Once again, Dr. Rusty's got the goods on the four hostages taken in Iraq.

Go and check it out.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.

So, we really didn't do much over the weekend. We watched a few movies, both of which could have been better. I made a pot of chili on Saturday night---turned out wonderfully, thanks for asking---and on Sunday afternoon, the husband decided he had a boatload of paperwork to do (he'd been avoiding it) so I decided to go down to Barnes and Noble and see what I could do about blowing the ill gotten gains a/k/a gift cards I'd received for my birthday.

Of course, given my luck, this turned out to be a bad decision.

Now, undoubtedly you're wondering why this was a bad decision. You're thinking that perhaps with the upcoming Christmas shopping season the place was overloaded with holiday shoppers or that the sales staff wasn't being friendly enough, or that perhaps there had been some obnoxious fellow customer who'd ruined the experience for me. In reply, my devoted Cake Eater Readers, I would have to tell you that it was a combination of things that made this an unpleasant shopping experience.

Those and the fact that Jimmy Effin' Carter had decided to have a book signing in that particular Barnes and Noble.

Of all the book stores, in all the world, he had to walk into mine! The bastard!

You see, ever since we descended into Entrepreneurial Hell (TM), I don't get to go and spend money at the bookstore very often. And I miss that. Wandering around a bookstore for hours on end is one of my favorite things to do in this world. I love it. I get a thrill around books. You can walk me into a library and for a split second I'll stand there and let chills run up my spine. There is so much possibility when it comes to entering a book house. It doesn't matter whether it's a bookstore or a library or a friend's house where they have shelf after shelf loaded with books, all of these places signal possibilities---and people who like possibilities--- to me. You have no idea what you could find in those books. You have no idea how you could be enlightened by those books, or, when it comes to a home library, how you could be enlightened by the people who own those books. And that enlightenment creates a sort of awe and wonder in me.

In other words, I treat books the way some people treat the rainforest: there's probably a cure for cancer in there, somewhere, we just haven't stumbled upon it yet.

So, you'll perhaps understand that I enjoy shopping for books. The experience for me is akin to fine dining, or enjoying a particularly nice glass of single malt scotch with a cigar. There pleasure derived from in the act itself and there is also pleasure derived simply because you've done it right. It's one of the finer things in life for me. And, while it's horribly selfish of me to admit this, I just don't get the thrill of it all when budgetary constraints limit me. I know that sounds horrible, but would you go to a five-star restaurant if you were only able to pay for a breadstick? What's the point in that? So, when I'm broke I stay away from the bookstore and stick to the biblioteca. It's a system that works for me and that I'm accustomed to---except when I actually have money to spend, which is when I gear up for a trip to the bookstore, like I did yesterday. My birthday was two weeks ago. I've been holding on to the gift cards and have been waiting for a good moment to go and use them. I was savoring the anticipation of it all. And yesterday turned out to be that moment.

Until I actually got there...

...wherein I walked into the store and was accosted by two eager beaver Barnes and Noble employees, puffed up with their own self-importance, who asked, breathlessly, if I was there for President Carter's book signing. When I said, no, they sloughed me off like I was the dead skin on their loofah, and moved on, breathlessly excited, to the next person who'd walked through the door...who was, indeed, there for President Carter's book signing. As I stood there, taking off my gloves and hat, I, being the Gladys Cravitz that I am, listened to the schpiel. They were to go downstairs and someone would direct them to the end of the line. They were given a wristband the color of a yellow highlighter and were informed that there were no guarantees that President Carter would actually sign their books, it all depended on "how much he felt he up to doing." The very earnest lady on the receiving end of all this breathlessly relayed information, who looked like nothing so much as a Mrs. Potato Head in jersey knit and Clarks' clogs, nodded earnestly and waddled to the escalators, her copy of "Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis," clutched tightly to her expanded universe-like bosom.

Have I mentioned this was at a little after two p.m.? Have I also mentioned that King Bubba the First wasn't expected until six p.m.? And that there were already forty some odd people in line by the time I got there?

Now, I'm not going to deny the moonbats a chance to see their bunny-rabbit fearing leader. I don't really care about that. What I do care about, however, is that the entire freakin' store was given over to this momentous occasion. To the exclusion of all else. The entire fiction section was littered with people who were lined up within the rows. If you tried to go and, God Help You, look for a book in that section you were shot nasty looks and, in one memorable exchange, accused of cutting in line. (Sha. As if!) Another section, upstairs, was entirely roped off as well. It looked to me as if they were preparing it for an extended queue but didn't want anyone in there, at all, until the line needed to be managed. As I passed that section, a book on one of the verboten shelves caught my eye. I wanted to look at it, but considering there were Cake Eater City cops and dogs from the Hennepin County Canine Unit posted nearby, I decided not to risk it. I asked a passing clerk if she would help me, and at which point said sales clerk had to forcibly restrain herself from rolling her eyes and said in an exasperated tone, "If you want something from there, why don't you come back tomorrow? We're a bit busy today," before storming off without extending an apology.

There is one rule of doing business that everyone should be aware of. And if you're not, you're probably bankrupt and you deserve to be so. Are you waiting with bated breath for me to tell you what this rule is, my devoted Cake Eater Readers? I'm sure you are, so I won't keep you in suspense any longer: NEVER MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR CUSTOMERS TO GIVE YOU THEIR MONEY. While I would generally refer this rule when receiving slow service at a cash register---particularly with stores who only take certain kinds of credit cards, and who sneer at cash, etc.---the rule nonetheless can be boiled down to simply having merchandise you would like to sell. You do everything you can to facilitate sales, because, if you don't facilitate sales, ahem, you will be out of business.

Now, it may not be common knowledge, but book stores have events like these to drive traffic into their stores. These CRAZY managers are working under the utterly mad assumption that, hello!, the more people you have in the store, the greater the chances are you will sell stuff. Bring in a celebrity or two or maybe an ex-President of the United States of America and maybe, just maybe, you'll get an extra few hundred people to show up to purchase wares you just happen to sell, the lure of rubbing elbows with famous people a money-making charm like no other. So, while you'll sell more than a few copies of said famous person's book, you'll also sell a lot of magazines, newspapers, drinks and food from the in-store Starbucks, and especially important this time of year, Christmas presents---I'm sure you, my bright Cake Eater readers, can see that it would be very, very stupid to tell someone they should come back tomorrow instead of helping them today. When they're there, right there and then, with a gift card burning a hole in their pocket.

At that point, I took the one book I had in my hands, went to the cash register and checked out. I was asked if I had a discount card, and then when I said, no, I was asked if I wanted to purchase one. I said, no, again (and, honestly, people if you bought one of those you're, well, you're not a rocket scientist,are you? It's not really a discount if you're paying for it, is it? Like, duh.) and then she handed me my card and my bag and asked loudly if she could help the next customer in line. What did she miss, I ask you, my eager beaver, dying-to-learn-the-basics-of-customer-service Cake Eater Readers? That's right. You, like every five-year-old who's been taken down to DEFCON 1 on a manners alert exercise, caught that she didn't say thank you.

Way to go, Barnes and Noble at the Galleria. You should be really proud of your employees!

Posted by: Kathy at 01:46 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1609 words, total size 9 kb.

Particularly when it comes to the dubious information regarding secondhand smoke and the need for smoking bans. Well, kids, I hate to tell you this, but year-on-year sales numbers don't lie.

Keegan's Pub opened three and one-half years ago in the revitalized Old St. Anthony area of Minneapolis. For three years we met our financial projections before every level of government stepped in to put an end to it.

The Federal government forced the State to give us .08

The State government forced us to give a pay increase to our bartenders and servers, our highest paid employees.

Hennepin County gave us the smoking ban.

Minneapolis gave us a smoking ban and more costly and restrictive parking for our customers.

Now Hennepin County can recognize the economic hardship it has caused and act on it. Please do so!

For the first three months of 2005, our sales were up 8% over the same months in 2004. For the most recent three months our sales are down 7.5% compared to the same months in 2004. That is a swing of 15.5%. Although our percentage decrease is smaller than some, it represents the difference between profit and loss. We have not had a profitable month since April, and the trend is downward. October 2005 was 17% down from October 2004. Cold weather will only accelerate the trend as smokers will be less willing to smoke outside. Hence, they will go to locations where they can smoke inside.

{...}One final thought: The argument that non smokers will flock to our restaurants now that we are non smoking is totally bogus. Where are they?{...}

Just in case you're not familiar with the restaurant/bar biz, they make most of their money on liquor sales. The typical profit margin for liquor is, generally speaking, through the roof. That bottle of wine you purchased at the liquor store for $25.00? Well, the restaurant purchased the same bottle wholesale for $8.00---they'll charge $9.00 a glass and will get three and a half glasses out of that bottle. They made $23.50 in profit. One would hope that you're asking yourself, "where's the catch?" Well, here it is: liquor profits pretty much float everything else that's sold in a restaurant or a bar. Food sales aren't, generally speaking, all that profitable. The bottom line is quite clear: if you want a profitable restaurant, you want people to drink. It's pretty damn simple. That three hundred percent markup on booze has to pay the rest of the costs. Like labor. Someone has to pour that wine, after all. The industry average for labor is right around forty percent, and it is, generally speaking, the largest cost. Forty percent of that $23.50 is $9.40, which leaves you $14.10 for things like glassware, tables and chairs, food and liquor costs, rent, and of course, taxes. and there's not going to be that much left over, after that's all said and done. This, of course, is grossly simplified and it's just late enough that I'm not sure I'm doing the math properly, but I'm sure you get where I'm going with all of this.

This is why most bars and restaurants fail within the first year of operation. The margins are razor thin. And when sales of your most profitable item are down because the smokers, the people who buy that very profitable item, are going elsewhere, you'd better realize the jig is going to be up very very soon. 17%, kids. SEVENTEEN FREAKIN' PERCENT. That's huge. If I was still in the restaurant biz and I was the one who was facing those year-to year numbers, I'd be having a heartattack right about now.

Just go ahead and try and tell me the smoking ban isn't hurting bars and restaurants.

St. Anthony Main---where Keegan's is located---when I first moved to Cities, was a dump. The husband and I were down in that neck of the woods recently, and we commented that the only thing that used to be in that neighborhood, besides crack houses, was Surdyks. People have worked very hard and it is now a very nice, interesting part of the downtown Minneapolis scene. I would hate to see all of that progress just die because of the smoking ban.

If you're inclined to act, email the Hennepin County Board of Commisioners at
board.clerk@co.hennepin.mn.us

Posted by: Kathy at 11:27 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 738 words, total size 4 kb.

In the great state of Minnesota, if you're charged with your second DWI within ten years, the DOT will impound your regular license plates and will issue you new plates. These plates are called "special registration plates" and identify you to all and sundry as someone whose car was involved in an alcohol-related offense. These plates all start with a "W" and, as such, are called "Whisky Plates." If you have these plates on your car, the police do not need probable cause to pull you over; the fact that you have the plates on your car is enough cause in itself, or so the Legislature would have you believe.

The husband and I have long wondered why the ACLU hasn't taken this one to court. After all these plates are a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against search and siezure without probable cause. One would think that since this is a pretty important violation of the Constitution, and, furthermore that since the ACLU is all about defending the Constitutional rights of the accused, if you'd put the two together, you'd have found a case worth fighting for. Unfortunately, this hasn't been the case. It's not popular to defend drunk drivers, and no one, but no one---including the ACLU---wants to get on the bad side of MADD, so they haven't touched these types of laws with a ten-foot pole.

Until Now. Why, you ask, are they getting involved now? Well, because the plates the great State of Florida would like to stick on drunk drivers are pink.

A Florida state senator wants to require convicted drunken drivers to have license plates that start with "DUI."

The proposed law would also require bright pink license plates on vehicles driven by people with restricted driving privileges due to convictions for driving under the influence.

"Maybe it will embarrass people and keep them from drinking and driving," State Sen. Mike Fasano said. "Maybe they'll think twice."

The bill also says police "may stop any vehicle that bears a DUI plate without probable cause to check the driver."

Ohio and Michigan have similar laws in place. Other states have debated the issue, but failed to pass it due to privacy reasons.

"Pink plates would hold out individuals for punishment as well as ridicule. We are very opposed to it," said Larry Spalding, legislative counsel for the
American Civil Liberties Union in Florida.{...}

So, it's not really about the Fourth Amendment violations for the ACLU. Civil rights have very little to do with it. It's about the fact that the proposed plates would be pink and would "hold out individuals for punishment as well as ridicule." That's a problem worthy of the ACLU's attention.

Yet again, it's no surprise why everyone and their mother thinks they're a worthless organization.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:35 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 474 words, total size 3 kb.

The only UN jerk-off shitcanned for participating in the Oil-For-Food Scandal has been reinstated by the UN.

Joseph Stephanides was fired on May 31 after a U.N.-appointed inquiry led by former U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker accused him of improperly steering an oil-for-food contract to a British firm.

The mid-level aide maintained he was acting on behalf of unnamed superiors in advising Lloyd's Register Inspection Ltd. to lower an open bid to win a contract.

A joint staff-management disciplinary panel reviewing his dismissal had recommended he be reinstated and given a written apology and two years' pay in damages.

Based on the review, Secretary-General Kofi Annan decided to rescind the dismissal and effectively restore four months of pay to Stephanides, who had been scheduled to retire in September.

But Annan rejected an apology and damages. "The secretary-general still maintains his position that Mr. Stephanides has violated the procurement rules," a U.N. official said.

{...}Annan, himself under attack for mismanagement of the Iraq oil-for-food program, dismissed Stephanides after Volcker's February 3 report. It accused him of colluding with Britain's then-U.N. ambassador, John Weston, by suggesting Lloyd's Register Inspection Ltd. would win a $4.5 million contract by lowering its bid.

While French firm Bureau Veritas was the low bidder, U.N. officials decided they could not select a French firm because they had recently given another contract to a French bank and hired a Frenchman as a U.N. oil overseer for the program, Volcker's report said.

Christopher Burnham, the U.N. undersecretary-general for management, said in a letter to Stephanides that he violated a U.N. requirement of impartiality by "advising the British Mission how much lower the Lloyd's bid needed to be."{...}

Hmmm. Now, there's something I'm finding curious in all of this: where's Stephanides' payola? How much did he get from Lloyd's---and where did he put it? Everyone else in this deal made some coin: there's no mention in the article of Stephanides' having received any cash. Never mind that Kojo Annan received $200K from a Swiss firm for steering Oil for Food business their way and his father hasn't been so much as slapped on the hand for it; never mind that Benon Sevon made some cash with oil payments, and he was allowed to resign; it's simply interesting to me that they would fire the one guy who didn't receive any cash for his efforts.

That really doesn't make much sense, does it?

Unless he's the patsy. Then it makes a whole lot of sense.

Hmmph. I don't know.

But I do know that I love that I just had the opportunity to use the word "patsy." I'm, like, all Oliver Stone-ish now with the conspiracy theory.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:41 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 449 words, total size 3 kb.

Martini Boy.

Now, shoo.

Posted by: Kathy at 09:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

Fausta has put together an excellent roundup relating to the rioting in Paris and Birmingham.

Go enlighten yourselves.

And then start worrying that the toll of post-modernist sin has come due.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

Hitch in today's Opinion Journal:

{...}In the absence of any such assertion or allegation, one must be forgiven for wondering what any of this gigantic fuss can possibly be about. I know some apparently sensible people who are prepared to believe, still, that a Machiavellian cabal in the White House wanted to punish Joseph Wilson by exposing his wife to embarrassment and even to danger. So strong is this belief that it envisages Karl Rove (say) deciding to accomplish the foul deed by tipping off Robert Novak, one of the most anti-Iraq-war and pro-CIA journalists in the capital, as if he were precisely the pliant tool one would select for the dastardly work. And then, presumably to thicken the plot, Mr. Novak calls the CIA to confirm, as it readily did, that Ms. Plame was in the agency's employ.

Meanwhile, and just to make things more amusing, George Tenet, in his capacity as Director of Central Intelligence, tells Dick Cheney that he employs Mr. Wilson's wife as an analyst of the weird and wonderful world of WMD. So jealously guarded is its own exclusive right to "out" her, however, that no sooner does anyone else mention her name than the CIA refers the Wilson/Plame disclosure to the Department of Justice.

Mr. Fitzgerald, therefore, seems to have decided to act "as if." He conducts himself as if Ms. Plame's identity was not widely known, as if she were working under "non official cover" (NOC), as if national security had been compromised, and as if one or even two catch-all laws had been broken. By this merely hypothetical standard, he has performed exceedingly well, even if rather long-windedly, before pulling up his essentially empty net.

However, what if one proposes an alternative "what if" narrative? What if Mr. Wilson spoke falsely when he asserted that his wife, who was not in fact under "non-official cover," had nothing to do with his visit to Niger? What if he was wrong in stating that Iraqi envoys had never even expressed an interest in Niger's only export? (Most European intelligence services stand by their story that there was indeed such a Baathist initiative.) What if his main friends in Niger were the very people he was supposed to be investigating?

Well, in that event, and after he had awarded himself some space on an op-ed page, what was to inhibit an employee of the Bush administration from calling attention to these facts, and letting reporters decide for themselves? The CIA had proven itself untrustworthy or incompetent on numerous occasions before, during and after the crisis of Sept. 11, 2001. Why should it be the only agency of the government that can invoke the law, broken or (as in this case) unbroken, to protect itself from leaks while protecting its own leakers?{...}

As they say, go read the whole thing.

This whole thing is such a non-starter, it's amazing. It's typical Dee Cee, I swear. It's as if the dorks who run that town need to have a good scandale once in a while, and if they don't have the makings of a juicy one, well, they'll find one where they can. It's such a B-movie scandale, too. Valerie Plame, the starlet du jour, was not undercover for the CIA, hence no law was violated at her outing. She was a desk jockey, for crying out loud. She also recommended her husband for this gig, so if one were looking for cronyism, this is where you would find it. Never mind that her husband was an incompetent boob. And you have a special prosecutor who's been investigating this thing for two years and only came back with perjury charges on one of the main players. Fitzgerald, apparently, couldn't even get an indictment for conspiracy.

If Scooter Libby perjured himself he should, indeed, pay the price for that. Perjury is perjury is perjury. But to have perjured yourself over this? Come on. That's just stupid. Cheney's got a rep as the evil mastermind of this administration to uphold. That his Chief of Staff would blunder on something so goddamn basic isn't going to help keep the rep intact, ya dig?

Posted by: Kathy at 08:49 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 695 words, total size 4 kb.

1 This matter on Libby is well addressed here: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051114/cornweb

Posted by: theroxylandr at October 31, 2005 12:51 PM (h76y6)

2 Good post. I'd add something deep and meaningful, but I just wanted to leave a compliment

Posted by: Ith at October 31, 2005 01:02 PM (Fv0oe)

3 Thanks, Ith!

Posted by: Kathy at October 31, 2005 01:05 PM (kZ6IS)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

God Save the King!

/sarcasm.

Posted by: Kathy at 08:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

Shit or get off the pot.

That is all.

Posted by: Kathy at 08:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

Hitchens on George Galloway's defenders in the mainstream media:

I wonder if any of those who furnished him a platform will now have the grace to admit that they were hosting a man who is not just a pimp for fascism but one of its prostitutes as well.

Reading Hitchens is like smoking a Chesterfield: it always satisfies.

Go read the whole thing.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm a little late on this one, but I wonder if this is the result of a new form of ambulance chasing or if this is actually someone standing up for the legal rights of those accused of drunk driving?

A Florida court will hear arguments on Friday in a case where the accuracy of a breathalyser is being scrutinised because the manufacturer has refused to release the source code.

Lawyers representing more than 150 defendants who have been charged for driving under the influence of alcohol in two Florida counties will file the request.

They argue that they have a right to see the source code of the alcohol breath analyser that was used to determine their clients' guilt.

"None of the [software] programs that was used here is approved," said Robert Harrison, a lawyer representing some of the defendants.

"The question is whether the difference [between these programs] is material or not. Without seeing the source code, we do not know."

At the centre of the controversy is the Intoxilyzer 5000, a device made by CMI of Ownsboro, Kentucky.

A marketing brochure for the device claims that it has been used for more than 25 years, and touts it as the "standard for accuracy, reliability and courtroom evidence".

Information on the internet shows that the Intoxilyzer 5000 is being used worldwide, including in Norway, the US and Canada. CMI did not return repeated phone calls seeking further information.

Florida approved the Intoxilyzer 5000 in 1993, but the manufacturer has since made numerous changes which Harrison argues have not been certified. CMI had to recall its devices in at least one case due to a software error, he said.

Releasing the source code of the device could take away any doubt about its accuracy, but the manufacturer has said in the past that it refuses to do so because it considers that information a trade secret.

This refusal could have far reaching consequences, potentially giving those convicted of 'Driving Under the Influence' a reason to appeal against their rulings.

It also has caused a backlog of such cases that await the results of this case to determine whether evidence gathered by the Intoxilyzer 5000 is still admissible in court.{...}

Curious, eh?

I wish them luck. Police have been modifying breathalyzers (read jerryrigging) for years and the evidence from said modified breathalyzers has still been admitted into court. It's about time someone took issue with the breathalyzers themselves---and their source code. Even if this examination proves there is nothing wrong with the way the breathalyzers work, the overall point is important---that the defendant has the right to examine "its accuser" in court. Even if its accuser is a machine. Because it's important to remind the courts that those accused of DWI are actually, you know, protected by the Constitution, even though they'd like to think otherwise.

UPDATE: Mitch has some further thoughts along these lines. Make sure to peruse the comments section.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 492 words, total size 3 kb.

Way back in the day, I always got the impression that Louis Freeh hated Bubba Clinton, but that he was saving his discontent---and the juicy anecdotes that went with it---for his memoir.

Turns out I was right.

{...} In another revelation, Freeh says the former president let down the American people and the families of victims of the Khobar Towers terror attack in Saudi Arabia. After promising to bring to justice those responsible for the bombing that killed 19 and injured hundreds, Freeh says Clinton refused to personally ask Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to allow the FBI to question bombing suspects the kingdom had in custody – the only way the bureau could secure the interviews, according to Freeh. Freeh writes in the book, “Bill Clinton raised the subject only to tell the crown prince that he understood the Saudis’ reluctance to cooperate and then he hit Abdullah up for a contribution to the Clinton Presidential Library.” Says Freeh, “That’s a fact that I am reporting.” {...}

The fun just never ends with Bubba, does it?

/sarcasm

{hat tip: LMC}

Posted by: Kathy at 09:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 192 words, total size 1 kb.

For every conservative who is whining about how "betrayed" they feel that GDub "ignored the base" by nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, please know that there is a moderate conservative who is smiling wryly and is saying, "welcome to the party, pal."

Yes, they wanted your vote. Do you really think that means anything to those people? Why are you living under the delusion that you mean something to them? Do you honestly believe that they actually care about what you think and want out of your chosen representatives in Washington? When are you people going to learn that---ahem---they don't care?

In other words, join in the disillusionment, my children. And do it soon, would you? All of this caterwauling is getting extremely tiresome.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:18 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.

Where's Offred when you need her?

Republican lawmakers are drafting new legislation that will make marriage a requirement for motherhood in the state of Indiana, including specific criminal penalties for unmarried women who do become pregnant "by means other than sexual intercourse."

According to a draft of the recommended change in state law, every woman in Indiana seeking to become a mother through assisted reproduction therapy such as in vitro fertilization, sperm donation, and egg donation, must first file for a "petition for parentage" in their local county probate court.

Only women who are married will be considered for the "gestational certificate" that must be presented to any doctor who facilitates the pregnancy. Further, the "gestational certificate" will only be given to married couples that successfully complete the same screening process currently required by law of adoptive parents.

As it the draft of the new law reads now, an intended parent "who knowingly or willingly participates in an artificial reproduction procedure" without court approval, "commits unauthorized reproduction, a Class B misdemeanor." The criminal charges will be the same for physicians who commit "unauthorized practice of artificial reproduction."{...}

And no, this is not a hoax. It beggars belief, I know, but you can read the draft legislation here.

"Petition for Parentage"? "Gestational Certificate"? "Unauthorized reproduction"? Unauthorized practice of artificial reproduction"? Pardon my French but what the fucking fuck? This is the language of science fiction, my friends, not the language one would expect to find in proposed legislation in a state in the United States of America.

The more I think about this, the madder I get. How dare they? HOW DARE THEY? If this law were passed, in the state of Indiana, you wouldn't be able to have in-vitro if you were a single woman. Yet, if you were a single woman and had a one night stand and became pregnant as a result that, apparently, would be fine. But nevermind the discrimination against single parents, let's talk about what married couples would have to go through, because they would have access to fertility treatments, but they'd nonetheless have to apply for "parentage" and would then have to be screened for parental worthiness.

And all of this is only because these people's reproductive systems are faulty or are lacking one of the necessary ingredients. If you're a fertile myrtle, well, you're in the clear and no one can tell you what to do when it comes to your reproductive system. Including having an abortion! Good on you for having working plumbing!

The author of the legislation claims this about settling the legal issues of who has parental rights when extraordinary types of infertility treatment are used. That, I believe, is a blind. This is about legislating morality. The author of the legislation flat-out admitted she believes marriage is a prerequisite for parenthood. What she didn't say, however, is that she believes in that so much she would create criminal consequences for those who disagreed with her.

One can only hope that this piece of flaming excrement dies a quick and horribly painful death when Indiana's next legislative session begins.

{Hat Tip: Jeff G.}

UPDATE 10/6: It's been dropped because "The issue has become more complex than anticipated and will be withdrawn from consideration by the Health Finance Commission." One could have wished that it had been dropped because "it was a bit of draconian bullshit," but one can't have everything, can one?

Posted by: Kathy at 09:31 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 582 words, total size 4 kb.

I don't belive John Lloyd covers any new ground in this piece from this weekend's Financial Times, but it bears repeating...just because:

{...}Its basis is the belief that a state requires security and retains interests and that any effort to impose a different politics on states of whose politics one disapproves is, as Henry Kissinger put it, international relations as social work.

This belief has found increasingly powerful challengers in the past two decades. They included such diverse elements as non-governmental organisations (NGOs), especially Amnesty (based in the UK), Human Rights Watch (US) and Medecins sans Frontieres (France); the liberation theology movement within Catholicism, most powerful in South America; Soviet-era dissidence in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union itself; the anti-apartheid struggle incarnated in the figure of Nelson Mandela; and a strong, if disguised, trend among journalists to act as the canaries-in-the-mine for oppression.

{...}It is a sad spectacle. Liberals and leftists who spent decades demanding that something must be done to end all sorts of repressions and foreign horrors, and denouncing theirs and other governments for refusing to end them, now denounce the British and US governments for having removed one of the great monsters of the late 20th century because blood was shed (and is still being shed) in the course of it. This isnÂ’t debate about the manner of waging war: it is a smug, I-told-you-so (or I didnÂ’t tell you but I am now) blast against apparent failure - usually oblivious to the consequences of that failure, especially on the ideals and practice that liberals and leftists claim to have espoused.

That the invasion of Iraq, as well as occasioning a long-running terrorist war, should, as the American scholar Thomas Cushman recently pointed out, also have “liberated a people from an oppressive, long-standing tyranny; destroyed an outlaw state that was a threat to the peace and security of the Middle East and the larger global arena in which terrorists operated, sponsored materially and ideologically by Iraq; brought the dictator Saddam Hussein to justice for his genocides [of the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs, as Human Rights Watch documented] and crimes against humanity; prevented the possibility of another genocide... restored sovereignty to the Iraqi people; laid the foundation for the possibility of Iraq becoming a liberal republic”, has no place in the charge sheets that liberals and leftists bring to bear against Bush and Blair.{...}

Posted by: Kathy at 10:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 392 words, total size 3 kb.

Fausta went to see Condi speak at Princeton---and she reported on it.

Which is more than the New York Times or even the New Jersey Star Ledger could be bothered to do.

Go and read.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:12 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.

Sorry, kid, but we need to have a wee bit of a chat about this post.

You know, I just don't understand what all of the fuss is about regarding the mentioning of so-called Intelligent Design theories when discussions about Evolution arise in our nation's schools.

Yeah, yeah. I know that Evolution is the one with all the cool fossils to see and that there is no proof when it comes to Intelligent Design. I also know that some scientists feel that without proof and without any means of testing a theory, a theory is considered bunk. However, not so long ago, the best minds in the world were convinced that the earth was flat, so I'm thinking we should be a little more inclusive in our discussions.{...}

Phoenix then goes on to claim that her teachers tried more to "indoctrinate" rather than "educate," and says her father set her straight on more than one occasion when an educator gave out faulty/less than complete information. Due to this, she has learned critical thinking, which is good. I'm not knocking that. Critical thinking is always good. But then there's this whopper of a statement at the end of her post that, quite literally, made my jaw drop:

{...}So, I say, let our children decide for themselves. Perhaps Intelligent Design can't be proven or disproven now. Perhaps Evolution is the real deal. But what does it hurt to expose our children to the entire debate? Can we not trust them to come to their own conclusions? If I had to sit through 4 weeks in a world history class listening to extended discourse on Islam in the 8th grade, including the 5 tenets of Islam, why can't today's students hear about the beliefs of some Christians as it relates to this issue? Learning about Islam didn't turn me into a Muslim. Being exposed to the idea of Intelligent Design isn't going to throw your child to the lions.

What's the big deal? Can't we trust our kids to decide for themselves?{...}

Sweetheart. You really want to know what the big deal is? Ok, well,Was the 2nd Amendment the only thing you learned about when it came to the Constitution? Because, if it was, you should know we have this little thing called the Establishment Clause which, along with all the other subsequent case law that follows it, declares that no religion shall be taught in public schools. It's pretty simple stuff. This is why Intelligent Design shouldn't be taught in public schools---because, in a very small way, it's teaching religion.

To miss this point is to miss the big fat pink elephant that's plopped its fat ass down in your living room. That's what the "big deal" is. And there is a bit of a difference between teaching the Five Pillars of Islam in a historical context to being taught that, because some people don't believe in Darwinism and take offense at the notion they were descended from apes, there should be an entire section added to the science curriculum---a section that has nothing to do with science, but has everything to do with religion. Yet these people claim the teaching of ID is all about offering students "a choice." That's all well and good but one choice is based in science; the other is based in religion. And neither one can be proved.

Look, I don't see CAIR asking for an entire section on Islam to be taught in all World History classes, do you? The analogy Phoenix raises is faulty. When the tenets of Islam are being taught in a World History class it is because, to be sure, a good deal of the world's history was shaped by that religion, hence it's fair to make sure students know precisely why the Ottoman Empire was out there, raping and pillaging for Allah. It's the same when Christianity is taught in relation to the Crusades or the Holy Roman Empire, or how Hinduism is relevant to the rise of the British Empire in India. It's knowledge that is essential to the discussion. It's rote knowledge; it's knowledge that's matter of fact, taken for granted. I fail to see, however, where intelligent design is essential to the discussion of evolution---particularly when that discussion is taking place in a public school. It is an explanation of evolution that is, for the most part, based in religion, and as we've established, religion does not belong in public schools.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if anyone wants their kid to learn about creationism, they should send their kid to a parochial school. It's pretty simple stuff. Your kids will be taught the religion of your choice, without any messy and inconvenient facts to get in the way of things.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:15 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 810 words, total size 5 kb.

...by linking to a Washington Times article, but because it's written by Susette Kelo and is sane, I don't feel that dirty.

{...}As I sat there in the U.S. Supreme Court back in February and listened to the justices hear my case, I was so disappointed their very first question and first concern was for the power of government rather than the rights of citizens.

In many ways, my neighbors and I are the victims of legislators, lawyers and judges who believe it is somehow a sign of intelligence to make language that clearly means one thing mean something exactly the opposite: "Public use" now means private use; judges don't judge but instead let legislators decide whether they're violating the Constitution. There is nothing intelligent about misusing language in this way to take away people's homes and their rights.

What is happening to me should not happen to anyone else. Congress and state legislatures need to send a message to local governments that this kind of abuse of power not only won't be funded, it won't be tolerated.

Special interests -- developers and governments that benefit from this use of power --are working to convince the public there is no problem, but I am living proof there is. {...}

Go read the whole thing.

{Hat tip: Fausta}

Posted by: Kathy at 09:41 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 1 kb.

Just go and read it already.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.