I read this on Saturday, and meant to post about it, but, well, I kind of forgot all about it. Not that I should have, but you know me, Mrs. Chemo Brain (yes, it's getting better, but I'm still having issues with coming up with names and short term memory stuff), and if I can forget about it, I will. Anyway, without any further ado, I shall hand you over to Christopher Caldwell, from the FT.

The good bits:

The Netherlands has spent the past several weeks in a political crisis out of a novel by Borges. People are worried that a politician might say something he has already said. And they are divided over how to interpret a film that may not exist. Last August, the anti-immigration legislator, Geert Wilders, wrote in the daily De Volkskrant: “I’ve had enough of Islam in the Netherlands – not one more Muslim immigrant. I’ve had enough of Allah and Mohammed in the Netherlands – not one more mosque.” Mr Wilders, whose Freedom party controls nine of the 150 seats in the Dutch lower house, also urged banning the Koran, which he calls “the Islamic Mein Kampf.

But his announcement in late November that he would make a short film to that effect sent the government into a panic. The cabinet met in secret. It ordered foreign embassies to draw up evacuation plans in case of mob violence. It put the mayors of Dutch cities on alert. It arranged meetings with imams and other Muslim representatives, distancing itself from Mr WildersÂ’ positions. The interior, justice and foreign ministers summoned Mr Wilders to meetings, and the countryÂ’s terrorism co-ordinator warned him that he might have to leave the country for his own security. The government reportedly investigated whether it would be possible to block or delay Mr WildersÂ’s broadcast.

Not that there is anything illogical about taking precautions against radical Islam. ...Each time a gauntlet is thrown down, someone will credibly promise violence in the name of Islam. Mr WildersÂ’ film idea was no exception. At the European parliament in Strasbourg last week, Ahmad Badr al-Din Hassoun, Grand Mufti of Syria, warned that Mr Wilders would be responsible for any “violence and bloodshed” that resulted from his film – and that the Dutch people would, in turn, be responsible for reining him in. Noor Farida Ariffin, the departing  Malaysian ambassador, told De Volkskrant: “Compared to what IÂ’m expecting, the riots over the Danish cartoons will look like a picnic.”

{...}Mr Wilders wrote a triumphant op-ed in de Volkskrant this week asking people to imagine what would happen if he had made a film describing the Bible as “fascistic”: “Would Dutch embassies in countries where a lot of Christians live, like Germany and Belgium, have notified Dutch residents and dusted off their evacuation plans?”

Was Mr Wilders asserting a right to free speech? Or was he dressing up a gratuitous religious insult in constitutional language? He was doing both, of course. In their eagerness to keep Mr Wilders from airing his argument, the Dutch authorities helped make it for him. They were unable to admit that widespread worries about violence stem from a problem (extremism in the Muslim world) and not just from an approach to a problem (Mr Wilders’s brusqueness). At a speech in Madrid, Maxime Verhagen, the foreign minister, said: “It is difficult to anticipate the content of the film, but freedom of expression doesn’t mean the right to offend.” It doesn’t? Well, if it doesn’t, then freedom of expression is not much of a right.

{...}We have more religious pluralism than the western liberal system was designed to cope with. This does not necessarily mean that liberalism cannot handle pluralism, but certainly we are in the midst of an experiment. Mr Wilders aims to show that the experiment has failed and that one of the ingredients in our system of freedom of religion – either the liberalism or the pluralism – is going to have to go.{...}

Exactly. Go read the whole thing.

Should be interesting to see if this wild haired man's film actually exists, or if rather, as I suspect, this is a stunt.

Posted by: Kathy at 06:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 691 words, total size 4 kb.

Bleeping Unions:

{...}About 114,000 registered Democrats – a record for Nevada - turned out to caucus in the state. With Barack Obama securing the endorsement of the powerful Culinary Workers Union, which represents 60,000 casino workers, members of Hillary Clinton’s campaign team had gone into Saturday’s vote fearing their candidate would be outgunned.

They need not have worried. Mrs ClintonÂ’s supporters, particularly Latino voters, were out in force in Nevada and helped their candidate win the state. At the New York, New York, many union members openly defied CWU instructions to support Mr Obama and instead backed Mrs Clinton.

Some, such as Qumar Faridi, a union shop steward at the nearby Monte Carlo casino, voted with the union and supported Mr Obama. “We have to stick together…we can’t break away,” he said. Mrs Clinton, he added, was “not union-friendly”.

But Santiago Espinoza and Maria Abiles, CWU members who also work at the Monte Carlo, said they had come to support Mrs Clinton. “It’s a private decision…I will back whoever I like,” said Mr Espinoza. Mrs Clinton, he added, was “the best person to become president…she has the most experience”.

About 80 per cent of the 2,800 employees at the New York, New York are members of the CWU, which in the days leading up to the vote was accused of voter intimidation by the Clinton camp. In the Staten Island room before the caucus, Toni Mitchels, who also works at the Monte Carlo, said union officials had spread misinformation about the voting process.

“A lot of the union representatives were lying to the employees in the cafeteria,” she said. “They were telling them they could only come to this caucus if they voted for Obama.”

Ms Mitchels, who said she decided to back Mr Obama before the Illinois senator was endorsed by the union, said the tactics “bothered me…[the union] didn’t need to bully anyone”.

{my emphasis}

I'm seriously beginning to wonder, if Obama gets the nomination, how many spontaneous resurrections will happen in Cook County come late October-early November.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 345 words, total size 2 kb.

Disturbing. Very, very disturbing.

"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards,"{...}

Can you guess who said it? Yes, that's right. It's the Huckajesus.

Ace sez:

I don't have much of a problem with religion-based policy impulses. All of our impulses come from somewhere, after all, and I don't see why a religious person's core beliefs should affect his worldview less than my own secularist/humanist worldview. The left's insistence that only secular beliefs should impel policy stances is inconsistent but convenient in that it would, if accepted, lead to a secularist-only public polity.

However, I prefer such prescriptions to be couched in secularist terms. There are numerous reasons to be pro-life or pro-traditional-marriage that don't have much to do with religion. It's not deceptive, I don't think, to argue in terms of sound policy, without mention of God, even if, at root, it is a belief in God's will that ultimately leads one to embrace those non-religious rationales for one's positions.

I have little doubt that most pro-lifers believe as they do because God, they think, and not 18th century Jeffersonian political thinking, supports the pro-life position. And yet when arguing about this I strongly prefer arguments which do not explicitly invoke an appeal to the ultimate authority, God Himself. {...}

I don't know that I could say it much better than that. While I'm absolutely sure Huckabee was pandering to some Evangelical Christian group in terms of passing a human life amendment and one defining marriage as only between a man and a woman, think about what he said for a moment in broader terms of what he claims to believe in. It's been well established that as Governor of Arkansas, he signed a statement at a Baptist convention in the late-90's stating that women should be submissive to their husbands. So, taking this statement into account, is he now going to try to repeal the nineteenth amendment, which gave women the right to vote? It's a logical jump, even though it may sound (and admittedly is) farfetched?

Like Ace, I don't have any issues with people getting their morality from whatever religion they choose to practice. Religion, for whatever else it might be, is simply a morality delivery system. That's nothing new in the scheme of things, but anyone who tries to argue that this sort of crap is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution has lost it entirely. You can try and argue otherwise, but the history is clear: the Founding Fathers might have been Christian and had their morals developed by their respective religions, but they also sure as hell knew what a divisive thing religion could be, and hence they said, in effect, no state religion in this country...ever. Huckabee seems to want to ignore that bit. He seems to be stating that religious morality is the only type of morality that should inform public policy, ergo the only person who can safely, and morally, guide public policy is someone of staunch religious beliefs. Like, perhaps, a former Baptist minister?

I am sick and tired of this crap. When did "secular" become such a dirty word, eh? I don't find it wholly incompatible that you can be a religious person, yet be for a secular government as well. Why do so many people think otherwise, and in Huckabee's case, seem to think that the only way to go is to create a de facto theocracy? What is the matter with wanting to keep your church out of my government, and vice versa? This country was founded on the principle of religious freedom. It was also founded on the principle that there would be no state sponsored religion---even of the de facto variety. You can argue that a return to God would do this country some good, but I would simply challenge you to try and shove that genie back in is bottle. It's not going to happen. This is where we are at in the early 21st Century. Deal with it. Go to church if you want. I don't have an issue with it. I don't have an issue with your morality, either. But when people argue that the only person that can lead this country out of the pit of moral decrepitude it finds itself in is an ex-minister of a religion I don't much care for, you can be pretty sure I'm going to vote for the other guy.

After all, I already have found my religious savior---and I don't need Him in the oval office.

Posted by: Kathy at 05:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 812 words, total size 5 kb.

Ezra Levant, publisher of The Western Standard, a magazine in Alberta that printed the Mohammed Cartoons two years ago, has been brought up in front of the Canadian Human Rights Council because, by publishing the cartoons, he offended some Islamofascists.

Check out his testimony in front of a representative of said Human Rights Council---and watch her body language morph during his opening statement. She goes from politely crossed hands to full-on crossed arms---which, as my mother will tell you, repeatedly, (particularly when you're a teenager with bad posture) puts people off.

Amazingly enough, it's still on YouTube, but the sound is way down low, so you'll have to use headphones to actually hear what he has to say. Coincidence? Given YouTube's past history in these things, sadly, I think not.

You can find the rest of his testimony here. I would highly recommend going and checking it out. Before YouTube yanks the things entirely. Because you know that will happen sooner rather than later.

{ht: Ace---or one of his open blog evil minions}

Posted by: Kathy at 12:54 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 2 kb.

The question remains: will the Minnesotans for Romney bastards (who spammed me THREE times on Tuesday, and who, apparently, are confused as to just what state we live in. Because, let me give ya a hint kids, it ain't New Hampshire.) get a freakin' clue or will they keep spamming me?

Should we start a pool?

{previous entries here and here}

Posted by: Kathy at 12:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.

{previous entry}

Posted by: Kathy at 08:17 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

...that, for once, I wholeheartedly support:

{...}Just before Christmas, Congress sent Mr. Bush a $516 billion omnibus spending bill stuffed with 8,993 special-interest earmarks. To make matters worse, most of the earmarks aren't even in the language of the law itself. They were slipped into a 900-page "committee report" that represented the wish-lists of the Senate and House appropriations committees. Almost no one got a chance to read that report before the budget was passed late at night and with barely a day for members to review it.

Mr. Bush agreed to sign the budget but said he was disappointed at Congress's failure to overcome its earmark addiction. He announced he was asking his budget director, Jim Nussle, "to review options for dealing with the wasteful spending in the omnibus bill."

What Mr. Bush knows, and Congress doesn't want the taxpayers to know, is that the vast majority of the offending earmarks--the ones that aren't part of the actual budget law and were instead "air-dropped" into the committee report--aren't legally binding. A Dec. 18 legal analysis by the Congressional Research Service found that most of the committee reports have not been formally passed by both houses and "presented" to the President for signing, and thus have not become law. "President Bush could ignore the 90% of earmarks that never make it to the floor of the House or Senate for a vote," says Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, who has read the CRS report. "He doesn't need a line-item veto."

Federal agencies would still be obligated to spend the dollars appropriated by Congress. But they could use the money higher priorities that would benefit all taxpayers, rather than on favors for special interests or political donors. For example, the $700,000 for a bike trail in Minneapolis could be used to rebuild the collapsed bridge in that city and to strengthen others. In addition, under such an executive order, future earmarks would likely have to go through committee hearings and would receive much greater scrutiny and publicity than they do now. {...}

{my emphasis}

What's needed, apparently, is an Executive Order, signed by President Bush, that would deny funding for all the earmarked pork that, ahem, was never passed into law in the first place. If you would like the president to wield some control over pork-happy members of Congress---you know, because it's his job to do so--I would highly recommend calling the White House at 202-456-1111 or sending an email to comments@whitehouse.gov. The more people that chime in, the better the chances President Bush will actually do something about this.

Bush has nothing to lose by not funding these earmarks, and he could actually strike a lasting blow for fiscal conservatism that would live well beyond his presidency. He has no grand programs making their way through congress this legislative session, so Congress doesn't have anything to hold over him. He could make a bold, legacy-building move here. I sincerely hope he avails himself of it. I always thought Bush has the possibility to turn into a budgetary slash-and-burn president. The war has kept him from keeping many of the promises he made during his election and re-election campaigns, but there's no time like the present for him to step up and live up to his potential in this regard.

Call him or email him and tell him that not funding earmarks that were not passed into law is the right thing to do.

Posted by: Kathy at 09:03 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 579 words, total size 4 kb.

Oh, Look, a levee broke.

By afternoon, the Truckee River water flowing into the canal was diverted upstream, said Ernie Schank, president of the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District. As the water receded, Fernley Mayor Todd Cutler said he had reports of damage to at least 300 to 400 homes.

One official suggested burrowing rodents might have contributed to the break in the levee along with the heavy rains, but the cause wasn't clear.

"We have to look at the weather as the culprit right now, but we are not sure of that," Huntley said.

Let me say it first: it's all Bush's fault.

Because we all know that's where it's going, right?

As of 6:40p.m. CST January 5, 2008, I beat the Huff Po and Kos with this *exclusive* observation. To be honest, though, this "Blame Bush" stuff ain't all that hard. Point finger, lay blame, get excessively windy and self righteous. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Maybe I can parlay this exclusive into a job at Newsweek, too. Ya think?

Posted by: Kathy at 06:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.

Yep. And I lived there, so I can testify to the fact that, yes, indeedy, it does suck, but I'm immune from criticism because I have first hand experience. I received an excellent college education courtesy of the state university system, and had a very good time at its bars, but, damn, if I wanted to see a movie that didn't have multiple explosions and chase scenes it was kind of hard to find an alternative without driving long distances. Like to Omaha, or Chicago or Minneapolis. I like chase scenes as much as the next girl, but, damn, sometimes you want a little depth in your movie viewing, eh? It's kind of hard to get that in Iowa.

That said, I'm glad Iowa had its moment in the spotlight and that I sincerely hope they enjoyed it. See you again in four years, or the next time I have to cut through your state to go to Omaha.

But, I will add this small codicil for the Huckabee supporters. Ahem. Enjoy it while it lasts, kids, because it won't last long. And, if on the odd chance that it does and he actually manages to snare the nomination, know that I will defect from the party and will vote Democrat for the first time...ever. I'll have to hold my nose whilst doing it, because, as most people know, I damn well don't want a bunch of mealy-mouthed, pacifist, hippy, Kumbaya-singing, Che-worshipping socialists running the country. But I won't abstain from voting, because I believe you have to make a choice, even if those choices are lacking. People have died for your right to choose your elected representatives. You damn well better not spit on their sacrifice. So, consider yourself warned: if the only choice on offer is Huckabee, then I'm voting for the other side. I simply WILL NOT vote for a man who thinks I should get my bitch ass back in the kitchen to make him some pie. Not. Going. To. Happen. And you can take that to the bank.

If the Republican party wants to alienate most of their female supporters, go right ahead and nominate this whack job. But don't be surprised if said female supporters, like the much prized Soccer Mom demographic, decide to alienate the party in return.

Posted by: Kathy at 09:56 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 387 words, total size 2 kb.

Oy.

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A week after Pakistan opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was killed in a gun and bomb attack, a Jewish human rights group has taken out a full page ad in the New York Times on Friday demanding that the United Nations formally address suicide bombings.

The ad by the Los Angeles based Simon Rosenthal Center features a picture of Bhutto beneath the words "SUICIDE TERROR: What more will it take for the world to act?" and calls on the United Nations for a special session devoted to the issue.

"Unless we put suicide bombing on the top of the international community's agenda, this virulent cancer could engulf us all," it reads. "The looming threat of WMDs in the hands of suicide bombers will dwarf the casualties already suffered in 30 countries."

In the ad, which will also run in the International Herald Tribune, The Simon Rosenthal Center also calls on the United Nations to declare suicide bombings "crimes against humanity."{...}

Ummm, dude, I don't quite know how to tell you this, but the UN regularly has trouble "defining" genocide---to conveniently avoid sending peace keepers to regions without a requisite Four Seasons resort and spa nearby (with lots of young girls to rape)---and regularly puts the worst human rights abusers on its Human Rights Council. Sure, if a suicide bomber were to disturb the liquor and Beluga deliveries to UN headquarters, then you might have a chance of getting it on the agenda. But as it currently stands? Nope.

Posted by: Kathy at 09:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

So, the Iowa Caucuses are today.

Whoop-de-freakin' do.

Now, before you think I'm down on the whole process, let me correct that assumption. As someone who has actually participated in said caucuses, I can tell you that, really and truly, it's a neat thing for those involved. You make your way, at the appointed time, to your precinct's caucus location (there's one for Democrats and one for Republicans. In fact, two doors down from our house in Des Moines, there was some sort of hippy learning center that was where all the Birkenstock sportin' moonbats in our precinct gathered.), you take off your coat, and find a seat. The Republican caucus for our precinct was held at the Des Moines Community Playhouse, so, thankfully, we had comfy theater chairs to sit in. A younger gentleman came onto the stage and announced that he was, technically speaking, in charge of this shebang, and asked people who supported the various candidates who were running to stand and explain why they thought their dude was the right one for the job. And, surprisingly enough, people did just that. The guy I remember the most was a Buchanan supporter. He was dressed in bibs, boots, and a snowy-white beard that flowed down to his chest, and spoke rather eloquently, I thought, about why he thought Bucky would make the best Republican nominee for President. Whilst most of the people assembled rolled their eyes, I was surprised by the number of people who applauded. Then it was time to vote. If I'm remembering correctly, when you're asked to place your ballot (which is a piece of paper where you've written your dude's name on it), you did so when they called your candidate's name. So, all the Lamar Alexander people walked up at a different time than did the Bob Dole supporters, etc. There wasn't a secret ballot. You're expected to cast your vote unashamedly, and in full view of your neighbors. Once the tally was over and done with, and the winner announced, more than half the people in the theater fled like rats from a sinking ship. Some people, like the husband and myself, stuck around for what it turns out was a hashing out of the Republican party platform. Every issue that was raised was debated, and then voted upon. Theoretically, these issues were to be raised at the state party level. Whether or not that actually happened, I have no idea. But, on the whole, it was an instructive experience.

The husband, at that point in his varied career choices, was managing a restaurant in West Des Moines (rhymes with "Timmy's") and the place---and the servers who worked there---had been making boatloads of money from all the hungry politicos and media types. While they were all happy for the increased sales, everyone was, really and truly, quite over it by that point in time and the caucuses actually did seem like quite the anti-climax. Everyone was happy when the news trucks---and the obnoxious anchors attached to them---and the politicos moved on to New Hampshire. I was happy the phone stopped ringing at the house, because, in the days leading up to the caucus, it never stopped as people working the phone banks for the various campaigns kept calling, repeatedly. The third time Bob Dole's campaign called, the volunteer on the other end of the line got it with both barrels. I'd had it and let them know it. After that, I turned the ringer off for three straight days. I wasn't surprised when some random soul told me later that there were more unlisted numbers in Iowa than any other state in the country. I don't know if this is true, but I could totally believe it if it was. I can only imagine how much it must have sucked to be on the voter rolls in Iowa this time around, with the various campaigns calling over the holidays.

Whilst I think the process is a good thing, I'm nonetheless sick of all of this crap. I really don't care. Very few people outside of Iowa care. I know this hurts the Iowans, because they really do like their moment in the spotlight, but really, people, the rest of us are sick of it.

Call me after the nomination process is over with.

Who's with me? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

BECAUSE I'M ALL ABOUT BEING FAIR UPDATE: Here's devoted Cake Eater Reader Russ from Winterset's speech supporting Teh Fred.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 753 words, total size 4 kb.