But I'm actually going to link to an op-ed in today's Opinion Journal by Richard freakin' Gere.

{...}The cause of Tibet is now at a critical juncture. After decades of diplomatic stalemate, talks began again in 2002 between Beijing and the Dalai Lama's envoy, Lodi Gyari. Mr. Gyari described the latest round of talks last year as the most serious exchange of views so far. As the Dalai Lama has repeatedly stated for decades now, the issue is not Tibetan independence from China but rather genuine Tibetan autonomy within the overall structure of a sovereign but benevolent China. This is not unreasonable or unobtainable. The model of Hong Kong certainly comes to mind.

So now, more than ever, Beijing needs to feel outside pressure if we are to ensure that talks continue. Europe and Washington's most substantial means for pressure is certainly the weapons embargo, which they imposed on China after the Tiananmen Square demonstrations in 1989. Yet the EU is now seriously considering lifting the embargo--it should not. Sixteen years later, China still has not substantively addressed the human rights abuses that led to the embargo, and, in fact, many of those involved in the 1989 demonstrations continue to linger in prison. In Tibet itself, severe restrictions on freedom of expression, association and religion remain in place. This record should not be rewarded with weapons exports.

All the more so since China enacted an anti-secession law providing it with the legal authority to attack Taiwan should it proceed further toward self-rule. The timing of this legislation contains a lesson for the EU. It was unthinkable until now because China lacked the capability to launch an invasion across the 100 miles of the Taiwan Strait. However, Beijing has invested billions of dollars in Russian-made submarines, destroyers and other weapons. Therefore, lifting the embargo could accelerate Beijing's buying spree and enable even greater Chinese aggression.{...}

While I believe it's a naive position to hope and negotiate for an autonomous, yet PRC occupied, Tibet, and it's doomed to failure, Gere makes some very good points about the message the EU would send to the PRC if it lifted its arms embargo.

Now this is one instance where I wouldn't mind him "speaking for the world."

UPDATE: Related like Peking Duck is related to Sweet and Sour Pork:Beautiful Atrocities

Posted by: Kathy at 11:12 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 404 words, total size 3 kb.

Courtesy of Michele, we have a story about the increasing frequency of pharmacist refusals to fill prescriptions they have moral objections to. This could include any number of prescriptions, but for some strange reason seem to focus on birth control, the morning after pills, etc. You know, pills that are prescribed to women.

The money quotes:

{...} "This is a very big issue that's just beginning to surface," said Steven Aden of the Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom in Annandale, Va., which defends pharmacists.

"More and more pharmacists are becoming aware of their right to conscientiously refuse to pass objectionable medications across the counter. We are on the very front edge of a wave that's going to break not too far down the line."

An increasing number of clashes are occurring. Pharmacists often risk dismissal or other disciplinary action to stand up for their beliefs, while shaken teenage girls and women desperately call their doctors, frequently late at night, after being turned away by sometimes-lecturing men and women in white coats.

"There are pharmacists who will only give birth-control pills to a woman if she's married. There are pharmacists who mistakenly believe contraception is a form of abortion and refuse to [dispense] it to anyone," said Adam Sonfield of the Alan Guttmacher Institute in New York, which tracks reproductive issues. "There are even cases of pharmacists holding prescriptions hostage, where they won't even transfer it to another pharmacy when time is of the essence."

{...}"Our group was founded with the idea of returning pharmacy to a healing-only profession. What's been going on is the use of medication to stop human life. That violates the ideal of the Hippocratic Oath that medical practitioners should do no harm," said Karen Brauer, the Pharmacists for Life president, who was fired from a Kmart pharmacy in Delhi, Ohio, for refusing to fill birth-control prescriptions.{...}

I have a few problems with this, the very least of which is that someone in a position of power is trying to push their morals on people who aren't paying to hear them. I mean, honestly. You want a "moral" pharmacist in that you can be reasonably sure they're not part of a meth pipeline, but to deny a woman birth control pills because it goes against your relgious beliefs? Particularly when there are other uses for birth control pills other than contraception? Where the fuck do you get off?

Erm. Let me rephrase that.

To put it mildly, I find this disturbing.

About a year ago, there was much rumbling from the gay community about a bill that was going through the Michigan Legislature. While I have no Lexis/Nexis to go a researching on this particular bill and Google has proved inadequate to the task, the controversy revolved around allowing medical providers to refuse treatment on moral grounds. The gay community was, understandably, upset because if this bill had become law (which I don't believe it did), it would have meant that a doctor who had issues with gay men could, conceivably, throw over their Hippocratic oath and refuse them treatment for HIV/AIDS without facing any legal ramifications. Furthermore, if I'm remembering correctly, this bill would have shielded insurance providers and hospitals as well.

What I found interesting about this whole brouhaha, was the fact that while the gay community was upset about it, everyone seemed to skip right past the somewhat larger issue---strictly in terms of population---of how this would affect women's health. As in birth control, access to abortions, sterilization, hysterectomies, etc. Because, let's face it, while a lot of people have problems with homosexuals, an equal number of people have issues with women having control over their reproductive systems.

This, like I said above, is disturbing. There are two separate issues at play here: one is birth control, the prevention of conception, which some people believe is just as bad as abortion, and there is abortion in itself. The evils associated with the latter, I believe, are what is driving some people to take a hard line stance against all contraception. Which is not very nuanced, if you ask me, and could even be dangerous and deleterious to a woman's health if a prescription for birth control were denied someone who had, say, ovarian cancer, for which birth control pills are prescribed as a part of the treatment. I've read many o' a history of what life used to be like for women before birth control became widely available, and let me tell you, no matter how much I loathe abortion and the culture it has wrought, I just don't want to go back to a time when birth control was not available because someone refuses to distinguish between contraception and abortion.

In case you're wondering what I'm talking about, let me refresh your memory: multiple pregnancies that resulted in more children than a family could feed; women whose life spans were half of what they are now because pregnancy is not kind to a woman's body; high infant mortality rates; high rates of women dying in labor due to complications; unmarried women, panicked at the thought of being pregnant, making an unholy covenant with a back-alley abortion provider and perhaps bleeding to death as a result---ya think there's a counselor available then; women relying upon a set of knitting needles to do the job, etc. This was less than a hundred years ago, yet some portions of our society believe we're past all of this, and that they have a right to deny birth control because they believe contraception is wrong. Furthermore, this notion of "holding a prescription hostage' is even worse. It's telling someone that well, I'm not going to do it for you, and I'm going to prevent anyone else from helping you, too. Because I know what's best for you.

Hmmmmm.

This affects all women. I am not a big fan of NOW and similar organizations, so it bothers me greatly that I'm parroting their line here. That said, they've got a point when it comes to protecting women's reproductive rights. If this becomes a widepread practice, what happens when it transfers to the practice of medicine itself? What happens when, for instance, a Catholic doctor refuses to perform a sterilization on a woman who's had her kids because they claim it's against their beliefs? Or if a woman has a prolapse and would like a hysterectomy because she's in pain? I could go on, but I'm sure you get what I'm driving at. Who has the choice then? You can always find another doctor here in the big city, but what happens if you live in a small town and there's only one doctor available? Or one pharmacist available, for that matter?

It's a extremely slippery slope and one I don't want to find myself sliding down.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:06 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 1142 words, total size 7 kb.

And, boy oh boy, does Tom Delay smell of smoke.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, there's always been trouble in Northern Ireland, but this is trouble of a different sort. The IRA is in trouble with Catholics who might have supported them in the past over the murder of Robert McCartney, a Belfast Catholic who got mouthy with some Provos in a pub and was murdered for his trouble.

His sisters and his fiancee want justice. As was common in the past, the IRA offered to "take care" of matters for the ladies, preferring to keep it on an internal level rather than having the courts interfere. What's surprising is that the ladies refused and have taken the recent shitstorm over the IRA's refusal to disarm/dropping out of the peace process/alleged massive robbery of a Belfast bank to a whole new level.

Fausta has an excellent roundup on the story. Go read.

How this will play out, I have no idea. It should be interesting to watch, though.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:31 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.

Just in case you can't be bothered to scroll down the page to this post, Doug has replied.

When he updates further, as promised, I will link to it.

Posted by: Kathy at 09:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

And then Doug had to go and ruin it by calling me a "moron."

Before I go to bed I thought IÂ’d straighten something out. Those of you who support gay-marriage but are otherwise conservative. YouÂ’re morons.

Whoops! That was inflammatory. Hate to be inflammatory toward those who go along with the same movement that casts defenders of marriage being a man and woman thing as intolerant hate-mongers. No sir. Such folks are like delicate orchids who must be preserved from harsh rhetorical conditions. Moronic orchids to be specific.{...}

An auspicious start. Despite being the moronic, delicate little orchid that I am, I won't take it personally. Orchids are tougher than you think. I've met Doug, albeit briefly, and I know he's actually a nice guy. I'll just assume he means "moron" in a nice way. At least if i'm a "moronic orchid," I'll smell nice, no?

Never mind all of this nonsense about my ability to respect the views of those who believe differently than I do. It's apparently not relevant. I'm a moron because, simply by holding the views that I do, well, I've apparently, lumped myself in with those who would hate the defenders of traditional marriage. This position, of course, is about as nuanced as wanting to ban all defense systems because, perhaps, just perhaps, the proposed missile defense system is currently out of reach of our capabilities.

But I'm sure Doug will give me a fair hearing, right? He is a nice guy. He's all about debate and all of that fun stuff that comes part and parcel with blogging, right?

Well...

{...}Whoops! Look, letÂ’s get through this together. You come forward and explain why every generation that came before you who agreed gay marriage was an oxymoron were stupid, and IÂ’ll Â… well IÂ’ll still call you a moron, but it will draw you out in the open as the egotist you are.{...}

There's not a lot of wiggle room in Doug's statement, is there? I should come forward, state my case as to why every generation that came before me was stupid for not allowing same-sex marriage and then he tells me that it doesn't matter if I make a rational case, because he won't listen. In his opinion, I'll still be a moron---and an egotistical moron to boot! Never mind that I might have different arguments to present in favor of allowing gay marriage. Never mind that I don't really think the generations who came before me were "stupid" in what they believed. Never mind that I can do this respectfully and allow that others believe differently. I'm only allowed to argue that point, and then it shall be declared "MOOT!" in a big, booming Jesse Jackson-ish voice.

Doug's the debate master---he who shall be obeyed.

{...]Folks, not supporting gay marriage doesn’t mean you have to oppress gays or anyone else. It doesn’t mean you hate anyone. All it means is you recognize that there is a reason that every previous generation rejected it – a reason a better than the narcissistic one that presumes every previous generation consisted of benighted bigots, unlike the “flower of morality” that our generation represents.{...}

Surprisingly, Doug, while having no problems with calling me a egotistical moron, wants us to believe that everyone who thinks gay marriage is a bad idea isn't a bigot, or wants to oppress gays. Hmmmm. If you want me to believe that, Doug, it seems to me that tolerance should swing both ways, eh?

But, in fact, I already do believe that. Quite the shocker, I know. Woooh. Hold onto your diapies, babies, it's gonna be a bumpy ride! I don't believe that previous generations were bigoted beyond reason, or that our generation is any better in this respect. But it's not like I'll ever get a chance to explain any of this. Because I'm an egotistical moron who's not worthy of being listened to.

{...}But marriage is about luuuuv. And gay people luuuuuuv each other too, right? Please.{...}

Um, actually gays and lesbians love each other, too. But that's not all marriage is about. It's about finding lifelong companionship---someone to go through the good and bad times with---and it's also about, perhaps, having children and raising a family. I fail to see where those activities are restricted (or should be) to heterosexuals only.

{...}When did public morality get reduced to the level of a seventh grade girl? Marriage is a hell of a lot more than teen-style puppy-love. So what is this marital “love” we’re talking about? Why has it become something that has become cross-culturally, and cross-generationally revered? Why is it something even anti-democratic societies have considered crucial to their civilzations’ sustainability back into ancient days?{...}

In reply, I would ask when did public morality become the equivalent of a fourth grade boy who doesn't pick you for his team because you're different?

{...}We live in a generation that has been raised to think of the very pillars of our society in terms no different than our luxuries.

Marriage? That old thing?! I wish it came in blue. And so now it does.{...}

So, marriage is a pillar of society. Ok, I'll buy that. No problemo. But, if we're talking about "defending" marriage, well, there should be a threat, involved, right? Logic dictates that you don't defend something if there isn't a threat to it. Doug believes that gays and lesbians are a threat to marriage; that it should be defined as being the union between a man and a woman. I can understand that. Marriage, after all, has always been defined as the union between a man and a woman. Why shouldn't it stay the same?

This is all well and good until you take a good hard look at marriage as it exists today---only being available to heterosexuals. And, my friend, I am sad to say this, but marriage is in trouble already, and gays and lesbians are not the ones who are threatening it. They're not responsible for marriage's downfall. It's the stupid heterosexuals who have no respect for the institution itself that are ruining marriage. You know the people I'm talking about right? The people you know who've gotten married and are split up by the next year---and who are allowed to chalk it up as "a mistake." Or the ones who run off to Vegas, get hitched on a whim, and then have it annulled in the morning? Or the ones who get married not because they want a marriage, but rather a wedding? I'm sure you've known a few of these people, as have I. They're everywhere and damned hard to miss.

As far as marriage being "a luxury," well, you're right there. It is a luxury, but this is America, dude. The place where luxuries are necessities, and marriage is afforded to everyone who's heterosexual---no matter how silly they are. And that genie isn't going back into the bottle any time soon, ya dig? As such, why shouldn't marriage be awarded to gays and lesbians? Why shouldn't they be allowed to run off to Vegas on a whim and then get divorced the next morning? After all, you're not about oppressing gays and lesbians, so why shouldn't they have the same rights as heterosexuals?

{...}“Conservative” supporters of gay-marriage like to portray themselves as tolerant and principled. I find them anything but. Their tolerance extends exclusively to the current zeitgeist, much like affirmative-action hiring. Their principles are inarticulate and shifty on this matter. They’re simply followers. People who never bothered to learn the importance of this particular pillar of society, but seize an opportunity to mask their ignorance as being “tolerant” and “progressive.”

Sorry. ItÂ’s just ignorant. And destructive to boot.{...}

My principles as a conservative supporter of gay marriage are anything but shifty. I've had a long time to think about this, being someone who was against gay marriage to begin with. Ah, yes. I used to be just like you, Doug. I was against same-sex marriage. For a very long time. Then I changed my mind, and as such I've had time to hone my arguments. Given that, I don't believe my arguments are inarticulate. Neither am I just a "follower" as this post shows.

As far as your last point: People who never bothered to learn the importance of this particular pillar of society, but seize an opportunity to mask their ignorance as being “tolerant” and “progressive.” I've been married for ten years, Doug. I've been with the husband for thirteen. I'm married to a recovering alcoholic, and was told by many, many people during that span of time that I should have left him because of his disease and the behavior it provoked. Yet, I stuck around. Why? Because I believe in the institution of marriage. I believe in the vows I took on the day we got married. I believe in the until death do us part business that so many ignore nowadays. So don't you dare tell me I haven't "bothered to learn the importance of this particular pillar of society," and that I'm masking my ignorance in an opportunity to be tolerant and progressive. I know more about what marriage entails than most heterosexuals do, given the divorce rate. If I want marriage to be available to gays and lesbians, it's because of my experience, Doug. I know what it's like to be married for ten years. It's not a parade or a bouquet of roses. Marriage is hard, hard work. Given the state that it is currently in, we need more people to promote the true value of marriage. And if a gay or lesbian couple can do that, their sexual orientation then becomes irrelevant.

But that's just my "ignorant," "moronic," "egotistical," opinion that you will declare to be moot, so honestly, what does it matter?

UPDATE: Doug responds and agrees that I kicked his ass. Which is always nice.

I'm all about the gratification, baby.

Anyhoo, he promises to come up with a more cogent argument soon. Which I look forward to reading, because I'm sure he's got something worthwhile to say. Will update further when he gets around to it.

Posted by: Kathy at 05:41 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 1715 words, total size 11 kb.

1 It was really more of a rant than an argument. I was in a mood. Butt-kicking cheerfully accepted. But... I still disagree with your overall conclusion - though we do have some areas of agreement as well. I'll try to write something a bit more temparate later to explain why.

Posted by: Doug at March 16, 2005 01:52 PM (2tOpJ)

2 Holy shit! Nice work. You go girl! --- ML

Posted by: ML in MN at March 16, 2005 02:57 PM (v4PNp)

3 "I fail to see where those activities are restricted (or should be) to heterosexuals only." Kathy, a quick question to your above excerpt. What if three people want to get married? Should those activities be restricted to no more than two? If so, why? If not, why not?

Posted by: Kerry at March 18, 2005 05:40 AM (V0hYn)

4 Kerry: are you trying to set me up here? I've seen this one before. Forgive me if I choose not to fall for it.

Posted by: Kathy at March 18, 2005 11:04 AM (Tosbv)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Not.

Hmmmm. I wonder if Fidel was treated at this hospital when he had his little misstep last fall.

/sarcasm.

{hat tip: INDC Journal}

Posted by: Kathy at 10:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

Fausta has a very interesting piece today, titled Acculturation Is Simply Not Being Bilingual.

{...}The study found that, out of 7270 Latino and white students from 7th to 12th grades,

only 7 percent of students spoke mostly Spanish. Three-quarters of participants had never had sex. The researchers also found that Latino students who mostly spoke English were nearly 70 percent more likely to have sex than white students. However, Spanish-speakers were significantly less likely than white students, bilingual and English-speaking Latino students to say they were having sex.

Besides pointing out that Latino is not a race (Latin America is populated by people of all races), these numbers mean that the 509 children who spoke mostly Spanish were less likely to have sex, and more likely to live healthier lives. The good news is that 5,453 haven't had sex.

{...}The study finds that "less acculturated Latino youth living in the U.S. are generally healthier," and defines acculturation as students who "mostly speak English".

But acculturation is not just language.

{...}Prior generations of immigrants, once they arrived in the USA were taught, by the public schools and by other civic organizations, traditional American values; more specifically, middle-class, Protestant values, within a Judeo-Christian tradition. People learned to read English by reading the King James Bible. The Protestant work ethic was promoted through Horatio Alger stories, and the value of delayed gratification was spoken of. School curricula stressed discipline and the "three R's", and included famous sermons, such as Governor John Winthrop's A Model of Christian Charity. People were taught and encouraged to serve their communities through volunteering, a most American trait. In short, immigrants were directed towards what it meant to live in an American culture; no one assumed that simply knowing the language meant one was acculturated.

Public schools have long since changed, some for the better. Ideally, public schools would teach about the Protestant roots of the American colonies and how that became the basis for the Constitution of the United States; and about the Judeo-Christian tradition and its influence on the Civil Rights movement. But many don't, and controversies on whether the 10 Commandments or the pledge of allegiance have place in the classroom rage all over the land.{...}

Go read the whole thing.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:58 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 379 words, total size 3 kb.

I sincerely hope this passes.

The Kuwaiti parliament is to debate a bill to grant women full political rights, a Kuwaiti minister has said.

Deputy Prime Minister Mohammad Sharar said that legislators would discuss the bill in March.

The measure, which has been approved by the cabinet, will allow women to vote and to stand for election.

Kuwait's Islamist Umma Party has said it backs the move, becoming the first Sunni Muslim group in the emirate to endorse women's suffrage.{...}

Do you think the elections in Iraq---where women had full suffrage---had anything to do with this?

Posted by: Kathy at 10:18 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 98 words, total size 1 kb.

...get thee the hell out of Lebanon.

CAIRO, Egypt - Saudi officials told Syrian President Bashar Assad on Thursday that he must soon begin fully withdrawing troops from Lebanon or face strains in Saudi-Syrian ties, an official said. Assad promised only to study the idea of a partial withdrawal by later this month.

The kingdom took a tough line as Assad met with the Saudi leader, Crown Prince Abdullah, and other officials in Riyadh. The strong language pointed to increasing impatience among Arab leaders with Damascus' resistance to calling a quick pullout.

Saudi officials told Assad the kingdom insists on the full withdrawal of all Syria's 15,000 troops and intelligence forces from Lebanon and wants it to start "soon," a Saudi official said on condition of anonymity.

{...}The Saudis replied that the situation was his problem and warned that if Damascus refuses to comply, it would lead to tensions in Saudi-Syrian ties, the official told The Associated Press, speaking by phone from Riyadh.{...}

I'm trying to think of something witty to say, but damn...I'm coming up empty. I think the story just about says it all.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:32 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 208 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Yeah, the elections in Iraq have stirred the mid-eastern pot. One way or the other change isa comin'. Really like your blog. I'm in Atlanta, GA and will now be going out on the porch in my shirtsleevs ,,,how's the weather in Kathy-land ..?

Posted by: P Mann at March 03, 2005 02:13 PM (f+6vj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

UN Peacekeepers finally used their guns!

UNITED NATIONS - U.N. officials defended peacekeepers who killed up to 60 militiamen in a gunbattle in Congo, saying the international troops were acting in self-defense and protecting civilians who had been terrorized for years.

The high death count and fierce fighting defied the notion that U.N. peacekeepers stick to defense rather than joining the fight. But the Congo mission was given a stronger mandate last year to round up guns and defend the populace.

The 242 Pakistani peacekeepers were on a mission to dismantle a militant headquarters near the village of Loga, in lawless Ituri province in eastern Congo, when they came under fire. They responded with sustained fire that included air support from Indian attack helicopters.

"These militias had been preying on villagers and it was felt it was the U.N.'s role to protect the vulnerable population, and that's what the aim of the mission was," U.N. associate spokesman Stephane Dujarric said. {...}

It's quite surprising that they actually know how to use their firearms at all, because their record in this regard is worse than the French.

And that's saying something.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:21 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 210 words, total size 1 kb.

And it's Another One Bites The Dust.

Go read. Its short. I won't take away from your daily allotment of pron surfing time, I promise.

the part I find particularly interesting is this:

There are two factors. The first is security in Lebanon. The security in Lebanon is much better than before. They have an army, they have a state, they have institutions. The second thing, which is related to Syria, is that after withdrawing we have to protect our border. We need to talk about our borders, because when Israel invaded in 1982, they reached that point. It was very close to Damascus. So we will need [fortifications for the troops] along the border with Lebanon.

It's convenient, isn't it, as to how the reasons for an invasion will change when it's time to withdraw. One of the reasons Syria invaded Lebanon was the premise that Lebanon's instability was threatening Syria's stability. Or so good ol' Hafez Al Asad always claimed. Now it's all about Israel and shoring their borders up against that threat. Hmmmm. Israel's always a convenient place to put the blame, but I don't think that's the threat he's really worried about.

Hmmmmmm. Very very interesting. We shall see if he actually means what he says when it comes to complete troop withdrawals.

{hat tip: Martini Boy}

Posted by: Kathy at 01:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.