Feb. 5th, 2002

evile: (clutter)
 
 
 

 

 
  • Feb. 5, 2002
     
    http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20020204_719.html

    While we're at it, let's retroactively give Peace Prizes to every tin
    pot dictator who killed massive numbers of people. Hey, if there
    aren't any people in the world, it will certainly be peaceful.

    Jeezus Christ on a pogo stick.
evile: (taurusgirl)
 

  •  
    Taurus: I've got this one Taurus with a special knack for home
    improvement projects. As far as this one Taurus is concerned, a house
    is not a place where you live, it's a giant canvas that needs some
    work. First it's the patio, then it's the garage, and next come the
    closets, and finally, there's stuff to do in the garden, and about
    the time this one Taurus gets done at one end of her homestead, it's
    back to the beginning and all of this requires another trip to the
    home improvement superstore. Being a guy, I sort of figure that once
    it's done, I should just leave it unless it's falling down, and even
    then, I might just leave if it's not mission critical (like plumbing
    at my own trailer). Now, you're going to be motivated by the very
    same urge that affects my Taurus friend, but I'm not sure that this
    is the right time to jump into that project. Might want to get a list
    of material you think you might need for the project. Then, take that
    list with you to the store. While you think you might know how much
    lumber is per running foot, it wouldn't hurt to find out for sure.
    Then, make sure you've included all the stuff you think you might
    need. Paint, lumber, nails, screws, brackets, the little glue–like
    stuff that squeezes out of the tube, and so forth. Try to figure out
    just exactly what it'll cost before you undertake any new projects.
    Your first estimate, and what your fact–finding mission discovers
    will help a lot before you do anything.

    Gemini: I've got this one Gemini buddy <http://www.astrowhore.org>,
    going by the sobriquet of "Bubba the Gemini," and it's kind of funny
    to listen to him talk. "I was talking to my astrologer the other
    day," and then the folks all stop and look at him. "What? It's what
    the guy does, he's an astrologer. What? You think I could afford to
    talk to him? I just show him the best places to eat, that's all." So
    he was holding forth about how the planets have been particularly
    cruel to him as of late. He no sooner gets one good dose from one
    planet, like Jupiter when, all of sudden, Saturn does something bad
    to him. The problem this guy has is that he knows just enough about
    astrology and charts and stuff to be really dangerous. So it seems
    the same thing is happening to you right now. No sooner does
    something good happen when, all of sudden, another planet comes along
    and makes it all difficult again. The expression I've heard, time and
    again, is, "Can't win for losing." Done with the proper drawl, it's a
    highly effective phrase, more along the lines of, "Cain't win fer
    loosin'." Need sympathy? I've got some
    <http://www.astrofish.net/XFree/reading.html>. Need empathy? You're
    on your own, dear Gemini. Not much longer, but right now, yes, it
    does feel like it's all stacked against you.

    ======
    The Taurus one is pretty good. Not so sure about the Gemini.

    I have been thinking of installing a big light above my work table,
    like one of those hanging fluorescent fixtures, but maybe finding
    a 'natural light' bulb to put in there instead of that fluorescent
    crap. hm. But that's for the future. Right now, I've got about $300
    to spend while Jen's here. Of course, I've already paid for our "spa
    day" so that's cool.

    We might go to Messina Hof winery to taste Port! That would be cool.
    They're doing a "marriage of Port" ceremony, with 4 course dinner,
    for $70 per person. But taht's a little pricey, plus their page is a
    little vulgar in it's notation that "Sales Tax is 6.75% and Gratuity
    is 18%" Um ...no. It's always nice to have a 'suggestion' of
    gratuity; that's one of the things I liked about the Body & Soul web
    page, was the suggested gratuity of 10-15%, just to let people know
    what is customary if you are pleased with the service. But
    saying "Gratuity is 18%" period...whether we serve you politely or
    not, beeyotch! Is not very customer-friendly.
evile: (clutter)
 
 
  • Feb. 5, 2002
     
    I am horrified and appalled that people are taking this seriously,
    and taking at face value the professed desire to help poor women. Bla
    bla. Whatever. If you wanted to help poor women carry healthy babies
    to term, why not change the rules to allow them to claim prenatal
    care as soon as they find out they are pregnant? Seems a lot more
    straightforward than this "fetuses are actually 'unborn infants'"
    crap. But, hey, I am not fooled, and I don't think these assholes
    think they're fooling anyone. They are flaunting the power they have
    and saying "yeah, you hate it, but what can you do? You don't have
    the power of an Enron or a Microsoft, you can't buy a state or an
    election, so fuck you"

    ===============================================================
    From: "cyber jean" 
    Date: Mon Feb 4, 2002 10:12 am
    Subject: Sneak Attack on abortion rights



    From this morning's New York Times: February 4, 2002

    Sneak Attack By BOB HERBERT

    They tried to camouflage the action. Bush administration officials
    presented
    it as an altruistic attempt to bring badly needed health care
    benefits to
    low-income pregnant women. It was actually a guerrilla attack on
    abortion
    rights.

    Alarm bells automatically go off when this administration claims to
    be
    helping the financially disadvantaged. So you knew something had
    to be up when the Department of Health and Human Services announced
    last
    week that it had figured out a way to provide prenatal care to low-
    income
    women who might not otherwise be eligible.

    This would be done, officials said, by broadening the definition of
    a "child" eligible for coverage under the Children's Health Insurance
    Program.
    The meaning of "child" would be clarified, the officials said. Under
    the new
    rules, childhood would begin not at birth, but at conception.

    Adorned with the new definition of "child," the fetuses would become
    eligible for the health coverage.

    The health and human services secretary, Tommy G. Thompson, said this
    would
    be a boon for poor women. He said it "would help poor mothers be able
    to
    take care of their unborn children and get the medical care they
    absolutely,
    vitally need."

    He chose his words carefully. "Unborn children." Get it?

    Abortion opponents have been trying for the longest time to get
    embryos and
    fetuses defined as persons under the law. They believe
    it would be much easier to criminalize all abortions if embryos and
    fetuses
    were established in law as children.

    So while Mr. Thompson was crowing about what a boon this was for
    poor women, it was the anti-abortion crowd that was celebrating.
    Douglas
    Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee said, "We applaud
    this Bush
    administration proposal to recognize the existence of an unborn child
    in
    order to allow the baby, and the mother as well, to receive adequate
    prenatal care — a concept to which only the most extreme pro-abortion
    ideologues will object."

    The truth is the decision had little to do with the health care of
    women. It
    was a political move, pure and simple. It was the Bush
    administration's way
    of sending a message to the right- wingers
    of the Republican Party: Don't give up hope. We're committed to
    undermining
    abortion rights.

    You don't have to torture the definition of the word child to give
    health
    benefits to low-income women. For example, coverage under the
    Children's
    Health Insurance Program could be extended to pregnant women via a
    simple
    legislative change, or by waivers to existing rules. That would be
    the
    common-sense way to go if the real goal were meaningful prenatal care.
    Harmful and in some cases bizarre conflicts can develop when embryos
    and
    fetuses are designated legally as persons. Kate Michelman, president
    of the
    National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, noted that
    pregnant
    women could end up in tragic conflict
    with their fetuses if the fetuses had the legal rights of people.
    For example, what rights would prevail if a pregnant woman had
    cancer and needed radiation or chemotherapy treatment that would
    be destructive to the fetus?
    "This is not about health care for women," said Ms. Michelman.
    "It's all about politics. It's about undermining a woman's right
    to choose, disguised as health policy."

    Lynn Paltrow, director of a group called National Advocates for
    Pregnant
    Women, believes much more than the threat to abortion
    rights is at stake. She described the Health and Human Services
    proposal as
    "cynical," and said it helps divert attention from the
    administration's
    failure to support a wide range of initiatives
    to improve the delivery of health care to women and children.
    She added, "This maneuver to create insurance for unborn children
    both
    personifies the fetus and accentuates the fact that women themselves
    are
    neither full persons under the law, nor valued
    enough to be funded themselves."

    This rules change by Health and Human Services, which does not
    need Congressional approval, is both devious and dangerous. It
    exemplifies
    the administration's right-wing allegiance, and its contempt for the
    poor.

    There are more than 40 million Americans walking around without
    health
    insurance. About 11 million are children. If the
    administration wanted to do something about extending health
    benefits, it could start with some of them. **
evile: (clutter)
 
 t
  • Feb. 5, 2002
     
    Bored. Went thru links from the bookmarks section. Lots of dead ones.
    Went to brute force leather pg. A. mentioned them at Xmastime.
    They are kinda tacky, vulgar, appear to be not that well made, and
    expensive.

    But I did like the leather bat panties. They package & sell it with
    the 'fang bra'...why not a bat bra? hm. I shall work on this idea.

    Also figured out (perhaps re-discovered this idea?) that I can take
    my bodice pattern, tape it together, trace it out, and do it in
    leather, easily. I wonder where one purchases studs, etc. for putting
    into leather? Maybe tandy or whatever store it is that took its
    place? I know that's probably the expensive part...but anyhoo. It
    could be fun.

    I am kind of in a mood to sew. In spite of the fact that I need to be
    cleaning house for Jen's visit. We're going to The 13 Circles at some
    point, so it might be nice to have the spider web cloak done by then.
    hm.

Profile

evile: (Default)
evile

August 2025

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17 181920 212223
2425 26 27282930
31      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 2nd, 2025 05:30 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios