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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The money quotes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Erm. Let me rephrase that.

To put it mildly, I find this disturbing.

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

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

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

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

Hmmmmm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm all about the gratification, baby.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Not.

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

/sarcasm.

{hat tip: INDC Journal}

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

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

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

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

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

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

But acculturation is not just language.

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

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

Go read the whole thing.

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

I sincerely hope this passes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

...get thee the hell out of Lebanon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide Comments | Add Comment

UN Peacekeepers finally used their guns!

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

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

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

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

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

And that's saying something.

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

And it's Another One Bites The Dust.

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

the part I find particularly interesting is this:

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

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

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

{hat tip: Martini Boy}

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

I really don't. But for the benefit of those who would send me press releases to announce their runs for a congressional district I care nothing about, I would ask you--- FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD AND HOLY--- to please go and read this.

You've been warned.

Next time this happens I'll start mocking.

And I really don't think you want that, do you?

Posted by: Kathy at 11:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, not so much me lecturing you on anything, but rather Fausta attended a lecture given by Professor Viet Dinh, who helped to draft the Patriot Act. I've heard mention that Professor Dinh is on the short list for potential Supreme Court nominees.

Fausta's reporting is well worth a read.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:23 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

Blaque Jacques has actually done something right for a change.

I feel a case of the vapors coming on.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:51 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

Courtesy o' Fraters Libertas: Senator Mark Dayton, the dillettante of the Senate, has had the good sense not to run for re-election next year

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., said today that he will not run for re-election in 2006.

Dayton made the announcement this afternoon in a telephone conference call with reporters.

"I do not believe that I am the best candidate to lead the DFL Party to victory next year,'' Dayton said.

The senator made a brief statement and took no questions.

He called it ''a tremendous honor to serve Minnesota in the past four years.Â’Â’ He said he wanted to keep the seat in Democratic hands and said he cannot do the necessary fundraising to run an effective campaign.{...}

Dayton didn't have enough coin to run for reelection. After blowing $12m of his own money getting elected, he is 'po. And because he never had to actually fundraise the first time around, he's got no clue as to how to do it this time. Of course Wellstone died, so he lost his moral compass. And then, to top it off, he bugged out of the Capitol building last fall because it was "too dangerous." The puss.

As far as a replacement? Mike Hatch, the AG, is probably so excited about this turn of events he's undoubtedly peeing his pants right now. I wouldn't put it past Mike Ciresi to run, either. Time will tell as to whom the DFL'ers pick to run, but, in my humble opinion, their stable is not only poorly kept, but scantily occupied as well. After all, they picked Mondale to take over Wellstone's campaign after he died, and look how well that went for them.

My wingman has yet to start weeping in his Boddington's. In fact, he seems to have received a nice offer already.

Hold thy head up high, Gary. You did your job so well you scared a candidate out of the race! You'll sort it out and we will anxiously await new content wherever you decide to hang your hat.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 348 words, total size 2 kb.

Isn't it amazing how taking .7% off domestic spending qualifies as "sweeping cuts" ?

Damnit.

I've been waiting four years for the Prez to get his act in gear on cutting spending and this is the best he could do?

Lame.

I told the husband when Bush was elected in 2000 that, as I saw it, because of how contentious the election was, the Prez wasn't going to be able to get much done as far as cutting spending. Tax cuts? Sure. They're always golden. Cutting spending, however? Nope. He just didn't have the oomph to get it through. But, I told the husband, just you wait. This guy, I'm sure, will turn into a budgetary slasher and burner if he gets reelected.

And this is what we've got. Cuts in education, medicare, defense programs, even missile defense looks like it's up on the chopping block. Some of these are good cuts to make. There is a lot of room for improvement, fiscally speaking, within the chosen areas, yet these are also cuts that are going to make conservative members of Congress very, very happy. Meaning the Prez is pandering to certain factions within the party. I hardly need to write this, but these cuts are also going to be highly contentious. Cuts in Education? Cuts in early literacy programs? The Democrats are going to have a freakin' media field day with all of this. This budget fight, to put it mildly, is going to be ugly.

He could have avoided this massive headache if he'd just vetoed one bill where a lot of pork was attached. One simple veto would have sent the message to Congress that they'd better watch what they were doing. The President fired no such warning shot.

But, and I have to admit, this would be the shortsighted view of things.

I'm going to make a large leap of the imagination and assume there's a method behind this madness. Call it Rovian if you want. If the Prez doesn't get what he wants on this one, well, doesn't that set him up to veto the next pork laden bill that hits his desk, without him facing too many party-related ramifications?

I dunno. Let your imagination wander from there. I have very little faith that this Prez will live up to my slash and burn picture of him, but there's still a possibility that it could happen. Slight though it may be.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 412 words, total size 2 kb.