"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde
Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007

"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata

"...the best bleacher bum since Pete Axthelm" -- Randy K.

"I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum." -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (1954-2015), They Live
Thursday, April 05, 2012

This from a guy who believes a teenager in Rochester, New York was given golden plates by an angel in 1823
Posted by Jill | 6:08 AM
Bookmark and Share

When you read Inherit the Wind in high school, did you ever think that we'd be having this argument again in the 21st century?
Posted by Jill | 5:34 AM
America: Looking forward into the 13th century:
Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam (R) announced yesterday that he will “probably” sign a bill that attacks the teaching of “biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning” by giving broad new legal immunities to teachers who question evolution and other widely accepted scientific theories. Under the bill, which passed the state legislature last month:


Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.


Although the bill is written to seem benign, as it neither specifically authorizes the teaching of creationism nor permits teachers to do more than criticize scientific theories “in an objective matter,” the practical impact of this bill will be to intimidate all but the heartiest of school administrators against disciplining teachers who preach the most outlandish junk science in their classrooms. Because the bill provides little guidance as to what constitutes an “objective” criticism of a scientific theory, any principal who reigns in teachers who force creationism or Pastafarianism upon their students risks finding themselves on the wrong side of the law.



I grew up in a country that envisioned space travel and technology and science and discovery as good things. Today I live in a country that is one step away from burning witches.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Friday, March 09, 2012

Here's the difference
Posted by Jill | 8:18 PM
There's been much hue and cry over the last week about hateful sexist speech. "The left does it too!", the Rush Limbaugh apologists have cried, citing this comment by Ed Schultz last year:
“President Obama is going to be visiting Joplin, Mo., on Sunday but you know what they’re talking about, like this right-wing slut, what’s her name?, Laura Ingraham?” he said on his radio show. “Yeah, she’s a talk slut. You see, she was, back in the day, praising President Reagan when he was drinking a beer overseas. But now that Obama’s doing it, they’re working him over.”

Ed Schultz was suspended for a week, apologized to Laura Ingraham, and the incident was over. But read what he said. Yes, the word "slut" is loaded, but Schultz wasn't saying that Laura Ingraham fucks anything that moves; he was using the word to describe someone who's very selective in her outrage. It was a stupid word to use because it was inflammatory, but also because in this context it doesn't even make much sense.

Bill Maher has taken his share this week too. Now I often take issue with Bill Maher's views on women as they pertain to his personal life and his old hoary (sorry) Borscht-belt views on marriage. I don't understand how any woman can want to fuck Bill Maher after hearing some of the things he says. Here is what he said about Sarah Palin a year ago:

“Did you hear this – Sarah Palin finally heard what happened in Japan and she’s demanding that we invade ‘Tsunami,’” Maher said. “I mean she said, ‘These ‘Tsunamians’ will not get away with this.’ Oh speaking of dumb twats, did you –”

The expressions "dumb twat" and "dumb c*nt" are far more offensive than what Ed Schultz said, in their implication that women are nothing more than vaginas, especially the dumb ones. I hate the expression, but Bill Maher was not saying anything about Sarah Palin's sex life.

And that's the difference between these two men's offensive offhand remarks and those Rush Limbaugh made last week: Schultz and Maher used ugly colloquialisms to illustrate points about these women's political methodology. And if Limbaugh had done only that, I too would have put him into the same category and said "Consider the source." But when he started doubling down and making remarks about Sandra Fluke having "so much sex" that she needs someone else to pay for her birth control, and demanding sex tapes be posted online, well, if you can't see the difference then you aren't paying attention.

But there's another important thing to point out here. Yes, Democratic politicians appear on Ed Schultz' show and on Real Time. But not one Democratic politician has ever had to apologize to Ed Schultz for anything, nor has any Democratic politician had to apologize to Bill Maher. Both are on cable TV, not the public airwaves (and AM radio IS public airwaves, something most people have forgotten), but more importantly, neither one of them is a macher in the Democratic Party.

Rush Limbaugh, however, DOES wield a great deal of power in the Republican Party, as even a hack like George Will pointed out last Sunday:
“[House Speaker John] Boehner comes out and says Rush’s language was inappropriate. Using the salad fork for your entrée, that’s inappropriate. Not this stuff,” Will said. “And it was depressing because what it indicates is that the Republican leaders are afraid of Rush Limbaugh. They want to bomb Iran, but they’re afraid of Rush Limbaugh.”

Michael Wolff wrote in 2009 about the hold Limbaugh has on the party:
In a jaunty and rapid-fire manner, he’d dealt with Republican congressman Phil Gingrey, who had mildly suggested—to a reporter’s question about Limbaugh’s derogatory comments about the Republican leadership—that there were able gentlemen running the party. After a torrential news cycle, Gingrey offered Rush an abject apology, which had the added sweetener (a little carrot and stick) of getting him an appearance—to reiterate his apology—on Rush’s show. Then Limbaugh laid into Republicans who had expressed reservations about Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal’s response—lame by every estimation—to the president’s speech on February 24 before a joint session of Congress. No matter how lame, Jindal still hewed to the orthodox conservative small-government views; hence, according to Rush, Jindal was “brilliant. He’s the real deal.” And if anybody said otherwise, well, they’d have to deal with Rush. Then, the day after Limbaugh addressed the annual meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference (cpac), Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele gamely tried on CNN to face down D. L. Hughley’s assertion that Rush was the effective party leader. “Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment,” Steele sputtered, only to find himself apologizing shortly thereafter when Rush had mauled him on the air. (The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee put up a Web site—I’m Sorry, Rush—offering an automated form through which congressional Republicans could apologize to Limbaugh. Indeed, as I was writing this piece, a half-dozen Republican officials and operatives first committed to talk with me about Limbaugh and his effects on the party, and then, in a process of hand-wringing and revising their views, each decided, on better thought, not to risk even the smallest chance of waking up on the wrong side of Rush.)

Believe me, Nancy Pelosi doesn't give a shit what Ed Schultz says OR what Bill Maher says, and if she got up in front of the House and decried the use of words like "slut" and "twat" on cable television, she would not have to apologize for doing so. But let a Republican say anything against Rush Limbaugh, and he's in serious trouble.

But there's a larger difference too. Schultz and Maher and Keith Olbermann may have issues with women; I think it's pretty clear that Maher and Olbermann do. But their remarks don't have real-world consequences. When Rush Limbaugh rants for days on end (and he is still ranting about women) about sexually active women being whores who deserve only to have videos of them having sex plastered all over the internet for the prurient interest of pathetic, flaccid-dicked asshats like Limbaugh, he helps foster a culture in which sexually active women are worthy only of contempt.

And that leads to things like this:
The sweeping anti-abortion bill working its way through the Kansas Legislature would levy a sales tax on women seeking abortions, including rape victims.

Buried in the 69-page bill being considered by the House Federal and State Affairs Committee are several provisions, in fact, that opponents say would increase taxes on those who seek abortions. The tax sections do not include exemptions for women who want an abortion after a sexual assault or to end a life-threatening pregnancy.

[snip]

Among other provisions in the proposed legislation are measures allowing doctors to withhold from patients medical information that might encourage them to seek an abortion and prohibiting malpractice suits if the woman or the child suffers a health complication as a result of information being withheld. A wrongful death lawsuit could be filed if the mother dies. The bill also would require doctors to tell women that abortion causes breast cancer and would prohibit state employees from performing abortions on the job.

Got that? Those small-government, low-tax Kansas Republicans want to impose a tax on women who are raped. And they are also planning to mandate that physicials LIE TO THEIR PATIENTS. Science? Medical evidence? Fugeddaboutit. Doctors in Kansas will take their marching orders from religious zealots.

There's a direct line from slut-shaming to state-mandated penetration, rape taxes, forced viewing of ultrasounds, and state-mandated physician falsehoods. When Rush Limbaugh rants day after day after day that women who use contraception are whores whores whores whores whores, it eats its way into the brains of those men who see that their particular brand of white Christian male patriarchal dominance is dying -- and they will demand punishment for those who are responsible for it. That's why we see hate rhetoric about gays from these men and now we see hate rhetoric about women from them. They're losing control, and they're not going to give it up without causing heavy casualties on the other side.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, February 23, 2012

How on earth did we get to this point?
Posted by Jill | 5:31 AM
Like many people who write, I have an unfinished novel that I may never finish. I don't pretend it's great literature. Its protagonist is a woman I put through quite a rough time until she comes out at peace with herself by the end -- pretty standard "woman triumphant" stuff. I have to admit that the plot is somewhat secondary to the placement in American culture. Its sweep is from around 1915 to the mid-1930's, so there are some significant things that happen during that period of time which form a backdrop. For me, the cultural research was the fun part back when I still had time to actually write, because in my meticulous effort to avoid historical anachronisms, I spent more time researching than writing. Right now in my spare bedroom, I have a stack of vintage magazines from the time which I pored over so as to try and get everything write. No detail is too small to confirm: When did commercially-packaged mayonnaise become available? Would a midwestern farmhouse have indoor plumbing by 1920? What about electricity? What did women cook in those days? On a farm, the big meal was in the middle of the day. Of what did it usually consist? What did people do in the evening? I even researched the town in which the middle of the novel is set.

When you look at how people actually lived during that time, not just what you see on shows like Downton Abbey, it really hits home just what kind of technological advances we've seen over the last century. Some of them have come back to bite us, but there was a spirit of "can-do" that characterized much of the twentieth century that seems to have disappeared, replaced by superstition and fear. It's one thing to recognize that we have exploited finite resources as much as we can and to try to leave a smaller footprint on the planet by returning to a simplier, more agrarian lifestyle (albeit one that has smartphones). It's quite another to want a complete return to the 14th century.




Think about the refrigerator. We don't think about it much except when the power goes out and we have to throw everything away. The refrigerator was around as early as 1905, as shown in the advertisement above), but wasn't until many, many years later that it became common. We can't imagine life without it.

The automobile was arguably the biggest game-changer of the 20th century. They'd been around for years, but the Model T made automobiles affordable to the masses. The ability to travel long distances begat the family vacation and expanded the horizons of many people. Think about how radio changed us. Radio technology too had been around in the nineteenth century, but radio stations as we know them today showed up around 1921. Suddenly mass communication became possible for both information and entertainment. Television. The VCR, the DVD player, and the DVR. Commercial air travel.

In the early 1960's, anything seemed possible. The Jetsons cartoons envisioned a world in which a very conventional 1950's family had a robot maid and an airborne car and other electronic gadgets:



The Futurama ride at the 1964-65 World's Fair envisioned a future of man conquering space, the sea, and other hostile environments:



In the 1970's, NASA, flush with the success of the Apollo mission and flush with cash to begin the space shuttle program, envisioned space colonization just as the middle east oil embargoes were reminding us of the cost of some of that technology:



Then in the 1980's, the advent of the personal computer revived the notion of what technology developed by smart, visionary people can do.

So it's all the more appalling that we find ourselves here today, with a man who rants about Satan "attacking America" being taken seriously as a presidential candidate (and a population 70% of which believes that Satan is real). This is a man who regards public schools as an "anachronism" no longer needed because of the death of the industrial revolution and who advocates home schooling for everyone, who thinks contraception is evil, and who is the Second Coming of Billy Sunday:



When we look now at the challenges we face in the future, yes, some of them brought on by the technological changes we saw over the last century, it doesn't exactly give me a lot of confidence that we are likely to have our educational system dismantled by people like Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney or John Boehner and the kind of willfully ignorant people who equate education with some kind of negative elitism and celebrate stupidity and religion for rational thought. To the extent that there is talk of science, it's coming from Newt Gingrich, who then turns around and spouts the Santorum line about infanticide and morality. There was a time not so long ago when we had confidence in the human mind's ability to come up with ideas to make life better. We financed public schools and colleges and we held science fairs and we lived in a world based on reality. Pipe dreams about undersea hotels and shoes that let us walk on the ceiling and beds that popped us up in the morning like toast may have been silly, and may have been in the service of corporations, but at least they demonstrated a sense of he possible. In the America of the religious right, nothing is possible. Everything is about doom and death. It's a world devoid of joy and pleasure, one in which they're just waiting to die so they can live in some ill-defined state with a guy they worship as a deity who died a long time ago and who just wanted people to be nicer to each other. They never stop to think that he might not want them.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, February 20, 2012

Would a President Rick Santorum sell the country to the Catholic Church?
Posted by Jill | 5:54 AM
It doesn't seem like all that long ago when people wondered if John F. Kennedy would be taking his marching orders form the Pope instead of his obligation to uphold the Constitution. Most voters wouldn't have those kinds of concerns a contemporary Roman Catholic who ran for President, but Rick Santorum is no contemporary Catholic. Santorum's Catholicism has more resemblance to that of Mel Gibson than it does to that of Jack Kennedy.

The most disturbing aspect of the whole foofarah about insurance coverage of contraception is the way the right has embraced the notion that opposing the bishops is somehow a "war on religion." Note also how the framing is "war on religion", not "war on Catholicism." I always find myself wondering if Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Wicca, and worship of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are included in the Republicans' all-embracing arms (though I think we know the answer to that). We've come a long way since the days when people were concerned about a particular religion creeping into policy, and it's not a positive one. Santorum can tack the prefix "Judeo-" in front of the word "Christian" all he wants to, but you know as well as I do that "Judeo-" has nothing to do with his agenda.

But Santorum's fealty to the Vatican goes beyond social policy, as Andy Kroll reveals in Mother Jones:
The Armed Forces Retirement Home, which is run by the Department of Defense, bills itself as the "premier home for military retirees and veterans." The facility sprawls across 272 acres high on a hill in northern Washington, DC, near the Petworth neighborhood. The nearly 600 veterans who now live there enjoy panoramic views of the city—the Washington monument and US Capitol to the south, the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception to the east. At its peak, more than 2,000 veterans of World Wars I and II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War lived at the Home.

But with the rise of the smaller all-volunteer military, the Home began to run into serious financial problems. It was clear that one of its primary sources of revenue—a 50-cent deduction from the paychecks of active-duty servicemembers—wasn't enough to keep the Home operating fully. In the 1990s, the Home scrambled to find ways to avoid insolvency, trimming its staff by 24 percent and reducing its vet population by 800. Still, the money problems began to show, with its older historic facilities slipping into disrepair and decay. To grapple with its worsening shortfall, officials running the Home eyed a valuable, 49-acre piece of land worth $49 million as a potential financial lifeline.
Under one scenario, by leasing the parcel of land and letting it be developed, the Home could pocket $105 million in income over 35 years for its trust fund, David Lacy, then-chairman of the Home's board of directors, told Congress in 1999. Lacy stressed that the Home wanted to keep the property, and not offload it to a buyer. "Once land is sold," he said, "it is lost forever as an asset."

Enter Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.). At the behest of the Roman Catholic Church, and unbeknownst to the Home, Santorum slipped an amendment into the 1999 National Defense Authorization Act handcuffing how the home could cash in on those 49 acres. The amendment forced the Home to sell—and not lease—the land to its next-door neighbor, the Catholic University of America. Ultimately, the Catholic Church bought 46 acres of the tract for $22 million. The Home lost the land for good, and by its own estimates, pocketed $27 million less than the land's value and $83 million less than what it could've made under the lease plan. Santorum's amendment sparked an outcry from veterans' groups and fellow US senators, who barraged his office with complaints.

Of course none of that mattered, and if you read on in the article, the Church didn't care much about running the running the place; it was all about the land. So you have to wonder what other parcels of Federal property a President Santorum would hand over to the Vatican just because they want it.

If the money guys who run the GOP and almost always decide the nominee decide that they can live with a Santorum nomination and allow him to snag that particular prize, the GOP will turn any attack on his sleazy record in Washington as an "attack on religion." Of course the subtext of this pearl-clutching of any criticism of anyone who who self-identifies as a Christian is, of course, the idea that the incumbent President, Barack Obama, is not a Christian (another reason for Santorum's ludicrous referring to "...a Protestant Judeo-Christian ethic". Santorum can use that prefix all he wants to, but it's clear that Jews have no place in his worldview, and neither does anyone else who doesn't see the world the way he does. That Obama is a member of Churh of Christ is immaterial; the subtext to Santorum's positioning of himself as representing "true" Christianity (and allowing the evangelicals to join with him because they share his obsession with gay sex and the female reproductive system), is that Obama is somehow "other" -- the Kenyan Secret Muslim Terrorist Antichrist that far too many of Santorum's frothing (sorry) minions believe he is.

And therein lies the problem for the President, should Santorum be the nominee: how to deal with some of Santorum's more lunatic beliefs, plans, and pronouncements without being branded as conducting a "war on religion", or more specifically a "war on Christianity". Santorum is, of course, allowed to practice his religion freely (despite his protestations that Christians are somehow under siege in this country). But with a history of facilitating the sale of federal property to the Catholic Church, it is a legitimate question just how much of this country he would let the Vatican have. The question is who will have the guts to ask it.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Saturday, February 18, 2012

Stop the world, please. I want to get off.
Posted by Jill | 7:45 PM
I can't even fathom that this man is being treated differently from a lunatic ranting about the Second Coming on a street corner. In a sane world, people would walk on by, not potentially nominate him for the Presidency.

From Outside the Beltway:
Lashing out on two fronts, Rick Santorum on Saturday questioned President Barack Obama's Christian values and attacked GOP rival Mitt Romney's Olympics leadership as he courted tea party activists and evangelical voters in Ohio, "ground zero" in the 2012 nomination fight.

Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator known for his social conservative views, said Obama's agenda is based on "some phony theology. Not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology." He later suggested that the president practices a different kind of Christianity.

Is Santorum saying that Obama is a Mormon?

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

"If she did it once, she'll do it with anyone"
Posted by Jill | 6:20 PM
I might as well come out and admit it: There was a semester when I was in college when I had sex with a number of different men. It wasn't some great feminist act of defiance against conventionality, it was nothing that noble. It was a cynical calculation that "If that's the way the game is played, that's how I'll play it" combined with an even more cynical "If I let you fuck me, will you shut up and leave me alone?" "Saving it" for someone who back then I figured wouldn't be much different from these clowns seemed like a silly thing to do. If I was attracted to someone, I did it because there seemed no compelling reason not to. I'm not proud of it, but I'm not ashamed of it either. It's something I did, I was lucky enough and smart enough to protect myself against STDs and pregnancy, and I was lucky in that I did this at a different college than the one I attended. A friend of mine did the same thing at our school and got such a "reputation" (and yes, in 1973 they did use that word) that she ended up dropping out of school. When I got a "reputation", I was able to just stop going to parties at that school. The next year I met a guy whom I dated throughout the rest of college, I went on with my life, dated until I met the guy I married, got married, built my career, and was none the worse for wear.

The thing that struck me most, even while all this was going on almost thirty years ago, was what I even then called "The Double Standard After the Fact." It goes like this: A guy would pester you incessantly to go to bed with him, and after you did, he dropped you because if you did it with him, it meant you'd do it with anyone. That this kind of sentiment devalued the men who had it never seemed to enter their minds. It never occurred to them that you bedded them because you found them irresistable, or interesting, or because you thought they had gorgeous eyes. They thought you'd fuck anything that moved. It really wasn't until a few years later, after I ran into the same thing while dating, that I realized that this sentiment said more about how small these men felt about themselves than it said about me.

I've been thinking about the Double Standard After the Fact this week as the heinous Virginia Let The State Stick A Probe In You For Punishment bill has wound its way towards almost certain signature by that grinning sack of shit Bob McDonnell, who thinks that the All Your Vaginas Are Belong To Us sentiment that this represents is a sure win among the mindless, grinning half-human wreckage that supports the GOP these days. The reaction to the perfectly sane outrage over women being forced to submit to state-sponsored penetration as punishment for daring to not wanting to carry a parasite to term has been very telling.

Here's CNN correspondent and piece of human detritus Dana Loesch:



"...they had no problem having similar to a trans-vaginal procedure when they engaged in the act that resulted in their pregnancy."

Got that? Bet you didn't know that if you ever had consensual sex even once in your life, you were consenting to having anyone, including the State, put anything they want to into your vagina whenever they want to. If you ARE ever raped and you've ever had sex (presumably the "sodomized virgin" exception still holds in these people's minds), good luck getting it prosecuted if this is the kind of society in which we're going to be living.

New York weatherman Tex Antoine was fired from Eyewitness News in 1976 for "quipping" after a report about the rape of a five-year-old girl, "With rape so predominant in the news lately, it is well to remember the words of Confucius: 'If rape is inevitable, lie back and enjoy it.'" Today he'd be hired by Andrew Breitbart and have his own show on Fox News.

Labels: , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share

And this is the GOP front-runner
Posted by Jill | 7:47 AM


Transcript:
This is not a political war at all. This is not a cultural war. This is a spiritual war. And the Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country - the United States of America. If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age? There is no one else to go after other than the United States and that has been the case now for almost two hundred years, once America's preeminence was sown by our great Founding Fathers.

He didn't have much success in the early days. Our foundation was very strong, in fact, is very strong. But over time, that great, acidic quality of time corrodes even the strongest foundations. And Satan has done so by attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that have so deeply rooted in the American tradition.

He was successful. He attacks all of us and he attacks all of our institutions. The place where he was, in my mind, the most successful and first successful was in academia. He understood pride of smart people. He attacked them at their weakest, that they were, in fact, smarter than everybody else and could come up with something new and different. Pursue new truths, deny the existence of truth, play with it because they're smart. And so academia, a long time ago, fell.

And you say "what could be the impact of academia falling?" Well, I would have the argument that the other structures that I'm going to talk about here had root of their destruction because of academia. Because what academia does is educate the elites in our society, educates the leaders in our society, particularly at the college level. And they were the first to fall.

And so what we saw this domino effect, once the colleges fell and those who were being education in our institutions, the next was the church. Now you’d say, ‘wait, the Catholic Church’? No. We all know that this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic but the Judeo-Christian ethic was a Protestant Judeo-Christian ethic, sure the Catholics had some influence, but this was a Protestant country and the Protestant ethic, mainstream, mainline Protestantism, and of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it. So they attacked mainline Protestantism, they attacked the Church, and what better way to go after smart people who also believe they’re pious to use both vanity and pride to also go after the Church.

After that, you start destroying the Church and you start destroying academia, the culture is where their next success was and I need not even go into the state of the popular culture today. Whether its sensuality of vanity of the famous in America, they are peacocks on display and they have taken their poor behavior and made it fashionable. The corruption of culture, the corruption of manners, the corruption of decency is now on display whether it’s the NBA or whether it’s a rock concert or whether it’s on a movie set.

The fourth, and this was harder, now I know you’re going to challenge me on this one, but politics and government was the next to fall. You say, ‘you would think they would be the first to fall, as fallible as we are in politics,’ but people in political life get elected by ordinary folks from lots of places all over the country where the foundations of this country are still strong. So while we may certainly have had examples, the body politic held up fairly well up until the last couple of decades, but it is falling too.

(via)
I repeat. This man is the GOP front-runner for the party's nomination for President of the United States. He made this speech not 20 years ago, nor 10 years ago. It was made THREE years ago, at Ave Maria University, a "college" that's part of the Florida town of Ave Maria, a Catholic enclave founded by Domino's Pizza founder Tom Monaghan.

Rick Santorum is a hatemonger of the first order. His hate knows no boundaries -- it's directed at women, at gay people, at even Christians whose beliefs don't coincide 100% with his.

We have spent a decade in Afghanistan so that the Taliban don't take power again. And yet, the same party that has supported that war may very well nominate its own Taliban leader right here. It'll be a Christian Taliban, but it'll be a theocrat just the same.

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Do I have to start a new regular feature, "Wednesday Misogyny Blogging"?
Posted by Jill | 7:01 PM
In a way I'm glad that the fetophiles' true motivation is starting to come out. For thirty years, the people who think that there is never a time in a woman's life when she should be nothing but a vessel have been stymied by the "pro-life" label. But now we can call their movement "advocates of state-sanctioned rape". That's much better.

Virginia is poised to send two of the most abhorrent anti-choice bills to Governor Bob McDonnell to sign. The governor, eyes trained on a vice presidential bid, has indicated he will sign at least one if not both of the bills.


The first is a bill requiring the use of trans-vaginal ultrasound prior to a woman obtaining an abortion, the other is an egg-as-person bill.  Like other failed "personhood" bills, the Virginia provision would outlaw not only abortion but also forms of hormonal birth control. 

Although the Governor has said he will consider the personhood bill he has been clear he would sign the forced ultrasound bill.  But let's start calling this what it really is: state sanctioned rape.  

In Virginia, rape is defined as the following:



§ 18.2-61. Rape.
A. If any person has sexual intercourse with a complaining witness, whether or not his or her spouse, or causes a complaining witness, whether or not his or her spouse, to engage in sexual intercourse with any other person and such act is accomplished (i) against the complaining witness's will, by force, threat or intimidation of or against the complaining witness or another person; or (ii) through the use of the complaining witness's mental incapacity or physical helplessness; or (iii) with a child under age 13 as the victim, he or she shall be guilty of rape.

I called and emailed McDonnell’s press secretary Jeff Caldwell asking if the forced vaginal ultrasound bill would in-fact overturn the rape statute.  Caldwell did not return my call or email by the time of publication. 

During the debate Republican State Del. Todd Gilbert said:



The vast majority of these cases [abortion] are matters of lifestyle convenience.” And, 

“We think in matters of lifestyle convenience and in other matters that it is right and proper for a woman to be fully informed about what she is doing.”

Forcing a woman to undergo a vaginal invasion in order to have a legal medical procedure is state-sanctioned rape. Period. And that is what these people are: Rapists.

And by the way, Governor McDonnell has made clear that he's very interested in being on the Presidential ticket as a Vice President nominee this year. Just imagine the misogynist utopia that a President Santorum and his consort, Vice President McDonnell could create.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

The eloquence of women
Posted by Jill | 5:30 AM
Every now and then, I think we need more good progressive women in elected office, just to drive home just how important the issues for which we fight are.

Washington State Republican Rep. Maureen Walsh is a good example of how women can cut through all the bullshit and get to the heart of an issue:



And on the other side of the country, here is Loretta Weinberg, the lioness of the New Jersey State Senate, on marriage equality in New Jersey. Watch it all the way through:



Weinberg has been at the forefront of this issue for a long time. She's a stalwart advocate of progressive values, and as such, she's a thorn in Chris Christie's side. Christie, in the true tough-guy fashion so beloved by the right, a misogynist governor who last year said someone should "take a bat" to Loretta Weinberg and called WFAN morning radio talking head Craig Carton a "whiny girl" in the week before the superbowl, called the vote "good theater". Christie, with his eyes on a 2016 national campaign, plans to veto the bill. Because his religion and his worldview and his hatred of everyone who doesn't believe the same old stores he does, are more important than the full rights of everyone in the state he governs.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Saturday, February 11, 2012

Saturday Big Blue Smurf Blogging: What They Said
Posted by Jill | 7:00 PM
Today's honoree: John Cole, who cuts through the bullshit like no one else can, especially where this alternate reality in which we find ourselves is one where all of a sudden the practice of contraception is something that is a subject for national debate.

Money quote:
When did the 1st Amendment change from basically saying that you can practice whatever religion you want and you won’t be burned at the state as a heretic and we’re not going to form or recognize a national religion like the Church of England? When did it change to “everyone everywhere has to do what a bunch of old catholics in funny hats wants, because otherwise it hurts their feelings?” And why does it only apply to certain religions?

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, February 09, 2012

I've been saying for years that once they get abortion, they're going after birth control
Posted by Jill | 5:51 AM
I remember the days when people were worried that John F. Kennedy would take his marching orders from the pope instead of from the people. Today, a candidate taking his marching orders from the pope would be regarded as a good Republican. The only person in the Republican Party who might be miffed is Grover Norquist, since he thinks Republicans must serve no other master but him.

Somewhere along the line, probably around the time a black man with an odd name managed to cature the White House, right-wing Christians, particularly the candidates who purport to represent them, decided that the "bloody Papists" were OK after all, and that perhaps they could band together to fulfill their most important spiritual obligation: getting back at Eve for eating the apple. Yes, all that stuff about Martin Luther no longer matters, as long as common cause can be made ensuring that all those dirty sluts keep their legs closed and if they don't, are punished with children they don't want. As long as women can be made slaves to their reproductive systems and be dependent on men, even those men who abuse them, where they belong, those little trivialities like the Pope don't matter. And that is why we had evangelical voters going gung-ho for Newt Gingrich, at least until St. Rick the Frothy marched through the Midwest again, reminding the vaginaphobic that HE's the one who walks the walk instead of just talking the talk.

But there's always been political hay to be made in claiming that we're still in ancient Rome and Christians are being thrown to the lions at every turn, except that today, Christian victimization takes the form of not being able to force everyone else to believe and practice as you do. And of course this particular battle between those who for some strange reason have turned a mystic who preached that everyone should be nice to each other and help the poor into a supply-side Capitalist who regularly put women in their place, and the sane among us, is being turned into yet another example of the virtuous and spiritual vs. the unwashed heathen. Ever since the days when John F. Kennedy had to reassure voers that he would not take his marching orders from the pope, these people have likened not getting their own belief system enforced by government to being messacred by the millions.

I don't know what the obsession is that these people have with sex, but they've sure got it in spades. And for some reason, the obsession isn't what white straight males do with their genitalia, it's all about what women and gay men do with theirs. I'd say it's because straight white men aren't doing anything with theirs, except that Rick Santorum has seven kids and always touts his "miscarried" eighth. And yet he's the poster child for Obsession with the Sex Organs of Others.

I've been saying for years that once the right gets abortion, they're going after contraception, because it's all part of the same fear and loathing of women. But they aren't even waiting around for some Presidential Executive Order or reversal of Roe v. Wade; they're going after birth control now. And the only thing standing between us and them is a President who is still laboring under the delusion that you can find common ground with absolutists.

Last week we were relieved to find that contrary to our expectations, President Obama had refused to cave to a bunch of men in Rome and kept the Affordable Care Act's mandate that copay-free contraceptives be part of health insurance plans provided to women, even by religious-owned employers whose primary mission is not religious (such as Catholic hospitals). For a few brief, shining moments, we could actually believe that this president wasn't going to take 51% of the population and throw us under the bus with every other part of the reality-based community. But as the hue and cry has become louder and more shrill by the minute, there are ominous signs that President Part-the-Waters is about to cave one more time, proving once again that Democrats are simply unable, or unwilling, to take a tiny bit of time to frame a sane argument.

So New York Times columnist Gail Collins does it for them them today, in a few well-chosen words even a ten-year-old should be able to understand:
The churches themselves don’t have to provide contraceptive coverage. Neither do organizations that are closely tied to a religion’s doctrinal mission. We are talking about places like hospitals and universities that rely heavily on government money and hire people from outside the faith.

We are arguing about whether women who do not agree with the church position, or who are often not even Catholic, should be denied health care coverage that everyone else gets because their employer has a religious objection to it. If so, what happens if an employer belongs to a religion that forbids certain types of blood transfusions? Or disapproves of any medical intervention to interfere with the working of God on the human body?

Organized religion thrives in this country, so the system we’ve worked out seems to be serving it pretty well. Religions don’t get to force their particular dogma on the larger public. The government, in return, protects the right of every religion to make its case heard.


And David Boies explained it further in The Last Word:



Of course the solution is very simple, then: Let Catholic hospitals refuse to provide contraception coverage. But then they get not one thin dime of government money. And while we're at it, let them create an unsafe environment in which employees are not protected from toxic substances and where children are hired to empty bedpans. And let's see just how long that hospital stays in business. Besides, amidst all the foofarah about "I don't want my tax money paying for things that might allow dirty sluts to get away with it," when do I get to decide what MY tax money will pay for? And I don't want my tax money going to misogynists and bigots.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Sunday, February 05, 2012

Meet your "Pro-Life" Movement
Posted by Jill | 4:45 PM
In Michele Bachmann's home district, human life is sacred....unless it's teenaged and gay. Then no one gives a shit.

Also, too.

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Friday, February 03, 2012

Nope, it's not political. Nosirree Bob it isn't. So why is the Komen Foundation also yanking funds for embryonic stem cell research?
Posted by Jill | 5:43 AM
Can we please stop the last vestiges of pretending that the Susan G. Komen Foundation is about saving lives and recognize it for the wingnut cause money launderer that it is?

They can hide behind vague policies about Congressional investigations in regard to Planned Parenthood if they want to (but then where do we get to see them break off their affiliation with Bank of America?), but it seems they've also decided to end their funding of embryonic stem cell research:
In addition to pulling funds from Planned Parenthood for The Susan G. Komen Foundation also decided to stop funding embryonic stem cell research centers making it fully transparent the organization has evolved from non-political non-profit to a partisan advocacy organization.

That means the loss of $3.75 million to the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, $4.5 million to the University of Kansas Medical Center, $1 million to the U.S. National Cancer Institute, $1 million to the Society for Women’s Health Research, and $600,000 to Yale University. That’s a loss of nearly $12 million dollars in research money to eradicate breast cancer this year alone.

This is a new position for the organization which had previously supported all sorts of scientific research targeted at finding a cure for breast cancer and saving women’s lives. It’s new position is that the organization will categorically no longer support any embryonic stem cell research.

Instead of the loud, clumsy announcement Komen made in severing ties with Planned Parenthood, this is a decision they quietly slipped in during November 2011. After all, with this new pro-life branding you would think the Susan G. Komen Foundation would want to crow about it’s policy change since embryonic stem cell research is an issue near and dear to the anti-choice crowd Komen now serves.

Maybe it’s because there won’t be any gory anti-stem cell research ad running during the Super Bowl this Sunday like Randall Terry’s anti-abortion ad. After all, Karen Handel has made it clear she and Terry share an agenda, and the Komen Foundation has under Handel’s watch closely allied itself with Americans United For Life, the zealously anti-choice group that takes credit for pushing Komen directly and through members of Congress, to sever ties with Planned Parenthood.


The more I read about the Susan G. Komen Foundation, the more I come to realize that despite all the pink imagery and the PR about saving women's lives, this foundation and its founder are all about the right-wing war against what they perceive to be the dirty whores -- meaning all women who don't live the way Michelle Duggar does. What many people think is a worthy cause is just another corporation, partnering with other corporations with no regard to their appropriateness towards the stated cause for which Komen professes to stand.

Here is one blogger's experience with Komen Pinkitude:
I hesitated to write on this topic, partly because I had so many blogs turn pink for me in 2010. They did it as a show of support and I appreciated it more than anyone will ever know. However, turning pink in support and following up with virtual and local assistance is not the same thing as the pink-washing that Komen does day in and day out.

I spent a good portion of the last year mortified about the type of cancer I had. I received a pink basket in the hospital (for my original surgery) filled with pink, plastic items that included a poem and a "tiddy" bear. I was supposed to be cheered up by the poem, as it was about another woman and how she received a fabulous new set of breasts. I was also supposed to be thrilled by the junk in the basket. Instead I was mortified. A gift basket of organic fruit would be one thing (and, yes, we did receive those and loved them), but this was just beyond painful. Rubbing the pink-washing in my face once again. The basket just reminded me that because I had this recent blip, I was supposed to become a member of another club. Well, no, thank you.

Please understand that not everything pink disturbs me and I know that many pink ribbons are truly meant as a sign of support. However, Komen is not supportive. Coloring buckets of fried chicken pink is not supportive. Putting pink ribbons on products that we don't need or want is not supportive. In fact, for many of us, it's a reminder of times we'd rather forget. If anything, Komen was extremely unsupportive when I was diagnosed.

Did they come to my house and cook me meals when I was sick? No, but my friends ensured we were had groceries and dinners for months. Did they visit me in the hospital or take care of my kids? No, but my friends and family made sure that happened. Well, what did they do?

They stepped up their efforts to get money from me. It was almost as if my name was on a new high priority list. As though because I had been diagnosed, I suddenly had the ability and desire to give to an organization that, in my opinion, has done little towards their supposed goal. It took three letters from me and three phone calls from Peter to have my name removed from their mailing list.


Over the long haul, this may turn out to be a blessing in disguise, if it gets us talking about, and really looking at, the mega-charities to which so many Americans donate. I used to work for a company that did investment consulting for large nonprofits, and it's astounding the amount of money these groups that send us envelopes filled with greeting cards and address labels and authentic Native American dreamcatchers have to work with. I decided a long time ago that I will not support any organization that sends me swag. I won't succumb to the guilt factor that always accompanies these "gifts", and I also won't support organizations that have this stuff made up to try to guilt people into donating. My donations are small and local. $100 to the ASPCA is just one in a pile of donations that pay for those two-minute-long television ads that plague the airwaves. $100 to one of my local animal organizations pays for inoculations and food. For me to really make a difference, I'm better off donating to charities that serve my local community. It isn't that I don't care about the larger world, it's just that I'd rather make a real difference to ten cats or three people than be just another check.

Here's something else to ponder: If you go over to the Komen Foundation's web site, you have to really search to find "About Susan G. Komen." It's there, but it's in the faint black font at the very top of the page, overshadowed by, among other things, a link to "Shop Komen". Somewhere along the line, the real life of a real woman has been lost a second time.

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Friday, November 25, 2011

Oh fer cryin' out loud....
Posted by Jill | 2:18 PM
You know, some days I'm glad I'm not a full time blogger. I think having to deal with Teh Crayzee seven days a week would drive me insane.

Today, Faux Noise misses no excuse to get its panties in a twist about the Secret Kenyan Muslim Manchurian Candidate in the White House:
President Obama did not include any reference to God during his weekly address titled, “On Thanksgiving, Grateful for the Men and Women Who Defend Our Country.”

His remarks were void of any religious references although Thanksgiving is a holiday traditionally steeped in giving thanks and praise to God.

The president said his family was “reflecting on how truly lucky we truly are.”

For many Americans, though, Thanksgiving is a time to reflect on how blessed and thankful they are.

The president said the “most American of blessings” is the “chance to determine our own destiny.”

He called the very first Thanksgiving a “celebration of community”

“We’re also grateful for the Americans who are taking time out of their holiday to serve in soup kitchens and shelters, making sure their neighbors have a hot meal and a place to stay,” he said. “This sense of mutual responsibility – the idea that I am my brother’s keeper; that I am my sister’s keeper – has always been a part of what makes our country special.”

The president said that belief is “one of the reasons the Thanksgiving tradition has endured.”

But nowhere in the 11-paragraph address does he mention the Almighty.

Because after all, unless you invoke the Baby Jesus 5,498,632 times a day, God only knows what might happen. Hell, you might start to think....and thinking means asking questions. And we mustn't have that. It would be unseemly.

Labels: , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Someone in the media needs to ask Rick Perry about this
Posted by Jill | 10:09 PM
If Barack Obama had to answer for the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and explain his association with him, then Rick Perry has to answer for this guy:



(h/t this, via DCap)

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share

Making having a period a crime
Posted by Jill | 5:40 AM
There are times when I wish Abraham Lincoln had just said "Don't let the door hitcha where the good Lord splitcha."

Mississippi is about to vote on an amendment to its state constitution to bestow personhood on fertilized eggs:
A national effort to put abortion bans into state constitutions is looking for its first victory next month in Mississippi, where voters are being asked to approve an amendment declaring that life begins when a human egg is fertilized.

Supporters hope the so-called personhood initiative will succeed in a Bible Belt state that already has some of the nation's toughest abortion regulations and only a single clinic where the procedures are performed.

The initiative is endorsed by both candidates in a governor's race that's being decided the same day. While Mississippi is the only state with such an amendment on the ballot this fall, efforts are under way to put the question to voters in at least four other states in 2012.

[snip]

"We feel like the docs and the patients are getting caught in the middle of a war between the anti-abortion folks and the pro-choice folks," said Dr. Wayne Slocum of Tupelo, head of the Mississippi section of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a group that opposes the initiative.


It's one thing to declare that human life begins at implantation of a fertilized egg, since that's when a pregnancy actually begins. That too has its problems, because of the possibility of making miscarriage a criminal, or even capital, offense (something the state of Georgia has already considered).

The American College of Obstetricans and Gynecologists has stated unequivocally that pregnancy does not occur intil a fertilized egg is implanted, and that up to 1/3 to 1/2 of fertilized eggs never implant. These then dissolve and become part of the so-called "products of menstruation."

Of course science and medicine have absolutely no place in the misogynist dogma of the Christofascist Zombie Brigade. What's imiportant is that the evil sluts who won't keep their legs closed must be punished by bearing a child -- and those who harbor that 1/3 to 1/2 of eggs that never implant must be investigated, and perhaps criminally charged, if they have a period.

There's only one way to deal with this, and that is for women of reproductive age to start sending their used sanitary products to the Mississippi statehouse, along with letters asking if legislators of that state plan to examine every woman's menstrual fluid in a futile search for dissolved fertilized eggs....or if they just plan to jail every woman who ever has her period on the grounds that she might have "murdered" a fertilized egg.

Labels: , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Sunday, October 09, 2011

Why not thank Irving Berlin? Or was he too Jewish?
Posted by Jill | 1:08 PM
Sorry for no posting for a few days, but I was out of town visiting family, and couldn't connect to the intartoobz for a few days despite having two laptops with me. Besides, I've kind of been in a funk for a few days about the death of Steve Jobs. Not quite sure why, other than the obvious narcissistic ones about the Apple stock in my IRA and the fact that Jobs was only four months older than I am, and how it kind of feels like the end of an era -- sort of the way it did when George Harrison died. But I'm back now, and while I'm too tired to muster up too much righteous outrage, this tidbit made my head explode:
Bryan Fischer of the conservative Christian group the American Family Association floated an interesting theory about why there hasn't been a "Muslim attack" since Sept. 11 during his speech before the Values Voter Summit on Saturday.

"By God's blessing, we have not been hit by a Muslim attack since 9/11," Fischer said. "I suggest that in part, we have Major League Baseball to thank. You remember that the week after 9/11 Major League Baseball converted the seventh inning stretch from the singing of 'Take Me Out To The Ballgame' to the singing of 'God Bless America.'"

"Now 'God Bless America' is not just a song, it is a prayer. When we sing that we are inviting God to bless America, to stand beside her and to guide her through the night with a light from above," Fischer said.

"So for one brief, shining moment every night, Major League Baseball has converted our stadiums into cathedrals in which tens of thousands of ordinary Americans lift their hearts and voices as one and ask God to watch over and protect the United States," Fischer said.

"Ladies and gentleman, I think that those prayers have been heard and they have been answered," Fischer said.

For some strange reason, Talking Points Memo chose to accompany this insane raving of a lunatic with a photograph of Mr. Met, of all mascots. I'm not sure if this is some kind of Jew Jew Jew code, given that the Mets are owned by the Wilpon family who are embroiled in the Bernie Madoff mess. But please forgive me for echoing that scene in Annie Hall where Woody Allen says to Tony Roberts that even the waitress asking "'d'you eat?" was really saying "Jew eat?" as some kind of anti-Semitic slur; I'm sure I'm looking for hidden meanings where there are none.

But while I've gotten used to the Christofascist Zombie Brigade insisting that their Great White Alpha Male Punitive Father Figure In The Sky thinks they are so important that He has nothing better to do than listen to these ignoramusus mutsche him all day long, when you start bringing the game of baseball into your insane ravings, and at the risk of going all Annie Savoy on you, that's cause to take these people to the woodshed.

Fred Wilpon didn't write God Bless America, and neither did the Yawkey family, nor the Steinbrenners, nor (Goddess forbid) the Bush family. None of those infuriating baseball players (I'm talking to YOU, Mr. Reyes) who think God hit their home run for them wrote the song. It was written by a guy whose history is similar to that of my own grandparents and to so many Jews who came to this country from Russia and Poland in the early years of the 20th century to escape the pogroms in their home countries.

Irving Berlin wrote God Bless America in 1918 after being drafted into the Army specifically to write patriotic songs and songs of Army life that were performed in all-soldier revues such as "Yip Yip Yaphank". Like most Tin Pan Alley songwriters, he had cranked out an astonishing amount of material before the war, and "God Bless America" was just another throwaway tune that he'd written and put away until Kate Smith's manager asked him twenty years later if he had a song put away somewhere that she could sing. There's tons of material on Irving Berlin at Wikipedia and elsewhere, so I needn't do a full biography here.

Irving Berlin, like the mother from whom he'd originally heard the phrase "God bless America", loved his country for the opportunities it had given him and his family -- opportunities for which the people Bryan Fischer would like to see running government would deprive future generations of immigrants, as well as those who see their status in the middle class fleeing from them more every day. Irving Berlin was a man whose family fled religious persecution to come here to the very same country in which people like Bryan Fischer and the Republican candidates seeking his favor would deprive people like him, and other non-Christians, of their own ability to worship as they please -- or not to worship at all.

But why let things like the history of the song that religious bigots like Bryan Jeffers want to co-opt get in the way of feeding their own religious chauvinism? It's so much easier, and more comforting, for them to forget that their favorite song was written by a Jew whose family came here after watching their village burned to the ground and instead to believe that like the King James Bible, which they seem to think was written by God in English, that it somehow belongs to them and then alone.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, September 15, 2011

No one can say they weren't warned
Posted by Jill | 6:25 AM
I still think that the Money Guys who ran the Republican Party are going to rally behind Mitt Romney. Rick Perry, who has demonstrated again and again that he's for sale for the right price, is someone with whom the Money Guys thought they could do business, but the only deity the Money Guys worship is Mammon, and Rick Perry can't necessarily be relied on, since he refuses to tone down the religious batshittery even to run for president.

I realize who his audience was here, but this is 100% consistent with his Apostolic Reformation beliefs.

One can only wonder what those Americans who are not Christian face under a possible Perry presidency after seeing this (emphasis mine):

Perry said Americans need more Christian values in general. “It is important that [Christian leaders] stand in the pulpit every day and defend those values, those Christian values,” Perry said. “America is going to be guided by some set of values. The question is going go to be: Whose values?”

The Texas governor said he believes America will be guided by “the Christian values that this country was based upon.”


And if you don't subscribe to Perry's notion of Christian values? Who knows? He's already perfectly comfortable with executing those who have done no wrong.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, September 05, 2011

Dear Rick Perry: God is not interested in your prayers.
Posted by Jill | 12:43 PM
As far back as 2007, I was quoting the old Jewish joke that you can find in Leo Rosten's The Joys of Yiddish, the punch line of which is "Because day after day after day, all you do is mutsche me!" On a less humorous note, Matthew 6.5 says:

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

Funny how when Rick Perry talks about throwing up his hands and saying, "OK, God, YOU fix this mess", and holds his massive stadium prayergasms, he forgets this one passage from his precious Bible.

Well, if he's left Texas in God's hands, God is telling Rick Perry just what He thinks of Texas and about how day after day, all Perry does is mutsche him:
Dozens of wildfires continues to burn out of control across tinder-dry Texas on Monday as calls went out for off-duty firefighters around the region to report for duty.

The Texas Forest Service reported 56 separate fires on Sunday that had burned some 30,000 acres. Neighborhoods across eastern and central parts of the state were reporting widespread damage.

Authorities said the fires were propelled partly by the high winds brought by Tropical Storm Lee. A late-summer cool front brought winds of 30 to 40 mph to the region, which is already gripped by one of the worst droughts in history.

The National Weather Service said South, Central and East Texas were all under "red flag" warnings for critical fire conditions until late Sunday night.

If Irene is God's punishment for the Godless heathen homosexual socialist Jewish commie Northeast, then what of the Texas wildfires?

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share