Monday Miscellany and Open Thread

 

"Primitive Girl" - M. Ward

Hey guys -- sorry for the disappearance.  The whole work, husband, father, and dog-owner combo has had me working overtime lately.  Well that and a little bit of the old writer's block.

- I watched "Game Change" over the weekend and was pretty impressed by it.  I found myself cringing a bit in sympathy for Sarah Palin while watching it -- in particular scenes of her watching Tina Fey portraying her on SNL.  But the portrayal is not a flattering one for Palin.  Indeed it is incredibly chilling to think that this woman who really knows so astonishingly little got a shot at being a heart beat away from the presidency.  Of course, the movie does have the small problem of Steve Schmidt, who pushed having Palin on the ticket with all of the thought one might put into the selection of a tie in the morning, serving as its conscience as well.  See Pierce's review for fuller treatement.  Julianne Moore really is quite extraordinary in the central role.

- And speaking of movies, I finally got around to seeing "The Artist" this weekend.  I am curious what those of you who have seen it thought.  It struck me as charming and a little daring but ultimately really slight, hemmed in, as it were, by the inherent limitations of silent movies. Uggie the Dog, though, is triumphant and in his own right may be reason enough to see the film.        

- I can't really add much to the horrifying shooting in Afghanistan except to say isn't this yet one more compelling reason to call it quits there?  The American people are ready -- at least 60% think it is time to leave.  Obama should ignore the villagers and listen to the people on this one. 

- It's great to see Kathy G. back wrting and at the Washington Monthly, one of my favorite sites.  She tackles the Doonesbury controversy. 

- James McMurtry has a song in which he uses the phrase "south of the Mason-Dumbass line" -- I think I know what might have inspired him.       

- Speaking of which, there is no war on women and the Republican Party is not crazy. Ross Douthat, who does not believe in contraception and opposes all sex out of marriage assures me this is the case.  Ross evidently fancies himself sane.  Chunky Reese Witherspoon begs to differ. 

What's happening? 

Comments

[beckya57]

Douthat is a douchebag. Tbogg's standard opening to a post on Douthat is "Oh no, he didn't Douthat," which I wish I had thought of.

Couldn't agree with you more about both Afghanistan and Kathy G.

Hope the reference to "dog-owner" doesn't mean something's amiss with Stanley.

Speaking of Pierce, he has another takedown of Brooks up, again featuring Moral Hazard. Quite enjoyable.

[KN]

Since science is never broadcast on Tee Vee I am still a slave of the written word but, I think a movie such as Game Change might be just that. Perhaps now Mooszilla will begin her well deserved and highly overdue descent into total obscurity. Mass media and all that.

This whole business of focusing on peripheral but still vital issues to half the population in a paternalistic and very condescending way is truly repulsive on the part of the republicans. They must think that the more they are hated the stronger they will become, or that they are pandering to the mysoginists who have all the money in the world. I hope that my gender compliments will rise up in righteous indignity and smite their tormentors with just and unmerciful wrath. There is nothing more profound than the beauty and joy of two individuals love for one another. How any woman could tolerate a relationship with someone who would put forth these kinds of legislation is beyond me, unless they are utterly brainwashed and deluded.

But then, there are a number of other things that are currency in today's discourse which seem on their face preposterous.

War is always an ugly thing. It has no merit unless fought in self defence. We should have left Afgahnistan more than ten years ago. While we have been fighting Islamic fundamentalist nut jobs there we have let down our guard and allowed Christian fundamentalists here to subvert important sectors of government and public life. Meanwhile in our obdurate ignorance, we are plunging wholesale into a brave new world that we do not understand at all, that being catastrophic climate change. One thing is certain, if we do nothing we will be at the mercy of events.

We already are in a sense. People who live in the US, who are only 4.44% of the global population can have a significant effect on the 95.66% if we are willing to lead the way, if we are willing to take up the challenge of providing quality of life to all the world's people, without despoiling, and without destroying the delicate web of life that we depend upon. But instead of rising to that incredible threat, we bicker over such nonsense as whether or not half the population should have dominion over their own bodies.

Everything else is cake decoration.

[Mandos]

The war in Afghanistan was *never* a good idea. It may have been *politically necessary*. But it was never a good idea.

[low-tech cyclist]

This administration has taken out Osama bin Laden, and effectively destroyed al Qaeda as an organization. It's time to declare victory and leave, before more shit hits the fan.

[oddjob]

The war in Afghanistan was *never* a good idea. It may have been *politically necessary*. But it was never a good idea.

Well put. I was among work colleagues the evening I learned we were going to invade Afghanistan to try to capture Bin Laden. I couldn't logically disagree with that intention, but I also wrote this down on a piece of paper:

"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier."
- from The Young British Soldier, by Rudyard Kipling

[oddjob]

The elected county commissioners in New Hanover County, N.C. are sick and tired of using taxpayer funds to assist women who can’t keep their legs closed. And so on Monday they voted to reject a state grant designed to cover family-planning services....

Sometimes you just can't make this stuff up because reality is even stranger.

[low-tech cyclist]

Kathleen Parker confirms that there's no GOP war on women. I'm sure you'll all be relieved to know that. I'm debating whether I've got the time and energy to do a front-page piece to dissect her properly, but the point is that if even more or less sane conservatives like Parker aren't willing to admit what's going on, then it really is the whole GOP and the whole conservative apparatus that's gone down the rabbit hole on this.

[Mandos]

Though I should have said "politically inevitable" rather than "politically necessary". Nothing in politics can exactly be called "necessary".

[kathy a.]

wow, oddjob. i thought that using contraceptives was "planning responsibly." i expect those upright pious dudely commissioners will not be getting any for a really long time.

parker's piece struck me as mostly validating the war on women -- so much crazy crap has been put out there that all the GOP had forgotten was to put a bow on it. her effort to move things to the more sane is kind of half-hearted, seeing how she is getting preachy condemning mail herself... parker argues that rush ain't the GOP (granted, but he's just carrying the theme farther than they would). then she tries to reframe things in a more reasonable way:

But Republicans are waging war on women only if you believe that the morality of abortion should never be questioned or if you believe the federal government can order people to pay for something that violates their conscience. These issues are not so simple, nor are Republicans simpletons for trying to protect the unborn or challenging what they view as government overreach.

she's skimming over things. that supporters of choice have considered moral arguments both pro and con, and -- importantly -- understand that the decision is individual and unique in each case. that anti-choice advocates seek to impose their rigid moral stance regardless of circumstances. that contraception and the women who use it have been attacked, repeatedly and in the most vile terms. that there is no greater governmental over-reach than trying to impose the rigid beliefs of a few on people trying to do the best with their lives -- let's consider the mandatory vaginal ultrasound in TX, taking family planning services away from those who need them, remarks that prenatal diagnostics should not be used to inform potential parents of birth defects. parker sums up by lamenting the bed the GOP has made, sleeping with evangelical social conservatives.

[nancy]

Jennifer Granholm finds a phrase that should stick: " sexual McCarthyism" .

I like it better than "war on women" -- it's more specific and completely irrefutable to my mind.

[low-tech cyclist]

But Republicans are waging war on women only...if you believe the federal government can order people to pay for something that violates their conscience.

Maybe Parker is willing to reimburse me for all tax dollars of mine that have gone to paying for Vietnam, Iraq, the Afghanistan war from the point in early 2002 where Bush started pulling special forces off the bin Laden hunt to do covert activities in Iraq instead, domestic spying, extraordinary renditions, "harsh interrogation techniques," PATRIOT Act enforcement activities, Gitmo, the bullshit security theatre we're forced to undergo at airports, pretty much every Department of Homeland Security activity that wasn't there before the Department's creation, most of the post-9/11 'defense' buildup, most of the CIA and NSA budgets, and I'm sure I could think of a few more if I took a few minutes.

In other words, WTF is new about being required by the Federal government to pay for activities that violate one's conscience?

That's part of what it means to be in a democracy: we, all of us, share in paying for everything the government does. We don't get to opt out of the parts that we don't like, even if they're a matter of 'conscience." (And damned if I know who gets to draw the line between Federal programs I merely disagree with, and those that violate my conscience in some way.)

[kathy a.]

yeah, agreed on that, LTC. we don't get to (or want to -- who has time?) vote on every single last thing. this is why we have a representative democracy.

parker was tossing up a straw man. i think in despair because -- this part is clear -- she is finding it hard to find things to support in how sideways and stupid the discourse has gotten on the GOP side.

[nancy]

ltc -- One hears a variation of this in my part of the country all the time -- sort of a tea partier conscientious objector dodge. Goes like this: Having to pay taxes is-unAmerican so I'll do my business as cash and carry. Let Uncle Sam and the IRS try to do anything about it. Rugged individualists all, who drive on maintained roadways, rely on fire, police protection, (although they over-react, to put it mildly, when it comes to any discussion regarding their beloved personal armories) disaster relief, broadcast signals, etc.

[Sir Charles]

I object strenuously to paying Jim DeMint's salary. And Eric Cantor's. Not to mention Steve King's and Louis Gomert's.

becky,

The recent Moral Hazard bit was just great. (I commented earlier and it got eaten.)

nancy.

I really like Sexual McCarthyism as a term.

[nancy]

And now for something *a little different* -- the Westboro Baptist Church, Kansas City and Radiohead. Sign-carrying. Protests. "Monkeys" making bad music who distract from godliness with their sound and light show.

Not the Onion. Really. Although I suspect some of the younger Westboro kids/victims possibly punked their elders just so they could get near the scene. :) Maybe a little passive resistance. One can hope.

[Sir Charles]

nancy,

That was me holding the "God Hates Thom Yorke" sign. :-)

It looks like our southern brethren may be bestowing a frothy treat on us this evening.

[nancy]

Sir C -- You just don't get Thom. That's OK. I didn't get Lesley Gore either. ;-)

[KN]

I vote for sexual McCarthyism as well, nice term.

Wha? How do these rethuglicans rationalise the contradicition of so called conscience respecting other people's bodily integrity, and at the same time party hearty on the conscription of young men who have no wish to die, into wars in which some of them, inevitably will die? In Vietnam it was 55,000, in this episode only about 1/10th that, but still 66% more than died on 9/11 have been sacrificed since and for what?

The dead were lucky, they didn't have to come home and try to survive in a prevaricating society that ignored their existence yet sent them, against their will into the hell and insanity of war utterly naked and vulnerable. To no purpose other than to further the aims of the plutocrats.

It is still true. The 5,000 dead men and women from these most recent follies are no importance. But a zygote is deserving of the close attention and monitoring of the state.

How can such absurdity have any traction?

[low-tech cyclist]

But a zygote is deserving of the close attention and monitoring of the state.

Until it's born, of course. Then it becomes one of the undeserving poor.

[oddjob]

The Encyclopedia Britannica is no longer going to publish hard copies of itself. From now on it'll be digital-only.

[kathy a.]

and the beat goes on.... AZ senate judiciary committee endorses a religious opt-out of contraceptive coverage for employers.

kansas thinks it is OK to lie to a pregnant woman whose fetus has defects if the doctor thinks the information might lead to abortion, and the doctor has a religious view against abortion. AZ sezs: me, too! let's do that!

mitt says he will defund PP if elected, as a solution to the deficit.

gotta get back to work. these are some of this morning's updates from pissed-off moms who are friends of mine.

[jeanne marie]

Who is behind all these draconian bills? We need to bring down the folks that are "arming" our state GOP rep-critters with this line of attack against women. Bill after vile bill. It's pathetic.

[kathy a.]

that's one layer, jeanne marie -- who's behind these bills on the state level. we are unfortunately in a place where the most sane member of the clown car (remember, this is not a normal curve) advocates de-funding women's health care. and he cannot possibly be stupid enough to think this is a measure to reduce the deficit -- that's just the selling point, one with NO factual basis. the stink runs all up and down the GOP strata.

a pretty apolitical male friend sent this along, pointing out the obvious fact that men are involved in 100% of pregnancies; that places like PP do a lot of business screening and treating STD's, which the vast majority of women catch from men; that the war on reproductive health involves everybody; and it is time the dudes who have an understanding of this stood up more vocally.

[nancy]

kathy -- That's a really good piece your friend sent. More men weighing in is absolutely necessary to shutting this sh*t down. In addition to the points made, one need also remember that PP performs no-scalpel vasectomies which people tend to forget because the abortion issue is so over-heated. Men are no doubt just as private about these matters as are women, and we're all being dragged into the crazy.

jm -- There's a pretty complete rundown of who, what, when, where and the *ostensible* why at Shakesville today.

As regards the female Santorum vote, I think there's more than a little truth here.

[jeanne marie]

Nancy, thanks, i'll head over to shakesville to check it out.

As for the female Santorum vote, I do know women she writes about. They are my friends and neighbors here in Roanoke, VA, but also in Baltimore, MD.

They are trying to live moral lives - being good wives, raising good children, and doing good deeds in the community. For them, the path is clear because they live their lives with one goal: to be pleasing to God. And I have to say I admire a good number of these women. They are decent and kind folks.

I've got to go pick up a kid now and serve dinner . . . the long and short of it: I am as confusing to them as they are to me.

[big bad wolf]

JM, that's pretty daring, granting agency and decency to those who don't vote and think as we do. surely it must be that they are unable to think, in the grip of mass hysteria, victims of stockholm syndrome or united in a determination to preserve wealth and privilge through time (see corey robbins---they're always bad we're always right!). if they weren't then they would be smart and rational and caring and agree with me!

we have to beat them politically, but flogging them personally and smearing them as a group is, i find, wearying and unbecoming of us. i find their views baffling, but, like you, i live among them and find them kind, decent, and not at all unintelligent. it may be that, as SC, has suggested many times, a parliamentary system would be much better. the two-party system, particularly when one party goes way to one side) forces people into binary alliances that do not reflect the way most decent people of beliefs (mine) and irrational (theirs) live their actual lives. we're not getting that system, so we have to win at the one we have, but i would like to save the heat for the issues and the vicious (rush, rick) than the voters.

[nancy]

bbw -- I don't think you're reading this right. Matter of fact I think you're seeing patronization where none exists. Whew.

Flogging? Smearing? What? Question is, given Santorum's vision for the future, women voting for him should certainly take two steps back to fully imagine where he'd try to lead us.

And that would be you too. I feel great responsibility to fill in some not-so-recent history for women who weren't there. Quietly and respectfully. And sincerely.

[big bad wolf]

nancy, it's the new yorker link. stockholm syndrome is the best that can be done to explain the preposterous and unfathomable beliefs. that's not patronizing? or matronizing? there's too much of that on the left. too much love of humanity and ideas and too little affection or understanding for invididuals who don't fit the ideal of humanity, which includes beliefs we are lucky enough to already hold. people notice this and feel talked down to. i've come to the position that it is very hard to persuade anyone of anything, but not impossible. tell people that they suffer from stockholm syndrome or reactionary syndrome or some other perjorative and the slight becomes impossible.

[nancy]

bbw -- I think you got stuck at the phrase "Stockholm Syndrome" and missed the reader's more important points. Maybe it was sloppy shorthand, but the use of the phrase is a way of trying to understand why people don't take care of their own well-being in the face of efforts to undermine it. For women especially. And for sure, that's what the GOP exercise right now is all about. imho

[nancy]

Dammit I hate being the last in the door before it's locked for the night. :-|

[Sir Charles]

I think we have come to an exceptionally difficult pass in politics in this country. As policy matters have become reduced to matters of faith, real dialogue becomes almost impossible.

I wish I had what I was convinced was a plausible approach to this conundrum.

I understand what bbw is saying here -- that writing off people who vote Republican as deluded fools is not really the path to persuasion. I think we need more oblique strategies that take place on a very grass roots level to change that dialogue -- and I suspect that someone like me is not really part of the solution.

I do think that the blame here lies much more with the right than the left -- while also acknowledging our flaws. The right has really made these issues matters of religious faith and so when dealing say with southern evangelical whites, it is almost impossible to persuade them that the Democratic Party would not really prefer to nominate Beelzebub.

I'll be honest -- at this point I just hope that there are more of us than them. (And that's sadly how I see it.) I feel like a convincing political victory for the more progressive side of the debate will eventually lead to a place where these more retrograde political opinions become isolated and marginalized. Hopefully this right wing strain of Christian evangelicalism will find itself ghettoized once again and will no longer be the driving force behind one of our major political parties. I would like to think that we are on the path to that happening, but only time will tell.

[beckya57]

You all should read Theda Skopcol's book on the Tea Party. Very illuminating--and scary.

Sir C--I like Radiohead. I guess we don't have to agree on everything.

[Sir Charles]

becky,

Yeah, Radiohead is really loved by many people and for some reason they just leave me cold. I don't really hate them, despite my jokes to the contrary, but they leave me fairly indifferent. (I like their drummer a lot though.) Thom Yorke has at times a pretty compelling voice and the guitar work is often excellent, but I remain unmoved by the work as a whole.

In the end this sort of thing is just visceral and often not something you can put a finger on. There are a few other bands of whom I can recall saying that I understand why their ethic or aesthetic is admirable or why intellectually they should be an act I like, but in the end music grabs you by the gut or doesn't. I find I like stuff like "Creep" or "High and Dry" more than the more celebrated part of their oeuvre.

[nancy]

Sir C and bbw -- I don't think "deluded fools" was the point. Neither jeanne marie (i think) nor I were headed in that direction in response to the New Yorker reader. At least I hope not. How about difficult 'sisterhood across the spectrum'?

That's my read anyway.

[KN]

As usual I get to chime in after everyone has left the theater for the night.

Looking at the thing broadly one has to wonder why such a coordinated and parallel effort to subjugate women to the rule of law should occur across so many state borders. The answer is quite simple, ALEC. The similarity and consistency in all these bills is revealing.

No conspiracy theory is required, ALEC is organized around the idea of controlling the country and all of its citizens through the use of sophisticated propaganda and sekective purchasing of politicians. And it is working very well in several important states.

We ignore it at our peril.

[jeanne marie]

KN, ALEC! That was what I was looking for when I asked who was behind these bills. I knew it had to be a coordinated effort. The bills are too well crafted (using language that appears innocuous or, at least, reasonably defended) and effective towards reaching their goals.

I'm going to do more reading.

[kathy a.]

i've been thinking about the discussion above about "stockholm syndrome," why women might support santorum, whether it is productive to name-call or pigeonhole such voters.

my suspicion is that there is a range of reasons why women might vote santorum; that each individual arrives at that place for different reasons. in other words, context matters. some may mistrust romney because he is too different, he is too wealthy, he tacks to the prevailing wind. some may be too busy or too disinterested to do anything but vote like their family, neighbors, friends -- i've certainly been in that place with some elections. santorum may be more like them, and they trust the back and forth of national politics to restrain his worst impulses. some may actually believe that god's highest priority is getting the word out by punishing sluts -- actually punishing, or perhaps for others as a rhetorical statement of values. (like the 10 commandments, which everybody knows will be broken.)

like JM and BBW and others, i have conservative friends -- generally decent people, and when we really talk about specific issues (let's say, birth control or access to mental health services for a family member), they have found such things important in their lives and those of friends/family. even if they get their news from fox, and mistrust obama. people are complex, their lives are usually nuanced, as bbw said. we need to find ways to talk to our neighbors. some of their personal priorities are going to line up with some of ours.

that said, there are terrible things going on legislatively and in the GOP/related rhetoric. one of the most frightening trends is imposing the beliefs and priorities of the few and powerful on everybody else. shaming individuals. cutting access to health care; inserting the legislature between patients and doctors; trying to break down the barrier between church and state; demeaning women who value personal autonomy and who work to support their families; condemning poor people, and exulting the richest. i take these efforts personally.

[oddjob]

"By the authority vested in me by the GOP base, I thee rape."

(March 15, '12 Doonesbury)

[oddjob]

In responding to a question about mandatory ultrasound before abortion PA Republican governor really goes and steps in it.

[jeanne marie]

It looks like ALEC has its "legislative models" tentacles in many areas of concern to conservatives. However, it looks like the culprit behind the "war on women" is a group called Americans United for Life (AUL).

After record-breaking pro-life year, pro-life group releases model legislation for 2012

[jeanne marie]

Here's a list of AUL’s 2012 Model Legislation & Policy Guides - in pdf

[nancy]

At some point one would think constituents should start to notice that their state taxdollars are being oddly diverted -- and that all this legislative *busyness* comes at a cost and with a bunch of paychecks. Interesting shift of funding for personal religious crusades onto state budgets. All while the churches are tax-exempt.

My neighbors in Idaho have been considering having kids across the state 'go to school' online at home because the education budget has been so whittled and teachers are payroll. Yet the elected folks in Boise, yesterday, joined the rush to the mandated ultrasound for the sluts. Priorities at work.

jeanne marie -- AUL sure looks like the force behind the current state-by-state mega-activity. In going over their pdf map, I was pleased to see that WA state comes in dead last on their 'approval' rating list. Texas comes in no. 4, Oklahoma 2, and Florida 26, I believe. Never did find no.1.

[nancy]

Not Thom.

[kathy a.]

jeanne marie -- the AUL's model legislation and policy guides are, at least from my sampling, horrible. my samples so far are the proposed abortion subsidy prohibition act, and the proposed coersive abuse against mothers prohibition act -- the former intended to cut all funds for family planning for everyone, and the latter dramatizing a small number of situations which are already crimes (forcing women to have abortions).

[Sir Charles]

jm and kathy,

ALEC and AUL are really horribly ugly forces in this country -- the proverbial vast right wing conspiracy.

nancy,

Thanks for that link. I spent a lot of Tuesday listening to E Street Radio and also listening to Roy Bittan guest DJ on Underground Garage. I try not to overdo the E Street Radio stuff because I feel like I should try to listen to as much new stuff as I can in my limited time. But I must admit it is often hard to turn it off -- he's just that compelling. I loved something I heard him say today -- "I don't really write about rebels, I write about outsiders -- often people who are outsiders not of their own choosing."

He's incredibly human and humane.

But also fun -- they play a lot of live stuff on the station and there is a lot of it that is just raucous fun. I heard him play a cover of "And Then (s)he Kissed Me" the other day and it was incredibly good.

[KN]

I would not be hastey in making a distinction between ALEC and AUL, behind all of these so called think tanks there is big money and that is largely from just a few sources.

The thing that is disturbing to me is that legislators can adopt these model bills, as if they were a) their own ideas and b) as if they were of some benefit to their constituents, when in fact they are simply pandering to the wonts and likes of those who fund their campaigns. In simple terms you would call that influence selling.

It is of course possible that an element of blackmail is added on to this so called lobbying. If you do not toe the line, we will smear you.

It is more than a little evident that that method was employed by Murdoch in Britain and there is no reason to think they didn't do the same thing here. In fact there is no reason to think that they are not still doing the same thing, but with even greater eagerness now.

The republicans are famous for coordinating their efforts and combining a whole tool box of dirty tricks to influence opinion and win elections by surpressing the vote, tampering with the results and when close enlisting the friendliness of courts to rule in their favor.

I get the sense that we are engaged in a grand experiment, one of whether free representative government can survive corporate hegemony.

We should support and encourage the WI recalls, they might just serve as an example.

Though the war on women is a revolting and exicrable thing, in a way it is defining and distinguishes those
men who truly share a oneness with women from those who
think they are somehow superior and entitled.

We should all have choice as to the path we will pursue.

[jeanne marie]

I think it is curious that the "war on women" is being waged by a fair number of educated and well-spoken women.

Mostly women on AUL team roster

Click through the bio for Abby Johnson for a compelling story about her rise through the ranks at Planned Parenthood to her conversion to Pro-Life advocate.

I can't find who is the money behind the group, but clearly they are well organized and influential.

"Americans United for Life is helping me now –- just like they helped Henry Hyde all these years -– to make sure our tax dollars are never used to pay for abortions."
- John Boehner

[jeanne marie]

Abby Johnson at work - Extremely Fishy Planned Parenthood Lawsuit Just a Sign of Shit to Come

[jeanne marie]

I am still trying to find who the money is behind AUL. But this article could be a good one to pass around:

Meet the Group Behind All Those Crappy Ultrasound Laws

[oddjob]

IBM has taken a huge step forwards in the development of its latest computer chip. It uses light instead of electricity to process information.

[nancy]

jeanne marie -- You might look to the Council for National Policy to find the funding source. Digging through what little material is public about them is disturbing -- the Dominionism associations are built in. Efforts to play that association down are more recent.

I used to wince when the Hillary made reference to the "vast right-wing conspiracy." Obviously I was wrong to do that.

[nancy]

did not mean to type 'the Hillary'. frown.

[jeanne marie]

oddjob - Holey Octochip!

nancy - This whole thing is very disturbing - they are very serious about winning this war.

[kn]

War it is girls and boys. The nutjobs are serious about taking over. They want to run the show and they do not want to be questioned of challenged. That is why they have devised this sledgehammer tactic of degrading, humiliating and imposing costs on any woman audactious enough to think that she has dominion over her own destiny.

Regrettably, when your enemy abandons all scruples and attacks you with any means available, such as these preposterously invasive laws about abortion and women's reproductive health in general, you have no choice but to defeat them with an equal if not greater retaliation. I am almost certainly mis-quoting and combining but I believe it is fair to say that Gen. Sherman put it quite succintly long ago: "War is all hell, but it is the remedy our enemy has chosen, and I say give him all he wants."

The fight as I see it at the moment is in the state and national legislatures. We will have to roll back the majorities in those bodies in the next election so check their momentum, but we will have to follow through and exorcise them in the following election to get any real traction for positive change. I can almost guarantee that they are prepared to stop at nothing, up to and including assasination, to obtain their goals. It is dogs plan afert all.

Just an aside, but I really like smart and aggresively intellectual women. That is not to say that I do not appreciate and know of many smart and aggressively intellectual men, but the majority of my gender cohort frankly seems to be, how shall I put it? Boys. IOW not only immature but prodoundly ignorant.

That goes for many over 80 years old.

Pity.

[KN]

My typing sucks, I am tired. And a little drunk.