Old pleasures revisited

Well, that inhabitant of the White House has gone and done it now. He's committed act number 37 on the list of One Hundred Ways to Be More Like George W. Bush.

I'm grappling here for something. Anything. All I come up with is a question. What's the point anymore? Was there ever a point?

Oh yes, those convictions. You know, like how I believe to my core that while the Democrats will mentally abuse us and cheat on us and end up impregnating their mistresses, we can also be just as sure that the Republicans are going to more or less kill us.

And being more or less dead is like his mistress being more or less pregnant.

Tricky stuff that will likely give you migraines and a drinking problem. If you don't already have one.

I once blogged like any of this shit matters. Here's what I had to say about Executive Orders back in my old idealistic, lacy black bra days.

UPDATE: TPM Muckraker covers the concerns about this Executive Order here and here.
AND how about the timing of the E.O. with this from Jill at Brilliant at Breakfast.

The Pentagon told Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton that her questions about how the U.S. plans to eventually withdraw from Iraq boosts enemy propaganda.

Learn more about Executive Orders here.

I don't have time to go through this carefully, but read it. (Thom Hartmann opened his show with this and it immediately got my attention.)

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq

Pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), I hereby report that I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people. I issued this order to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. In these previous Executive Orders, I ordered various measures to address the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by obstacles to the orderly reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in that country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq.

My new order takes additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315 by blocking the property and interests in property of persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people. The order further authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, to designate for blocking those persons determined to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person designated pursuant to this order, or to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

I delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, the authority to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of my order. I am enclosing a copy of the Executive Order I have issued.

GEORGE W. BUSH
The White House, July 17, 2007.
And this...

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. I hereby order:

 Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, read the rest.

Even people on the right are discussing how dangerous this Administration is. Read this from Paul Craig Roberts.

The best thing about that old post was its title:  He issues Executive Orders. We yawn, scratch our asses and check the TV Guide for tonight's entertainment options


I miss the good old days with its transparency and lack of corruption. 


What?

That's what she said

After the Michigan Pee Pee Wee Wee fiasco, I feel it necessary to say something about the absurd level to which our politics have sunk. Which made me want very much to write intelligently about the Republican War on Women by highlighting the number of newly-enacted laws having to do with limiting reproductive rights and other anti-female legislation versus laws meant to spur job growth.

After a few moments of googling, I gave up the idea of something intelligent and fact-based. Instead, I would do a very short post on the theme "It's not a war on women, you silly creatures, it's a police action."

I wanted to title it Hey, laaaaady! and add a clip of Jerry Lewis doing his Hey, Laaaaadeeeeee bit. That's how I ended up watching this and snorting with laughter.

While I might not have said what Representative Lisa Brown (D) said on the floor of any state assembly, I think the Republican decision to silence her was more than an overreaction. It was, quite frankly, ridiculous.

 Let me clarify - I wouldn't say what she said for two reasons. First  - I don't trust myself to know when to engage my filter. It's the same reason I've never been violent with my children. What if, once I've started, I can't stop. What would happen if I were to begin with vagina and proceed through pussy, pink taco, twat and beyond to the C word of infamy and whatever comes after?

I'll tell you what. My mother would die of shame - right there in her chair, her Inspector Lynley novel clutched in her hand. Her last words would be a declaration of ignorance. She had no idea where I learned such filth. My father would stand around looking somewhat annoyed and confused. My children would be ostracized from civil society. People would unfriend me on Facebook. I'd lose Twitter followers. Publix would never take another check from me. My doctor would refer me to someone else. I'd have a wikipedia page where people scrawled hideous things about me. Of his own good judgment and at the behest of his family, MathMan would insist that I give him back his last name, and the remaining cats would ask to be dropped at the Humane Society as I'm run out of our little village on a splintery rail.

Georgia would slam the door at the state line and lock it behind me.

The other clarification is a quibble for sure, but it matters nonetheless. While we all know what Representative Brown meant, she would have been more accurate to have said "Finally, Mr. Speaker, I'm flattered that you are all so interested in my vagina uterus, but 'no' means 'no.'" Because what these many pieces of legislation actually deal with isn't le vagin, but rather the uterus where the precious babies are grown.  The organ where, if the anti-choice crowd has its way, the sanctity of life will remain swaddled in the assurance that it will have a chance to grow and be born and become personally responsible for all its own actions and profitable for any and all who see a way to part it with its money forever and ever amen.

Aside from the technical inaccuracy, the problem with the word vagina is that it is too connected with s-e-x. It's one thing to refer to a vagina in the abstract. Most adults can deal with that, even if it makes the feel all squidgy and giggly. But when you put the possessive in front of it - my, her, their - well, now you're forcing people to make a further connection. It's no longer a sanitized cartoonish vagina like you see in an anatomy cross-section drawing.

Nope, now we're talking about a vagina  that belongs to someone. To her. Or her or her. To them. To me. (Not really! I'm like a Barbie doll. Ask MathMan.)

I know men. When it's a vagina in the possessive- it's labia and clitoris, hair and skin. It's a palette of pinks, reds, purples.

It's loaded with meaning. It's curiosity bound with shame. It's lover and mother. Chaste or not. Unreachable or inviting. It's both fantasy and very, very real. It's utterly female. It's power, possession, pleasure, pain, hatred, fear, worship, disgust, and reverence. It's scent and taste.

Representative Brown made them think of her vagina and the men in that room blanched. They reacted not because half of them haven't at least once pictured her naked, but because they refuse to admit it. It may have been a passing thought during a tedious discussion about some piece of doomed legislation, but for just a second,  it wasn't just a vagina, it was her vagina.

And that, according to the male Republican leadership of the Michigan State Assembly, is not up for public discussion.

Case and legs closed.

Simple idea

Can we all agree that it's ridiculous to stand open-mouthed and aghast when a politician does something for political reasons?

It's an argument that has run its course.

Now, of course, if you're a person who does things exclusively for political reasons, you should check your morals in the mirror. But since we've got many elected officials driven mostly by the almighty campaign contribution, I don't see doing something purely for the purpose of making political points nearly the pearl-clutching offense it could be.

Over to you, my friends...... what political arguments would you like to see put out to pasture?

And now a word from our sponsors

The setting: Four smart people sitting at a shiny table on a TV set. At least two of them are wearing glasses.
They are discussing poverty in the United States.

Many things are said. Near the end of the segment, one of them identifies perhaps the most devastating reason for this growing poverty.

Too many working poor. It's simple. The burden of poverty belongs to many people who work one, two, maybe more jobs. The patchwork isn't enough to pay for the essentials. What their employers won't pay in exchange for their labor and productivity, the taxpayers must supplement if we're going to be a civilized society.

The not-quite-living-wage is a growing problem. Corporations large and small have funded laws to help them shift responsibility to the taxpayer for food, housing, and health care. Things that a living wage used to pay for. But that was before unions were eroded and trade agreements made it far more lucrative to employ people over seas.

The entire panel, even the token Republican, agree. Even if they'll never agree on who is to blame for this problem, they all agree the problem exists and things must change.

The devil always appears in the details. The question of how we can change things mires us in the quicksand of inaction.

Heads nod. The host touches the tiny speaker in his ear. Time for a break.

Cut to commercial.

The first advertisement announces how Walmart is helping to fight hunger.

Irony lives.

The Color of Greed

Someone recently said something to me about school districts in a certain city. The districts had been recently taken over the state because the local school boards were failing their mission.  You know, blacks enriching themselves at the expense of other blacks.

As if that's somehow unique to African Americans.

Huh. That's interesting. Because....

Bernie Madoff. White.

Enron. The smartest guys in the room. Remember them? Mostly pasty white.

Source (2006)

Jack Abramoff. Just because I have a crush on him, doesn't mean he isn't  slime.

The Robber Barons. They look pretty white. And look how gleeful all the money made them.

And the biggest whiner.

Enriching himself at the expense of all ethnic groups and his god.

I'm sure these two need no introduction. Pay no attention to  Trump's tanning goggle lines.

Nor these two.

And lest you think I believe it's all on one side of the political spectrum....

James Traficant and his Hair of Corruption.

Good old Rostenkowski. What?

In case you wonder how it's done.

Or why....now these fellas look happy. Wonder why?

Hey, watch where you stick that thing

Why am I happy about the current focus on social issues? Doesn't this kind of thing usually send me over the edge trailing a stream of curse words behind me?

I've been thinking about what happened last week with the all male testimony to the Congressional committee and the GOP's reaction to the contraception provisions in the Health Care Reform Bill and how that, combined with the Komen debacle and the rise of Rick Santorum as a serious potential Republican nominee. It's interesting how all of these things coming together have shed a bright light on something that hasn't received nearly as much scrutiny as it should have.

Republicans have been running a systematic campaign to repeal, reduce and revise reproductive rights, particularly in regard to women. Yikes! Like many of our state legislatures, that's R overload.

It's not just one thing, it's many things. We'd be wrong to ignore a trend, a death by a thousand cuts.

Geoffrey has some marvelous ideas to help protect the Y contributor. Includes Oedipal Balls and the Sack of the Future.

Averil illustrates what it feels like to be a woman in this unhinged world. 


Jim H. puts President Santorum on the psychotherapist's couch.


How far will they go?

It starts with a v and ends with an a.  I mean, what's the big deal anyway?

They're not done either. 

Thankfully, women are learning to fight back.

And finally, "If Rod Serling were alive today, he'd write a Twilight Zone episode in which all the Religious Right zealots wake up pregnant in a world run by fundamentalist women."  - Dan, a Facebook friend of Jayne, a fabulous writer (she's got TV credits and is published!)

What has your attention? And where do you  plan to put that?

Please don't pee in our uterus, we don't swim in your church

Why do Republicans hate for other people to have sex?

Do Republicans really want to take on the contraception fight? Have they lost their ever-lovin minds? They insist that this is about religious liberty not contraception. I, like so many others, disagree.

When the religious right showed its true intent by focusing more of their political power on issues having to do with sexual behavior instead of economic justice and human rights, it became clear that their fight against a woman's right to choose would not stop at abortion. As they chipped away at reproductive rights, they  began to work on their plan to attack the affordability and accessibility of contraception.

Because even I, with my limited knowledge of Christianity and Jesus' teachings, know he spent way more time talking about charity, kindness, peace, love and forgiveness than he did about pee pees and wee wees. But hey, sex sells. It stokes something in our lizard brain. If you're talking sex, even if you're railing against it, people are more likely to listen.

When the story about Catholics being upset about the provision requiring employer-provided health insurance to cover contraception exploded, I understood how the issue could be framed as an affront to religious liberties, but my question was what if you live in a place where the only medical services provided are through Catholic-affiliated health care facilities?

Well, it turns out that you would be without options. Your personal liberties take a back seat to the institution's beliefs.

It's not all bad news. People are fighting back. Including governors.

I'm not anti-religion. What you do in your home, your head, and your church concerns me not one bit. But if you're going to take federal and state money to provide health care services, you should have to operate as a health institution first, not as a religious institution.

With the growing movement from the right to limit the rights of women, it's time for all of us to take a good look at their aims. What is it about us and our innie reproductive parts that frighten them so?