Archive - May 2009

Thus sayeth Obama's National Security Advisor General James Jones (USMC Ret.):

"I firmly believe that the United States is not only safe, but will be more secure, and the American people are increasingly safer because of the president's leadership that he has displayed consistently over the last four months both at home and abroad."

Of course, this is taken out of context.  He was specifically replying to Big Dick Cheney's claims that by banning "torture" Obama has made America less safe, but still...he goes there...

...on the exact same day that North Korea declared the armistice which ended the Korean War in 1953 invalid because South Korea joined up with the US to inspect ships coming out of NK for nuclear and other weaponry goodies.  And this is after they've tested, what, three or four missles over the past couple of days and detonated one nuclear bomb underground.  But let's get back to the armistice-busting.  This armistice, which split the Korean peninsula into two countries, separated by a DMZ at the 38th Parallel, has stood for fifty-six years, and neither side has ever threatened abandoning it until today. Why could that be? Hmmm.  Let's think about it for a second.  There's plenty of speculation running around that Kim's health is on the wane and that he's looking to solidify his legacy.  But why would he be doing this now?  Does he want to spend the summer on a beach in the south?  Or is it because Kim Jong-Il feels he can get away with it now.  Do you suspect he feels more or less threatened by the United States of America and its current Commander in Chief, Barack Obama than he did when George W. Bush was in office?  I don't know.  What could it possibly be? 

/sarcasm.

And, yet, today, of all days, is the day that the freakin' NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR to the President of the United States of America decides to declare the US is safer than ever.  How could we not be safe?  EUROPE LOVES US!  Of course we're safe, because our allies respect and admire us again!  This makes us inherently more safe.  Of course it does.  And how are they working to make the world safer from North Korea with their allies?  They're working hard with its allies at the UN on a resolution:

"{...}where we are gathering the different points of views of those engaged," {US Ambassador to the UN} Rice said. "It's serious business. It's complicated and we need to be in touch with our capitals repeatedly. And this is going to be one that we work to get right rather than to pop out prematurely." 

And just what are they trying to gather different points of view for?  This complicated diplomatic process is trying to put forth... SANCTIONS!  Yes, the almighty, all-holy sanctions that Kim Jong-Il has proven time and time again he doesn't give a crap about and has a flagrantly good time proving as much. 

What world are these people living in?  Because it sure as hell isn't the real one. 

Sorry to interrupt your Memorial Day weekend, but Susan Boyle sang again...and she made it through to the finals!

Now, Memory, which is from Cats, is not my favorite song.  I can appreciate it, but I had to listen to it too many damn times because it was part of a rush skit we Thetas had years and years ago.  (Kappa Alpha Theta, KAT...Cats.  Get it?)  When you have to listen to it over and over again, in a hot house, with bored rushees surrounding you, the bloom goes right off that damn rose pretty quickly. So, I'm sick of it, and will forever remain sick of it, but I can still appreciate it, and will forever know how hard a song it is to sing.  We had one girl in the house who could sing it...and that's it, and she was an opera major.  So, that should give you a clue.

Despite being a bit nervous at the beginning, I think Susan did magnificently.  I hope she takes the whole shebang.  Go, Susan, GO!

Man, this thing just keeps getting weirder and weirder.

 

NEW ULM, MINN. - A felony arrest warrant for deprivation of parental rights was issued today for Colleen Hauser, who is on the run with her son, Daniel, from court-ordered cancer treatment.

Brown County Sheriff Rich Hoffmann announced the new warrant this morning, saying it was issued to ensure extradition to Minnesota, if she is arrested. An earlier warrant for her arrest was based on a contempt of court charge.

It carries  no enhanced criminal penalty, he said, but "is required to give outside law enforcement agencies the authority needed to apprehend and detain the Hausers, should they be located," he said.

California authorities, with assistance from the FBI, are investigating a sighting of the Hausers Tuesday morning in southern California. No new information about their whereabouts was obtained overnight, Hoffmann said.

Hoffmann said Wednesday night that Colleen Hauser and Daniel, 13, were apparently trying to reach Mexico for an alternative medical treatment to chemotherapy.{...}

 

 

Call me crazy---and I know some of you will---but I can't quite ditch a particular thought that crossed my mind: is it possible that Colleen Hauser has some wierd variant of Munchausen-By-Proxy?  

Everyone who's watched some episode of a medical show knows what Munchausens is.  But if you've successfully avoided every repeat of ER over the years, here's the Mayo Clinic's rundown:

Munchausen syndrome is a serious mental disorder in which someone with a deep need for attention pretends to be sick or gets sick or injured on purpose. People with Munchausen syndrome may make up symptoms, push for risky operations, or try to rig laboratory test results in their effort to win sympathy and concern.

Munchausen syndrome belongs to a group of conditions, called factitious disorders, that are either made up or self-inflicted. Factitious disorders can be psychological or physical. Munchausen syndrome refers to the most severe and chronic physical form of factitious disorder.

And here are the symptoms:

• Dramatic stories about numerous medical problems
• Frequent hospitalizations
• Vague or inconsistent symptoms
• Conditions that get worse for no apparent reason
• Eagerness to undergo frequent testing or risky operations
• Extensive knowledge of medical terminology and diseases
• Seeking treatment from many different doctors or hospitals
• Having few visitors when hospitalized
• Reluctance to allow health professionals to talk to family or friends
• Frequent requests for pain relievers or other medication

The dots don't appear to be connecting, I know.  But Munchausens presumes that someone is going out of their way to receive attention from the medical establishment.  What if someone rejected the medical establishment entirely, as the Hauser's have done, and decided to go in the opposite direction?  Wouldn't it then be possible for someone to exhibit some of the same symptoms of Munchausens whilst avoiding mainstream medicine entirely?  Does it make any sense at all that what this woman has done is to flip the Munchausens coin entirely---and this is the end result? Look at that list of symptoms again, yet reverse them.  Sound familiar?

Most people are simply presuming that she's just a mom who's doing what she thinks is best for her kid---and who is going to great lengths to do just that. That could very well be true.  I'm not going to deny that one bit.  But the facts imply something very different.  She subscribes to wishful thinking regarding her son's condition---so much so in fact that she refuses to believe the X-rays that show her son's tumor has grown.  She chalked the growth up to "scar tissue," which any radiologist will tell you doesn't even show up most of the time on any sort of image, whether that be X-rays, CT scans or MRIs, and when it does, it's generally severe enough to make a difference in how they view the scans, i.e. it doesn't show up by itself, but rather show itself through changes to existing anatomy, or so I've been given to understand.  She has deliberately kept her kid in the dark about his condition---the fact that she homeschooled him and, apparently, never taught him to read has helped her cause tremendously.  (And I really don't know how she got away with this.  The State of Minnesota, as my sister-in-law can tell you, is harsh on homeschooling parents, because they want to discourage people from walking down that particular path.  Their kids are tested much more rigorously than regular students.) As if all that wasn't enough, she fed him full of malarkey about how he had turned into a medicine man when he turned thirteen, and was thus educated enough to make his own decisions regarding his care.  Conveniently, medicine man status was awarded after his first chemo treatment, when he balked at going back for more. Then, when the court didn't let her have her way, and said she was endangering her son, she took Daniel and bolted, creating a media sensation in the process. 

Does of all of this mean she's just plain ignorant or is she truly attention-seeking?  I don't know.  All this is just speculation on my part, but it seems to make sense, in a weird, flipped-on-its-head sort of way.  I will simply say this: if, when she gets to a place where she's beyond the long arm of the law, and she shows up on every cable chat show to plead her case, and makes it into a larger issue, well, then, my point may have been made.

Oh, Angelina.  Would you STOP doing this to me?

First of all, put on a BRA, for Godsakes!  You've had three children.  It's time.  Enough said.

While I can appreciate that this dress, if you allow your eyes to unfocus for a minute, is pretty flattering.   Cleavage?  Check.  Stems?  Check.  Teeny waist?  Check.  But the minute you squint in and really look...ugh.  It's a big ol' droopy mess until you get to the skirt.  It makes her look droopy, if you get what I'm saying, and doesn't really do much for her in the mid-section. 

But what really kills me---and seriously people, this BUGS me---is her adherence to the fleshier tones.  What is it with Brad's women?  The first wife will only, apparently, wear black (Agent Bedhead has documented this trend.  The coverage is extensive.  Like the supposed flab Jen is attempting to cover up with all that black.), and the second "partner" loves the flesh tones, even though she looks like washed-up garbage in them.  Angelina, honey, red lipstick will only save you one time in ten.  STOP THIS.  I have your coloring---I KNOW THIS.  I don't have anything else you have---obviously---but this one I KNOW.  Flesh tones are a freakin' mistake.  Beige is a mistake.  You can get away with black, yes, this is true, and I appreciate that you don't always go there, but, jeez, woman---hit up a little color once in a while.  Stop trying to blend in with nature.  There's nothing natural about a red carpet. 

And, Brad, we know you're tapping that.  Stop looking so smug.

Daniel Day-Lewis in a...musical?

Eh? 

Not so sure about this one. 

Will say that he looks good, though.  Very, very good.  Positively yummy.

One of the myriad nieces, Becca, is very much into photography.  And not only is she into it, she's good at it, as well.  She has a natural gift for composition. She always has---even snapshots she took when she was a kid were head and shoulders above what other people could do. What other people struggle to line up, and capture properly, she can just do with the greatest of ease. She showed me some of what she had accomplished last summer, but now that I'm on Facebook (yeah, I know.  God help us all.) and she's my "friend," I can see what else she's done and has uploaded to her albums. 

This one is knocking my socks off.  LOVE IT!

I apparently missed this one.  The Minnesota State Supreme Court has ruled that defendants in DWI cases do indeed have the right to confront their accusers in open court.  Even when their accuser is a machine.

According to the Pioneer Press:

Minnesota may be forced to drop thousands of driving-while-impaired cases and change the way it prosecutes others in the wake of a state Supreme Court ruling Thursday, prosecutors and defense attorneys agreed.

The state's highest court ruled that defendants in drunken-driving cases have the right to make prosecutors turn over the computer "source code" that runs the Intoxilyzer breath-testing device to determine whether the device's results are reliable.{...}

It would appear we have made some progress in the fight for the civil rights of those accused of drunk driving, no?  The Constitution provides that you have the right to confront your accuser in open court, so this development is good, right?  Even if it's a machine, you should have the right to confront it in court---in this case, by examining its code and checking that everything is kosher, and it produced the correct result---and the Minnesota Supreme Court said, yes, you do have that right.  Everything is good here, right?  The Constitution is being upheld, and everything should be coming up roses, right?   

Well, that's where you'd be wrong. 

 have your cake and read more too!

There's a bit of a moral brouhaha going on in New Ulm, Minnesota.  

The mother of 13-year-old Daniel Hauser testified Friday that she and her son would refuse to comply with any court order requiring the boy to resume chemotherapy for his cancer.

"Danny clearly made up his mind. He's not doing it,'' Colleen Hauser, of Sleepy Eye, Minn., testified on the opening day of a trial over whether a court should order the boy into medical treatment against the family's wishes.

Hauser, whose son was diagnosed in January with Hodgkin's lymphoma, said conventional treatments such as chemotherapy conflict with the family's religious beliefs. She said they prefer natural remedies such as herbs and vitamins.

Asked where she learned about the alternative healing techniques, Hauser said, "on the Internet.''

{...}The Hausers declined to speak to reporters after Friday's court session. But Dan Zwakman, a member of the Nemenhah religious group to which they belong, acted as the family spokesman. He argued that this is a case about religious freedom, noting that the group's motto is "our religion is our medicine."

The basic premise, he said, is "that we will do no harm. Chemotherapy is known to be dangerous. It's a killer."

On the witness stand, Daniel's mother showed little emotion as she testified in a soft voice about her son's ordeal.

She said that on the day Daniel had his chemotherapy in February, she felt pressured into signing the consent form, and never intended to agree to the full six treatments that his doctors at Children's Hospitals and Clinics had recommended.

"At that time, I was so emotionally distraught, I didn't know what I was doing," she said.

She said Daniel was furious when he realized he would be getting the treatment.

"Mom, I'm walking out of here," she said he told her, "and he almost did."

The boy refused to go back for the five additional treatments and his parents concurred, which ultimately triggered a child-endangerment petition filed by Brown County Attorney James Olson.{...}

 

The issues are thus: First, does a thirteen-year-old boy have the right to refuse cancer treatment?  Second, do his parents have the right to hide for cover under the rubric of religious freedom in their effort to back up his wishes, even if it would appear that their claim to said religious freedom seems more than a little specious?  And, third, does the refusal of the parents to give the child treatment constitute child endangerment, thus allowing the courts to come in and force the child to undergo treatment?

This is one of those instances when I'm really glad I'm not a judge.

I read about this on Saturday, showed the story to the husband, who patently declared himself to be solidly on the side of the parents.  After all, he said, they have a right to raise their child as they see fit.  If they don't want to put the kid through chemo, not only because of their supposed religious beliefs, but because he's their kid, they should have that right---even if it means they're incredibly stupid in doing so.  It was pretty simple to him. 

It's not so simple to me. 

I have every reason to believe that this woman is inherently misguided in her belief that nutrition and vitamins that she read about on the internet will keep her kid's cancer in check, or, miraculously, will cure it.  She seems to think this is an alternative treatment to chemo.  Furthermore, she doesn't apparently believe that tumors can gro and that radiological technology will document said growth. She and my beloved Cake Eater Father should get together and have a chat, because he holds many of the same views she does---although he doesn't subscribe to a Native American group. 

I regularly get chewed out by my Dad for being "stupid," because I refuse to believe that any of the quacks he follows on the World Wide Web have any credibility or even know what they're talking about.  It doesn't help their credibility in my mind that all of these doctors have their own herbal supplements for sale and take Visa.  At this stage of the game, his back is really up, my devoted Cake Eater readers, because he just wants me to not suffer, and he truly believes that modern medicine is inflicting said suffering upon me.  He's got a point, because everything I deal with now is a result of modern medicine's intrusions into my body.  That's a fair complaint.  For the record, I'm not against using a natural source as a cure for anything.

Yet...

I just want some independent proof---and the more independent sources the better---that something works, rather than just said Visa-accepting-quacks' word (and the iffy studies they quote in their defense) that it does.  Dad thinks I'm an idiot because I still go to Dr. Academic and my other doctors when he believes what they have done is to cause more harm than good.  He doesn't understand why I still give them my trust.  Even though he has, understandably, forgotten quite a bit about the specifics of what I've gone through (it's hard for me to remember all of it, so I don't blame him)---and in one memorable instance, has selectively chosen not to remember something rather vital---he still believes he knows better.  I'm not saying he would have me ditch traditional medicine altogether, although he apparently doesn't put much stock in it anymore.  I am saying, however, he doesn't want me to apply the same standards I would apply to modern medicine's treatments (i.e. studies with good sample sizes and math backing them up, and the more of them, the better) to the ones he comes up with.  He just wants me to take his word for it.  That's the essence of the rub. 

I'm in a tough position with my father, because I know he's just doing it because he cares. Really and truly. Yet, every now and again, I hear about how dumb I'm being, how I'm such a know-it-all, etc.  He just called me "Carnac" the other day, referring to my know-it-all status. Sigh.  It's these times when I really have to bite my tongue.  It's kind of hard to defend your thinking when it's your father who's calling you an idiot.  It kind of rules out the harsher, argument-ender tactics, because otherwise I'll hear from my mom about how mean I'm being, and that I really don't need.

I'm fortunate, however, in that I am over the age of majority and don't have to follow his dictates simply because he's my father.  I am in charge of my health care, for better or worse, and any mistakes I might make are mine.  I'm an adult.  I am in charge of my life.  Daniel Hauser, however, is not in charge of his life.  His parents are.  Should they be allowed, in essence, to allow their son to die because they don't want to put in Brian Urlacher as a linebacker against his disease, but would rather have a member of the Lollipop League as his defenseman?  Social Darwinism is one thing, yet...this is a boy we're talking about. A thirteen-year-old boy, who could, conceivably, have a long life ahead of him, where he would be a productive member of society if he undergoes treatment and is able to leave his cancer behind him. 

Can you really sacrifice his life at the altar of parental rights?  If these parents were abusing him with sticks, stones, and the occasional crobar, society would overwhelmingly say, yes, get the kid out of the home.  Take him away from his parents, who obviously don't have any parental qualities at all.  Yet.  Because we're talking about chemo here, which everyone can agree is some seriously nasty medicine, they're supposedly being good parents because they're refusing to put their son through that hell, no matter how beneficial it may be? I'm not so sure that holds up.  Neither am I sure that the religious argument holds up either, because these beliefs appear to me to be adopted for legal cover.  I don't know this kid's reasoning for avoiding chemo.  The mother claims the treatments violate their religious beliefs, but at no point in that article was it mentioned that the kid believed the same and that was what was prompting him to refuse treatment.  That was simply implied.  I'm not so sure I buy it.

Again, can you sacrifice his life at the altar of parental rights?  Because that essentially what this boils down to. 

I don't know.  It just doesn't seem right, in a very itchy sort of way. I understand that parents have rights.  I approve of the notion that parents should raise their children, with the least amount of intrusion from the state as possible.  But shouldn't children be protected from stupidity---even if its their own, or that of their parents? This is clearly not a case of "let them touch the stove and they'll learn how to avoid getting burned in the future."  This kid, clearly, doesn't have that kind of time to learn his lesson. If he had already undergone treatments, and they weren't proving effective, and he wanted to refuse additional treatments, I would say, yes, the kid has a right not to suffer anymore.  He would have credibility with me, a fellow chemo-sufferer, then, despite his age.  At that point, he would be more familiar with his body, and what he did and did not want to endure for the sake of living a little longer. But this kid? He doesn't want to even try.  One can infer that, from what his oncologist said on the stand, Daniel doesn't fully understand what he's doing, or even what he's feeling, because he's attributing his sickness to chemo, rather than his illness, which is not the case.   

What does this all mean?  Hell if I know. That's why I said I was glad I wasn't the judge.  I sincerely hope the judge can convince the parents that they're being idiots; that the kid is being an idiot, without having to force anyone to do anything.  Sadly, however, I think the judge will probably order the kid to undergo treatment and will say something to the effect of, "When you're eighteen, you can come back and yell at me then." 

Lippy "Caesar" McLipster has been at the expropriating business again.

A fresh round of expropriations in Venezuela has raised fears that the Opec producer’s already declining oil output could sink to its lowest level in the past 20 years.

Troops were mobilised over the weekend to assist Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, PDVSA, in seizing the assets of some 60 oil service companies, after a law was approved last week that paves the way for the state to take increasing control over its all-important oil industry

“To God what is God’s, and to Caesar what is Caesar’s,” said Venezuela’s President Hugo Chávez, as he presided over the expropriation of at least a dozen rigs, more than 30 oil terminals and some 300 boats.{...}

{my emphasis}

I'm not a theologian, but I'm fairly certain that's not what Jesus meant when he let loose with that bit of verbiage.

Never mind that I really don't want the image of Hugo Chavez in a toga and gladiator sandals running around in my head.  Bleech.  NEED BLEACH, STAT!

I have GOT to get this book: The Godfather Doctrine: A Foreign Policy Parable.

Yes, someone used The Godfather (Parts I and II) to help explain the various international relations theory the U.S. has employed in the past.  

Victorino Matus over at Uncle Rupert's shop has more:

Not since the end of the Cold War have I witnessed such an intense, exhaustive, and heated debate among foreign policy scholars. The conflagration took place this morning at the Washington office of the German Marshall Fund. The hotly contested issue: Is Tom Hagen, consigliere to the Corleone crime family, a realist or a liberal internationalist?

John Hulsman and Wess Mitchell argued that Tom was the latter: Hagen’s problem is he thinks Sonny is the problem, not the other families. More than anything else, Tom yearns for a return to a “Sicilian Bretton Woods” where everyone sits around and negotiates peacefully. When the war of the five families breaks out, Tom’s major concern is about how the conflict will hurt business.

Robert Kagan disagreed. After his return from Hollywood (and what sort of liberal would allow a horse’s head to be left on someone’s bed?), Tom urges Don Corleone to make the deal with Sollozzo the Turk—let us organize the drug trade. In fact, the consigliere is a realist.

But what sort of realist? A Kissingerian realist?

{...}The authors readily admit the analogy only goes so far. But, as Wess Mitchell noted, “when you boil it down, the typology still holds.” Don Corleone is the declining hegemon. Sollozzo the Turk is not a superpower but a tool of other nefarious regimes. He is an opportunist, likened to Ahmadinejad. When Tom Hagen warns Sonny that the war against Tattaglia and Sollozzo can spiral into a war against all the families, Sonny welcomes it. He fails, in Hulsman’s words, “to differentiate between primary and secondary threats.” And the war does cost a lot in terms of manpower and resources. Enter Michael, who sees a way out through his venture in Las Vegas. He negotiates, offering a chance for the other families to benefit (but only to a certain extent).

“He negotiates?” scoffed Kagan. “His first ‘negotiation’ ended with his putting bullets in the heads of the cop and Sollozzo.” And of course he concludes by eliminating the heads of the five families. So much for being an integrator. “Michael is unsatisfied with just killing Tattaglia and Sollozzo. What Michael wants is total security,” a very American notion.{...}

Is this an odd notion, that someone would use the Corleones to explain international relations theory? I don't think so.  I think it works perfectly.  To quote (of all freakin' people) Nora Ephron from (of all freakin' movies) You've Got Mail:

Kathleen: What is it with men and The Godfather?

Joe: Hello?  The Godfather is the I-Ching.  The Godfather is the sum of all wisdom.  The Godfather is the answer to any question.  What should I take on my vacation?  Leave the gun, take the cannoli.  What day is it? Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Wednesday.  The answer to your question is 'go to the mattresses.' You're at war. 'It's not personal, it's business. It's not personal it's business.' Recite that to yourself every time you feel you're losing your nerve. I know you worry about being brave, this is your chance. Fight. Fight to the death.

See what I mean?  The Godfather IS the I-Ching.  Why not try to explain foreign policy by using it.  

Somewhere, in the dreary fifth floor of Ross Hall, home of the the Iowa State University Political Science Department, my favorite international relations theory professor Dr. Mansbach, is kicking himself that he didn't think of this.