Ah, Wednesday, and it̢۪s nice and quiet in Cake Eater land this
morning. No jackhammers, no big machinery ripping up pavement. They got
that done yesterday, and as best I can figure, they̢۪re not going to
do another damn thing for quite some time. Yep. That̢۪s right. It̢۪s
all dirt right nowâ€Â¦and wet dirt, at that, because it finally rained
last night. We̢۪ll see if they actually get the pavement down before
it snows. I don̢۪t have high hopes. I think we̢۪ve been abandoned for
the time being.
--Crazy in Alabama
What is up with the people in this state? Could someone please tell the
residents of Alabama that this sort of crap is the reason why most
people think only Mississippi is more backwater than they are? Please.
I̢۪m begging you. Oh, let̢۪s hold a candlelight vigil at midnight so
that everyone can see how committed we are to fighting for a big stone
edifice carved with the Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn. Better
yet, let̢۪s say a few prayers, because we all know that̢۪s going to
get the ACLU on our side. We̢۪ll pray for their souls, that they might
not burn in hell for being Godless infidels, and that will show how
generous we are. I cannot even wrap my mind around how absolutely,
positively stupid this all is. What is the furor about? According to
Judge Moore, it’s about “â€Â¦the acknowledgement of God.” He elaborated:
``We must acknowledge God because our constitution says our justice
system is established upon God. For (the judge) to say 'I can't say who
God is' is to disestablish the justice system of this state.''
Well, ok. Let̢۪s dissect that statement, shall we? The Judge is
absolutely correct when he makes the claim that our constitution
directs that our justice system is established upon God, or more
correctly, upon Judeo-Christian law. This is easily proven by simply
following the daisy chain of precedent back to England, and Common Law,
which was influenced by the Normans, whose laws were influenced by the
Romans, which, ultimately, was influenced by the Ten Commandments. You
don̢۪t have to be a legal scholar to suss out that the laws that are
on the books currently prohibiting murder, originally came from the Ten
Commandments. The idea of God is inherently implied in the Ten
Commandments. He
gave them to Moses, after all. If the good judge had simply kept to
this argument, like he had in the past, that our law is fundamentally
based upon the Ten Commandments and that he was specifically paying
tribute to that precedent, I don̢۪t think he̢۪d be in as much trouble
as he is. It̢۪s a well documented statement of fact. But he chose to
bring religion into it. Fine. Live by the fiery sword, and chances are
you̢۪ll die by it, too.
Where the Judge errs in his argument is in bringing it into the
courthouse, and ultimately, into his rulings. Because the minute he
makes the decision to say who God is, is not to “disestablish the
justice system of this state,” but rather to make a subjective
decision on the notion of God as ordained by organized religion.
Let̢۪s not give the Judge more credit than he is due. He is not trying
to fight for his beliefs, as he states, but rather is attempting to
decree whose beliefs are right and proper. And while Judeo-Christian
law covers a goodly number of people, it perhaps does not cover
Buddhists, whose traditions are different, especially when it comes to
the death penalty. What about the Hindus? Or the Moonies, if you really
want to go out on a limb. What about animist African religions? The
list could go on. I̢۪m sure the framers of the Constitution, who no
doubt the Judge likes to say were good, God-fearing Christians, never
in their wildest dreams would have thought that we̢۪d have a surge of
immigrants from the far flung corners of the world and whose religious
beliefs were as wildly divergent as Protestant Christianity wasn̢۪t
in that day and age. Let̢۪s have a little reality check here, please.
The Judge, by his own description, is a fundamentalist Christian. He
has stated this more than once and that is fine. I have no issues with
his right to believe whatever he would like to believe. By the
Constitution, that is his right. But when he brings his
notion of who God is and what his standards are, he is subsequently
denying others their right to believe, or not believe as the case may
be, in their own idea of God. And before you object to that statement
and claim the good Judge might actually bring in other religious
traditions into his thinking, I would politely ask you to think again.
Fundamentalist Christians actually believe that they're the only
"right" ones out there. Everyone else is going to hell and they're
going to heaven. I'm not joking, either. They actually believe this,
and if this is what the Judge subscribes to as his idea of God, well,
the rest of us are in trouble, aren't we?
Before you think I̢۪m a card-carrying member of the ACLU, think again.
I̢۪m not. Nor am I an atheist. I̢۪m a Catholic who was educated in
Catholic schools for twelve years and I go to Mass every now and again.
I just simply believe that the majority doesn̢۪t rule in this
circumstance. If you can̢۪t include all religions and their ideas of
God into legal decisions, you shouldn̢۪t be using God in the decision
at all. It̢۪s simple common sense. All or nothing. I would really love
to see Judge Moore bring Catholic or Buddhist beliefs to a debate about
the death penalty, which we all know Alabama is so fond of. It̢۪s
obvious he wouldn̢۪t
bring those beliefs into his rationale because they inherently conflict
with his own, hence rendering his argument about disestablishing the
justice system once you cannot say who God is as moot. The man̢۪s
argument is flimsy and biased. Religion, in any shape or form, has no
business in a courtroom or even on the steps of the courthouse. --Just
admit you had crappy lawyers the first time around and be done with it.

As Sullivan would say, here̢۪s the money quote:
""We cannot accept discrimination between victims of acts of
terrorism," said French Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Cecile Pozzo di
Borgo."

Oh, so that̢۪s what it̢۪s about. It̢۪s about discrimination or being further down the hierarchy of grief than you would like. I get it now. I̢۪m so
much more sympathetic to your actions now. God only knows we wouldn̢۪t
want anyone to feel discriminated against. Cut the crap, lady. It̢۪s
about money. Libya̢۪s wallet is open and you want your fair share.
I̢۪d respect your argument more if it wasn̢۪t sugar coated.
Don̢۪t get me wrong, I am sorry for the victims̢۪ families of the UTA
bombing. My heart bleeds for them. I cannot even begin to imagine what
it would be like to have talked to my spouse before he got on the
plane, to talk about the normal goings on in our lives, and then to
hear on the news that the plane no longer existed, that it was wiped
from human existence because someone had blown it out of the air.
It̢۪s honestly mind-boggling. It̢۪s one of those situations I don̢۪t
think you can truly understand what it̢۪s like until you experience
it. The head whirls with the possibilities and I̢۪m sure anything
I̢۪m thinking of is completely off the mark and nowhere near the
amount of grief these poor people suffered through. That said, however,
whatever happened to self-awareness and taking responsibility for
one̢۪s actions? Should the Libyans be responsible well after the ink
dried on the agreement with the UTA families because they hired lawyers
with no vision? Should they be responsible that the French lawyers
settled too quickly? Is this simply a case of sour grapes wrought
overlarge? I don̢۪t know, and quite frankly the instinct is there to
say, “Go for it. Bleed the Libyans dry.” But would that solve
anything? Is the ten million dollars each Lockerbie family is to
receive going to bring some sense of satisfaction that they made the
Libyans pay for their actions? I don̢۪t think so. Money is a poor
compensation for the loss of a loved one, and anyone who̢۪s ever sued
to make someone pay
could tell you that. You still are going to wake up alone in the
morning. What it boils down to is the UTA families saw the amount of
money the Lockerbie families were getting and said “hey, no fair!”
It̢۪s a confusing situation, to say the least, because who in their
right mind would deny these people extra money when Libya is clearly
buying its way out of troubling sanctions? But, I have to ask, whatever
happened to binding legal agreements? If the agreement the UTA families
signed is remotely close to anything I̢۪ve ever seen, they agreed to
drop their claims “without prejudice,” which means that they
weren̢۪t going to come back and ask for more. They signed away their
rights to ask for more when they put pen and ink to that agreement. I
don̢۪t think the Libyans should be let off the hook here, either, but
let̢۪s be realistic. It̢۪s blackmail, pure and simple, and what̢۪s
to say they won̢۪t come back and ask for more ten years down the road,
the next time Libya does something that warrants attention? It sickens
me that it̢۪s Libya, of all the freaking nations on the planet, that
I̢۪m defending on this matter, but it could just as easily be the
United States, or the UK or, God forbid, the French. They̢۪ve no idea
the can of worms they̢۪re opening by insisting on more money.
--After all that angst up there, you deserve this. Chuckle for the day.
Creativity abounds in campaign financing. I told you the recall was
going to be damn fun, and sure enough, I was right.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1690 words, total size 11 kb.

--This is what happens when you buy one lousy dress from Neiman-Marcus
(now and forever to referred to as Needless-Markup in Cake Eater
lingo). You get on their mailing list and they send you catalog after
catalog full of things you want and want badly but will never be able
to afford while your manuscript remains unsold.
“Autumn,” as that Irish humorist, Marian Keyes, declares, “is the time of new boots.” Amen, sister. Preach it to the choir, anyway, because
we all know Gucci̢۪s buyout of Yves St. Laurent is draining the cash
reserves. Tom Ford needs the money, honestly he does! That evil LVMH
almost sucked him dry during their hostile takeover attempt. The sheer
amount of greenmail they had to buy that horrible Bernard off with is
hurting poor Tomâ€Â¦we MUST help him! If you’re a man, you will
have noticed this trend: women will use almost any excuse to go out and
buy a new pair of shoes. I am, sad to say, one of these women. Sigh. I
love shoes. Always have, always will. I adore the smell of leather. The
complex and intricate stitching causes me to gasp in awe. Cleverly
designed heels make me swoon. And most of all, I love
the feel of sliding on a new pair of leather, high heeled boots and
then zipping them up. An incredible and heady mixture comprised of part
Charlie̢۪s Angels (the original Charlie̢۪s Angels...not
those horrid remakes with those three dimwits) babe who can kick ass
and uber sex kitten pumps through my veins, like a morphine drip whose
lockbox has been broken. Now, just because I wear a pair of Birks or
Merrills most days does not mean I do not have a profound affection for
fancy, designer shoes. It simply means it would be impractical to break
my neck attempting to walk back from the grocery store in three inch
heels. Shoes for women are like men with supermodels. They know a
snowball stands a better chance of surviving hell than they do of
pulling a model. They know they will never have them, but it doesn̢۪t
keep the fools from lusting after those women in the first place.
It̢۪s the same for me and my Prada mules. Riiiiiiaaaaaooow!
What exactly is it about autumn that makes you want to go out and buy
copious amounts of hot shoes? Is it some evil and unholy alliance of
the irrepressible urge to school shop and the need to finally cover up
some of that skin after a whole summer̢۪s worth of bearing it? Is the
modesty factor sexy? I haven̢۪t the foggiest notion, but the ingrained
need to shop for shoes this time of year always tempts me beyond
repair. I have been successful at repressing the need so far, mainly
because I̢۪ve never had the money to do so. All I can say is, God help
me when I do have the spare cash. Object of my current affection
Now, I don̢۪t normally go for animal prints, and this picture
doesn̢۪t do the poor shoes justice, but I really like these, for some
unknown reason. Or
They also have these in a fabulous wine colorâ€Â¦and I would completely
buy them if we had won that $100 million Powerball jackpot yesterday,
and they didn̢۪t have that goddawful Gucci logo on them. I honestly
wish I̢۪d bought one of those handbags emblazoned with the Gucci logo
back in the 1980̢۪s. If I had, I could pull it out now and everyone
would think I
had the newest, latest and greatest design. And while they all tittered
about how to get one just like mine, I could smile smugly and know that
it had been sitting in my closet since 1986. I still have a faux Louis
Vuitton bag my first boyfriend bought me in Manhattan way back in the
dayâ€Â¦maybe I’ll have to pull that out one day and see what everyone
has to say. And then we have the piece de resistance.
“YEAH, BABY!”
--In our traditional bid to beat back the ever present State Fair which
is occurring over in St. Paul as we speak, (Someone just undoubtedly
gagged on a cheese curd. One day, someone will do statistics on this
sort of thing---every five minutes someone chokes at the State Fair.
Mark my words. It̢۪s Minnesota, they study everything here and then
they ban it.) the husband and I went to the Minneapolis Institute of
Arts today to take in some air conditioned culture. We went for this
and were pretty impressed. Romanticism is the movement that directly
precedes Impressionism on that interminable art history spectrum your
teachers were always trying to shove down your throats. The period is
known for its idealism, not only in thought, but it the way the artists
depicted their subjects. It shouldn̢۪t seem so revolutionary to us
that these painters actually—gasp--painted
landscapes that they saw right before them. But it was a revolutionary
idea in those days, and to see it evolve and for the paintings to
gradually grow more realistic, but blurrier was rather interesting.
I̢۪m not going to get into it too much, but if you̢۪ve got an
afternoon to blow in Minneapolis and you want to see some good art, go
and check it out. Delaroche̢۪s The Execution of Lady Jane Grey, and Gericault̢۪s The Raft of the Medusa
are both larger-than-life canvases that take you a good long while to
absorb. And then you could spend another half hour just admiring them.
Oh, and if you get the opportunity, check out Desdemona̢۪s
outstretched arm in Colin̢۪s depiction of her murder by Othello.
It̢۪s freaky and just not humanly possible. But the line and
composition work because of it. Ick. --Oh, Tommy.

“I have no doubt that the U.S. presence in Iraq is attracting all
sorts of terrorists and Islamists to oppose the U.S. I also have no
doubt that politicians and intellectuals in the nearby Arab states are
rooting against America in Iraq because they want Arabs and the world
to believe that the corrupt autocracies that have so long dominated
Arab life, and failed to deliver for their people, are the best anyone
can hope for.
But I totally disagree that this is a sign that everything is going
wrong in Iraq. The truth is exactly the opposite.”

Oh, babyâ€Â¦you know how to get a girl going. Mmmm, hmmm.

“ We are attracting all these opponents to Iraq because they
understand this war is The Big One. They don't believe their own
propaganda. They know this is not a war for oil. They know this is a
war over ideas and values and governance. They know this war is about
Western powers, helped by the U.N., coming into the heart of their
world to promote more decent, open, tolerant, women-friendly,
pluralistic governments by starting with Iraq — a country that
contains all the main strands of the region: Shiites, Sunnis and
Kurds.”

I just love it when you say they don̢۪t believe their own propaganda. It̢۪s making me so hot I can barely stand it!

“You'd think from listening to America's European and Arab critics
that we'd upset some bucolic native culture and natural harmony in
Iraq, as if the Baath Party were some colorful local tribe out of
National Geographic.”

It's the clever man who can make a woman laugh.

“In short, America's opponents know just what's at stake in the
postwar struggle for Iraq, which is why they flock there: beat
America's ideas in Iraq and you beat them out of the whole region; lose
to America there, lose everywhere.”

Oh, honey, I can barely wait for the finale. It̢۪s going to be so satisfying. Can you feel the gooseflesh? Shivers, baby, shivers.

“. . . Your experience in Iraq is going to create two reactions:
one is hypersensitivity, led by the Islamists, and the other is
welcoming, led by the secularists. [But you have to understand] that
what you are doing is a penetration of one culture into another. If you
succeed here, Iraq could change the habits and customs of the people in
the whole area."
God, I just love it when you bring in the anecdotal evidence to back up
your point. God. It̢۪s just so fabulous and your sources are so good.

“â€Â¦The Bush team tells us, rightly, that this nation-building
project is the equivalent of Germany in 1945, and yet, so far, it has
approached the postwar in Iraq as if it's Grenada in 1982.”

Huh? Oh, sweetie, go backâ€Â¦go back. Please, for the love of God, go back!

“We may fail, but not because we have attracted terrorists who
understand what's at stake in Iraq. We may fail because of the utter
incompetence with which the Pentagon leadership has handled the
postwar. (We don't even have enough translators there, let alone
M.P.'s, and the media network we've set up there to talk to Iraqis is
so bad we'd be better off buying ads on Al Jazeera.)”
Well, I can see what you̢۪re saying, darling, honestly I can, but
stillâ€Â¦maybe if you just picked up the manual and read a little
further, we might get somewhere. Yeah, that̢۪s right. It̢۪s in the
nightstandâ€Â¦no, not that oneâ€Â¦the one whose title reads How to Handle the Claims of New York Times Editorial Writers.
Yeah, the one written by Rummy. Now, just open it up to that dog eared
pageâ€Â¦yeah, 267â€Â¦the page that talks about not being a know-it-all. Darling,
please do it for me. Yes, that̢۪s right. You̢۪re a wonderful man. Say
it with me: “The Kurds are more than happy. The Shiites are doing
well. So, we̢۪ve had few issues getting the power running, but people
are able to walk down the street now without fear of being shot for no
good reason other than they were walking. The Majority is happy with
our presence.” Now, say it againâ€Â¦yes, darling. Thank youâ€Â¦I’m
feeling so much better now. Much more lovingâ€Â¦yes, that’s rightâ€Â¦

“We may fail because the Bush team thinks it can fight The Big One
in the Middle East — while cutting taxes at home, shrinking the U.S.
Army, changing the tax code to encourage Americans to buy gas-guzzling
cars that make us more dependent on Mideast oil and by gratuitously
alienating allies.”

You just had to go and ruin it, didn̢۪t you? That̢۪s it. When I said more to the left I meant for you to go to your right. I̢۪ve had it with you. Just get the hell out, would you? You know cheap, left wing rhetoric doesn̢۪t do it for me! Tax cuts? Gratuitously alienating allies? Oh, please. I thought maybe you had something new to add, but apparently I was wrong.

No. No. No, you cannot explain anymore. Just get the hell out.

-- I̢۪m initiating a new award here in Cake Eater land. And we̢۪re going to call it the Sicko Award
for depraved acts of humanity. You need not be Robert Mugabe, Foday
Sankoh, or even Slobodan Milosovic or even Herod to earn it. All you
need to do is have highly questionable motives and an unshakable belief
that you̢۪re really doing the right thing by the citizenry of the
world. And so for our first recipient, we have Agata Siwik. A nice Polish girl who grew up near Auschwitz.

You think selling a key ring emblazoned with the words Arbeit Macht Frei ---with
all the infamous and downright wrong connotations those words
evoke---is honestly going to keep it from happening again? Have you
learned nothing? For shame, woman. For shame!

Posted by: Kathy at 12:08 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1938 words, total size 13 kb.