A ReminderWhy Abortion Must Remain Legal

With a new Supreme Court nominee on the docket, it seems like a good time to revisit a post I made last March. Because this matters...


Warning: This post contains an image that is very graphic and disturbing. It's barely suitable viewing for adults, much less children. Please proceed with caution.

I just read an article NTodd wrote over at redandblue.net, where he made some great points. I will give a companion rant here:

The anti-abortion forces like to think they will create this utopian world where abortions never happen, but even Walter Mitty wasn't that deluded. Worse, they would have you believe that they want to save lives. They're a bunch of liars. One case would prove it.

To paraphrase from Life and Liberty for Women (a very kick-ass website) via Ms. Magazine:

Back in 1964, those "good" old days before Roe v. Wade, Gerri Santoro was the mother of two daughters, and recently estranged from her abusive husband. For whatever reason, Gerri met another man, Clyde Dixon, and (gasp!) had sex with him. She became pregnant. Fearful of what her husband would do to her if he returned to town and learned she was pregnant by another man, Gerry and Clyde decided that they had to terminate the pregnancy. By any means necessary. Of course, they couldn't afford to pay off some doctor in a nice hospital to do a purported D&C, as rich women could back then. Or hop on a plane and go to Mexico. Apparently, they couldn't afford even a back-alley abortionist (what--abortion being illegal didn't stop people from performing abortions???). No, these people were so poor, and so desperate, that they decided to do what far too many people in like circumstances saw as the only way. They decided to perform the abortion themselves. And they agonized over this decision so long, that Gerri was 6 1/2 months pregnant when they decided to take matters into their own hands.

Dixon acquired a medical book and equipment. They got a motel room, and he attempted to operate on her there. As expected, everything went completely wrong. Very quickly. Realizing he had made a mistake, realizing what could happen to him if he were there when Gerri died, Dixon fled the scene. She tried to stop the hemorraghing, but nothing worked. Here is how Gerri Santoro's life ended:



Yeah, that's caring about the sanctity of life. That's saving the unborn. How many lives were saved that day? I'll give the anti-abortionists a hint: - 2. That's a minus sign out there in front. Meaning less than zero. Not having access to safe, legal abortions took two lives that day, rather than the only one the anti-abortionists care about. An unborn child and the mother of two living children were both dead. And this is what the anti-abortionists want us to see again.

Gerri Santoro isn't an anomaly from the illegal abortion days. She happened all the time. I defy anyone reading this to see if he can find a septic ward in a big-city hospital today (good luck). Ask any of the nurses or doctors still practicing from those days about those chambers of horrors. They can tell things that will make anybody want to find a rope for Ralph Reed, pronto. My mother is one of those who was there, working the septic wards. She LOVES to tell you anti-abortionists ALL about them.

"But people will adopt!" the anti-abortionists cry. Uh huh. We used to have lots of places known as orphanages. Forgot about those, didn't you, anti-abortionists? Where do the anti-abortionists think those kids came from to fill them up, huh? Orphanages are still around, but they certainly aren't as prevalent as they were in 1964. On a wintery day in 1979, my mother drove me past the largest orphanage in Dallas, almost deserted by then, and she told me that there used to be children playing everywhere, children who weren't wanted, weren't loved, but places like that were already becoming a thing of the past. And maybe that was a good thing. I have never forgotten that moment, nor what she was trying to teach me.

Mothers dying (along with their unborn children), septic wards, and overflowing orphanages are what we face if abortion becomes illegal again. We cannot save people from themselves when lust overtakes them, but we don't have to compound that mistake with more Gerri Santoros. The process is so simple, but nobody on the anti-abortion side is willing to heed it:

1) This one will surprise the anti-abortionists for being my first recommendation, but I sincerely believe in it: Have family-friendly policies and economic opportunity for all that makes having a child an attractive option. Hint to the anti-abortionists: Your "allies" in the Republican party aren't doing those things. Quite the opposite.

2) Give people access to realistic sex education and safe, inexpensive birth control.

3) Understand that NO birth control method is 100% effective, not even abstinence. What, rapists or pedophiles CARE if a female intends to wait until she's married to have sex? They care if you, anti-abortionist female, choose to have sex only when you want to reproduce? GROW UP.

4) Since no birth control method is 100%, make sure abortion is safe and legal.

5) Get over the fact that women have sex, married or not, which is the crux of this issue. George Carlin was right: It's not about saving lives; it's about controlling women. And if they're stupid and get pregnant, forcing them to have a child is not an acceptable punishment. Do we really want people thinking that children are a punishment, when children deserve so much more?

If we do all of these things, abortions still won't go away, but we won't have so many of them. Even if we do have some despite all those measures, at least we are far less likely to face another Gerri Santoro. Does anyone here want to be her children? Her partner? Or how about her mother:




I doubt if Gerri's mom is still around, but, if she is, I'd like for you anti-abortionists to tell her that her daughter didn't deserve a safe, legal abortion. Tell her that her daughter didn't have any reason to take the risk she did, when she was certain that her husband would kill her (and her unborn child) anyway. Go ahead. Tell that grieving mother that. I dare you.

Compassionate conservatism, my ass.

The Smackdown of Judas Miller's Martyrdom

For those of us familiar with Judith Miller's WMD reporting, her cries of standing on journalistic principles, of being a martyr for the First Amendment, never rang true. We knew Judy wasn't willing to martyr herself for anything but her own damned skin--and for power. Yet she screamed it, and got a whole bunch of like-minded administration apologists in the press to scream alongside her, a temper tantrum exceeded in its volume only by its silliness.

Thankfully, Patrick Fitzgerald decided to drive this most annoying snake out of the realm, and he did it with one fell swoop in his press conference:

But if you're dealing with a crime and what's different here is the transaction is between a person and a reporter, they're the eyewitness to the crime; if you walk away from that and don't talk to the eyewitness, you are doing a reckless job of either charging someone with a crime that may not turn out to have been committed -- and that frightens me, because there are things that you can learn from a reporter that would show you the crime wasn't committed.

This makes it clear that Judith Miller wasn't called forth to rat out a source. She was called to give the particulars to a crime because she was believed to have witnessed the crime. If Judy had witnessed a murder, would any prosecutor consider her any less required to provide information to establish details of that murder? What's the difference here? Not a damned thing, and all the hissy fits Judy can muster cannot change that fact.

The New York Times and Judith Miller are slime for letting a criminal commit a crime, witnessing it, then doing everything in their power to protect that criminal. That they self-servingly invoked the part of our constiution that grants us our most precious freedom: of speech, expression, religion and the press, makes them evil. But to do it in the name of protecting the government acting against a citizen of this country makes them equally as traitorous as the perpetrators of this crime.

Duly noted for the record of those whose betrayal of the people must never be forgotten.

What's Wrong with Romance Books Today?

I touched on the issue of bodice rippers over the summer, but digging through some old emails in my computer reminded me of a few other points I wanted to make about a literary genre that does a lot of crying about no respect, but precious little analysis about why that is. Rather than considering the validity of allegations of being lightweight prurient fluff, romance fanatics lash out at any and all critics, even those offering constructive criticism. I have so many examples of this, it's not even funny. Let's start with my favorite:

Several years ago, I worked at an online writer's site where members uploaded samples of their work for others to read and review. My job was to analyze every upload to insure it conformed with the site's guidelines. After a while, I could tell whether or not a submission was worth a damn in three paragraphs. Today, I can still decide whether or not to buy a book the same way. But Aquaria the editor never indicated if something were bad, or good. Never, ever. As essentially the editor in that particular section, it would be too easy for my input, good or bad, to be misused, misrepresented or misconstrued. For that reason, Aquaria the submissions editor didn't make a recommendation about moving a comma, despite desperate pleas from many an author for my analysis. It just didn't seem professional for someone in my position to do that (not to mention doing it for one would mean doing it for all, then I'd be cleaning up everyone's messes, AND having to do my normal job too!). However, public professionalism didn't mean I didn't have a stealth identity for the personal me, who would review an occasional submission, for the hell of it. I did. Call it sneaky if you like, but sometimes the temptation to jump into the fray of analysis was overwhelming. I'm weak when the temptation is strong enough, which probably explains all those Scorpio men in my past...

Anyway...

The clearest review in my memory was for an opening chapter to a romance novel. I gave what I believed to be a fair and honest analysis. I tried to be encouraging, but, quite frankly, the piece stunk to the high heavens. The historical details were laughable (example: corsetted heroine flinging furniture around), and the author wanted us to know just how long she spent studying her thesaurus, rather than using the right words she needed to tell her story. Of course, I’m biased as an unapologetic adherent of the George Orwell approach to the craft: Writing isn’t about impressing others with one’s knowledge (or to commit a host of other sins), but communicating a message effectively; ergo, one must use the right words for an audience (the reader), be original, and make some effort not to write anything barbaric to the eye or ear.

What does this have to do with the state of today's romance industry? Plenty. When I posted my review, this author not only attacked me for being "too" honest and “jealous” of her command of the language (SNORT!), but also said I couldn't know what I was talking about because her romance writers’ group had been so supportive of her work. They all thought it showed "tremendous potential" and originality, yadda yadda yadda.

Maybe the plot did have some potential to other readers (it didn’t to me, thanks to her terrible writing), but creative writing isn’t about a good plot. An insiders joke for writers is that there are only ten or twenty basic plots; we just keep reworking them, and, to an extent, this is true. What makes or breaks a story isn’t the story, but its telling. Any competent writers’ group would have addressed this issue. This woman’s compadres instead enabled her incompetence, probably to mask their own.

This isn’t an isolated incident; it took place in an environment that actively fostered it. The romance industry has a plethora of reviewers, fans and writers' "critique" groups that are more concerned with being nice and not hurting anyone's feelings rather than speaking the truth. Some of the books out there are just plain awful, but you wouldn't know it from the reviews and comments any of them make.

One of the worst offenders is Harriet Klausner, Amazon's #1 reviewer. Ms. Klausner doles out 5-star reviews like cocaine at a Hollywood party, and I've seen her rate very few books under 4 stars. Worse, her reviews are a few paragraphs of synopsis, followed by a woefully short paragraph giving a general impression of the book itself. You'll find precious little about character or plot development, setting, atmosphere, conflict, etc. They're amazing for how little analysis goes into them; if I had written a review like hers in high school, my journalism editor would have thrown it out and told me to stop joking around and write the real review.

Anyone who ever tried to speak out about Klausner's incompetence in a romance forum immediately heard howls of dissent. "She's wonderful, what's wrong with you?!" It didn't take long for things to get personal. "You're just jealous of her success!" is a frequent battle cry. Sorry, I'm not jealous of her success--I'm disgusted with it. Klausner is proof that it's not talent, but literary diarrhea, that succeeds (a la Robert Jordan).

It's impossible to like every single book written in a genre. Fans of George R.R. Martin's fantasy novels may or may not like the novels of, say, Marion Zimmer Bradley. Ruth Rendell is adored by some mystery fans and reviled by others. Of course there are die-hard fans in other genres who love everything by their favorite authors and will scream at any slight against said writer. Yet the other genres, by and large, seem able to look their dogs in the face, no matter who wrote them, and call them what they are. Why can't romance?

At the risk of sounding sexist, I believe it has everything to do with the way most women interact in large groups, on the surface. They're nice. They're polite. They don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. They don't like ugliness and conflict. They want to give the impression of being hospitable and inclusive. We were all taught that if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all, at least not in front of a group. And this is where the dark side of women comes into play. You don’t say nasty things about a sister to the group…you do that one on one, A tells B who tells C who tells D, and so on. If you do say it publicly, boy, does that “don’t say anything if you can’t say anything nice” get abandoned faster than a politician’s campaign promises.

Write a review saying that an author has no character development in her book, a weak plot, lousy writing and pathetic dialogue. Go ahead. I dare you. It will get ripped to shreds within two days, followed by your character and motives. And you are out, out, out of the group, for being a traitor to the sisterhood. Boo fucking hoo. I suppose it’s better to belong than to have integrity? Gee, how Republican of them. Irony: A big chunk of romance readers are Republicans. I once saw a forum trashing the ACLU, with all the standard dittohead talking points. Ironic that, because those bitches have no idea that it wasn’t so long ago books less smutty than theirs were banned, and civil rights groups like the ACLU fought for more freedom of speech (and smutty reading), not less. Speaking of warped viewpoints…

Occasionally, a romance reviewer will bite the bullet and say that a book is bad, but if it happens for the right reasons (terrible writing), it needs framing. It’s a weird trait of this industry that the criteria upheld in a bad review are almost always batshit insane. Example: A Romantic Times reviewer once savaged the book Too Hot to Sleep because she thought the hero was "unheroic" and the book had offensive scenes. It turned out the hero's downfall was being a policeman who wasn't investigating a crime--he was just an ordinary cop doing traffic and security details. You know, a REAL cop, which is a no-no in the romance genre. He wasn't a criminal himself, he didn't beat up women or children or suspects, and he had a lovely personality, so the lack of heroism accusation is curious and suspect.

The offensive scenes? The author, Stephanie Bond, committed the sin of writing about something that modern women have been doing since the invention of the phone, but that few romance writers had written about before: Phone sex. And not just any phone sex. In this case, the book started when the heroine input the wrong number to her speed dial setting for her not-so-great boyfriend, wanted to have some fun, hit the speed dial, and started having phone sex with the hero, who was a complete stranger! I call that a truly unique and daring little plot twist. The book wasn't perfect, but it was far better than the one-star review given in this instance. It was stupid to castigate it, just because the reviewer was living in the Dark Ages, sexually. Thankfully, other readers saw the hypocrisy here and, amazingly, protested to the magazine.

The Bond controversy raises another interesting point: The average romance reviewer is leery, if not downright frightened, of brave new ideas, such as phone sex. A writer who is TOO daring, TOO original, is cause for alarm, not celebration. Reviewers are also hypocritical. It's okay for Catherine Coulter to write book after book with a marital rape plot device; it's okay for Susan Johnson to have a hero use knitting needles as a sex toy on the heroine. But phone sex? Oh my goodness gracious, cover the children's eyes! The difference between a Catherine Coulter and a Stephanie Bond? At that point, Bond was still a category writer, and Coulter had crossed over to mainstream. It probably didn't hurt that Coulter had jillions more sales. She MUST know what she's doing, while Stephanie Bond is a hack, right? Believe it or not, this is how too many romance reviewers think (if one can call that thinking).

The Romance industry craves respect. Unfortunately, they paint themselves into a corner by not realizing that what will get that respect is looking at their books and authors honestly AND objectively. I won't even go into the near-incestuous relationships that reviewers have with authors in romance, rather than the invisible wall that needs to separate them. As it is, without honest feedback, romance cannot aspire to more, in a literary sense. The books will never become good enough to win over opponents. Until these problems are resolved, too many readers look at romance and find it lacking.

Hunk Blogging

Could there be any doubt who this week's hunk would be?





Because the sexiest thing a man can be is a straight shooter and it doesn't hurt to be a dedicated public servant. But then, I have a thing for men who serve...me. ;)

Of All the Nerve

Seems the Bushies think that they can turn the Presidential Seal into another flag as Untouchable Holy Icon, and have it be the exclusive property of the government:

WASHINGTON - The White House is not amused by The Onion, a newspaper that often spoofs the Bush administration, and has asked it to stop using the presidential seal on its Web site.

[snip]

With headlines like “Bush To Appoint Someone To Be In Charge Of Country” and “Bush Subconsciously Sizes Up Spain For Invasion,” The Onion is popular with readers looking for a little laughter with their politics.

White House spokesman Trent Duffy said people who work in the executive mansion do have a sense of humor, but not when it comes to breaking regulations.

“When any official sign or seal is being used inappropriately the party is notified,” Duffy said.

“You cannot pick and choose where to enforce that rule. It’s important that the seal or any White House insignia not be used inappropriately,” he said.

[snip]

Scott Dikkers, editor-in-chief of the satirical newspaper, said its lawyer disagrees with the White House assessment.

“I’ve been seeing the presidential seal used in comedy programs most of my life and to my knowledge none of them have been asked not to use it by the White House,” Dikkers said.

“I would advise them to look for that other guy Osama (bin Laden) ... rather than comedians. I don’t think we pose much of a threat,” Dikkers said.

You tell 'em, Dik...kers! MSNBC has a Live Poll about the issue, with 78% (as of this writing) siding with the Onion, and a reminder that there's this thing called the FIrst Amendment.

But I think a stronger case can be made, which is this: These wankers who see the Presidential Seal as some kind of trademark need to remember that the Presidential Seal belongs to WE THE PEOPLE. All of us, not just a select few.

We the People think You the Morons whose salaries we pay need to get off of The Onion's back. Like you need to give The Onion more things to make fun of you about. Sheesh...!

Definitely a Site to Watch:Fitz's Web Site

Lots of goodies in the Legal Proceedings section, including this gem (PDF File):

I. THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER THAT MILLER
BE CONFINED PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1826 SHOULD BE DENIED.

Upon finding Judith Miller in contempt for refusing to comply with a lawful order to provide evidence to a grand jury, this Court ordered that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1826, Miller should be confined until she agrees to comply with the Court’s order. Miller now asks this Court to “reconsider” that order before being confined for even one minute, on the ground that confinement has no realistic possibility of coercing compliance with the Court’s order. Miller argues that her refusal to obey the law is based on a “moral and principled stance” and “beliefs that go to the core of her being” which, she contends, are commonly shared journalistic principles. Motion at 7-8. Coming as it does before she has served any period of confinement, Miller’s motion fails to carry her burden of establishing that the confinement provision of Section 1826 will be ineffective in achieving compliance with this Court’s order.

Hunk Blogging More Takeshi

And what has to be the sexiest picture of a man, ever:



The picture is wonderful enough, the subject sublime, but then there's that "PRADA" stretching across Takeshi's thigh. Dammit to hell, like Daniel Day-Lewis kissing Michelle Pfeiffer's slipper in Age of Innocence, Takeshi and PRADA in the same picture is more sex than the law allows!

I may never cool down from that one...

And I definitely won't cool off from this image, which has pretty much STAYED in my memory banks since seeing House of Flying Daggers:



Hoffa would turn up alive again before I'd come up for air from having that beautiful man tied up and at my mercy!

Arrest Warrant Issued for Tom Delay

Couldn't happen to a viler guy (link in header).

Just seeing the mug shots will be priceless.

Not Again!

Just another example of those smalltown values, I suppose:

Pregnant woman says neighbor is one who slashed her belly to get baby

SEAN D. HAMILL

Associated Press

FORD CITY, Pa. - A head injury clouds her memory, but the woman who nearly had her unborn son sliced from her belly has identified her next-door neighbor as her attacker, authorities say.

Valerie Lynn Oskin, 30, "definitely" remembers being clubbed with a baseball bat by Peggy Jo Conner and then being driven around by her, Armstrong County District Attorney Scott Andreassi said Friday.

Oskin was rescued after a teenager spotted the women, and the baby boy was delivered at a hospital in healthy condition.

I'm trying to understand this psychotic obsession with having a baby--anybody's baby--by any means necessary. Then again, when you inundate women 24/7 with the message that their only use in life is reproducing, that they're nothing if they aren't a mommy, and combine it with a "gimme that it's mine" culture sprinkled with a brutal society, this is what you get.

Welcome to Bizarro World

I'm speechless:

Claims of McCarthyism from DeLay camp
Web Posted: 10/15/2005 12:00 AM CDT

Peggy Fikac
Chief, Express-News Austin Bureau

AUSTIN — Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle's probe of GOP campaign spending was likened to McCarthyism by a lawyer for one of U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay's indicted associates after a Friday court appearance.

Earle would only say the investigation into alleged misuse of corporate contributions is continuing, as DeLay and associates Jim Ellis and John Colyandro fight charges.

Lawyer J.D. Pauerstein of San Antonio, representing Ellis, likened prosecutors to 1950s communist-hunter Joseph McCarthy, saying they haven't produced the list mentioned in indictments as having guided GOP operatives in how to distribute improper donations.

He also criticized them for subpoenaing records that he said include Ellis' daughter's cell phone records.

If It Acts Like a Bully, and Talks Like a Bully...

Catch the quotation here, and then we understand why America has such a bad reputation on the international front these days:

From USA Today:

Rice fails to persuade Russia to move on Iran nuclear program

Barbara Slavin, USA TODAY

MOSCOW — The Bush administration threatened Saturday to take Iran before the United Nations Security Council "at a time of our choosing" if Iran does not return to negotiations over a program that could give it the ability to make nuclear weapons. But Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice failed to gain Russian support for prompt Security Council action, undermining U.S. efforts to put pressure on the Iranian regime.

"At a time of our choosing." Uh huh. I bet Ms. Slavin had to be slapped from italicizing "our" in that one, but those of us without a tin ear got the message loud and clear.

Gee, I wonder why Rice failed to persuade Russia to work with the US on this issue...? Hey, Condi, you're at the State Department now. Surely you've learned something about diplomacy there? You know, speak softly and carry a big stick? No? Then what the blazes are you doing there, girlfriend? Russia ain't Jo-Jo Biden. They won't roll over and die for you, just on your say-so. That was here. You're out there now, and you'd better learn the rules of engagement for this new (and very different) playing field before somebody teaches them to you the hard way. I suggest talking to some of those career "hacks" that your bosses are always ragging on. What you and your handlers probably don't understand is that, unlike all of you window dressings, those folks know what they're doing.

Is This Guy Trying to Fix My Prediction--To Come True???

Yesterday, I wrote this post, about what I believe may be headed our way if America doesn't get its head on right in the foreseeable future.

Later, I went over to Media Matters. And, lo and behold, here comes Neil (Sound like Rush, Look like Turd Blossom) Boortz, to give my scenario a push toward reality:

On the October 14 broadcast of his daily radio show, right-wing radio host Neal Boortz stated that if the country is faced with an impending national disaster, it should make it a higher priority to save rich Americans rather than poor Americans.

An October 13 New York Daily News article spurred Boortz's comments. The front-page story, headlined "Rich Got Terror Tip," reported that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has launched an investigation into whether its officials alerted certain New Yorkers of a terror threat to the city's subway days before the rest of the city learned of the possible plot. According to the article, the probe was launched after the discovery of two emails describing the bombing plot that "had been sent early last week to a select crowd of business and arts executives by New Yorkers who claimed to have close connections to Homeland Security."

After summarizing the story, Boortz responded, "This is as it should be." He went on to imagine a scenario in which the country is forced to "set some priorities" regarding who will be notified of an impending disaster. "We should save the rich people first," Boortz declared. "You know, they're the ones that are responsible for this prosperity." Boortz described the poorest Americans as "a drag on society" and stated that they "don't achieve squat. They sit around all the time waiting for somebody else to take care of them. They have children they can't afford. They're uneducated. They can barely read."

I was so mad about this, I couldn't comment at first. But now I'm calmed down. Now I'll reply civilly:

Thanks for your honesty, Neil. Keep talking (Name duly recorded into register of those who must be punished when the time comes...).

[Just call me Mme. DeFarge. Without the icky ending for her, of course.]

Sick and twisted side note: Has anyone ever heard George Carlin's comedy routine about televising live executions for profit, especially the Guillotine Lotto? Instead of a basket at the bottom, there are five numbered chutes. You have a lottery for which basket the head rolls into, and win exciting prizes. It's French, but with an oh-so-American Twist.

I know, I know...

Caption This

Beam My As..hes Up, Scotty!

How appropriate...

Space date set for Scotty's ashes

Star Trek actor James Doohan, who played Scotty in the series, will have his final wish granted when his ashes are sent into space on 6 December.

Doohan died of Alzheimer's disease and pneumonia in July, aged 85. His ashes will be accompanied by thousands of tributes from fans of the sci-fi show.

"James spent so much time with fans and many want to come to his space blast," a Space Services Inc spokeswoman said.

The firm will fire the ashes into orbit from a California Air Force base.

Scotty was always one of my favorite ST characters. Smart-mouthed and tech-savvy.

Starve 'Em Out...

But who is the "they" that get starved out? Reported from the BBC:

US troops 'starve Iraqi citizens'

A senior United Nations official has accused US-led coalition troops of depriving Iraqi civilians of food and water in breach of humanitarian law.

Human rights investigator Jean Ziegler said they had driven people out of insurgent strongholds that were about to be attacked by cutting supplies.

//snip//

"A drama is taking place in total silence in Iraq, where the coalition's occupying forces are using hunger and deprivation of water as a weapon of war against the civilian population," Mr Ziegler told a press conference.

He said coalition forces were using "starvation of civilians as a method of warfare."

"This is a flagrant violation of international law," he added.

'False allegations'

Mr Ziegler said he understood the "military rationale" when confronting insurgents who do not respect "any law of war".

But he insisted that civilians who could not leave besieged cities and towns for whatever reason should not suffer as a result of this strategy.

Lieutenant Colonel Steve Boylan, a US military spokesman, later rejected the accusations.

"Any allegations of us withholding basic needs from the Iraqi people are false," he said.

Even though some supplies had been delayed during fighting, he argued that "all precautions" were being taken to take care of civilians.

At this point, one doesn't want to believe that American troops would do this, no matter how dire the circumstances might be in Iraq. But it's pathetic that the current adminstration has made a habit of contorting the truth into such convoluted knots that I feel like I must pick apart every word said to figure out what the real truth is. And it's damned exhausting.

What Was That about Tort Reform?

There are advantages to trolling the Guardian site at this hour...

Judge Tosses GOP Claim in Eavesdrop Case

Saturday October 15, 2005 6:16 AM


By BOB LEWIS

Associated Press Writer

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - A federal judge dismissed the state Republican Party's effort to get its former insurer to cover nearly $1 million the party paid to settle a lawsuit over a political eavesdropping scandal.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Dennis W. Dohnal wrote in a 17-page opinion that Union Insurance Co. was not obliged to cover damages arising from crimes GOP officers committed to benefit the party.

In December, the party paid 34 Democratic legislators $750,000 to settle a federal complaint alleging the GOP violated their privacy rights by spying on two conference call discussions of legal strategy in 2002.

The state GOP asked that Union Insurance reimburse it for $200,000 in legal bills in addition to the settlement payment.

Nebraska-based Union refused and asked the judge to dismiss the party's lawsuit.

Well, every now and then the insurance companies fall out of bed with the Republicans. Figures it would be over money.

Suspected All Along

From the Guardian Unlimited:

George Bush told Tony Blair shortly before the invasion of Iraq that he intended to target other countries, including Saudi Arabia, which, he implied, planned to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

Mr Bush said he "wanted to go beyond Iraq in dealing with WMD proliferation, mentioning in particular Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan," according to a note of a telephone conversation between the two men on January 30 2003.

The note is quoted in the US edition, published next week, of Lawless World, America and the Making and Breaking of Global Rules, by the British international lawyer Philippe Sands. The memo was drawn up by one of the prime minister's foreign policy advisers in Downing Street and passed to the Foreign Office, according to Mr Sands.

Is this really a surprise?

It Could Happen Here

A lot of folks think of the above words in relation to Sinclair Lewis's famous work, It Can't Happen Here, in which he proves that a fascist state COULD happen here (we've had this propensity that long). I won't dance around the subject like ole 'Clair did. I believe it can and has happened here.

But I also believe that many elements are falling in place for us to have yet another consequence of this state of affairs. Especially when we consider how heavily armed Americans are. And that state isn't very pretty, either. But it's entirely possible that where we'll ultimately end up will be, not in a holy war, as many have suspected, but in something more secular, more tied to economics and class. My friends, I bring you the French Revolution. Just look at how many of the prime causes (via Wikipedia) we already have in common with that bloodbath:

Causes of the French Revolution include the following:

* Resentment of royal absolutism.

Think, "A dictatorship would be a lot easier--if I was the dictator" GDub, and "I am the federal government" Bugboy, just for starters.

* Resentment of seigneurialism by peasants, wage-earners, and, to a lesser extent, the bourgeoisie

We don't have seigneurialism, per se. But what's the difference, really, between a feudal lord demanding your servitude in exchange for threadbare living conditions, and working for Wal-Mart?

* An unmanageable national debt, both caused by and exacerbating the burden of a grossly inequitable system of taxation.

Well, the debt speaks for itself these days. As for inequitable taxation? How about corporate welfare, top 1% tax cut, estate tax repeal, etc.?

* Bad economical situation, partly because of France's involvement and aid in the American Revolution.

The debt mentioned above caused by a war that really didn't have much to do with us. Iraq, anyone?

* Food scarcity in the months immediately before the revolution.

Food scarcity? Maybe not for enough people now, but energy...? Yep, that's almost equivalent to food problems in this modern life.

* Resentment at noble privilege and dominance in public life by the ambitious professional classes.

It's easy enough to turn over even the gushiest People Magazine reader and find a resentment of how the wealthy flaunt their privilege in the faces of the masses. And if we think of ambitious professional classes as the MSM, especially? Oh yeah, there's some resentment out there. But it's not limited to the MSM, mind you. Lawyers get their share of hate. And Insurance executives. And doctors. And...

* The rise of enlightenment ideals.

We seem to have a rabidly vocal (and heeded) minority who want to take us back to conditions before the enlightenment. But do we really think the enlightenment was embraced by the PTB and its minions any more readily in 1789? The same kinds of assholes who argued against the Enlightenment are arguing against gay marriage and unionized labor now. Meanwhile, the general public, despite itself, was embracing more tolerance, then and now For example: It would have been unthinkinable, even ten years ago, for Time Magazine to have a cover about the openness of out gay teens. But it's here, now. Ce plus change, and all that.

* Influence of the American Revolution.

At first, it seems like this doesn't apply, ironically enough, but the industrialized world today is showing signs of carrying the Enlightenment ideals forward to the next steps. The countries of the European Union are some of the most outspoken advocates for internantional cooperation, and domestic welfare. We have countries in South America tilting left, after decades of American-brokered military juntas and right-wing dictatorships. Plenty of Americans look at Canada and say, "Hey, they have X up there...Why don't we???" So the Enlightenment, in a form is out there.



But I could be off my rocker about all of this...

Sex Toy BloggingGiving It up for Charity Edition

You know, every now and then a toy comes along and you can say, hey, I can have some fun with my favorite slave AND show support for a good cause at the same time! How often does that happen?

In that spirit, I present these:



Granted, the color selection is limited, but, hey, it's still not everyday you can have your slave strutting his support of AIDS research with a red cock-ring. Woo-hoo!

And I'd come up with some causes for the remaining two colors (are there any yet--I'm so out of date with the latest color coding!). Or maybe the company making these could come up with some other colors. Imagine making a statement about breast cancer research by putting a pink one on a well-hung...guy.

Can You Read This Shite?

Ladies and Gentleman, this is the penmanship of the President of the U S of A:



I've known doctors who wrote better.

But I think I've finally deciphered this odd amalgam of half-Arabic scrawls:

Dear Harriett (as in Miers, Bush's personal cheerleader--er, SCOTUS nominee):

Thanks for the card, and a happy 52nd to you.

I appreciate your friendship and candor--never hold back your sage advice.

All my best,

George

P.S. No more public scatology.

WTF? No more public scatology??? Why are good holy rollers--er, fundie wackjobs--er, nice Christian folks discussing no longer engaging (makes one wonder if they ever did engage in it...) in public displays of scat? Pat and Jimbo and the rest of you zealous nuts--er, evangelical leaders, I ask you: Is this anyway for good Christians to behave? No. Don't answer. If this guy sodomized you in Times Square at noon while Harriett led you around on a leash, you'd shout their virtues with a celestial joy that could be heard all the way to the kingdom of your God.

Image via Smokinggun.com

Bush Approval Below 40, once more

This is the current lede over at Eschaton/Atrios, but the numbers aren't a surprise, really. Once the shinola comes off the shit for the normally brain-dead American public, it's hard to put it back on. So who cares about the numbers. I care about what gets done with it, practical bitch that I am.

So this little gem in the article caught my eye:

"'Any way you slice this data, I think these are just terrible sets of numbers,' said Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff."

Yes, they are, Peter (most likely appropriately named). Now my question is: What will the Dems do with them? Start acting like a real opposition party? My guess would be no. Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer know what to do, but the rest of the party? Forget it. Harry Reid and Joe Biden and the rest of those boot-licking asswipes will still wear the Bartcop Pink Tutus, as they have, lo, these many years. They'll hire Bob Shrum and Donna Brazile and Mark Melmann as consultants to yet another crushing defeat, across the board.

You don't see the Republicans giving losers second chances. Ever. Remember Mary Matalin and the 92 Bush re-election bid? How many big campaigns has she been running since then? I'll tell you: NONE. The other side finds another place for their party faithful, but don't put them in charge of the race again. There's a time for second chances, and there's a time for putting a losing manager to pasture. Dems don't seem to understand that this is the difference between winners and losers. But they never seem to learn the lesson. This, my friends, is the hallmark of insanity.

Ronnie Earle about to get "swvbfted"

A saturation ad campaign against Ronnie Earle for pursuing partisan politics...in Austin? There's no depths that these monsters won't lower themselves to, but, this time, they may have misjudged the ad market...just a little.

Wrong town to defend DeLay, after he and his cronies carved up Austin like a Christmas turkey, just to get rid of Lloyd Doggett (which didn't work, btw, although it cost us a lot of other good congress critters, like Ciro Rodriquez). Me, I'd like it if we could have ALL the 2004 congressional elections invalidated in Texas, restore the original court-mandated congressional districts, and let us have another election. But that won't happen.

Rory, let us know how the ads turn out, my fine Austin brother.

Thanks to TPM for the headsup about this one.