Dada is the sun, Dada is the egg. Dada is the Police of the Police.


Looking ahead

Sorry about the infrequency in posting as of late; I've been busier than usual. I've also been very behind on my email, so if you've sent me something and I haven't responded, that's why.

Now, I'm about to go incommunicado for a few days, so there probably won't be anything new here until Sunday or so. Hope all is well with everyone.


Too funny

Michelle Malkin:

"If you can't see the poster for the Islamist-pandering piece of propaganda that it is, there's nothing I can do to help you."

All righty then.


The truth behind the criminalization movement

It's long been obvious to anyone with the observational powers afforded by an even marginally rational disposition that the vast majority of those who advocate the criminalization of abortion are motivated not by a deeply and sincerely felt desire to "save babies," but rather by an anachronistic ecclesiastical wish to punish women for having sex outside the confines of marriage (within which, it is assumed, the question of abortion wouldn't come up - why would anyone but a shameful harlot want to avoid the divinely-dictated consequences of intercourse?). Why else would activists who ostensibly want to see as few abortions as possible be opposed to (or even not intensely enthusiastic about) the proliferation of birth control?

Still, it's always nice to see these things demonstrated, and Kevin Drum links to a post at Alas, a blog that does a pretty good job of making things plain. Basically, the author makes a chart that includes most of the policies supported by the criminalization movement, asking two questions about each: "Is this policy consistent with the belief that abortion is exactly the same as child murder?" (the professed motivation of the anti-choicers) and "Is this policy consistent with wanting women who have sex to suffer the consequences?" You can guess what the answers are.

On a side note, it's nice to see the Drumstir (as Battlepanda likes to call him) continue to refuse to placate the Amy Sullivan set by conceding that the pro-criminalization movement is about anything other than raw misogyny. Kevin is one of the few popular male bloggers who consistently pays attention to abortion politics; I wish more would. Abortion rights seems to be treated as something that women are supposed to worry about; as long as liberal men are on the record as being pro-choice, they feel they've done their part. The only time I ever get questioned about my gender is when I write about abortion; the notion that I could be a woman (I'm not) seems to cross people's minds only when I pay an unusual amount of attention (for a male) to the issue.

It's true that abortion is a "women's issue" in the sense that it is primarily women who suffer the consequences of the march toward criminalization, but that doesn't mean that only women should be alarmed by it. The Iraq War affects few of us directly, but we don't leave it to Iraqis and US military personnel to complain about it. The war on women's reproductive rights is something that should outrage anyone who respects basic principles of justice and autonomy, regardless of what gender they happen to be.

The only sane answer is "No"

President Bush was asked:

"Do you believe this: that the War in Iraq and the rise of terrorism are signs of the apocalypse and if not, why not?"

His response:

"I haven’t really thought of it that way."

That's right: not, "No," not, "Do I look like an idiot?," not "Are you crazy? Hell no!" The president of the United States just hasn't really considered that particular possibility as of yet.

Anyway, the Iranians are led by a religious fanatic and must therefore be bombed back to the Stone Age immediately!!

Link (via Blogometer).


The National Security Strategy

In case you missed it, the new NSS is up. More attention ought to be paid to official documents like these, as they often provide a surprising degree of frankness about the administration's goals and plans. Of course, it's all drenched in a thick covering of rhetorical bullshit; I haven't worked through it yet, but a quick glance yields knee-slappers like "it is the policy of the United States to seek and support democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world" an "the United States Government will work to advance human dignity in word and deed."

Also notable is the fact that an entire chapter is included with the title "Ignite a New Era of Global Economic Growth through Free Markets and Free Trade." Putting aside the destructiveness and injustice of "free trade" policy, what possible relevance does this have to "national security"? The administration's answer:

"Promoting free and fair trade has long been a bedrock tenet of American foreign policy. Greater economic freedom is ultimately inseparable from political liberty."

Of course, they mean "free and fair trade" for big business; "political liberty" for multinational corporations. But it's true that such economic motives have long been at the heart of US foreign policy, and continue to be. But the atrocity of using war as just another means to profit goes unmentioned in the mainstream, corporate press.



Mark Noonan: "Iraq is one of the most brilliantly conducted military operations in history."

Blogarama - The Blog Directory Sanity is not statistical.