It's the little things in life that make me giggle.  I stumbled across this article and just had to laugh.  Maybe its time to lead a campaign to allow the use of the word 'french' again ... especially as it pertains to non-french food...

Published on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 by the Guardian/UK

French Fries Protester Regrets War Jibe

by Jamie Wilson in Washington

It was a culinary rebuke that echoed around the world, heightening the sense of tension between Washington and Paris in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. But now the US politician who led the campaign to change the name of french fries to "freedom fries" has turned against the war.

Walter Jones, the Republican congressman for North Carolina who was also the brains behind french toast becoming freedom toast in Capitol Hill restaurants, told a local newspaper the US went to war "with no justification".

Mr Jones, who in March 2003 circulated a letter demanding that the three cafeterias in the House of Representatives' office buildings ban the word french from menus, said it was meant as a "light-hearted gesture".

But the name change, still in force, made headlines around the world, both for what it said about US-French relations and its pettiness.

Now Mr Jones appears to agree. Asked by a reporter for the North Carolina News and Observer about the name-change campaign - an idea Mr Jones said at the time came to him by a combination of God's hand and a constituent's request - he replied: "I wish it had never happened."

Although he voted for the war, he has since become one of its most vociferous opponents on Capitol Hill, where the hallway outside his office is lined with photographs of the "faces of the fallen".

"If we were given misinformation intentionally by people in this administration, to commit the authority to send boys, and in some instances girls, to go into Iraq, that is wrong," he told the newspaper. "Congress must be told the truth."

© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005

Published on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 by Working for Change

Duck and Cover Time
Texas lege enshrines anti-gay provision in state constitution

by Molly Ivins

Here in the National Laboratory for Bad Government, it's Duck and Cover time -- the Legislature is in session. The Can't-Shake-Your-Booty bill passed the House, saving us all from the scourge of sexy cheerleaders. But nothing else is getting done. The state is being run by people who do not know how to govern. Keep in mind that based on past form, whatever lunacy is going on in Texas will eventually sweep the country.

Rarely are the words of one state legislator worth national attention, but when Senfronia Thompson, a black representative from Houston, stalks to the back mike with a certain "get-out-of-my-way" look in her eye, it's, Katie, bar the door. Here is Thompson speaking against the Legislature's recent folly of putting a superfluous anti-gay marriage measure into the state constitution:

"I have been a member of this august body for three decades, and today is one of the all-time low points. We are going in the wrong direction, in the direction of hate and fear and discrimination. Members, we all know what this is about; this is the politics of divisiveness at it's worst, a wedge issue that is meant to divide.

"Members, this is a distraction from the real things we need to be working on. At the end of this session, this Legislature, this leadership will not be able to deliver the people of Texas fundamental and fair answers to the pressing issues of our day.

"Let's look at what this amendment does not do: It does not give one Texas citizen meaningful tax relief. It does not reform or fully fund our education system. It does not restore one child to CHIP [Children's Health Insurance Program] who was cut from health insurance last session. It does not put one dime into raising Texas' Third World access to health care. It does not do one thing to care for or protect one elderly person or one child in this state. In fact, it does not even do anything to protect one marriage.

"Members, this bill is about hate and fear and discrimination... When I was a small girl, white folks used to talk about 'protecting the institution of marriage' as well. What they meant was if people of my color tried to marry people of Mr. Chisum's color, you'd often find the people of my color hanging from a tree... Fifty years ago, white folks thought interracial marriages were 'a threat to the institution of marriage.'

"Members, I'm a Christian and a proud Christian. I read the good book and do my best to live by it. I have never read the verse where it says, 'Gay people can't marry.' I have never read the verse where it says, 'Thou shalt discriminate against those not like me.' I have never read the verse where it says, 'Let's base our public policy on hate and fear and discrimination.' Christianity to me is love and hope and faith and forgiveness -- not hate and discrimination.

"I have served in this body a lot of years, and I have seen a lot of promises broken... So... now that blacks and women have equal rights, you turn your hatred to homosexuals, and you still use your misguided reading of the Bible to justify your hatred. You want to pass this ridiculous amendment so you can go home and brag -- brag about what? Declare that you saved the people of Texas from what?

"Persons of the same sex cannot get married in this state now. Texas law does not now recognize same-sex marriages, civil unions, religious unions, domestic partnerships, contractual arrangements or Christian blessings entered into in this state -- or anywhere else on this planet Earth.

"If you want to make your hateful political statements then that is one thing -- but the Chisum amendment does real harm. It repeals the contracts that many single people have paid thousands of dollars to purchase to obtain medical powers of attorney, powers of attorney, hospital visitation, joint ownership and support agreements. You have lost your way. This is obscene...

"I thought we would be debating economic development, property tax relief, protecting seniors' pensions and stem cell research to save lives of Texans who are waiting for a more abundant life. Instead we are wasting this body's time with this political stunt that is nothing more than constitutionalizing discrimination. The prejudices exhibited by members of this body disgust me.

"Last week, Republicans used a political wedge issue to pull kids -- sweet little vulnerable kids -- out of the homes of loving parents and put them back in a state orphanage just because those parents are gay. That's disgusting.

"I have listened to the arguments. I have listened to all of the crap... I want you to know that this amendment [is] blowing smoke to fuel the hell-fire flames of bigotry."

Then they passed the amendment.

12:52 PM CDT on Thursday, May 12, 2005

WFAA-TV Staff

WFAA-TV

The suspect's white pickup truck was stopped at a shopping center.

One person was hospitalized and another was under arrest following a shooting incident in Plano that may have been related to road rage.

The shooting occured around 11:30 a.m. Thursday near the intersection of the Dallas North Tollway and Legacy Drive.

The shooting victim drove to Presbyterian Hospital of Plano for treatment. The name and condition of that person were not available.

A suspect in a white pickup truck was arrested in a shopping center parking lot about two-and-a-half miles west of of the crime scene.

Plano police were investigating the circumstances that led to the shooting.

I think this commentary just about says it all ...

Published on Friday, May 6, 2005 by the Denver Post

Good News, Guys: It's Back to Those Good Ol' Sexist Days

by Reggie Rivers

Gentlemen, we're in a time warp, and I mean that in a good way. Over the millennia, we've been able to keep women's options severely restricted. If a woman wanted a beautiful home, nice clothes, a family and respect in the community, she needed a husband.

Once she was married, she'd face stiff penalties if she left her husband. It used to be that divorce laws didn't offer her much help, and the community was structured to reduce her options. Life without a better half could be pretty bleak.

Banks would not loan money to a single or divorced woman, apartment houses would not accept her signature on leases, employers would not hire her, other women wouldn't associate with her, and most men wouldn't date a divorcee. These powerful social constraints kept women in marriages, where they belonged.

Nowadays, the old patriarchy has lost some of its sting and, predictably, society is falling apart. Women have access to education, jobs, respect and opportunity with or without a husband, and that's a disaster. They're fueling the divorce rate, having children out of wedlock, bossing men in the workplace, demanding alimony and child support and not suffering reasonable sanctions for upsetting the natural law.

Gentlemen, we cannot give up the fight. We have controlled women for millennia, and we can still do it now. We just need to focus on reproduction. It takes two to tango, but she's got a bigger stake in the dance. Once the music ends, the effects can last forever, and that's where we gain our advantage.

We want women pregnant. It slows them down, interrupts their careers, places more demands on their time, makes them more dependent on men and encumbers them with children who further reduce their options.

In 1973, the Supreme Court ridiculously fashioned a privacy right out of thin air in Roe vs. Wade, giving women the right to have abortions. Every effort to overturn this bad decision has so far failed. But, thankfully, we're in a time warp. The strategies we used for hundreds of years to repress women are still useful today. We must focus on erecting barriers that will keep women from pursuing abortions.

Good news! The Colorado legislature this week affirmed Gov. Bill Owens' veto of the emergency-contraception bill. Liberals had demanded that health providers inform rape victims about the so-called morning-after pill, and it was typical of them to manipulate the rape issue to try to create a back door for abortions. But the governor rightly asserted that rape victims aren't on par with doctors. We've got to remember whose rights are important here.

In fact, any gynecologist who examines a teenage girl should refuse, on religious grounds, to inform her that she's pregnant. If the doctor suspects that the teen will use his diagnosis to seek an abortion, then he has a moral duty to keep her in the dark about the pregnancy as long as possible.

On the national level, our representatives are working on the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which would make it a criminal offense for a grandmother, aunt, older sister or other non-parent to ferry a teenage girl across state lines for an abortion without the consent of her parents. Let's see how long this little underground railroad stays in business after a few women get sent to prison.

Insurance companies pay for Viagra (good) but not birth control pills (better). And now, right-minded pharmacists across the country have started refusing, on moral grounds, to fill birth-control prescriptions (best).

Like the good old days, we'll just keep reducing their options and keep the ladies under control.

© 2005 Denver Post