centrism" takes another gigantic leap to the right.
The center now includes completely abandoning all notions of actual science to satisfy an electorate that doesn't want to hear about it.
Liberals, progressives and Democrats simply cannot afford to take this route. Why bother to have principles if they're so easily tossed aside to appease an electorate that hates science?
Many who self identify as centrists have claimed that Democrats have had trouble winning national office because they're too far to the left.
First of all..the premise is shaky. Kerry didn't lose in a landslide. He lost by a very narrow margin. And if you discount Texas' gerrymandering, the Democrats would actually have gained a House seat in 2004. Democrats have also gained ground in traditionally red states in the mountain west..most noteably Wyoming, Montana and Colorado. They're hardly on life support.
More importantly, liberals have failed to articulate and support their values. For example: taxes. Taxes aren't government thievery. They're the priviledge we pay for living in the greatest nation on Earth. Social Security: Social Security is an insurance plan..not a Republican Party slush fund. Welfare: Welfare is a safety net to allow those who've fallen on hard times not to fall completely through society's social cracks. Conservatives embrace wars based on lies. Liberals send Americans to die only when it's absolutely necessary, as a last resort.
That is articulating liberal values.
Instead of eroding liberal values and principles to some constantly shifting notion of centrist idealism, liberals must fight for their beliefs.
We don't abandon science because it's all of a sudden become inconvenient.
The same with our values and principles.
Posted by Carla at 04:28 PM |
Mr. Smith goes to Washington
In what is being billed as "an embarrassing setback to President Bush and Republican leaders," the Senate voted to strip all proposed Medicaid cuts from the $2,600,000,000,000 (lotta zeros, huh) budget for next year. Bush was relying on the Medicaid cuts to help reduce the massive federal deficit.
Oregon's own Senator Gordon Smith (R) was the chief sponsor of the amendment, which passed 52-48. It doesn't make up for his support for the grossly anti-family bankruptcy bill or his ideologically-driven quest to ensure increase abortions (even though he opposes abortion...). But, he deserves to be recognized for keeping a semi-pragmatic eye to his own re-election in a Blue State even if it meant going against the wishes of the Republican Party Establishment.
Before anyone cheers too loudly it needs to be noted that the Medicaid cuts can still be revived when the House and Senate try writing a compromise budget next month. And while Smith's amendment cut out $14 billion in proposed Medicaid cuts, the House passed a budget which includes $20 billion in Medicaid cuts.
The reality is that this amendment could have simply been a safe way for Smith to score political points back home while knowing that the GOP-dominated House and Senate likely will try to reinstate the cuts when they meet to hash out a budget.
Posted by Kevin at 12:21 PM |
It's not easy...to be...me
I can't stand to fly
I'm not that naive
I'm just out to find
The better part of me
Shaun at Upper Left wants to find a way to hold lefty bloggers to a standard:
If the lefty blogosphere is ever going to become the kind of sound machine that can beat back the wingnut echo chamber, that kind of simple, consistent message is what we need, and our Congressional leadership, is where it should come from. I know that will sound unacceptably 'top-down' to some, but we expect the members of the Congressional bodies to observe some level of Party discipline on principle issues. Why should the grassroots be held to a lower standard?
Shaun makes a valid point about the need for netroots to become a strong and vocal sound machine. I also think bloggers can take cues from a Congressional leadership that pulls it's members together in unison, articulating liberal values and ideas.
But I think Shaun is wrong about having such expectations for bloggers. First of all, most bloggers aren't paid for what they do. In fact, most bloggers pay for their own domain and blog upkeep. Second, most of us have a real job outside of blogging that takes up the majority of our time (nevermind parenting and other community based activities).
Trying to force bloggers under these circumstances to adhere to a standard is like herding cats. Then add to the mix that you're talking about lefties...and you're going to start running into antiauthoritarian streaks (like me, for instance).
I think the better way to work with lefty bloggers is to have resources available to them. The DCCC, DSCC and DNC should have a blogger liason in each of their offices. This person could be responsible for disseminating information to the email boxes of willing bloggers, for example.
But first things, first. The Democratic Congressional leadership can't even hold their own fractured group together and speak with a united voice that articulates the values and ideas of the left. Until that's sorted out..having resources for bloggers to articulate these ideas can't work.
Another thing...I blog because I like to write. I do it for my own pleasure. It's helped me to discover and explore aspects of my own belief system. I don't consider what I do part of a larger echo chamber. Even though I've done a few things that have probably assisted the left at a more local level...in the end this writing is about what energizes and works for me.
I can't imagine I'm the only one that feels this way.
Posted by Carla at 06:47 AM |
March 16, 2005
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.--George Santayana
Earlier today on American Street, I commented that one of the reasons so many Americans have such disjointed and misinformed views on the state of our nation and the direction it's going is due to a fundamental lack of solid history teaching in school.
Today on The Wide Awakes, I read a comment that proves my point:
I must disagree. The founding fathers believed that voting should go to those that have knowledge of the issues and have a vested interest in the country. That is why those that were allowed to vote were those that owned property.
Actually, Thomas Jefferson almost immediately worked to make change in the State of Virginia to cause this notion to change. And some of the founders held the view that only landowners should vote. Some didn't. That's why our systems eventually ended up allowing nonproperty owners to vote.
A more than cursory study of US history yields this knowledge.
They knew that those that did not have a vested interest in the country would utilize their vote for individual gain. And this is what we are seeing today. Those that do not pay income taxes are voting to implement taxes on those that do. Those that are on welfare vote for more entitlements. This is why the founding fathers did not want a DEMOCRACY because democracies fail. That is why they created this REPUBLIC. Allowing everyone to vote is inherently wrong and unfair.
This paragraph assumes that only nonlandowners use their vote for individual gain. Nonsense. There is no evidence that nonlandowners vote any more for individual gain than do landowners. Further, the author provides no evidence whatsoever that those who are on welfare vote for more entitlements. I've never been on welfare. I've never been on food stamps or WIC. But I support and would vote for all of these things.
In other words...the author does what conservatives often do. Lays out premises without bothering to provide evidence that they know what the hell they're talking about.
The idea that allowing everyone to vote is "inherently wrong and unfair" appears to be a strictly Republican idea. It would seem to conservatives that policy ownly effects those persons with money in the form of land. This premise is clearly laughable on it's face.
I currently own land. But if I didn't would I be less effected by the war in Iraq? Would I be less effected by the proposals to privatize Social Security? Enviornmental regulations? Of course not. But for many Republicans, it all comes down to the dollar. The rest, as demonstrated by this author, is meaningless.
This is why the teaching of history is so vital. Without that good historical education providing a solid foundation from which to understand where America has been, it's impossible to understand where we should go from here. Why? If we don't understand the mistakes of history, we will repeat them.
Further, using the notion of "original intent" in this instance is flawed. Even if the founders had been of one mind on this, so what? They were of one mind enough to pass the3/5ths Compromise. That wasn't exactly in the spirit of "all men are created equal".
Oppressing those who own no land by not allowing them to vote hearkens back to the days when blacks and women weren't allowed to vote. The policies enacted by elected leaders still effected those blacks and those women. But they had no say.
When did the Party of Lincoln become the party of oppression?
Posted by Carla at 04:26 PM |
US remains opposed to Iran-India gas pipeline: Rice
Condi didn't have her fingers crossed, or anything? Didn't happen to mention what might happen if Iran were, say, invaded and renamed, er, um, "liberated"?
Guess nobody asked that question. Freedom IS on the march, after all. Sponsored by ExxonMobil!
Posted by Jeff at 12:57 PM |
"You take the carrot, hang it off the end of the stick, like this."
Raise retirement age, Greenspan tells panel:
"Alan Greenspan didn't support any specific legislation, but indicated that there may be little choice but to encourage older Americans to stay in the work force.Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress on Tuesday to consider raising the retirement age to help fix Social Security's funding problems, and he made it clear that benefit cuts should be part of any solution."
Bring the pain, Mr. Greenspan. Oh, that's right, the choices you've helped sell us over the past few years (tax cuts that benefit the richest) have helped lead us to this point -- the "little choice" point. It's a good thing I love my job, I'll be doing it till I drop, apparently. Maybe I should clap louder and pray harder.
Wait, it's... like... a flashback! a wave of nostalgia washing over me...! The Savings and Loan Debacle! ah... those were the days. Dunno what made me think of it. Oh yeah, money mismanagement and manufactured crises.
Social Security can be managed properly, and it should be. But people are making it sound like the money's leaking out all over, and will soon become a flood. Truth is too many people want that money working for them. If there's one thing politicians hate more than the truth, it's money lying around that they can't get their hands on, or revenue streams they can't divert or control.
Both sides, now -- left wing, right wing, it stinks the same to me. Power corrupts. Temptation is too damn strong.
One day soon, a teenage manager at McD's will be overheard: "Keep one hand on your walker while you bag those Happy Meals, you old geezers! Jeez, one more broken hip is all I need this week...!"
Posted by Jeff at 06:08 AM |
March 15, 2005
Smackdown of the week
Some guys just can't win.
Apparently Stefan Sharkansky is one of them.
For the second time, Stefan has been soundly smacked down (pun intended) on an election related challenge.
In February, Sharkansky filed a challenge against Daniel Sosin, who's registered to vote in Washington State.
Sosin is a commissioned officer with the US Public Health Service. Sosin's job is one in which he moves around a great deal. Sosin is currently serving with the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia. TJ at Also Also posted this and one other previous piece about the Sharkansky/Sosin challenge. If you want more background, TJ's got the scoop.
In a move that can only be described as high handedly snotty, Sharkansky challenged Sosin's voter registration and right to vote in the State of Washington because he doesn't maintain a Washington State address.
The finding of fact from King County shows that Sosin maintains a valid Washington State driver's license and isn't registered to vote in DeKalb County, Georgia.
Stefan admitted in the hearing that he knew Sosin wasn't registered to vote in Atlanta. And while Sosin is on long term assignment with the CDC, Washington State law allows for individuals to keep their duly held registration in Washington State while in the civil or military service. Sosin definitely qualifies as civil service.
Sharkansky has better not quit his day job to become an elections attorney. He'll starve to death.
Posted by Carla at 07:45 PM |
Write your own caption
I have a blog post with tons of links that I've been trying to publish this afternoon and it just won't post. We're in the process of moving to a new domain and I think all of the moving is causing issues.
So I'll steal Roxanne's idea.
Write your own caption. Bonus points for noting how the ear seems to be outgrowing the skull.
Yeah..it's cheap and lazy. Welcome to noncerebral Tuesday.
Posted by Carla at 03:56 PM |
"Put me in coach!"
Hi, I'm Jeff. Carla & Kevin invited me. So here I am. I brought my attitude, curiosity, irreverence, and sense of humor. And some queso dip. Everyone dig in.
I would've brought some cannoli for dessert, but now we'll all be unpatriotic if we don't boycott the pasta-eating surrender-monkeys from Italy.
More about me is in the bio. Or at Red Hair Black Leather. Glad to be here!
Posted by Jeff at 12:09 PM |
Search terms that ended at PK
Some interesting and amusing search engine terms that ended up with a visit here in the last 24 hours:
- women's boobies
- Lebanese women are hot
- Mormon birthday greetings
- The Professional Women's Pregnancy Blog
- bilal Western Illinois Fraternity
Posted by Kevin at 01:05 AM |
March 14, 2005
Irate fan gets his comeuppance
I've heard too many stories of irate and immature fans charging onto a playing field to display their childishness to the world by assaulting a referee for making a call they didn't agree with. So it was with great pleasure that I read about a ref fighting back!
A Brazilian football (soccer) ref was attacked by a fan near the end of a game in Brazil yesterday. Reportedly the fan was much larger than the ref. But, the ref didn't take it laying down. Oh no! He fought back. And when the fan decided he'd had enough and ran away the ref chased him down and thrashed his punk ass. Players from both teams at the match had to pull the now pissed off ref off of the stupid fan. Police finally intervened and roughly dragged the hapeless fan off to an unknown fate.
I love it! The fan got exactly what he deserved! Kudos to the ref for standing his ground.
Posted by Kevin at 05:57 PM |
CA Gay Marriage Ban unconstitutional
In a blow to equal rights haters everywhere, a California judge has found that state's gay marriage ban unconstitutional:
In the eagerly awaited opinion likely to be appealed to the state's highest court, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said that withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians is unconstitutional.
"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," Kramer wrote.
The judge wrote that the state's historical definition of marriage, by itself, cannot justify the denial of equal protection for gays and lesbians.
"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply becaus