It's official. I'm tired of blogger and all it's nuisances. So the new home for the Cranky Con is http://crankycon.typepad.com/cranky/. Please mark your links, and come on over to my new digs.
As for the old posts here - well, I'll obviosly still have this domain. If anyone can figure out a way to transport all my new posts to the new place, let me know.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
6 foot 8 and he weighed a @#$%ing ton
Very odd, yet very funny video about George Washington.
Unrelated note: I am thisclose to ditching this freaking blogger account. Can fucking blogger move any slower? I might as well be on dial-up. Sheez.
Unrelated note: I am thisclose to ditching this freaking blogger account. Can fucking blogger move any slower? I might as well be on dial-up. Sheez.
BUH-BYE!
Oh yeah
I hope Zarqawi enjoys those 72 raisins.
The al Qaeda leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was killed in a joint attack by U.S. helicopters and Iraqi forces, ABC news reported on Thursday.No doubt the most significant event in the war since the capture of Saddam. As others have said, no, this obviously doesn't end the war, but this is just the greatest possible news at this point.
It said U.S. helicopters hit a house near Baquba, 40 miles
north of Baghdad, at 6 p.m. local time on Wednesday.
"Zarqawi was apparently injured at first... The Americans found him. They handed him over to the Iraqis and he later died of his injuries," ABC said.
I hope Zarqawi enjoys those 72 raisins.
I feel so . . . dirty
For the first time in nearly eight years I've done something that I haven't done, and that's root for the Atlanta Braves. You see, last week I traded for John Smoltz for my fantasy team, and he was on the hill tonight.
In the end it was probably the best result I could have hoped for. Smoltz pitched seven innings, giving up six hits, one walk, three runs and eight strikeouts. He took the loss, but we don't count losses in my league. The Nats won and Chad Cordero got the save, and at this point I need saves slightly more than wins. So, all in all a good night as the Braves move a bit closer to the Nationals and even further away from the Mets.
In the end it was probably the best result I could have hoped for. Smoltz pitched seven innings, giving up six hits, one walk, three runs and eight strikeouts. He took the loss, but we don't count losses in my league. The Nats won and Chad Cordero got the save, and at this point I need saves slightly more than wins. So, all in all a good night as the Braves move a bit closer to the Nationals and even further away from the Mets.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
A Democratic landslide in November - Methinks not
Few who know me would categorize me as a rah-rah Republican type of guy. Though I'm nowhere as jaded with the GOP as guys like Jeff, I've also been quite critical of the party, particularly when it comes to illegal immigration, spending, education, etc. Part of me is actually rooting for Republicans to lose control of the House in November, though it would ache me to see Nancy Pelosi in charge. Honestly, the Republicans have done nothing to merit another two years of legislative control.
But I also don't really think that they will lose control of the House. I think that Real Clear Politics is right on the money in their analysis of the Bilbray-Busby contest for the special election in California-50. It's not exactly a telling result for either party, but it bodes less well for the Democrats. It's true that this district is a red district, but it's not exactly a deep-red one. Duke Cunningham won re-election in 2004 with 58% of the vote. That's solid, but not overwhelming.
When you think about it, the Democrats should have won this election. Cunningham left the House in disgrace. This was a race that garnered much national attention, and should have been an opportunity for Democrats to take advantage of voter diasaffection with the Republican party. And yet the Republicans held on, albeit with a slightly narrower margin than in previous Congressional elections.
To put in perspective, in 1994 Dan Rostenkowski outright lost his seat in a heavily Democratic district when he faced corruption charges. Granted in that case it was Rostenkowski himself who was running, but one would think that voter anger over Republican politics combined with concerns over corruption should have resulted in a Democratic victory in this special election. It didn't, and if you're a Democrat you have to be a little more concerned about your chances of ultimate victory in Novemver.
The Democrats could wind up winning control of the House, and they should at least pickup a fair number of seat. But, in the end, I don't think they will win enough seats to take back the majority.
Additional thoughts: A few more thoughts came to me after hitting publish. I think my main point is that here we have a district where an individual leaves office in disgrace, and is further part of a general atmosphere of supposed corruption as a member of a party that has angered much of its base, and yet an individual from the very same party winds up winning. It makes you wonder, will voters in New York and Ohio - the states with the most Republican swing districts in play - really throw out their guys because of Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff? If the voters in the district with an actual corrupt member (or former member) can't get worked up enough to change parties, what makes us believe that voters in district where their members themselves are not corrupt are going to rise in revolt?
Sometimes I think we forget that those of us who blog and comment on them are MUCH more intensely involved in and aware of politics than most voters. Yes, there's a general antipathy to Republicans right now, but that antipathy is not as intense as our own because the expectations aren't as high. While voter x in upstate New York might have an unfavorable view of the President and that might color his attitude towards his representative, that negative view is probably not that intense. Thus, in the end, the voting behavior pattern is not so likely to change. Most people just do not pay as close attention to politics as we do, and even if their general impressions of a political party aren't so hot, that intensity of feeling (or lack therof) will not translate into a massive voter revolt this November.
But I also don't really think that they will lose control of the House. I think that Real Clear Politics is right on the money in their analysis of the Bilbray-Busby contest for the special election in California-50. It's not exactly a telling result for either party, but it bodes less well for the Democrats. It's true that this district is a red district, but it's not exactly a deep-red one. Duke Cunningham won re-election in 2004 with 58% of the vote. That's solid, but not overwhelming.
When you think about it, the Democrats should have won this election. Cunningham left the House in disgrace. This was a race that garnered much national attention, and should have been an opportunity for Democrats to take advantage of voter diasaffection with the Republican party. And yet the Republicans held on, albeit with a slightly narrower margin than in previous Congressional elections.
To put in perspective, in 1994 Dan Rostenkowski outright lost his seat in a heavily Democratic district when he faced corruption charges. Granted in that case it was Rostenkowski himself who was running, but one would think that voter anger over Republican politics combined with concerns over corruption should have resulted in a Democratic victory in this special election. It didn't, and if you're a Democrat you have to be a little more concerned about your chances of ultimate victory in Novemver.
The Democrats could wind up winning control of the House, and they should at least pickup a fair number of seat. But, in the end, I don't think they will win enough seats to take back the majority.
Additional thoughts: A few more thoughts came to me after hitting publish. I think my main point is that here we have a district where an individual leaves office in disgrace, and is further part of a general atmosphere of supposed corruption as a member of a party that has angered much of its base, and yet an individual from the very same party winds up winning. It makes you wonder, will voters in New York and Ohio - the states with the most Republican swing districts in play - really throw out their guys because of Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff? If the voters in the district with an actual corrupt member (or former member) can't get worked up enough to change parties, what makes us believe that voters in district where their members themselves are not corrupt are going to rise in revolt?
Sometimes I think we forget that those of us who blog and comment on them are MUCH more intensely involved in and aware of politics than most voters. Yes, there's a general antipathy to Republicans right now, but that antipathy is not as intense as our own because the expectations aren't as high. While voter x in upstate New York might have an unfavorable view of the President and that might color his attitude towards his representative, that negative view is probably not that intense. Thus, in the end, the voting behavior pattern is not so likely to change. Most people just do not pay as close attention to politics as we do, and even if their general impressions of a political party aren't so hot, that intensity of feeling (or lack therof) will not translate into a massive voter revolt this November.
Catholics and Evangelicals, oh my
In the comments section of this post and this post former (and hopefully also future) guest blogger Big Daddy Jeff has questioned the Catholic committment to social issues. We've had a bit of a back and forth, but I wanted to bring to the fore something he said.
On one level their actions regarding illegal immigrants are understandable. They are motivated by a biblical exhortation to love our neighbors. What they do not seem to understand or grasp is a basic concept of respect for the law. Theirs is a short-sighted brand of love which misses the bigger picture. This is the same flaw that motivates the "social justice" types who pine for greater social welfare benefits while ignoring the deleterious affects of such an economic system on those it is intended to help. Again, their actions are noble in theory, but not ultimately for the best.
But these bishops represent the old guard. They are the very same people who twisted the ecumenism of Vatican II. Rather than taking Vatican II for what it was intended to be, they used it as an excuse to turn the Roman Catholic Church in America into another brand of high Church Protestantism. These grey-haired geezers are stuck in the 60's, egotistically attempting to mold the Church in their own image. Happily, the old guard is swiftly going away. Attend a Mass celebrated by any of our wonderful young priests, and you will witness an entirely different attitude. These young new priests are filled with the Holy Spirit, and with a zest for orthodoxy. It is these young men that are in touch with traditional Catholcism, and who are at the forefront - on our side - of the culture war. These young men will become bishops one day, Bishops who will not (hopefully) repeat the errors of their predecessors. They are the future, and it's a bright one for the Church.
Furthermore, as Jeff concedes there are many individual Catholics who are fighting the good fight. Again, visit St. Blogs Parish and you'll see many of these people who are at the grassroots and who leading the cultural right. The intellectual firepower of traditional conservatism comes primarily from the Catholic Church.
It is also a bit odd for an Evangelical to exhort the Catholic Church for its non-conservatism. I pointed to this post which capped my seven-part series on American conservatism and which focused on the differences between Evangelical and Catholic conservatives. There is a worldliness to the Evangelical mindset that seems a little, shall we say, utopian. It is the Evangelical mindset which motivates President Bush to engage in the push for democratization, a subject Jeff should be sensitive to. Evangelicals tend more to be of the neoconservative mindset than orthodox Catholics. They tend more often to be at ease with the welfare state.
(These are generalities. Sure, there are people who call themselves Catholic who support abortion and gay marriage, but these cafeteria Catholics do not represent orthodox Catholicism. Not all Evangelicals are as conservative as Jeff, or are of a different stripe.)
I'm also more supportive of the Vatican approach to cultural issues. Pope Benedict is a wonderful champion of orthodoxy, but he is also a man of love who does not engage in the excessive rhetoric of stooges such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. I'll take Benedict and many non-American Catholics over such men all the time.
What should be noted is that these differences do exist. They point out the idiocy of the leftist caricature of the supposed theocratic right. The religious right is no monolith, and that's fine by me. We tend to agree on the larger issues, and we should continue to fight the good fight together.
In other areas, though, I'm just not seeing it. The strong defense of illegal immigrants delivered by leading archbishops in big Catholic cities like Los Angeles and Washington seem to reveal their cards to me.This is an eminently fair point. If you read the St. Blogs Parish (the group of Catholics blogs) regularly as I do, you will see bloggers and commenters alike often bemoaning American bishops. Orthodox Catholics have no particular love for many of our bishops. Just check out, for instance, the Closed Cafeteria to read about Bishops who will steadfastly oppose Rome's attempts to make the English translation of the Mass accurately reflect the Latin, or who mandate that parishoioners remain standing after the Agnus Dei and then accuse kneelers of being immoral, or who dsestroy beautiful Cathedrals, remove all kneelers, and use improper vessels for Holy Communion, among other actions. We are just as upset with their actions as Jeff is.
On one level their actions regarding illegal immigrants are understandable. They are motivated by a biblical exhortation to love our neighbors. What they do not seem to understand or grasp is a basic concept of respect for the law. Theirs is a short-sighted brand of love which misses the bigger picture. This is the same flaw that motivates the "social justice" types who pine for greater social welfare benefits while ignoring the deleterious affects of such an economic system on those it is intended to help. Again, their actions are noble in theory, but not ultimately for the best.
But these bishops represent the old guard. They are the very same people who twisted the ecumenism of Vatican II. Rather than taking Vatican II for what it was intended to be, they used it as an excuse to turn the Roman Catholic Church in America into another brand of high Church Protestantism. These grey-haired geezers are stuck in the 60's, egotistically attempting to mold the Church in their own image. Happily, the old guard is swiftly going away. Attend a Mass celebrated by any of our wonderful young priests, and you will witness an entirely different attitude. These young new priests are filled with the Holy Spirit, and with a zest for orthodoxy. It is these young men that are in touch with traditional Catholcism, and who are at the forefront - on our side - of the culture war. These young men will become bishops one day, Bishops who will not (hopefully) repeat the errors of their predecessors. They are the future, and it's a bright one for the Church.
Furthermore, as Jeff concedes there are many individual Catholics who are fighting the good fight. Again, visit St. Blogs Parish and you'll see many of these people who are at the grassroots and who leading the cultural right. The intellectual firepower of traditional conservatism comes primarily from the Catholic Church.
It is also a bit odd for an Evangelical to exhort the Catholic Church for its non-conservatism. I pointed to this post which capped my seven-part series on American conservatism and which focused on the differences between Evangelical and Catholic conservatives. There is a worldliness to the Evangelical mindset that seems a little, shall we say, utopian. It is the Evangelical mindset which motivates President Bush to engage in the push for democratization, a subject Jeff should be sensitive to. Evangelicals tend more to be of the neoconservative mindset than orthodox Catholics. They tend more often to be at ease with the welfare state.
(These are generalities. Sure, there are people who call themselves Catholic who support abortion and gay marriage, but these cafeteria Catholics do not represent orthodox Catholicism. Not all Evangelicals are as conservative as Jeff, or are of a different stripe.)
I'm also more supportive of the Vatican approach to cultural issues. Pope Benedict is a wonderful champion of orthodoxy, but he is also a man of love who does not engage in the excessive rhetoric of stooges such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. I'll take Benedict and many non-American Catholics over such men all the time.
What should be noted is that these differences do exist. They point out the idiocy of the leftist caricature of the supposed theocratic right. The religious right is no monolith, and that's fine by me. We tend to agree on the larger issues, and we should continue to fight the good fight together.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
This doesn't sound soft to me
So much for the "moderate on social issues" Catholic Church (reference is from comments section below):
The Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family has published a document today which uses some of the strongest language the Vatican has employed in decades. The introduction to "Family and Human Procreation" says: "today man has become a great enigma to himself and lives through the most acute crisis of his history in its family dimension: the family is subject to attack as never before; the new models of the family destroy it; procreation techniques jettison human love; the politics of birth control lead to the current 'demographic winter.' ... Along these paths ... we deviate towards a 'post-human' world. It is necessary to save man."H/t: Gerald at the Cafeteria is Closed.
The document specifies that abortion is a crime which must be punished. "Today people want to trivialise abortion with the claim that authorities must not penalise this abominable crime," says the 57-page document signed by Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, the head of the Pontifical Council. "It is not acceptable that a crime should remain unpunished."
The document also condemns the attack on the family as the "eclipse of God". The five-chapter document says: "Couples made up of homosexuals claim similar rights to those reserved to husband and wife; they even claim the right to adoption. Women who live a lesbian union claim similar rights, demanding laws which give them access to hetero fertilization or embryo implantation. Moreover it is claimed that the help of the law to form these unusual couples goes hand in hand with the help to divorce and repudiate,'' the document said.
The document in its first chapter speaks of "procreation" and "why the family is the only appropriate place for it". It explains that artificial procreation is illicit since "Procreation is the means of transmitting life by the loving union of man and woman," and it "must be truly human."
The philosophical key to moving out of the culture of death, suggests the document, is "an integral understanding of what is human." It explains, "Without a 'meta-anthropology' which touches the being, the substance, the spirit, there can be no integral understanding of what is human, because the concepts of person and being are emptied of content. Morals and religion, which are fundamental and decisive values, are reduced to a 'private matter.' The return of metaphysics is vital in order to regain a sense of what is human in man."
A Query
The leftist eggheads are in full whining mode over the "gay marriage" (an oxymoron if there was one) debate. Rather than debating the merits of the proposal or of the issue in general, they have resorted to boilerplate talking points keying on two major themes:
1) We should not enshrine discrimination in the Constitution; and
2) This is all a slick, cynical election year plan by an unpopular administration.
The first point is the standard varioation on the general theme of conservative bigotry, and merits no further consideration. But what about point number two? Well, they might have a point. Republicans know they're in trouble this November, and it can't hurt to push forward a topic that might prevent a Democratic takeover of the House. To be sure, many if not most of those advocating the amendment are eanestly concerned about protecting marriage, and wish to prevent the Courts from getting at this issue and mandating "gay marriage" upon America. But Republican strategists recognize the political advantage of promoting the amendment.
So, the question is, so what? Or, better yet, what does it say that Republicans deem this an issue that will help them come election time? Even if they are cynically pushing this amendment solely because of political gain, doesn't that signal that Republicans realize that most Americans - or at least a significant portion of them - oppose "gay marriage?"
The fact that this is an issue that is electorally beneficial to conservatives and Republicans should signal pretty clearly that people do not wish to see "gay marriage" become sanctified in law. And if most Americans are of this opinion, are not categorizations of amendment supporters as "extremists" rather odd? I mean, are most Americans extremists? Are the citizens of the growing list of states that have passed anti-"gay marriage" amendments all beyond the pale of American political discourse?
I'm not a populist, and I don't think majority support of something signifies that said position is the correct one. But I do think that, if nothing else, majority support of an issue does make it difficult to label a certain stance "extreme." Unless, of course, the Democratic party and leftist sheep are comfortable calling a majority of Americans extremist bigots. Sounds like a great campaign slogan to me.
1) We should not enshrine discrimination in the Constitution; and
2) This is all a slick, cynical election year plan by an unpopular administration.
The first point is the standard varioation on the general theme of conservative bigotry, and merits no further consideration. But what about point number two? Well, they might have a point. Republicans know they're in trouble this November, and it can't hurt to push forward a topic that might prevent a Democratic takeover of the House. To be sure, many if not most of those advocating the amendment are eanestly concerned about protecting marriage, and wish to prevent the Courts from getting at this issue and mandating "gay marriage" upon America. But Republican strategists recognize the political advantage of promoting the amendment.
So, the question is, so what? Or, better yet, what does it say that Republicans deem this an issue that will help them come election time? Even if they are cynically pushing this amendment solely because of political gain, doesn't that signal that Republicans realize that most Americans - or at least a significant portion of them - oppose "gay marriage?"
The fact that this is an issue that is electorally beneficial to conservatives and Republicans should signal pretty clearly that people do not wish to see "gay marriage" become sanctified in law. And if most Americans are of this opinion, are not categorizations of amendment supporters as "extremists" rather odd? I mean, are most Americans extremists? Are the citizens of the growing list of states that have passed anti-"gay marriage" amendments all beyond the pale of American political discourse?
I'm not a populist, and I don't think majority support of something signifies that said position is the correct one. But I do think that, if nothing else, majority support of an issue does make it difficult to label a certain stance "extreme." Unless, of course, the Democratic party and leftist sheep are comfortable calling a majority of Americans extremist bigots. Sounds like a great campaign slogan to me.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Does the L stand for liar?
Dana L, referenced in my post earlier this morning, had an on-line chat with the Washington post this afternoon. It's hard to fathom, but the chat makes matters worse. It seems everyone on planet Earth other than Dana L is responsible for her abortion.
To recap, Dana L. complained that the Bush administration and those scary conservatives had conspired to make it too darned difficult for her to get a hold of plan B emergency contraceptives after she forgot to put in her diaphragm. So, she had to have an abortion because of her forgetfullness and Bush's evil neocon policies. (Okay, she didn't say neocon, but you know she was thinking it).
So, she appeared on-line today. To begin with, the entire premise of the article is complete bunk, and she tacitly admits this right off the bat.
Essentially then, this woman's major problem is not some horrible theocratic administration, but rather the fact that she has the memory of someone with a severe head injury. I suddenly wonder whether they should make a Memento 2, following the hilarious hijinx of Dana L as she is forced to abort her baby due to a faulty memory . . . and an evil cabal of religionists.
Later on in the chat, a reader observes that maybe, just maybe, she should actually just take a bit of responsibility for her own actions. Well Dana L will not abide such a neanderthalish suggestion.
Secondly, what a ridiculous comparison to a rape victim. But, wait, she has an explanation for that one.
(Tangent: How the hell is this woman a practicing lawyer? Can you picture having this woman as your attorney? Imagine sitting in Court as your death penalty trial begins, and your lawyer is absent because she just plum forgot that the trial was today. But when she shows up five hours late she'll have plenty of excuses about the Virginia Department of Transportation. And when you're being pumped with a lethal dose a few months later, she'll be apologizing because she "totally forgot" about that little bit of evidence that completely exonerated you, but really it's the DA's fault because he didn't remind her.)
Another reader has this crazy observation:
Oh, and of course notice the contingency in even this hypothetical. Only if the baby is "healthy." Yes, we don't want any child that is even slightly less than perfect soiling the world with its presence.
And just in case you have any sympathy left for this person, check out this exchange:
One last exchange.
What a proud example for lawyers everwhere.
To recap, Dana L. complained that the Bush administration and those scary conservatives had conspired to make it too darned difficult for her to get a hold of plan B emergency contraceptives after she forgot to put in her diaphragm. So, she had to have an abortion because of her forgetfullness and Bush's evil neocon policies. (Okay, she didn't say neocon, but you know she was thinking it).
So, she appeared on-line today. To begin with, the entire premise of the article is complete bunk, and she tacitly admits this right off the bat.
I believe Planned Parenthood distributes Plan B nationwide. Unfortunately for me, in my panic that Friday, I didn't even think of calling them.Oh, so the thing that was evidently just SO hard to get a hold of because of the evil Bush administration was actually readily available after all. She just plum forgot.
Essentially then, this woman's major problem is not some horrible theocratic administration, but rather the fact that she has the memory of someone with a severe head injury. I suddenly wonder whether they should make a Memento 2, following the hilarious hijinx of Dana L as she is forced to abort her baby due to a faulty memory . . . and an evil cabal of religionists.
Later on in the chat, a reader observes that maybe, just maybe, she should actually just take a bit of responsibility for her own actions. Well Dana L will not abide such a neanderthalish suggestion.
You are missing the entire point. I wanted my doctors to help me prevent a pregnancy through Plan-B so I wouldn't have to abort a pregnancy later. Yes, I made a stupid mistake with my husband--but the diaphragm could just as easily have failed, or I could have been raped by a stranger--and I still would have been in the same place--with the doctors refusing to prescribe me emergency contraception. My point is the Bush administration is unwittingly encouraging abortions through its misguided Plan-B policy!There's so much wrong with this it's hard to know where to begin. First, as a commenter at Mark Shea's blog notes, how would she have known that the diaphragm had failed within a 72-hour period in order to need the emergency contraception?
Secondly, what a ridiculous comparison to a rape victim. But, wait, she has an explanation for that one.
I am not in any way comparing myself to a rape victim;You just did! Or did you forget what you wrote like three paragraphs back? Then again, considering the person in question, she probably did.
(Tangent: How the hell is this woman a practicing lawyer? Can you picture having this woman as your attorney? Imagine sitting in Court as your death penalty trial begins, and your lawyer is absent because she just plum forgot that the trial was today. But when she shows up five hours late she'll have plenty of excuses about the Virginia Department of Transportation. And when you're being pumped with a lethal dose a few months later, she'll be apologizing because she "totally forgot" about that little bit of evidence that completely exonerated you, but really it's the DA's fault because he didn't remind her.)
Another reader has this crazy observation:
Seems to me you blame everyone but yourself for your abortion. (Conservative policies of Bush, your doctor, your midwife, your internist, the FDA top Brass, even Religion). I am pro-choice - even more so than you - because I respect your choice to have unprotected sex with your husband - knowing the risks. What I don't respect is your reaction to the consequences. Basically you didn't care to be inconvenienced by your own unborn son or daughter - a child that could have found a loving home with your infertile college friend.Woh there, big fella. Are you seriously suggesting that Dana, gasp, take responsibility for her own actions. That's just plain silly. And Dana will tell you why.
That is just so silly. Believe me, I thought about it. If society, and people like you weren't so judgmental, I would gladly have borne that child (assuming he/she could have been born healthy what with all the attendant Category X drug health risks) and given the baby to my friend to raise with all my heart.Read that response again. And again. Now, if you have not completely lost your lunch, consider what this woman is saying. She has now found a completely NEW entity to pin the blame on. You see, it is society's fault for her abortion, because society is just so darned judgmental. And if society was just a little less judgmental then OF COURSE she would have given the baby to a friend. But, tsk tsk, there's just so many judgmental people out there that she couldn't do that to the child. Can you imagine the shame of growing up in a family that is not your biological family because your mother gave you up? That never happens. Adoption? That's just so shameful, because society is full of loathsome malcontents who think giving up one's child to a loving family is a preferrable alternative to killing the child.
Oh, and of course notice the contingency in even this hypothetical. Only if the baby is "healthy." Yes, we don't want any child that is even slightly less than perfect soiling the world with its presence.
And just in case you have any sympathy left for this person, check out this exchange:
Alexandria, Va.: I'm sorry, but I'm supposed to feel sorry for you - an attorney with a comfortable life - because you couldn't terminate a pregnancy you accidentally conceived even though you didn't want more kids? If you didn't want to have to "resort" to an abortion, why didn't you and your husband take more permanent and affirmative steps to ensure that you wouldn't become pregnant? If your medicine would harm a fetus, why weren't you utilizing a more effective form of contraception? In your 40s, if your family is complete, one would have thought a vasectomy, tubal ligation, or even the pill would have been a better choice for you than a diaphragm and crossed fingers. You clearly don't have a moral issue with contraception. Don't try to blame George Bush, the responsibility here is all yours.Oh PUH-LEEZE. What a pathetic comeback. This wasn't a little mistake. This wasn't making a wrong turn off George Washington Parkway. This woman forgot her birth control, then forgot about the readily available alternative, and then decided to abort her unborn child. Spare me the fucking sob story. We all make mistakes, but some of us own up to those mistakes. We don't go blaming everyone else on Earth because we're just too incompetent to take care of ourselves.
Dana L.: Can't take the pill. Tried other methods to no avail. Husband was considering vasectomy, hadn't gotten around to yet. Didn't know about Category Xness of cholesterol drug until pregnancy happened.
I'm glad you've never made a mistake in your life. Good for you. I'm not that lucky. I have flaws.
One last exchange.
Front Royal, Va.: So, now you say it's not the fault of administration you had an abortion, it's really due to societal judgmentalism? Why would anyone have looked down on you for having a baby and giving it up for adoption? That would presumably have made a couple happy and given a child a chance for life. How is that a bad outcome?If I were Laura Ingrham and I were on the radio, I would have cued the quacking sound effect, because that was one serious DUCK of the question.
Dana L.: Listen, the focus of the piece isn't the abortion; it's Plan-B and how it should be made more freely available and how sad I am that it wasn't available to me when I needed.
What a proud example for lawyers everwhere.
A new family member
One of the lessons I will learn after I get married is that there are times when you are supposed to say no, and times when you are supposed to say yes. When my fiance called me on Saturday informing me that her friend had found a kitten, it was my job, evidently, to be the voice of reason. We have a dog, it's a big responsibility, etc.
Being ignorant of this fact, however, I stupidly said it was a great idea. So we went to my friend's apartment to look at the kitten.
So we have a new family member for the family that isn't quite a family yet. We got her checked by the vet yesterday and she got a clean bill of health. She's a little sleepy, but so are all felines. She has managed to jump out of her box, so that mini-phaze of her life is now over.
Oh did I say her? It's actually a him, or so the vet had to inform us after doing a, err, closer inspection.
For now the kitty has run of the bedroom. Lauren's dog Georgia is a six-year old cocker spaniel, and she looooooves the kitty. Loves him perhaps a bit too much as evidenced by her over-enthusiastic smiffing and licking, so maybe they'll be kept separate while they get used to each other.
Dog . . . cat . . . baby. Well, maybe we'll wait on the last one for a bit longer.
Being ignorant of this fact, however, I stupidly said it was a great idea. So we went to my friend's apartment to look at the kitten.
So we have a new family member for the family that isn't quite a family yet. We got her checked by the vet yesterday and she got a clean bill of health. She's a little sleepy, but so are all felines. She has managed to jump out of her box, so that mini-phaze of her life is now over.
Oh did I say her? It's actually a him, or so the vet had to inform us after doing a, err, closer inspection.
For now the kitty has run of the bedroom. Lauren's dog Georgia is a six-year old cocker spaniel, and she looooooves the kitty. Loves him perhaps a bit too much as evidenced by her over-enthusiastic smiffing and licking, so maybe they'll be kept separate while they get used to each other.
Dog . . . cat . . . baby. Well, maybe we'll wait on the last one for a bit longer.
Lovely
Christian charity is the only thing at this point not letting me vent what I truly feel about this article from the Washington Post. It begins this way:
I need out of this town. I need to be removed from neighbors like these.
The conservative politics of the Bush administration forced me to have an abortion I didn't want.And ends this way:
It was a decision I am sorry I had to make. It was awful, painful, sickening. But I feel that this administration gave me practically no choice but to have an unwanted abortion because the way it has politicized religion made it well-nigh impossible for me to get emergency contraception that would have prevented the pregnancy in the first place.Eveidently Dana is a lawyer out of Virginia.
And to think that, all these years after Roe v. Wade became the law of the land, this is what our children have to look forward to as they approach their reproductive years.
I need out of this town. I need to be removed from neighbors like these.
Saturday, June 03, 2006
Live Action Mario
Some college kid did a live action performance of the first level of Super Mario I. Awesome.
Friday, June 02, 2006
What a putz
Often times Mike and the Mad Dog irritiate the living hell out of me (I can now hear them over the internet), but for once they're dead on in their crtiticism of this ridiculous Bob Raissman column in the Daily News. Raissman takes Mets announcers Keith Hernandez and Gary Cohen for not delving deep into some issues Lastings Milledge had in the minors - including instigating a bench clearing brawl and allegations of sex with a minor (he was 18, she was 15).
Give me a break. It was the kid's first game in the majors, and they were supposed to dwell on something that happened when he was in the minors? You mean to tell me they had to sully Milledge's first game by bringing up the fact that he once spiked a guy . . . in the freaking minors? Gosh, what a scandal.
Raissman usually does a good job pointing out bad local New York broadcasting, but this is absurd.
Give me a break. It was the kid's first game in the majors, and they were supposed to dwell on something that happened when he was in the minors? You mean to tell me they had to sully Milledge's first game by bringing up the fact that he once spiked a guy . . . in the freaking minors? Gosh, what a scandal.
Raissman usually does a good job pointing out bad local New York broadcasting, but this is absurd.
Amen
Gerald at the Cafeteria is Closed says it better than I could. I won't selectively quote, so you just have to click on the link and read it.
There's not much to add. Even as a kid there was a part of me that knew there was something not quite right whenever I visted a new parish that departed from the atmosphere of my home Church. For a couple of years I endured the tedium of the "I wanna hold your hands" student Mass at Emory. Deep down though there was always something missing. The guitar playing, the holding hands, the looooooong homilies of the progressive Priest. All of it so . . . empty.
It's hard to put into words why the watered-down Masses of the modern age are so bad and devoid of spiritual meaning. Gerald does his best, and his best is good.
There's not much to add. Even as a kid there was a part of me that knew there was something not quite right whenever I visted a new parish that departed from the atmosphere of my home Church. For a couple of years I endured the tedium of the "I wanna hold your hands" student Mass at Emory. Deep down though there was always something missing. The guitar playing, the holding hands, the looooooong homilies of the progressive Priest. All of it so . . . empty.
It's hard to put into words why the watered-down Masses of the modern age are so bad and devoid of spiritual meaning. Gerald does his best, and his best is good.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Awww, so sad
When did the Yankees become Spinal Tap? What's going to happen next? Alex Rodriguez is going to pull a groin muscle reaching for his purse?
Man, I almost feel sorry for them.
Nah, no I don't.
Of course the Yanks will probably find some kid no one's ever heard of and he'll close out like fifteen games in the row and lead the Yankees to yet another fucking division title.
But at least they'll still lose in the post season.
Man, I almost feel sorry for them.
Nah, no I don't.
Of course the Yanks will probably find some kid no one's ever heard of and he'll close out like fifteen games in the row and lead the Yankees to yet another fucking division title.
But at least they'll still lose in the post season.
The Narcissist Speaks
As a general rule I do not blog about Andrew Sullivan. At this point his hate-filled screeds do more to make me laugh than to anger me. But he's written something that is so dumb and evil that I must pass it along:
Sullivan has become such a parody that it's almost not worth wasting breath on him. Seriously, can we just stop paying attention to him now? Please.
For me the interesting point came when Dan and I agreed that moderate hypocrisy - especially in marriages - is often the best policy. Momogamy is very hard for men, straight or gay, and if one partner falters occasionally (and I don't mean regularly), sometimes discretion is perfectly acceptable. You could see Jong bridle at the thought of such dishonesty. But I think the post-seventies generation - those of us who grew up while our parents were having a sexual revolution - both appreciate the gains for sexual and emotional freedom, while being a little more aware of their potential hazards. An acceptance of mild hypocrisy as essential social and marital glue is not a revolutionary statement. It's a post-revolutionary one. As is, I'd say, my generation as a whole.So Pope Sullivan, the same man who had the cajones to criticize Pope Benedict for insufficently decrying Catholic complicity during the Nazi Regime (which of course is itself a bullshit charge anyway) is now openly endorsing breaking two commandments while singing praise to the most selfish generation in human history.
Sullivan has become such a parody that it's almost not worth wasting breath on him. Seriously, can we just stop paying attention to him now? Please.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
