Remember The Guardian's Operation Clark County from last autumn? You know, the project wherein they invaded the voter rolls from Clark County, Ohio and asked people from all over the world to write a letter to one voter, encouraging them to get out and vote? Because the American election really and truly affected everyone in the world, not just Americans! Hence they felt they had the right to butt into our electoral processes. Remember that?

Well, payback is, indeed, a bitch.

{Insert much mirth here}

Posted by: Kathy at 12:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

Courtesy of Sully, we have this lovely little ditty.

Republican Alabama lawmaker Gerald Allen says homosexuality is an unacceptable lifestyle. As CBS News Correspondent Mark Strassmann reports, under his bill, public school libraries could no longer buy new copies of plays or books by gay authors, or about gay characters.

"I don't look at it as censorship," says State Representative Gerald Allen. "I look at it as protecting the hearts and souls and minds of our children."

Books by any gay author would have to go: Tennessee Williams, Truman Capote and Gore Vidal. Alice Walker's novel "The Color Purple" has lesbian characters.

Allen originally wanted to ban even some Shakespeare. After criticism, he narrowed his bill to exempt the classics, although he still can't define what a classic is. Also exempted now Alabama's public and college libraries.{...}

To put it mildly, I despise people who wound ban books because something about a particular book disagrees with their worldview. It is the most cowardly, chickenshitted thing someone could do, in my humble opinion. One suspects that I'm not the only person who feels this way. But am I? In this particular case one would think that there would be a few courageous souls in the Alabama legislature who would show up to decry this action, just on the principle of the thing, even if their worldview agreed with that of the would-be banner.

Apparently not.

Editor's Note: When the time for the vote in the legislature came there were not enough state legislators present for the vote, so the measure died automatically.

{emphasis mine}

They didn't have a quorum. That's why this bill died. Not because anyone had the guts to stand up and decry book banning, but rather because this was the solution that, I suspect, would ruffle the least amount of feathers.

Chickenshits.

I do not know why I feel compelled to state this time and again, but I'm going to do it again, so LISTEN THE FUCK UP because it gets very tiresome repeating oneself.

Ahem.

Book banning is wrong. It is not what America is about. If you disagree with an author, or the ideas they've presented in a book, DON'T READ THE DAMN THING! But do not under any circumstances think you have the right to tell other people what they should or should not read. That's not your job. You are not allowed to tell people that. People have their own brains. They are allowed to feed their gray matter what they would. If they choose to read something you would disagree with, it is not your job or your right to become their mother and to say they shouldn't have access to that particular book.

Think I'm flying off the handle here? That I'm overreacting to what is, in all reality, a very small thing? Well, I'm not.

Would you like to know what the most frequently challenged books were in 2004? Go here.

Note that on that list is one of Maurice---Where the Wild Things Are---Sendak's books. The former poet laureate of the United States, Maya Angelou's I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings is on that list. Dav Pilkey's marvelously funny Captain Underpants series is on that list. Of Mice and Men, an American classic, by John Steinbeck is on that list. These are not books that are "out there." These are mainstream authors, whose works some idiot considers to be "dangerous" and "inappropriate."

If you want to be even more shocked, go and peruse the list of the 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books, 1990-2000 . Take a peek at some of the books on that list. I'm sure you've read a few. Probably in high school, when it seems everyone is subjected to Flowers For Algernon and The Catcher in the Rye. Take a hard, extensive look at that list and know that some people are afraid and scared by some books that are considered to be classics of American literature. Know that some people are offended by To Kill a Mockingbird or The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. These people don't like the ideas presented in these books. Then realize that since they didn't care for them, they don't think you should care for them either. Instead of being rational about it and agreeing to disagree, instead of saying "to each their own," their answer to the problem is to work toward outright banning of said books. In the process they would impose their thoughts and beliefs upon you.

It's cowardly in the extreme to not let someone make up their own mind about something. It signals that you have so little faith in the merits of your own argument that instead of encouraging debate, and bringing someone over to your side of the argument, you would repress opposing arguments altogether.

It is the equivalent of covering your ears and screaming, "LALALLAALALAICANT'HEARYOULALALALALAALALAICAN'THEARYOU!"

That, most assuredly, is not what America is about.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:52 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 822 words, total size 5 kb.

Quite interesting indeed.

But most likely false and is someone's whim to get people to watch the press conference.

{Hat Tip: STEEEEEEVE-O}

Posted by: Kathy at 05:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

Denny Hastert just hung DeLay out to dry.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:50 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

Robbo has a thoughtful post about the Minutemen Project.

Just to throw in my two cents: I think this whole thing is an accident waiting to happen. Sure they're just watching the border. They're not doing anything illegal. They're just making sure that the government is doing what they've promised. I buy that argument and I have no hassles with it. But all it's going to take is for one person to cross the line from watching to acting and kablooie! There's some line about good intentions paving the road to hell, right? I'm not goofing that one, right? I've been nervy about this "project" since it started and I'll be glad when it's over. I'm glad to see that nothing untoward has happened, but it could. The situation just reeks of a search for trouble. more...

Posted by: Kathy at 02:25 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1513 words, total size 9 kb.

And I quote:

"What I want is the full filibuster treatment: the whole Mr. Smith Goes to Washington kit and caboodle treatment."

I would have to agree with her on this one. I think it's wrong, wrong, wrong to mess with procedural rules that were put in place for a reason. As someone who is a big fan of the more arcane portions of procedural rules and who adores Robert's Rules of Order I have to applaud Frist for being very clever in attempting to work his way around the procedural rules, and for actually doing something about getting these nominees confirmed. Yet, it's nonetheless a violation of democracy. The filibuster is there for a reason. Just because you don't have the votes to overcome it doesn't mean you should get rid of it because it's more expedient that having to, you know, actually convince people to come over to your side of the argument.

Besides, when was the last time anyone actually filibustered a bill? I honestly can't remember. But, to my mind, it's always the threat of the filibuster that stops legislation dead in its tracks. If you don't have the votes to break a threatened filibuster, well, that's the end of that, and no one actually has to stand out there on the senate floor and talk until they drop. Call their bluff: make the Democrats follow through. I, like Fausta, would love to see it. The bit about Teddy Kennedy being bloated---read hungover---on the senate floor at three a.m. sounds like something I'd want to watch.

But Frist doesn't want to do that. He wants to shoot past it entirely, and he's dragging the Vice President into the fray. It behooves me to mention that he shouldn't act surprised and outraged when this comes back to bite him on the behind. Because it will. If you don't think the next time the Democrats are in power and won't attempt the same sort of stunt, you're nuts. In fact, I'm sure more than a few of them are sitting in their offices saying to themselves, "Gee, I wish we would have thought of that."

I didn't vote Republican so that we could gain control of the senate and weasel past rules that have been in place for hundreds of years. Frist, ultimately, is trying to make a small majority worth more than it actually is. That I can understand why he's doing it and sympathize with his frustrations nonetheless doesn't make it right.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:53 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 424 words, total size 3 kb.

I'm assuming your local news station did a "I'm FREAKING OUT ABOUT THIS" story tonight like mine did. You know, the one where the five-year-old got arrested for throwing a temper tantrum.

Well, if you're interested, there's a whole lot more video than what they showed on the news.

To watch the respective videos first go here for the classroom video and here for the office video.

That's what people call a temper tantrum these days? That is not a temper tantrum. That is what is called willful behavior. There's a difference. The word "tantrum" implies that there is no way the kid is coming out of it; that the child is uncontrollable/inconsolable/dangerous to themselves and others. I've seen and dealt with many kids who were in a full-blown tantrum. This kid was not in a tantrum. A tantrum involves incessant screaming, crying, kicking, more screaming, biting, hitting, more kicking, more screaming, more hitting. They are in the throes of an epically proportioned meltdown.

This child was controllable. Every time it seemed like she was being ignored, the child acted up. She pulled things off the wall when she realized someone would be upset if she did. She deliberately climbed up on that table after being told not to. Why? Because she was told not to. She was simply being willful. She thought she could win, and she proved it by doing it even though she was rebuffed once. The Vice Principal and teacher just did not have the means to control her. Why? They couldn't touch her for fear of a lawsuit. You'll notice the only time the Vice Principal touched her was when the little girl was in danger of harming herself. As Robbo points out, seither did the Vice Principal inject a little force into the tone she employed. Apparently, they're not even allowed to threaten the little buggers with adverse consequences.

Given that the school's staff was completely hamstrung by regulations, I can't blame those teachers for calling the campus cops. While one wonders why they have cops at the campus of an Elementary School, they were nonetheless the proper people to call. Unfortunately, they're being sued right now because they placed the girl in cuffs, which is a measure police generally use to subdue criminals, but is also a protective measure meant to ensure the officers aren't harmed. I don't honestly think they had any other choice, given that the girl had been kicking and screaming. You'll note how quickly she sat down and started behaving herself when she learned policemen were on the way. You'll also note that the police officer asked her if she remembered him and did she remember that he'd told her mother that the next time he'd put her in cuffs?

Why would a five-year-old be chummy with a police officer? Why would that threat be the only one this little girl would listen to? Makes a person wonder about that child's home life, doesn't it?

It seems as if the policeman was the only person who was willing to put his money where his mouth was about actions and consequences. His department doesn't deserve to be sued because he was doing his job. One can only hope this makes her straighten up and fly right. I don't think it will, considering her mother is suing the cops, and she's bound to learn the wrong lesson from that action, but one can hope.

{Hat Tip: Robbo and Wizbang}

Posted by: Kathy at 12:05 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 586 words, total size 4 kb.

The EU Constitution is coming up for referendum in France and I'm just loving the news that's coming out of there: the opposition to the constitution is actually ahead in recent polls. This in France. Where the governement is a pack of proverbial EU-huggers.

{Insert snorts of glee here}

Scott over at The Daily Ablution has been wandering around the country this week and has some interesting insights. You can find them here and here.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:43 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

He wouldn't put up with this stuff. I can tell you that for nothing.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Amtrak suspended its high-speed Acela Express trains between Washington and Boston on Friday because of cracks found in hundreds of brake discs and said it may not have full service restored for two months.

In a potentially serious setback for the passenger railroad that is fighting to survive threatened cuts in government aid, an inspection turned up 300 cracked brake rotors out of 1,440 installed on Amtrak's 20 Acela trains, the company said.

Amtrak Chief Operating Officer Bill Crosbie said it could take up to two months to get all the trains back on the rails. He said the process of phasing the trains back into service would not begin until Wednesday at the earliest. He had no timetable for when repairs would begin.

"Acela Express will return to service only when it is safe to operate," Crosbie told a news conference. {...}

Can we all admit one thing? Amtrak needs to be privatized and it needs to happen now. Because I, for one, am sick and tired of paying for it.

According to the article Amtrak received $1.2 billion for this year from the federal government. And they're having to shut their baby down because of shoddy brakes. How much more is this going to put them in the hole? How quickly are they going to go begging to Uncle Sam? Bleh. On today of all days, when most people have to hand over large chunks of their income to the government, it's about time to recognize the fact that government ownership and operation of Amtrak is just not working out and it needs to be sold off, part and parcel, to someone who wants to buy it and run it profitably.

Perhaps Richard Branson would be interested.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 318 words, total size 2 kb.

As in, "You've got to be fuckin' kidding me."

WASHINGTON - Starting Thursday, air travelers will have to leave their lighters at home. Unlike guns, knives and other dangerous items that a passenger cannot carry aboard but may stow in checked bags, lighters are banned everywhere on a plane.

The rule change is expected to produce a large number of seizures of lighters even though airports, airlines and the government have been telling travelers for the past 45 days about the impending ban{...}

The reason behind this is pretty simple: they don't want anyone starting any fires on planes. Well, ok, but guess what?

{...} The ban does not include matches. Passengers still may carry aboard a plane up to four books of safety matches. Not allowed on planes are "strike anywhere" matches, which can be struck using any abrasive surface.{...}

Oh, good God, people.

You can't take a lighter on a plane because we can detect those, there being little metal parts in them that a metal detector will catch. But bring all the matches you want, because there's no way in hell that we can detect those, so they're a lost cause. (Are you reading this, Mom? Don't bring your lighter with you the next time you fly or they'll hoark it.) When I just mentioned this to the husband, he felt the need to inform me that the reason they're actually doing this is because with a lighter you have a flammable fluid (an explosive) under pressure and it could be used as a bomb. Well, ok, but if it's such a problem, such a threat, why did it take them three and a half years to ban lighters? Why, If lighters in checked-baggage have been banned for years because of the dangers to the cargo hold, have you been able to keep your cigar lighter in your suitcase and no one's given a rat's ass about it? Why hasn't that nice Colibri been confiscated before now?

{Insert slamming of head on desk here}

I believe it's time to ask this question: do you feel safer flying since all of these post-9/11 changes have been introduced?

Because I don't.

While I do believe airport security needed to be tightened up, I believe the TSA is now just going through the motions. They're doing stuff for the sake of doing stuff. They're trying to give the appearance of security, where none is going to be found in actuality. I don't feel one iota safer because they're x-raying my shoes, confiscating nail clippers, or feeling me up when I forget and wear an underwire bra instead of the sports bra. I will also say that I REALLY don't feel any safer because they let the first class/business class passengers skip to the head of the security lines because I've seen what happens when they go through the metal detector, and, just in my humble experience, they're not subjected to anywhere near the level of scrutiny that I have to go through as a coach passenger. They're whisked through as quickly as possible, because God help the TSA officer that doesn't allow them to get to their flight on time. They paid more for their ticket; they're special.

Does any of this make you feel safer? Does it make you feel as if there will never be another 9/11? Do you whistle your way through security, secure in the notion that this increased scrutiny is preventing another horrible terrorist incident? Or do you feel as if it could happen because the TSA employees are a. Union workers and b. even if they do care, still miss quite a bit because everything has to be scrutinized to the utmost?

There is something to be said for deterrence. All of this increased security is supposed to be a deterrant from someone attempting another 9/11. Do you think any of this is actually going to deter a terrorist? Or do you think they'll just be cleverer in the future and that we should be paying attention to that instead of banning cigarette lighters? Because you know someone out there will come up with a cigarette lighter that is undetectable. They've done it with knives and guns. Why not with cigarette lighters?

Throw your thoughts in the comments.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:06 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 716 words, total size 4 kb.

Not everyone's reading Sully these days, so I thought I'd pass this one along, since he's made a rather surprising admission:

IRAQ: It behooves me to write that I'm chastened - and extremely heartened - by the progress we're making in Iraq. The elections were obviously the key - and they should have been scheduled at least a year before they were. But it's equally true that the constancy of our amazing troops, and the magic of democracy, are turning this long hard slog into a long hard slog with an end in sight. The criticisms of the past endure. But the fundamental objective seems to be within sight. The right decision - to remove Saddam - is no longer being stymied by wrong decisions. I feared the worst. I was wrong.

Did you get that? He said he was wrong about Iraq.

Jesus Christ on a piece of toast!

Say what you will about the man, but I find this action very, very classy.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:16 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Errrrrm....yeah. I suppose he felt compelled to put in that little snit about how the elections should have been held a year ago in order to retire from the field with dignity. I wonder what his reaction would have been if we had rushed things and made a pig's breakfast of it all. I've always approached the issue with the idea that the Administration was making a good faith effort to reach that light at the end of the tunnel all along and that, unlike Sully and his ilk, it understood that war and its aftermath are messy, unpredictable things that require patience as much as any other virtue. What would really be gob-smacking is if Sully actually confessed that maybe Dubya and Company are not such complete morons after all and that we are seeing the results we are because of their efforts, not in spite of them.

Posted by: Robert the Llama Butcher at April 12, 2005 01:26 PM (XBUdh)

2 I know what you mean about the little snit, but on the whole, I was surprised as all hell that he even brought the topic up after so much radio-silence. Good points.

Posted by: Kathy at April 12, 2005 01:28 PM (RFVZA)

3 No, I agree. That is surprising. I like to think it means there is hope for the guy.

Posted by: Robert the LB at April 12, 2005 02:07 PM (XBUdh)

4 I got that

Posted by: Kathy at April 12, 2005 02:21 PM (RFVZA)

5 Wow. And, when I have nothing of intelligence to insert into a discussion, I will almost always drag the commentary into the gutter. I see what you've done there with your post title. I like it. See? I really AM just kidding. I know I am the one to blame for my perceived Internet Blondness. It's a habit I've had all my life.

Posted by: Margi at April 12, 2005 02:23 PM (lWAiX)

6 It takes alot for a person to admit it when they're wrong. I give him credit!

Posted by: The Wizard at April 12, 2005 06:01 PM (iczWB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

According to Olivier Guitta it seems there's not much of that going on in France currently.

Some choice excerpts from his article.

{...}On March 8, tens of thousands of high school students marched through central Paris to protest education reforms announced by the government. Repeatedly, peaceful demonstrators were attacked by bands of black and Arab youths--about 1,000 in all, according to police estimates. The eyewitness accounts of victims, teachers, and most interestingly the attackers themselves gathered by the left-wing daily Le Monde confirm the motivation: racism.

Some of the attackers openly expressed their hatred of "little French people." One 18-year-old named Heikel, a dual citizen of France and Tunisia, was proud of his actions. He explained that he had joined in just to "beat people up," especially "little Frenchmen who look like victims." He added with a satisfied smile that he had "a pleasant memory" of repeatedly kicking a student, already defenseless on the ground.

{...}By coincidence, last week the French government's human rights commission delivered to Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin its 2004 report on racism and anti-Semitism in France. The report underscores a worrisome pattern of retreat into separate ethnic communities. And the evidence of hostility is sobering: The number of violent acts and threats nearly doubled, from 833 in 2003 to a record 1,565 in 2004. Of these, 62 percent were
directed against Jews, who make up just 1 percent of France's population.

{...}Obin discusses the attitudes of Muslim students, some as young as first graders. He reports, for instance, that Muslim students, asked their nationality, answer, "Muslim." When they are told that this is not a nationality and they are French, some insist that they can't be French since they are Muslim. This should come as no surprise. The presidential commission that examined the issue of secularism in 2003 reported that "extremist groups are working to test the Republic's strength and push some young people to reject France and her values."

{emphasis mine}

Go read the whole thing.

There is much at stake here. It seems as if the French are perhaps awakening to this problem, but I don't think the measures they're taking are strong enough to stop it completely. They need a better reporting system, first off, but there is still much they could do. They're still in pc/appeasement mode. Which is ironic, don't you think, considering how willing they are to put themselves on the line when they feel their culture and language is under attack by the English-speaking hordes?

Posted by: Kathy at 04:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 418 words, total size 3 kb.