You must take care...
posted 03.12.06
I nearly lost Ume! It's true.
You're thinking some wily bookseller lured her into the depths of her bookstall and entranced Ume with early editions of her favorite tomes. NO! It's nothing quite so banal as that. Besides, I've told you, I do not fear the wily booksellers of this earth, not where Ume's concerned - she's got allergies - they've got mold. So no, t'wazn't a bookseller.
Did a woman of great physical beauty, bearing and accomplishment try to sweep her off her feet when I wasn't looking? Even if I was looking I wouldn't fear much from that. Ume would be all like, "I'm prone to motion sickness. Unless you don't mind me making a mess of your outfit, I suggest you put me down - gently. Brulee?"
"Yes, my Delirium?" I wouldn't be too far off...
"Could you fetch my hot water bottle? I think I'm going to lie down for a spell."
"No worries, Pet," I'd say, with emphasis on the endearment - so the interloper would get the drift... "I've already fixed it up, Ume-style."
"You spoil me," she'd say.
"Too true," I'd reply.
So no, some lesbian over-achiever did not arise out of the ether and try to beguile my beloved. (Which isn't to say they don't take a shot from time to time - have to beat 'em off with sticks, I tell ya.)
What happened was this... Ume came home recently, looking unnerved.
"Whatever's the matter?" I asked.
Slowly unbuttoning the buttons on her coat and staring off into the distance she said, "I now know what it feels like to be a small insect. Never startle a South American tree frog. I could see right down it's throat. It's tongue flew out and smacked into the screen on the top of the aquarium."
I could see she was still somewhat dazed by this traumatic encounter - I was shaken myself. "E-gads! Where is this rapacious beast? I'll box its ears."
She gave me a dubious look. "I'm not a small insect, so I wasn't in any real danger. And it's not a terribly large frog, so neither are you. But it did startle me."
With care, I took her hand, "Come Tulip, let me make you a cup of tea."
You see? One can so easily lose one's beloved - you have to keep a close eye on them!
In the news
What a joke!:
Senate Intel Committee Votes Down NSA Spying Investigation (Reuters, 03.07.06)
Week in review (you scare people to death about terrorists - then you approve a deal, with perceived security implications, with an Arab country - and you expect the people you've been pounding fear into for four years not to get a little frantic?):
Milosevic, Ports Deal (NPR, 03.11.06)
More info on that Mexico story:
Mexico Confronts Woman's Right to Abortion (Day to Day, 03.10.06)
Hmm!:
Suit may prevent maternal deaths during childbirth (Reuters, 02.28.06)
Hmm!:
Automakers look to plants to increasingly fuel cars (Reuters, 03.01.06)
No surprise:
Bush Science Push Fails to Transform Critics (NPR, 02.28.06)
So that's how it went...:
Failure to Court Faculty Dooms Harvard President (NPR, 02.22.06)
Kiss it goodbye...
posted 03.07.06
Still enjoying this little sojourn back to the 1950's people? Are you really that eager to return to the status of possession my fellow American women? Must be, you voted for George W. Bush, and all that imples...
It's fascinating - the minute he was elected (note, I do not say "re-elected"), I began the greiving process for Roe v. Wade - if you have a brain, you knew this would come to pass (and anyone reading this bloggage, has a brain, so you knew too). Still, even with a big head start on the grieving process, the news this week makes me sick.
They don't give a shit about when life begins, about the sanctity of that life - they care about dominating women's reproductive organs. About regaining control of the little uppity woman - "You think you have power? We both know what I can do to you, don't we?"
"Brulee," you say, in calming, reasonable, and somewhat worried tones... "They're not so craven as that, they do care about us too."
Bullshit. The way they see it, the only women who would have abortions, even in the case of rape or incest, are the kind of women who need to be controlled by laws - because the men in their lives are obviously not doing their job right.
Excerpt: Proposed amendments to the law to create exceptions to specifically protect the health of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest, were voted down. (South Dakota passes abortion ban, Reuters, 02.22.06)
It's a basic power issue - and the fragile male ego can't contend with women having any control over what might turn out to be theirs.
"But there are a lot of women in the anti-abortion movement," you say. "They're not all pawns, you know. Women do care about the sanctity of life."
Oh sure they do - that's why so many anti-abortion people, women, support the death penalty. "Oh," you explain, "They care about the sanctity of the lives that were destroyed by criminals, and therefore, they want the people who trespassed against that sanctity to be killed by the state as retribution." I suppose there's consistent logic in there somewhere... But to me, what comes across more clearly is this - they want to use the government to impose their (fundamentalist Christian) moral beliefs on whoever's standing next to them. It's their attempt to create a Christian equivalent to Sharia Law.
If you're like me, and you believe the government can play a significant role in the public sphere, but are also realistic enough to know that it has trouble purchasing a toilet for a reasonable amount of money - you're not going to eagerly hand it control of your reproductive organs and imposing the ultimate penalty of death. But a slim majority of Americans, in red states, has done just that. We're going to be living in a Hawthorn novel before you know it. Only the scarlet 'A' will be sewn onto women's clothing for having had an abortion.
What letter, I wonder, will they come up with for people like me?
Would it suprise you that they're willing to set bad precedents in their zeal to undermine Roe?:
The Battle Over Abortion in South Dakota (Marketplace, 03.06.06)
South Dakota bans most abortions (Reuters, 03.07.06)
This is how they want it to work here:
Mexico rape victims often denied right to abortion (Reuters, 03.07.06)
Excerpt 1:When Sandra Rodriguez, a mentally handicapped maid, was raped by her boss and left pregnant in 2002, Mexican courts stopped her from having an abortion although it was her legal right.
Rodriguez, 30, had the mental capacity of a 10-year-old, court-ordered evaluations showed, but prosecutors questioned the claim she had been raped. They later admitted their error but by then it was too late for an abortion.
Excerpt2: Mexican law often works against victims. Many states codify incest as consensual sex, even with girls as young as 12, so a victim can be denied an abortion and face incest charges if she is raped by her father, brother or other relative.
One teenager was repeatedly raped by her father and became pregnant, but prosecutors convinced her to charge him with incest instead of rape to reduce his sentence, precluding her from having an abortion, the report said.
...She now lives at home, with her father and the child she bore.
Don't ask...
MILITARY -- 'DON'T ASK' POLICY HURTING MILITARY READINESS, COSTING U.S. TAXPAYERS: "The financial costs to the U.S. military for discharging and replacing gay service members under the nation's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy are nearly twice what the government estimated last year, with taxpayers covering at least $364 million in associated funds over the policy's first decade." A University of California Blue Ribbon Commission, headed by former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry and other military experts, conducted the study after the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a February 2005 report that was based on questionable data and methodology. GAO's estimate, the Commission found, was 91 percent too low. "The real issue here is that you have a policy that is costing us money, hurting readiness and is really not fulfilling any national security objective," said Lawrence Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and a member of the commission. "It just doesn't make sense now, particularly when you're having such a hard time getting people to join the military and retaining them in the right skills." APA 02.14.06
Okay, so when will they segregate out the first gay-only platoon? That way, we can prove ourselves in battle. And in years to come, they can make a movie about the first well turned out platoon that served honorably, earned the respect of their peers - but returned to a country that didn't yet appreciate their contribution to the cause of freedom. It's a time honored right of passage for minorities. Of course, gays have been serving since the Revolution, but never mind that... I want a movie with well turned out men and gritty women in it!