On human rights, Part II

Okay, so we continue our look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with the first two articles.

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

But what does this mean for me?

These articles establish that all human beings are equal from birth, that regardless of our differences we all share the same basic rights. It means that people who worship God and people who worship many gods and people who worship shrimp are equally valuable as human beings. It means that Democrats and Republicans and Libertarians are equally valuable as human beings. it means that native Americans and Native Americans and Mexican immigrants are equally valuable as human beings. And it also means that no matter where you are, whether you're living or visiting or squatting, the government of that state has to respect your basic rights as a valuable human being.

Just answer the question already.

It means that we can't disregard the rights of the brown folk just 'cause they're brown, and similarly they can't disregard our rights just 'cause we aren't.

Part I: The Preamble

On blogroll maintenance

Okay, so now that I'm back to solo blogging, I've had the chance to make some much-deserved additions to my blogroll. Be kind and welcome our newest additions No More Mister Nice Blog, whom I've been wanting to add ever since he revealed himself as not retired after all, fellow Atlantan LazyCat, old friend AngryKevin's Where've All The Good People Gone, and finally, another Atlantan with the all-time best blog name ever, ever, Josh Massey and Martians Attacking Indianapolis. Let's make them feel welcome.

On human rights, Part I

Okay, so as promised, today we look at the history of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Much thanks is given to the UN Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which provides plenty of information worth stealing.

On December 10, 1948, in the aftermath of the second World War, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 217 A (III), commonly known as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Considered the first of its kind in an international community, the Declaration was adopted by 58 disparate Member States that agreed on at least one thing, the fair and just treatment of every person, everywhere, regardless of nationality, religion, socioeconomic status, anything.

The UN Commission on Human Rights was established in 1946 with the goal, among others, of creating just such a Declaration to guide the work of the Commission. Committee members from Australia, Chile, China, France, Lebanon, the USSR, the UK, and the US spent two years drafting the 400-page outline. It was adopted in 1948 with 48 of the 58 Member States in favor (abstaining were Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Ukrainian SSR, Union of South Africa, USSR, and Yugoslavia; two countries were absent). Though not legally binding, it was then and is today a recognition of the value of human life and dignity across all nations and cultures. It has been followed by such legally binding documents as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Preamble reads as follows:

PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

But what does this mean for me?

The Declaration was approved by 48 of the 58 Member States, among them Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and, yeah, the US. Obviously, some of those countries don't have the greatest records where human rights are concerned, and some might ask why we have to honor our commitment to human rights when they aren't. My answer to that always starts with Moron, spoken silently and only with the eyes, followed by, "Because we said we would." Because we looked at the document and the rights listed therein and said, "Yeah, those sound good. We're going with that." And because if we don't, we end up lumped in with the countries that haven't honored their commitment to the Declaration, which, if you ask me, isn't the greatest group to hang with.

Mostly, though, we have to honor our commitment because it's right. We agreed to it in the first place because it was right, and it hasn't become any less right as time goes on. And honestly, anyone who looks at the rights included in the Declaration and says, "Yeah, actually, I have a problem with those. I mean, sure, they're good for me, but why shouldn't I get to torture other people?" has some real issues.

Just answer the question already.

It means that the dignity and basic rights of every human being are the basis of freedom, justice, and peace, and that denying people those rights in the name of freedom and justice is an absolute crock.

On human rights

Okay, so Amnesty International released a report last week saying that prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are being mistreated and calling for the base to be shut down. Dick Cheney responded, in an interview taped for Larry King Live, by saying, "Frankly, I was offended by it. For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don’t take them seriously.”

Big, huge shock.

In honor of Dick Cheney's denial issues, mounting allegations of mistreatment, and what I perceive to be a lack of appreciation, in general, for the importance of basic human rights and dignity, June has been declared Human Rights Month here at Practically Harmless. For the entire month of June, we're going to be looking over the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights to see exactly what, in 1948, the civilized world decided were inalienable human rights, and what that means for Americans today. Tune in tomorrow for a little history on the Declaration and a look at the preamble. Until then, keep your holy books out of the toilet and your lightsticks far, far away from any vulnerable orifices; this is Human Rights Month, dammit.

On a little bit of Thursday levity

Okay, so we're not all hard work here at Practically Harmless. We know how to kick back and have a good time, especially if it's at someone else's expense. That's why when all else fails, th reader mail at whitehouse.org is always good for a laugh.

Any perceptive person just picked up on the fact that the actual White House web site is .gov, and the pornographic version is .com. This one is just a good old parody website that features headlines like "Scott McClellan Directs Newsweek Magazine to Immediately Cease and Desist Infringing President Bush's Patent for the Mass Enragement of Muslamian Wackos " and the First Lady's Iron Hymen abstinence initiative. With articles like that, it would be impossible to mistake whitehouse.org for the real thing.

Right?

Sigh...

DATE = 05/16/2005
SUBJECT = An idea
NAME = [...]
MESSAGE = Maybe the president could issue a statement to reporters that the Koran flushed down the toilet at Guantanemo was a terrorist Koran and not the regular Christian Koran. That should make things right with the Afghans and end the recent violence.

Double sigh...

DATE = 05/07/2005
SUBJECT = Dear President 43 Our armory in the city of Tonawanda NY was sold to a Muslim.
NAME = [...]
MESSAGE = Dear President 43 Our armory in the city of Tonawanda NY was sold to a Muslim... I would like you to know that I realize we are not to be preg. towards others....... but, this is our armory... And, I want you to know that in light of what is going on... I want you to realize that it is frightening it just is... across the street is a convenience store and a family of Muslims... just please know they bought a civil war armory our armory and it scars me still if I told U before... just the thought hurts my stomach... please help on this matter... maybe U can take in back in home land security name... it's on Delaware St. ave... Tonawanda NY 14150... coming from buffalo on the right.... sigh...

[...]

Tonawanda, NY...

Sniff, sob...

DATE = 04/29/2005
SUBJECT = question
NAME = [...]
MESSAGE = Mr. President, I'm just an average citizen but I do have concerns. Why is it not possible to just start from zero in our financial crisis??? we can print them money pay our debt and start from zero.when the first government was I guessed formed way back yonder,they started from zero. why couldn't we do that?? Is it not possible to do that, Restart it all

Cough, choke...

DATE = 02/20/2005
SUBJECT = Re:CHURCH
NAME = [...]
MESSAGE = Dear George W. Bush,
I Believe Un Born Again Christians And UnBelievers And Children Of Devil And Sons Of Devil Should Be Stop Going To CHURCH. I Believe Believers And Born Again Christians And Children Of God And Sons Of God Should Be Only Be Going To CHURCH. I Testifiy To You To Have GOVERNMENT Have Un Born Again Christians That Have No Come To SALVATION Being Baptized In Water Should Stop Going To CHURCH.

And my very own favorite:

DATE = 12/18/2004
SUBJECT = you're website
NAME = [...]
MESSAGE = i have reported you to the federal building of Investigation.

Kinda makes you wonder what kind of e-mail they're getting over at whit ehouse.com.

On stupid-ass compromises

Or, give it away, give it away, give it away now.

Okay, so if my grandfather gave a rat's ass about politics, he would say, "What the hell kind of stupid compromise is this?" Once again the Democrats, the battered wives of the political world, have rolled over for the Republican majority. In case no one has told you, Senate Dems, a compromise is when both parties give something up, not when you give something up and they laugh at you behind your back.

The conditions of the fingerquote-compromise-unfingerquote reached by fourteen fairly moderate Republican and Democratic senators are that the Repubs won't take away the filibuster as long as the Dems promise to only use it under "extraordinary circumstances." And apparently, those circumstances don't include judges like much-debated Priscilla R. Owen, who had been for the Dems the poster child for objectionable appointments but is now hunky dory, along with Janice Rogers Brown and William H. Pryor.

Now, don't get me wrong - I am all about bipartisan cooperation, and I know that the rest of the country doesn't particularly care about Senate procedure as much as, say, education, or health care, or the environment. But this compromise is, to be a little bit frank, a load of horse poo. Dems have gone from voluntarily giving up their lunch money to flushing their own heads in the toilet and closing themselves in their lockers, in the hopes that the cool kids will like them more. Unity and cooperation can only go so far; there's only so much you can give up.

For the record, in case there was any question, the Republicans have given up precisely nothing. They've said that they wouldn't change 200 years of Senate precedence to disallow the filibuster. Well, folks, to do that would be wrong. The majority of American people know it, the majority of senators know it, there's a good chance they wouldn't be able to ban the filibuster anyway because even moderate Republicans know it would be wrong. The Republicans have volunteered to just not do the wrong thing, and in return, the Democrats have volunteered to back away from their principles and greenlight three judges that they've been blocking because they're too extreme for mainstream America and would be bad judges.

Democrats, I know it's hard to accept, but the cool kids will never like you. And the more you do their homework for them, the more you cover for them when they get caught smoking in the bathroom, the more lunch money you give them, the more they laugh about you in the locker room. This isn't the way to gain the respect of the Republicans, and it certainly isn't the way to gain the respect of the American people. There are times for compromise and times for backbone, and the Democrats aren't going to win a damn thing until they figure out when those times are.

Cross-posted at Hey Jenny Slater.

On true democracy in Afghanistan

Okay, so back in January, when Iraq was having its elections and Republicans were wandering around with purple fingers and pretending that they'd made those historical votes themselves, President Bush said that he was prepared to pull out of Iraq should the new government so request. Now, the Iraqi government hasn't actually made that request, which would be a foolish thing to do considering the current unrest (she says mildly). But someone else has.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai didn't even ask Bush to pull US troops out of Afghanistan; he just wants more authority over the troops currently occupying his ostensibly democratic country. Bush said no.

In his defense, Bush did make the point that "of course, our troops will respond to US commanders." And it makes sense that they should. The US military comes as a complete package with chains of command established; they're not mercenaries ready to be parcelled out one by one to whomever needs them next. And also in Bush's defense, recent riots over desecration of the Quran as reported by Newsweek indicate that Afghanistan might not be the most stable of nations. But it's a sovereign nation and a democratic nation.

President Bush's favorite words are liberty and freedom. He loves talking about spreading democracy to nations newly freed from tyranny. The democratic elections in Afghanistan and Iraq were claimed as triumphs for the Bush administration. Now it's time for Bush to show how much he really loves democracy. If he really loves it, if he's all about freedom and liberty, he'll let the democratically elected Afghan government take control of its country. If he doesn't like the way they run the country, if he thinks it puts US troops in danger, he can pull them out, but he can't threaten Afghanistan's sovereignty. It's one thing to invade a country under the tyrannical rule of a dictator or theocratic government (and whether or not that's okay is another debate for another time); it's another thing entirely to keep unseating democratically elected governments until you find one you like, or to play shadow president with a country that has a president of its very own. If Bush is really confident that he did the right thing in bringing freedom and democracy to Afghanistan, then he needs to back off and let them use it.

Cross-posted at Hey Jenny Slater.

On doing what I say, not what I do

Okay, so this week's award for Most Egregious Use of Unrecognized Irony in a Newspaper Headline has to go to today's Washington Post for their story "Army Warns Iraqi Forces On Abuse Of Detainees."

In other news, Ann Coulter addresses the ACLU on the importance of religious tolerance and Lindsay Lohan lectures high school girls on the dangers of eating disorders.

Unfortunately, it's far from unusual to see pictures of Iraqi detainees cut and bruised from beatings with fists, sticks, and electrical cords, or to hear reports of confessions coaxed out by choking or electrical shock. We just haven't heard about the abuse coming from Iraqi security forces. And of course we're shocked. Just shocked!

Anyone with a couple of hours of Dr. Phil viewing in their past understands the flat basics of armchair psychology: abusive parents tend to raise abusive children. A kid who was beaten by his father will certainly recognize that beating your kids is bad, but is also more likely to resort to that same behavior when his own kids misbehave. It's the only way he knows to deal with kids; he knows that the beatings hurt, but he hasn't been shown an example of how to express his frustration/anger/disappointment any other way.

So now we have the very men responsible for the security of Iraq behaving exactly the same way. Interrogations and coerced confessions by beating and electrocution were status quo during Saddam Hussein's regime, so these Iraqi officers just assume that's the way things work. Unfortunately, the US has missed a great big opportunity to come in and show them how it's really done. Allegations surface every day about detainee abuse, most famously at Abu Ghraib, most recently at Guantanamo Bay.

How are these Iraqi officers going to learn acceptable interrogation techniques if not by example? So far, the US has a pretty good reputation for whacking the crap out of detainees while telling Iraqi officers, "Don't do this." Human Rights Watch says that since the first allegations were made back in October, little progress has been made to "enforce existing laws and put an end to" the abuse. Well, duh. The Iraqi officers have no reason to take the laws seriously if their US counterparts continue abusive behavior that has been condemned by their own superiors.

Army General George Casey wrote recently to his troops that "[i]t is very important that we never turn a blind eye to abuses, thinking that what Iraqis do with their own detainees is 'Iraqi business.' Nor can we wink at suspected transgressions." The job may be far harder than he expects. The Bible, proposed rulebook for good behavior in our supposedly Christian nation, tells us to remove the planks from our own eyes before going after the specks in our brothers'; the US military has to do both simultaneously, or "justice" in the newly democratic Iraq will be same playbook, different team.

On blogging double-duty

Okay, so Doug over at Hey Jenny Slater has asked me to do a little guest-blogging while he's jaunting around Italy, and because I have no intention of doing any actual work at work and because he's really great with the Christmas presents, I was happy to accept. What does that mean for Practically Harmless? Little to nothing; it's not like I post all that often anyway.

Expect new and exciting blogness shortly; until then, jaunt on over to Hey Jenny Slater and help me figure out why Republicans hate America.

On Newsweek's great big screwup

Okay, so Newsweek screwed up big time, and I'm pissed off beyond the telling of it. I'm not pissed off for all the reasons the conservatives are pissed off about it, because some liberal rag caused the death of 15 people in Afghanistan (although, truth be told, I can't help but be pissed off about that). And I'm not even pissed off for the reasons that Kos and Avedon (linked from Eschaton) are pissed off, for the times that the Bush administration has relied on one lousy source and even lied outright to accomplish their goals. I'm not going to start pointing the finger at everyone else I can be pissed off at, because I'm pissed off at Newsweek and I'm pissed off big time.

I stand up for the news media all the time. I'm part of it, and people I know are part of it, and I know for a fact that the media as a whole aren't liberally biased and out to smear the Bush administration. I defend the media and try to explain what happens, and sometimes people understand, and usually they don't. When people ask what I do for a living, I introduce myself as an evil liberal journalist just so that I can get it in there before they do, and then sometimes they're more open to hearing what I have to say. But dammit to hell, Newsweek, you make it so damn hard.

Stop. Screwing. Up. I order you to stop screwing up. I thought you'd have learned your lesson after the whole CBS debacle; nothing like the Memogate scandal to take a good, solid swipe at whatever little credibility the Fourth Estate had left. Why was it such a big deal? Because CBS relied on one source, and it wasn't even one particularly credible source. They thought they had a story, and they ran it without checking the facts, because they wanted to be the first to get it out there. The first to break a big story? The first to smear the president? Dunno. Who cares? CBS's impatience screwed them over big, screwed Dan Rather over big, and screwed over the global news media as a whole by association.

But you just couldn't learn, could you, Newsweek? You ran a story based around the claims of a single, unnamed government official who, after the story ran, said, "Whoops! Maybe I'm not remembering clearly after all! Maybe what I said can be substantiated, and eh, maybe not." Dammit, Newsweek, dammit. What can you say to that? Tell me what I'm supposed to say. Tell me how I'm supposed to defend you now.

After this, it just doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that reports of the desecration of the Koran might be true - are probably true. It doesn't matter that your story might be completely on the level outside of that one nameless source's statement. None of it matters. This is beyond saving. In your apology - which, for the record, placated no one - you didn't retract the story, because there's every likelihood that everything else that it said is true. Well, Newsweek, it doesn't matter. That one minor mistake, that one weed in the flower garden, has lost you any tiny bit of credibility you had left. Your trustworthiness is somewhere on a level alongside Condoleezza Rice, and that is not a good place to be.

How many media outlets have to go down in flames before you learn to double and triple-check your sources? How many reporters have to eat their jobs with a knife and fork before you learn that an "anonymous government source" is going to turn on you like month-old milk? Honestly, how stupid can you get?

I can't defend you anymore. I can't defend you if you're going to continue to screw up like this. I can't put my own credibility on the line if you won't take tiny, simple steps to protect your own. I'm sorry, Newsweek. It's over.

On the president's team

Okay, so let me say, first of all, that I respect Sen. John McCain beyond the telling of it. I would have voted for him over John Kerry, had the choice been available; I might do it in 2008 if the price is right. Just about everything that McCain says strikes me as moderate and reasonable.

But this morning on This Week, he said something that I just can't get behind. Regarding the upcoming (possible? Probable?) filibuster of the president's judicial nominees, he said that the Senate was designed for the protection of the minority and the filibuster should be available for that protection, but that the president's entire slate of nominees should be approved, because the president has a right to choose his team.

Respectfully, Senator, no. It's one thing for the president to choose his own cabinet - in that case, I think they should be looked at closely (we all know how I feel about Condoleezza Rice), but it's better for the country that he be allowed to choose those with whom he's going to be working closely, within reason. But this isn't his cabinet. These aren't his advisors, these aren't people who are going to be bouncing in and out of his office, these are judges. And in many cases, these are judges who will be in a position to overturn his pet legislation. And these are judges who will be appointed for life.

One of the reasons the government works as well as it does (even as well as it does) is that each branch of the government is checked by another branch. Once upon a time, our legislators got to choose our president; that doesn't happen anymore. When one branch gets to pick and choose the members of the other branches without any kind of review or judgment, those checks and balances no longer exist. A president isn't going to try to check a legislature that selected him, and a president doesn't get to pick judges who will never check his decisions. This isn't his team, this is our team. This is the team established to protect our constitutional rights. And since it's our team, it's only right that it should only be appointed with the advice and consent of the legislators that we elected to represent us.

On the quality of mercy

Okay, so there are plenty of reasons to think that Jonah Goldberg is an utter tool. This one is mine:

Some conservative Christians - and many other anti-death penalty advocates - argued [Karla Faye Tucker] should be spared the death penalty but not absolved of her crime. George W. Bush - the supposedly theocratic Christian - was the governor of Texas at the time, and was empowered to halt the execution. His response to such requests: No dice. "I have concluded that judgments about the heart and soul of an individual on death row are best left to a higher authority," he declared. "May God bless Karla Faye Tucker, and God bless her victims and their families."

Actually, I believe what he did was scrunch up his face mockingly and whimper, "Please don't kill me."

You're a man of God there, George. A man of God.

Okay, so any non-comatose individual knows that the White House and the Capitol were evacuated Wednesday as a meandering Cessna violated protected airspace and was escorted away safely by two fighter jets. The only person who didn't know, in fact, was the President himself, who was merrily riding his bicycle through Maryland, blissfully unaware that his wife was, at that very moment, being rushed to a secure location lest aircraft fall on her head.

Now, I'm not going to judge here, because everyone knows I'm all about cardiovascular fitness. But a recent
press gaggle did put Scott "Rainman" McClellan in the hot seat regarding a few inconsistencies. You should read the whole thing, if only to watch Scotty cram the word "protocol" in there a staggering fifteen times, but it can really be summed up with one final question:

Q: Right, but there seems to be so many disconnects here. You've got a plane that was assessed as not being a threat, you've got 35,000 people evacuated, you've got a person who you claim is a hands-on commander in chief who is left to go ride his bicycle through the rural wildlands of Maryland while his wife is in some secure location somewhere, it's just not adding up.

Because if our president is forced to get off of his bicycles, the terrorists have won.

Much thanks so TBogg for the link.

On lessons learned in Iraq

Okay, so Atrios points us at an editorial in the Louisville Courier-Journalist written by Molly Bingham. Molly is an American journalist who spent ten months in Iraq, trying to get the complete story there - including the perspective of the insurgents. She also spent some time there at the beginning of the war as a hostage, held by Saddam Hussein's forces in Abu Ghraib.

Read the whole thing. it's compelling in its entirety. Quasi-journalist that I am, I was struck by one particular passage:

One of the hardest things about working on this story for me personally, and as a journalist, was to set my "American self" and perspective aside. It was an ongoing challenge to listen open-mindedly to a group of people whose foundation of belief is significantly different from mine, and one I found I often strongly disagreed with.

But going in to report a story with a pile of prejudices is no way to do a story justice, or to do it fairly, and that constant necessity to bite my tongue, wipe the smirk off my face or continue to listen through a racial or religious diatribe that I found appalling was a skill I had to practice. We would never walk in to cover a union problem or political event without seeking to understand the perspective from both, or the many sides of the story that exist. Why should we as journalists do it in Iraq?

One thing that I run into constantly when discussing the war in Iraq with conservative friends, particularly those in the military, is the idea that American journalists are traitors for trying to cover all sides of the conflict. To them, it's very simple: the insurgents/terrorists/resistance forces/what have you are evil, they're corrupted by the wickedness of Islam, and they want to kill us all because they hate America for our freedom. Now, never having been there, I can't speak to that one way or the other, but I think it's valuable to have a neutral party to go in and find out what really is going on. I'm not saying that the insurgents might have something to say that would justify suicide bombings and constant attacks on our troops, but insight from the other side might well help us win diplomatically what we've been struggling with militarily - not that we're going to convince the insurgents to stop surging, but that we'll be able to hand over full governance to the Iraqi people that much sooner.

On the apocalypse, still merely impending

Okay, so everyone is going a little bit apocalypse wacky of late. NBC is running Revelations every Wednesday, preceeded by specials on faith and religion and exorcisms and the Rapture and anything else that might spotlight the loony fringe of religious society and thus cast a shadow of kookiness over the rest of us. Some claim that our new Pope Benedict XVI is St. Malachy's "Glory of the Olive," the second-to-last Pope before the end of the world.

But I want to make something perfectly clear: we here at Practically Harmless are watching your back. We've spent countless minutes poring over ancient texts on the Internet and compiling a list of signs of the apocalypse, convenitently provided as an Apocalyptic Index for future reference (as of today, it still sits at 50). And while these other sources certainly get points for creativity, it must be said that the ersatz apocalyptic omens they're throwing around aren't actually mentioned in the book of Revelations. So now, as a companion piece to the Apocalyptic Index, I give you:

Weird Stuff That Nonetheless Is Not a Sign of the Apocalypse

1. Dude cuts off finger, does... not... bleeeeeed!
2. Severed fingers in chili (hoax) or custard (not hoax)
3. Exploding toads
4. Britney Spears reproducing
5. Michelle Malkin hears about President Bush masturbating a horse and flips out

Well, okay, maybe that last one.

On Treasury bonds, which are bad. Except when they're good.

Okay, so is stands to reason that President Bush should spend a lot of time contradicting himself these days, especially at press conferences. After months of proclaiming his mandate (and actually showing us a week ago, and yes, I had to go there), he's starting to look at the polls and realize that his approval rating is slipping and that even staunch Republicans are becoming reluctant to support his policies simply because they're his - basically, that the American people are realizing that our emperor is naked.

We also, if we're smart, realize that his Social Security plan suffers from a distinct lack of a plan. Bush is willing to take time out of is presidency to tour the country and pitch his plan to every American who's already agreed not to disagree with it, but the fact remains that, much like a toddler confronted with a lie, his story changes just a little bit every time he tells it.

"Did you eat the cookie?"
"No, no."
"You've got chocolate on your hands."
"Oh. Um... Well, yeah, I took the cookie, but I didn't eat it."
"Where's the cookie now?"
"Huh?"
"Where is the cookie now?"
"Well, okay, I ate it, but I only ate half of it."

Except that little Georgie can't keep his story straight on the security of Treasury bonds.

"What about Treasury bonds to fund Social Security, George?"
"Well, they're inherently unsafe. They're just a bunch of IOUs from the government to itself, really not worth the paper they're printed on."

There is no "trust fund," just IOUs that I saw firsthand, that future generations will pay -- will pay for either in higher taxes, or reduced benefits, or cuts to other critical government programs.

The office here in Parkersburg stores those IOUs. They're stacked in a filing cabinet. Imagine -- the retirement security for future generations is sitting in a filing cabinet.

"But what about the people who would use them as an investment option under your plan for privatized Social Security?"
"Well, they're not actually so bad. As a matter of fact, they're good! Better than good! The US government stands behind them one hundred perecnt."

In a reformed Social Security system, voluntary personal retirement accounts would offer workers a number of investment options that are simple and easy to understand. I know some Americans have reservations about investing in the stock market, so I propose that one investment option consist entirely of Treasury bonds, which are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government.

"George."
"..."
"George."
"Didja see that bug over there? That was a big one! It was as big as an airplane!"
Sigh. "George."
"Yeah?"
"Go to your room."
"Okay."

On my Sunday night insomnia iPod Top Ten, again.

Okay, so:

1. 'Round Midnight - Ella Fitzgerald
2. Cast No Shadow - Oasis
3. Bodies - Drowning Pool
4. One Girl Revolution - Superchick
5. Sanctus - Rossini
6. If You Were Here - Kent
7. Swing, Swing - All American Rejects
8. Sing Sing Sing - Benny Goodman
9. Ain't Too Proud to Beg - The Temptations
10. La-bas C'est Naturel - Serge Gainsbourg

On victory. Which is mine. Suckas.

Okay, so I try not to spend too much time talking about myself here, because, let's face it, nobody cares. But tonight, I impose upon you my own personal joy and triumph, because I can.*

I have written a novel. It took me exactly a month.

Have no illusions that it was easy. I have busted my freaking ass for thirty days to get this bastard finished in a month. Otherwise, I wouldn't be feeling so damn triumphant, such that I'm posting it for the world to see.

To review: I have written a novel. It took me exactly a month.

I would like to thank the following individuals for contributing to my success: Jacob, my inspiration; Whitney, my other inspiration; Erin, my perspiration; the makers of Diet Dr. Pepper; and Chris Baty, author of No Plot? No Problem!

*Disclaimer: This post was written under the influence of sleep deprivation, euphoria, and not a little bit of champagne. I cannot be held responsible for anything I post tonight.

On our national defense

Okay, so:

Rumsfeld abandons Strategic Missile Defense Shield in favor of grassroots effort

Okay, so I realize that presidents don't, as a rule, actually answer questions at presidential press conferences. It's just not their way. But I just couldn't get over this response to a question about John Bolton:

"John Bolton is a blunt man."

John Bolton is a man who assaults staffers with blunt objects.

On the real reason government doesn't freaking work

Okay, so regardless of your stance on the abortion issue, you have to admit that this just isn't freaking right. Pandagon brings us news of House Judiciary Committee markup of the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. Oh, I'm sorry, did I say markup? I should have said gleeful slashing with an Xacto knife:

DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT
AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION IN HOUSE REPORT 109-51

DEMS: a Nadler amendment allows an adult who could be prosecuted under the bill to go to a Federal district court and seek a waiver to the state’s parental notice laws if this remedy is not available in the state court. (no 11-16)
GOP REWRITE: Mr. Nadler offered an amendment that would have created an additional layer of Federal court review that could be used by sexual predators to escape conviction under the bill. By a roll call vote of 11 yeas to 16 nays, the amendment was defeated.

DEMS: a Nadler amendment to exempt a grandparent or adult sibling from the criminal and civil provisions in the bill (no 12-19)
GOP REWRITE: Mr. Nadler offered an amendment that would have exempted sexual predators from prosecution under the bill if they were grandparents or adult siblings of a minor. By a roll call vote of 12 yeas to 19 nays, the amendment was defeated.

DEMS: a Scott amendment to exempt cab drivers, bus drivers and others in the business transportation profession from the criminal provisions in the bill (no 13-17):
GOP REWRITE: Mr. Scott offered an amendment that would have exempted sexual predators from prosecution if they are taxicab drivers, bus drivers, or others in the business of professional transport. By a roll call vote of 13 yeas to 17 nays, the amendment was defeated.

DEMS: a Scott amendment that would have limited criminal liability to the person committing the offense in the first degree (no 12-18)
GOP REWRITE: Mr. Scott offered an amendment that would have exempted from prosecution under the bill those who aid and abet criminals who could be prosecuted under the bill. By a roll call vote of 12 yeas to 18 nays, the amendment was defeated

DEMS: a Jackson-Lee amendment to exempt clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles or first cousins from the penalties in the bill (no 13-20)
GOP REWRITE: Ms. Jackson-Lee offered an amendment that would have exempted sexual predators from prosecution under the bill if they were clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles, or first cousins of a minor, and would require a study by the Government Accounting Office. By a roll call vote of 13 yeas to 20 nays, the amendment was defeated.

Republicans complain that Democrats abuse the legislative process with their filibusters and smear campaigns on innocent Majority Leaders, and then they go and pull shit like this? This is the legislative equivalent of drawing an ugly picture of Teacher with horns and putting someone else's name on it before dropping it on her desk - and these people are not only adults (or convincing facsimiles thereof), these are the adults we've charged with the running of our country.

With this immature act, they have wasted the time of every legislator who contributed to the amendments in question, they have trivialized a bill regarding the health, safety and emotional well-being of girls who have already been victimized, they have made a mockery of the legislative process, and they have wasted the money of the taxpayers who pay their salaries while they play stupid little games with serious legislature. This wasn't even a matter of arguing against amendments that they felt didn't contribute to the effectiveness of the bill - this was a passive-aggressive, immature shot at the amendments themselves and the Democrats who wrote them. And what do they have to say about it?

Apparently, Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner had this to say to Democrat Rep. Louise Slaughter: "You don't like what we wrote about your amendments, and we don't like what you said about our bill."

Oh, boo hoo hoo freaking hoo. You poor, oppressed Republicans. All you have to your name is complete control of the Executive branch, the House and the Senate. It's empowering and heartwarming to watch you strive so diligently for respect as you act like a bunch of freaking fourth-graders.

I don't want to ever, ever hear a Republican complain about the way Democrats obstruct the legislative process. Not ever. 'Cause as long as we're not writing bills supporting the legalization of child prostitution, human sacrifice, poisoning of civic water reservoirs, and hourly reruns of "Charles in Charge" and submitting them under Tom DeLay's name, they have nothing to say about it. Congratulations, Repubs, you have lost what little of the moral high ground you have left. My advice? Keep it up. The more you play stupid little games with important legislation, the more you support ridiculously unqualified political and judicial nominees because they were Bush's idea, the more you worship Tom DeLay and defend him in his blatant flaunting of every basic, intuitive rule of ethics, the more you shameless and out-of-touch you look as a party. Keep it up. Come 2008, we can run Shaky the Epileptic Chimpanzee if we want and the Republican party will have no credible candidate to oppose him. So by all means, if this is the way you choose to address your role as lawmakers, keep it up.

On Dixified quasi-Yankee American English

Okay, so this sounds about right for a girl born in Virginia, raised in Tennessee and educated in Georgia (although my dear friend Jen says that when I drink, I go full-on Scarlett O'Hara):

Your Linguistic Profile:

50% General American English

35% Dixie

15% Yankee

0% Midwestern

0% Upper Midwestern

What Kind of American English Do You Speak?

On courtroom fashion

Okay, so what does one wear to court to testify against the guy who t-boned one with his Kia?

Discuss.

On my Sunday-night insomnia Top Ten

Okay, so here's my iPod Top Ten as I sit up late, trying to finish an article that refuses to get started:

1. Comfort - Athenaeum
2. The Sun Never Stops Setting - Moby
3. Concerto in G Major (I) Allegro - Luigi Boccherini
4. Fly Me to the Moon - Frank Sinatra
5. Crush - Mandy Moore
6. Hammering in My Head - Garbage
7. Deep Enough - Live
8. Nobody Does It Like Me - Shirley Bassey
9. Lady Madonna - The Beatles
10. Eden - Sarah Brightman

Serious, substantial blogging to commence in five... four... three... two...

On John + Ann = 4-eva

And unfortunately, it has nothing to do with me and John Cusak.

Okay, so Atrios points us at this charming little >interview with John Cloud, newly famous for his 5,500-word exploration of the inside of Ann Coulter's colon. The results are, well, not any prettier than John's story.

The thing that absolutely bugs my rhetorical nuts is his defense of his statement, "Coulter has a reputation for carelessness with facts, and if you Google the words 'Ann Coulter lies,' you will drown in results. But I didn't find many outright Coulter errors." My immediate response, upon reading that, was, "Well, that's 'cause you're lazy, John." But I'm a big person, and I like to give people a chance to defend themselves; this allows them to either explain themselves or fully cover themselves in their own poop.

John Cloud is a poop-coverer.

"David Brock, who knew Ann Coulter from years ago, goes to a book that's years old, and prints some mistakes from that book, and of course [there are] mistakes. And a lot of them are corrected. If you go out and you buy a copy of Slander now, you won't find those mistakes in it, because the publisher has corrected them."

Yes, John, the publisher corrected her errors. That's because the errors were put in by Ann Coulter. It doesn't mean that Ann Coulter doesn't lie; it means that Ann Coulter doesn't always get away with it. Unless, of course, her lies are overlooked by someone who thinks that she's pretty and cool and wants to kiss her and hug her and rub her Adam's apple all night long.

"I don't say in this story that she's never made a mistake. In fact, I point out some mistakes. This is a story that calls some of her writing highly amateurish. I say I want to shut her up occasionally. I quote a friend of hers calling her a fascist [and] another friend of hers calling her a polemicist. I quote Eric Alterman, Salon, James Wolcott, Andrew Sullivan, and Jerry Falwell all criticizing her. The idea that this is a puff piece is just absurd."

"Ew, I don't like her, that's gross. Look, see, I'm hitting her in the arm! Look! You can tell I don't like her, 'cause I'm hitting her in the arm!"

"The cover of our magazine is not glorification. It is news."

Um, if one would define "news" as "things being new and/or interesting," what exactly has Ann Coulter done, of late, that qualifies?

"And, by the way, the picture that we used on the cover is apparently such a horrible image for conservatives that they can't even read the story."

As opposed to the content, which is so horrible that no one can read it.

"What I'll say is that I think Eric Alterman and Ann Coulter engage in the same kind of debate. They don't often make actual arguments. Instead, they throw names around. This is the point of my article."

No, the point of your article is that Ann Coulter is, like,totally your girlfriend. F'real.

Correction: I incorrectly state above that Coulter's publisher, rather than Coulter herself, is responsible for all of her corrections. She has been known to make corrections herself, as in the difference between the hard and paper versions of her book Slander. On the last page of the hardcover, she makes the following assertion:

The day after seven-time NASCAR Winston Cup champion Dale Earnhardt died in a race at the Daytona 500, almost every newspaper in America carried the story on the front page. Stock-car racing had been the nation’s fastest-growing sport for a decade, and NASCAR the second-most-watched sport behind the NFL. More Americans recognize the name Dale Earnhardt than, say, Maureen Dowd. (Manhattan liberals are dumbly blinking at that last sentence.) It took the New York Times two days to deem Earnhardt’s name sufficiently important to mention it on the first page. Demonstrating the left’s renowned populist touch, the article began, "His death brought a silence to the Wal-Mart." The Times went on to report that in vast swaths of the country people watch stock-car racing. Tacky people were mourning Dale Earnhardt all over the South!

However, when it was brought to her attention that the Times did, in fact, provide a front-page article the very next day, sans any mention of any discount retailers. Coulter is kind enough to make the following change for the paperback edition:

...(Manhattan liberals are dumbly blinking at that last sentence.) Demonstrating the left’s renowned populist touch, the New York Times front-page article on Earnhardt’s death three days later began, “His death brought a silence to the Wal-Mart.” The Times went on to report that...

which only implies, inaccurately, that the Times was remiss in their coverage, instead of lying about it outright.

If Cloud is interested in any other examples of Coulter as pathological liar with flaming pants, he can check out the Daily Howler, whence I so blatantly stole this correction.

On Habemus-ing a new Papam

Or, Il Papa's got a brand-new bag

Okay, so the conclave has ended, the white smoke has wafted, the bells have rung, and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of Germany has ascended to the papal throne as Pope Benedict XVI. And while it's probably too early for me to try and sort out my feelings on the whole thing, I'm going to go ahead and blog in haste, that I might repent in leisure.

I had big hopes for this papal election. I'll confess to having hung more weight on the election than was probably due; I'd really consigned my future as a Catholic to the new pope. Without going too much into what is really a very personal subject, I've been struggling with my faith for quite some time, with questions of how my beliefs matched those of the church, whether it's better to be a bad Catholic or a good non-Catholic, whether clinging to my faith and hoping for the church to change to fit my needs is really fair to anyone. And while I thought that Pope John Paul II was a great Pope, and I hardly blamed him personally for my own religious issues, I thought that the election of the new Pope might give me some kind of sign as to the direction of the church and my own place therein.

For the record, I still don't know.

I'm going to give Pope Benedict XVI a chance - it's only fair. It has been suggested that his selection of the name Benedict might, in fact, indicate a desire to follow Benedict XV's more moderate approach to the papacy following the serious doctrinal fundamentalism of Pius X before him.

But then there's also Cardinal Ratzinger's homily on Monday, decrying "threats to the faith" such as liberalism, atheism, agnosticism and relativism. And while I agree that (in his words) "having clear faith based on the creed of the church" is a good thing, I also think that a wholesale condemnation of ideologies like liberalism could undo all of the good that JPII's socially progressive reign had enacted, and that it could be a sign of Benedict XVI's devotion to the harsh, impersonal, condemnatory church of the past.

The new Pope faces a world quite unlike that of the old church that he loved so much. He has, as cardinal, failed to address issues such as the priest sex scandals. AIDS runs rampant in Africa, but the church stubbornly refuses to relax its rigid condemnation of birth control. And through it all, vocations are consistenly dropping, threatening the ranks of the priesthood.

Past performance indicates that Benedict XVI might not be the man to preserve the church in this new time. Even though JPII had made serious headway into the idea of "one true church" that has divided Christians for so long, Ratzinger kept German Catholics and Lutherans from taking communion together at a gathering in 2003. Many German Catholics say that that kind of fundamentalist dogmatism is just par for his theological course.

It's far, far too early to judge this Pope's potential, or to guess what will become of the church in the future. As I said, I have to give him a chance. But in this increasingly crazy global climate, a strong but compassionate Pope is needed to reuinte a disparate church and use his considerable influence to help bring the world closer to peace, or at least to understanding. Jesus Christ preached love, compassion and charity. He hung out with tax collectors and prostitutes. The former Cardinal Ratzinger has said that the new Pope should want to emulate Jesus as closely as possible; I hope that those are the qualities he emulates.

On busyness (and, okay, laziness)

Okay, so I've only just now returned from my fa-ha-ha-ha-hantastic long weekend at the beach, and (alas) work calls, so to tide you over until my next update, a Monday blog roundup:

-Basket Full of Puppies gives us a tale of love, loss, and kidnapped puppies dyed purple;

-Daily Kos offers Tom Tomorrow's take on the (dum dum daaaaaah) Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy (VLWC);

-Eschaton (that's Atrios, folks) reminds us exactly how hard it really is to be a conservative;

-The Regular Staple provides a useful transcript of Rummy's recent press conference in Afghanistan;

-TBogg shares the usual oafishness from Doug Giles, and as an Atlantan, I can only hope Douggie isn't actually eating any of the catfish he catches in the Chattahoochee;

- And on a completely non-funny note, Hey Jenny Slater questions the devotion of chickenhawk right-wing bloggers to the best interests of our military men and women.

Enjoy.

Oh, and confidential to EngineGirl: you go, girl. You go.

On training

Okay, so this one is confidential to Woman In My Building With Tiny, Mostly Hairless Dog:

Not once in the two months that you've been watering your dog outside my window has your incessant "Go potty, Honey. Honey, go potty" caused her to do her business in anything less than half an hour. That's half an hour outside my window coaxing your tiny, Chinese Crested-looking dog to do her business - and not in the dog yard, either, but in the garden under my window.

Perhaps, instead of begging "Honey" to "go potty" for those thirty minutes, you could bring a paperback and give the kid some peace and quiet to relieve herself. I suspect I'd suffer from performance anxiety if I had to face down a cheerleading squad every time I stepped into the loo. Regardless, if I'm forced to spend one more evening listening to your constant cajoling, something is coming out of that window, and it might just be Honey's leftovers from the previous visit.

On - okay, yeah, I realize, it's Pastor Swank

Okay, so Pastor Swank is nothing if not low-hanging fruit, but I couldn't help noticing the following as I scrolled through his amusingly unintelligible blog:

Shorter* Pastor Swank:

We should forgive Charles and Camilla, because even the best of people occasionally slip up and commit mortal sins. The Pope, however, is the Antichrist.

*"Shorter" concept shamelessly ganked from Busy, Busy, Busy.

On Social freaking Security already

Okay, so has my life become so boring that I'm actually taking a moment to comment on Social Security? It is undeniably so.

To me, Social Security has always been one of those joke issues that doesn't really need comment; people on one side (the side of light) look at the proposals on the table and recognize that they're ridamndiculous, while people on the other side (the side of darkness) look at the proposals on the table and recognize that they're ridamndiculous but have to pretend to be all for them because they signed a loyalty oath back in 2004. It's kind of like why people claim to have enjoyed Kill Bill.

If anyone can be trusted to lay it out in a visual format that's both insightful and amusing, it's Doonesbury. Sunday's strip can be found here, but for those too lazy to click through, I'll include pertinent text from the strip. And now, for your blogging enjoyment, Bush's take on Social Security, in his own words:

Because the - All which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases... There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers affecting those - changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be - or closer delivered to what has been promised.

Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled.

Look, there's a series of things that cause the - Like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate - The benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases... There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, if those - if that growth is affected... it will help on the red.

Did you catch that? 'Cause I'm not going to say it again.

On activist judges, comma, the justified murder of

Okay, so hot on the heels of my recent post regarding activist judges, Senator John Cornyn makes the following brilliant statement:

I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been on the news and I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in - engage in violence.

The best take I've seen on this is over at Hey, Jenny Slater, but this guy (a Texas Republican, by the way) is basically justifying violence against judges. Rape suspect Brian Nichols kills four people, including a deputy and a judge, and a "delusional litigant" sneaks in and murders the husband and mother of federal judge Joan Lefkow, but we need to be sympathetic - 'cause after all, these were evil activist judges who deserve to suffer.

On activist judges

Okay, so the boogeyman of the hour definitely seems to be so-called activist judges. Activist judges, as far as I can figure, are defined as any judges that rule in a way other than Republicans would have them rule. And we're not just talking about the recent Terri Schiavo case, either - this goes back as far as gay marriage in Massachusetts and beyond. The Schiavo case is just that much more remarkable in that Judge Greer is both politically and religiously conservative (he's super Christian, folks), and he's getting hung out to dry by certain members of Congress who shall remain soulless. Lacking a wide variety of Evil Liberals to attack, the conservatives begin to cannibalize their own, and I say good on 'em. Except for Judge Greer. He seems like a pretty solid guy.

The issue of activist judges is the question du week for the AJC's Woman to Woman column, always a good source of material and ire for me because Shaunti Feldhahn never fails to be an absolute freaking putz. She goes through her usual thrash of changing values, gay marriage, abortion, blah blah blah, Terri Schiavo blah blah. But she also makes two statements that, while as asinine as we've come to expect from ol' Shaunti, are also significant:

We are in trouble as soon as a judge’s rulings become peppered with references to value judgments or shifting social mores. In our balance of powers world, those considerations are the province of the legislature and the chief executive.

and

We must find better ways to hold activist judges accountable. Although judges must be protected from political considerations, we must be willing to consider the ultra-rare tool of impeachment for egregious cases.

One phrase just jumped out and smacked me: our balance of powers world. We do have a balance of powers. We have checks and balances. And that, Shaunti dear, is exactly why your despise-ed "activist judges" are not only acceptable in but crucial to the preservation of our rights as Americans.

The idea behind a three-branch government is basically the idea behind Paper-Scissors-Rock: everyone can trump someone else, and everyone can be trumped. Everyone has their own job, and, as dictated by the Constitution (generally accepted as the official rulebook for the game) no one's job can completely dominate the government. Unless, that is, you've got a Republican majority in Congress, a sock puppet in the White House, a prostitute in the press gaggle and news media that couldn't care less. Not that that's what we have now, of course; we're speaking rhetorically.

But let's look at that rhetorical country I just laid out. We'll call it the United States of Pamerica (or the USP). Let's say that there are two pecan groves side-by-side in one of those states, run by Mr. Red and Mr. Blue. Now, Mr. Blue happens to worship shrimp, and he has a religious gathering every Wednesday night where he and a few of his close shrimp-worshipping friends get together and have a quiet, unobtrusive celebration to the glory of shrimp. Mr. Red doesn't dislike shrimp, but he's not a fan of shrimp worship, and he's starting to get news that a few potential customers have shied away from his pecan grove for fear of divine retribution, what with all of this shrimp worship going on right in the next grove.

So Mr. Red goes to the capital and talks to the state lege about passing a bill to outlaw shrimp worship within a hundred feet of an agricultural establishment. And of course Mr. Red gets laughed out of the building, because his proposition is ridiculous to everyone except for Representative Fartblossom (D-Lawrenceville), who's 90 years old and tries to pass a bill every year requiring mandatory dental exams for sheep. Mr. Red doesn't like being laughed at, so he takes his favorite senator in hand and heads up to Washington and demands - demands - that somebody do something about this damn shrimp worshipper.

Officially, Congress can't touch it.

This isn't a freedom of religion issue, and it isn't an interstate commerce issue, it's an agriculture issue, and Congress can't directly regulate agriculture. It could also be considered a local zoning issue, but Congress can't regulate that, either. And no matter how wadded up Mr. Red's panties happen to be, he's not going to get any relief from Congress because they can't act on his problem.

Except that this is the United States of Pamerica that we're talking about. Mr. Red's senator, Senator Yahtzee, who's up for reelection this year, takes it upon himself to protect this poor, poor pecan farmer from the horrors of shrimp worship in his own neighborhood. He says that Mr. Red's rights to freedom of religion are being violated by his proximity to shrimp worshippers, and that his revenue is threatened by them, and by God (and not a shrimp god, either) he's going to pass a law outlawing shrimp worship within one hundred feet - hell, let's make that yards - of Mr. Red's pecan grove. And because this is a rhetorical country, completely unrelated to our own perfectly rational and reasonable USA, let's say that law passes to streamers and confetti and popping champagne corks. The President himself flies out from his ranch in Brawford to sign the bill into law and share in a very delicious shrimp cocktail.

"Not so fast," says the Supreme Court. Thank God.

See, pretty much the entirety of the Supreme Court's job is to say "not so fast." If a law or a court ruling is unconstitutional, they say "not so fast," and if a law or ruling is constitutional but is being protested, they say "not so fast" to the ones protesting it. And they don't say, "not so fast, I think this law sucks," they say, "not so fast, this law is blatantly unconstitutional, and I'm going to list every article violated and explain why." In this case, it's "not so fast, you're trying to make a law on an issue that's not under the authority of Congress."

Congress, of course, is up in arms. The Supreme Court is filled with activist judges. They hate Mr. Red for being straight and white and Christian, and they're going to punish him by taking away his land and giving it to this heathen shrimp worshipper. The judiciary loves shrimp worshippers, the nation cries! Down with activist judges, and down with shrimp worship! These judges need to be elected, so that they'll serve the will of the people and not their own personal seafood preferences!

"Not so fast," says the Constitution.

The President is elected. By the people. The people get together and vote and, if they're lucky, the guy with the most votes is president, and he gets to appoint people (like judges) and veto bills and command the military. Congress is elected. By the people. The people get together (in their states, this time) and vote and, with any luck, the guys with the most votes are Congressmen/women, and they get to pass federal laws, impeach the president, and even overturn vetoes.

The judicial branch is appointed (by the President, people) and approved (by Congress). They've got just as much partisan politics behind them as any other branch. But what they don't have is election campaigns, which means that they don't have to pander to the will of the majority, which means that they do get to rule in favor of the minority whenever the Constitution gives them reason to do so. In a situation like the USP, with one party controlling two branches, the judiciary is the only branch really likely to speak for the minority. They can say, "Hey, the Constitution says you can't make that law" or even "Hey, the Constitution says he can worship shrimp wherever he likes," and they don't have to worry about backlash from Pamericans Against Consecrated Seafood.

Shaunti, I know that shrimp worship wigs you out. I know that you want poor Mr. Red to not live in fear of the peaceful shrimp worshippers next door. But that doesn't meant that Mr. Blue can't worship shrimp all he wants, within the boundaries of the Constitution. And when the ever-growing congregation of shrimp worshippers becomes a majority in the US, you'll be grateful for an activist judiciary to protect your right to worship Belial at your pecan grove.

On the curse of insomia

Okay, so everybody else is doing it, and I'm nothing if not an obedient sheep.

My late-night insomniac iPod random ten:
1. Freeze Time - 311
2. But Not For Me - Harry Connick, Jr.
3. Unfaithful - Les Nubians
4. Brother, Can You Spare A Dime? - Abbey Lincoln
5. All I Want - Toad the Wet Sprocket
6. Overture No. 2 - J.S. Bach
7. Last Night I Dreamt That Somebody Loved Me - The Smiths
8. Orange Blossom Special - Johnny Cash
9. So Many Things - Sarah Brightman
10. Yesterday - The Beatles

Stop judging me. Stop!

On stupid, stupid, stupid people driving

Okay, so it's raining like a mofe here in beautiful Atlanta. I happen to love mofe-like rainy days, as long as I get to be inside a sturdy building, looking out. Of course, getting from one sturdy building to the next often requires driving, and that's how I found myself just about plastered against the side of a Flowers truck by a gold Kia.

No actual contact was made, and thus no damage - the car got really close, I cursed in a very unladylike manner, and my car peed herself in fear. But the encounter made me wonder about Kia drivers and the fact that, to a one, they drive like Lizzie-Grubman-meets-Mark-Martin-meets-Ozzy-Osbourne-on-a-bender.

Expound? Why not.

On a sunny, lovely day in February, I found myself tooling along toward Decatur, top down and wind in my hair, toward Decatur in search of buffalo chicken quesadillas at the U Joint. Suddenly and without warning, the asshat in the right lane decides to defy the laws of physics by occupying the same space that I'm occupying at the same time, to the tune of a big ol' dent along my passenger side and (eventually) more than $4,000 in auto repair. All of that wouldn't have been such a hassle if the dude had actually had car insurance, but since he didn't, I got to deal with the fun of coaxing my insurance company into classifying it as an uninsured driver claim, getting me a rental, fixing my car, etc. etc. The guy, though, had more problems than just my car damage; he also had an expired tag and and an invalid driver's license. Oh, and he was deaf, which isn't illegal but seems kind of unsafe where driving is concerned; if you're going to drive around uninsured, you'll want all five senses available and alert just in case you decide to change lanes into the side of an unsuspecting Cabrio.

Anyway, dude was driving a Kia.

So here's my question: do bad drivers tend to pick Kias, or do Kias make people bad drivers? Are Kias built so that they're hard to turn and harder to stop and covered in blind spots? Or does the DMV just issue you a Kia after your fourth car accident? Speak up, Kia drivers. At the very least, let me know how to avoid you.

On the apocalypse, nowish

Okay, so I know I'm not the only person who saw pictures of the two-headed Egyptian baby and came to the conclusion that the end is pretty much nigh. Upon further research, however, I discovered that two-headed babies of any nationality aren't, in fact, apocalyptic prophecy; they're not mentioned in Revelations at all. And that got me thinking: how will we really know when the end is upon us?

As best as I can figure, we can look out for twenty signs:

Signs from the seven seals of the apocalypse:
1. Counterfeit baptisms, bibles, messiahs and holy days; false prophets who possess miracle-working powers will proclaim the name of Jesus but not follow His commandments.

2. War, bloodshed and revolution; world wars will involve many nations might annihiliate "all flesh" from the planet.
3. Famine; prices for life's necessities will spiral to unbelievable levels.

4. Pestilence, disease
5. Persecution of God's chosen people

Celestial signs:
6. Great earthquake
7. Sun turning black (coming March 2006)
8. Moon turning red
9. Stars falling from the sky
10. Sky rolling back like a curtain
11. God's servants being sealed on their foreheads


Destruction of the earth:
12. One-third of the earth, trees and grass will burn.
13. One-third of the sea will turn to blood, fish will die, ships will sink, and rivers will turn bitter.
14. One-third of the sun, moon and stars will go dark.
15. An evil host led by Abaddon the King will emerge from the Abyss to torture mankind for five months.

16. One-third of mankind will be killed.
17. The Holy City (Jerusalem) will be trampled for 42 months.
18. The Beast (the Antichrist) will emerge from the Abyss.
19. Jesus will come back and throw an unholy beating down on the Antichrist.
20. Peace will reign for a thousand years.

All of which puts us at a solid 10 out of 20 signs of an impending apocalypse. Obviously, we don't need to be running out to confession all at once, but it wouldn't be a bad thing to keep our eyes open for moons turning red, rivers turning bitter and Jesus returning to lay the smackdown on Ann Coulter.

Today's Apocalyptic Index: 50

On control

Okay, so I had decided that I was done with the Terri Schiavo thing. Court after court has denied her parents' appeals, and although our bulldog-esque Congress refuses to let it all go, it's likely that the Supreme Court (should the case end up there) will uphold the rulings of the lower courts. It's also my understanding that Terri is starting to show the effects of her deprivation and could really go at any time, which, in my mind, is a blessing.

But before I let the whole thing lie, I wanted to address a comment that I keep hearing. I've noticed several people noting that Terri, a bulimic, is now being kept alive through the forced introduction of food, and isn't that ironic. My reponse to that? You have no idea.

The thing about bulimia is that it's way bigger than food and way bigger than skinny (although those both play a major part in it). For many (most?) bulimics, the disorder is about control as much as anything else - in a world full of chaos, when you can control nothing else, you can control the food that goes in (and out) of your body. Life is miserable, and I'm lonely, and the only thing that will make me feel better is a chicken finger basket from Guthrie's. And I'll eat it and eat it, but you can't make me digest it. Watch this - I can eat an entire pint of Rocky Road and not gain an ounce. Life is jerking me around, my boss is ordering me around, all of my professors have scheduled exams at the same time - but at least I get to say what goes into my body, and I get to say how long it stays there.

The control is a joke, of course; the disorder is in charge. No sane, "in-control" person would voluntarily gorge herself to the point of discomfort on fried chicken and then purposely unswallow it. The bulimia is that little evil voice in the back of your head saying, "Look at you! Look at the power you have!" And it's a seriously convincing voice, convincing enough to drown out the concern of loved ones and good medical advice - and your own conscience telling you that you know better. Bulimia is ultimately about a complete loss of control - you're miserable, your body is suffering from the malnutrition and the constant purging, you know that what you're doing is wrong, but you can't stop it.

Now consider that this is how Terri lived the last few years of her conscious life. Prior to her heart attack, she had been drinking nothing but iced tea for weeks. By all accounts, this was a woman whose control had been usurped by an eating disorder. But she had made one decision on her own - her husband and several of her friends testified to the satisfaction of numerous courts that she didn't want her body to be maintained through life-prolonging measures if she ended up in a vegetative state.

And now the world wants to take that one final decision away from her. That one last bit of sane, rational, genuine control - the choice of life or death - is being stripped by her well-meaning parents and our bastard Congress. A woman who spent so much time being jerked around by an eating disorder is now being jerked around by people who are supposed to love her (her parents) and protect her rights (the government). That is, if the courts allow it, which doesn't seem to be happening. At long last, Terri Schiavo is finally getting to make one crucial decision for herself.

On the sanctity of life

Okay, so the controversy surrounding Terry Schiavo has been going on for quite some time now (arguably, for the 15 years that she's been in a persistent vegitative state). In theory, it could be close to an end; courts have ordered that the feeding tube be removed as of 1:00 p.m. today.

However, Congress, doing what Congress does best, seems to be doing its level best to keep her body alive as long as is humanly possible by way of completely stripping her of any remaining dignity. Pandagon tells us how Congress objects to the removal of her feeding tube - because she's supposed to testify before them regarding the issue later this month.

I'm not even kidding. If only I were. But no, Congress has asked that the body formerly occupied by Terri Schiavo be brought before them for - for what? For nothing more than a delaying tactic, truth be told, but according to an attorney for her parents, they're "prayerfully excited about their daughter going before the United States Congress for the whole world to see how alive she is."

I have nothing but sympathy for Terri Schiavo's parents. I don't know what it's like, having to go through what they've gone through; I can only imagine the grief and desperation. What mother wouldn't want to believe that her daughter is still there, able to speak and smile and react to her touch and her voice? To see someone go so quickly from a vibrant, active person to an unresponsive body must be heartbreaking; the idea of losing even that last little bit must be unthinkable.

But Terri's just not there anymore. Doctors have testified that in addition to the initial damage caused by the chemical imbalance and subsequent heart attack, her brain has deteriorated to the point that it's not there anymore; her cerebral cortex is gone, replaced by nothing but spinal fluid, and any movements or sounds that she makes are just involuntary reflexes, the result of nothing but brain stem activity. Short of divine intervention, she's never going to get better.

The argument that Terri should be allowed to die in order to relieve her suffering is fallacious; the parts of her brain that would allow her to feel pain are, by doctor's accounts, long gone. But there's something to be said for preserving her dignity, even if she's no longer there to enjoy it. According to her husband, Terri made perfectly clear her desire not to be kept alive by extraordinary measures; it's not an uncommon request. And it's a request that should be honored for every person who makes it. The most important decision that we can ever make is simply to live or not to; to have that decision taken away from us is unspeakably cruel.

From Terri's parents, it's understandable; they don't want to lose their daughter and don't realize that they already have. For Congress to do so is unthinkable and disgusting. They've taken a family's suffering and a woman's life and used them to push their own agenda that perverts the sanctity of life by preserving it beyond any reasonable extent. Human life is precious not because of a beating heart or brain waves but because of the person inside; the human soul can't possibly be reduced to somethign so base and crude as an act of Congress.

Human life is absolutely sacred. It's not something that can be legislated or argued or thrown around or decided in the news. Human life should start and end with nothing more than love and dignity.

Update: The presiding judge in the case has ruled that her feeding tube must be removed, despite the Congressional subpoena. I pray that Terri Schiavo is finally allowed to rest in peace.

On overt covert non-propaganda propaganda

Okay, so on February 17, the GAO decided that the Bush administration's little faux-news videos (not to be confused with Fox News videos, which serve the same purpose) violate a law banning covert government propaganda. The videos, which are sent to TV stations to be broadcast without any editing, are designed to look like independent news broadcasts and give no indication that Karl Rove is actually standing behind the camera signaling the "news anchors" to smile more.

Last week, the Bush administration released its response: "Pbbbbbbth":

The Bush administration, rejecting an opinion from the Government Accountability Office, said last week that it is legal for federal agencies to feed TV stations prepackaged news stories that do not disclose the government's role in producing them.

Steven Bradbury at the Justice department had the following arguments:

The legal counsel's office "does not agree with GAO that the covert propaganda prohibition applies simply because an agency's role in producing and disseminating information is undisclosed or 'covert,' regardless of whether the content of the message is 'propaganda,"

...which means, "Just because we covertly produce this propaganda doesn't mean that it's covert propaganda that should be prohibited by a law against covert propaganda," and...

"Our view is that the prohibition does not apply where there is no advocacy of a particular viewpoint, and therefore it does not apply to the legitimate provision of information concerning the programs administered by an agency."

... even though the videos have addressed such contraversial subjects as the administration's position on Medicare drug benefits.

Two things seriously frost my cookies about this whole deal. The first thing, of course, is the fact that TV stations are actually running these videos with no indication that they're just shilling for the administration. Print ads designed to look like editorial content are required to say "Advertisement" at the top, and children's TV shows are required to have a "We'll be right back!" buffer at the beginning and ending of each segment so kids can know when they're being entertained and when they're being advertised at. Yet the government can disguise their propaganda as news and slide it into our newscasts without warning? If Bush is that desperate to promote his policy, fine. I won't even get into the fact that his policy tends to be so shoddy that he can't even discuss it outright but has to sneak it in so the people don't even know they're being pandered to. But the viewing public deserves at least the courtesy of a "We'll be right back after a word from our sponsor."

The other thing can be summed up by the WaPo headline - Administration Rejects Ruling On PR Videos. Administration rejects ruling. There's that mandate again. Screw the established system of checks and balances, 'cause Bush gets what he wants. His budget, his religious beliefs, his position on Socia Security, on homeland security, his cabinet nominations - he gets what he wants, 'cause 51 percent is all the mandate he needs. So if a governmental agency tells him that he can't play the way he wants to play, who cares? He rejects it. The GAO can't tell him what to do, 'cause they aren't the boss of him.

If my dad told me to do something and I looked him in they eye and said, "Nuh-uh," I would get popped. I'm not saying that's what needs to happen with Bush. Y'know, I'm not sayin'. I'm just sayin'.

Hat tip to The Regular Staple for the link.

On tough questions that are really pretty simple.

Okay, so the random Yahoo! search of the day is "how to Tell if he's interested in you romantically or sexually."

Oh, honey.

Here's how you tell: if he's carting around a penis, he's interested in you sexually. As for the rest of it - anybody's guess, really. Some women never know. And if anyone would like to publish a definitive list of signs that a guy's interested romantically, I will personally send him/her a fruit basket.

On laziness and Friday uber-meta-blogging

Okay, so it's a gorgeous, sunny Friday, and it's lunchtime, and I'm just fiending for a cup of vegetable soup from Jason's Deli and a warm seat in the sunshine. So I'm going to sit back and let someone else do the work here. Or, as the case may be, sit back and let someone else let someone else let someone else do the work.

First, head over to Wonkette as she liveblogs CNN's "Inside Politics" Blog Report, which covers, among other things, Kos blogging Senator Russ Feingold's blog - four degrees of blog separation.

And if you have a moment, check out Fishbowl DC and a corresponding item at ABC Online which covers FishbowlDC blogging the White House press pool covering Fishbowl DC blogging the White House press pool for an exhausting five degrees of blog separation and this week's prize, a copy of Mervin Block's seminal Writing Network News - Shorter, Sharper, Stronger.

While you're there, take a beat to follow Garrett Graff's quest to secure a White House press gaggle day pass, just like the one that JimJeff GannonGuckert claims to have secured so easily.

On a kid saying the darndest things

Okay, so Tuesday's AJC just proves what I've always suspected, that our legislators are about as bright as your average fifth-grader. Because a "New Attitudes" column by a Dekalb County middle-schooler puts them to
shame - and the rest of us, too:

What do you think when you think of gay people? Most people would answer that question with sounds of disgust. But why? What did gay people do that was so bad? Why do so many people hate gay people?

Is there a reason? Well, most people would say, "It says so in the Bible." Who wrote the Bible? Men. Men who feared. Men who had to be in control. Men who also said women should have no rights.

...

Gay people are just like everyone else. They love. They have arguments. They want children. They have to eat to live. They die at old ages. So what makes them so different?

Gay people are adopting children because they can't have children of their own. Trust me, I would know.

I am one of those children who were adopted by two gay men. They are the best family I've ever had. And they love.

They don't care that I'm black and they're white, they don't care that I look, sound or am different. They love. And who could understand that more than a child who had never been loved, and is finally loved by people whom other people hate?

I don't think that I could ever hate because I'm surrounded by real love.

Out of the mouths of babes. Good Lord.

Of course, some people won't be satisfied. Some people can't stand to not be right, and some people bristle at being put in their place by a seventh-grader. So of course, some people are going to writea letter to the editor:

So what do her two "daddies" say when Mary Manganello asks them about sex, menstruation, birth control, marriage, masturbation, childbearing or any number of questions that reflect the special, warm, personal, intimate, inimitable, unmatchable and irreplaceable feelings a daughter gets from talking and sharing her feelings with her mom?

Well, I'm not there, so I can't answer that with any certainty. But I'm gonna guess they'll do a lot of the same things that my friend's dad did. Her mother died when she was eight, leaving her father to raise three daughters by himself. When she got her period, he bought tampons. When she got boobs, he took her to JC Penney for a bra fitting. When she had questions about sex, he answered them, and when she started dating, he started cleaning his gun every weekend (this is the south, after all). He did better as father and mother than a lot of two-member parenting teams that I know. And thusly raised, she has grown into a smart, beautiful, capable young woman, nonetheless feminine for having a man in charge of her upbringing.

I was lucky enough to have both parents around the entire way. My father and I, of course, have that special daddy-daughter relationship when we're alternately rapt with mutual adoration and at each other's throats; it's our way. My mother and I have had our rough spots (think the entirety of middle school), but at this point we're at the best-buds stage, and it's great. Each relationship is full of "special, warm, personal, intimate, inimitable, unmatchable and irreplaceable feelings" that come not from our respective plumbing setups but from the people that we are. Mom, as a guy, would still be wonderfully sympathetic and kind and smart and funny - now that I think about it, she'd probably be my best friend Jacob; that explains a lot about my relationship with him. Daddy, as a woman, would be, well, me; that we're pretty much exactly alike explains both the closeness and the contentiousness (I've been lucky enough to escape without his mustache).

It's one of the early basics that we're taught as children: I'm okay, you're okay. Color, gender, socioeconomic status, disability, or, yeah, sexual orientation - that's all demographics; we're defined by the people we are inside. How tragic is it that grown men and women can so easily forget their kindergarten lessons. And if it takes a little black girl and her two gay daddies to remind us, then I'm all for it.  We've still got a long way to go, and a little child shall lead us.

On caving to peer pressure

Okay, so I got an e-mail today from our friend Doug of the late, not bad GWBWYPGN?! He has the following to say:

Now link my new blog before I come over to Buckhead and slap you.

I want it to be known that we here at Practically Harmless do not respond to threats, and that I'd link to him anyway, 'cause he gave me this cute little model of a red and black Mini Cooper for my birthday. He personalized the license plate and everything.

Anyway, be sure to bookmark his new not-entirely political blog at http://heyjennyslater.blogspot.com. It turns out that Doug can be funny even when he's not talking about politics. Oh, and dig the pictures of his new puppy, 'cause they don't come any cuter than that. No, they don't. No, they don't. Yes, you're the cutest-wutest little puppy-wuppy... Ahem.

As you were.