feminist blogs in english

According to the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, the Lone Star State has a shortage of foster homes.

Texas, like many other states, does not have enough foster and adoptive homes to meet the demand. Child welfare agencies across the country face shortages of such settings. In fiscal 2001, nearly 600,000 children across the country were placed in fewer than 150,000 licensed foster care settings (other than relatives’ homes). In Texas in that year, 13,729 children were placed in fewer than 3,500 licensed homes and facilities. As of October 2002, 3,791 children under DPRS’ [Department of Protective and Regulatory Services] care were waiting for adoption.

DPRS’ shortage of placement options cannot be met entirely by private child placement agencies, which face similar problems in their recruitment efforts. Public and private child-placing agencies across Texas are conducting joint recruitment and training exercises for prospective foster and adoptive families. Most areas have Inter-Agency Foster Care Committees that bring public and private resources together to focus on recruitment. Several initiatives focus primarily on adoption but also serve families interested in becoming foster parents. Yet additional resources are needed to fill the ever-growing demand.

You would think, then, that the state would go out of its way to encourage Texans to become foster parents, right?

Silly you. This is Texas.

Just in time for National Foster Care Month (May), the Texas House on Tuesday approved an amendment banning gays, lesbians and bisexuals from serving as foster parents. A Dallas Morning News article describes the amendment thusly:

The measure would ban people who declare themselves, or are later found to be, gay, lesbian or bisexual from serving as foster parents. Supporters say children should not be raised in what they consider an immoral environment that could confuse a youth's sexual identity. The sponsor, Rep. Robert Talton, R-Pasadena, called homosexuality "learned behavior."

This means that Cheryl Crumley and Donna Sickles, who have been in a committed relationship for the last five years, may lose the four foster children they care for - all of whom were abused and neglected by their birth parents, who were too addled by drugs to take care of their own kids.

Did Crumley and Sickles abuse their foster children? Absolutely not. Have they broken the law? Hell no. But the Texas legislature, in its infinite stupidity, has decreed that they and other gays and lesbians can't possibly provide good, loving homes to abused and abandoned children because they're not straight.

Child Protective Services isn't too happy about the amendment:

Susan McKay, who worked for the agency for 27 years before retiring in 2002, estimated that 10 percent to 15 percent of Texas foster parents are gay. The Austin-based Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas estimates 1,100 to 3,000 foster children are living with gay parents.

Ms. McKay, who was an administrator in the agency's Dallas office, said the amendment would further shrink the pool of available foster homes.

It "will create a battleground that's not necessary," she said. "It throws off track the real issue of taking care of kids."

Ms. McKay said fewer foster families will mean CPS caseworkers will spend more time searching for foster homes than investigating abuse and neglect. Response times will drop, and the agency's severe backlog of cases will grow, she predicted.

But hey, that's all right. Long as the kids aren't being corrupted by those damn queers.

(Thanks to my friend Jill, a sane and reasonable Texan, for the link to the story.)

Sheelzebub and Pseudo-Adrienne have already written about the hullaballoo over the South Carolina Senate's decision to make cockfighting a felony while once again tabeling a bill to protect DV victims (and the resulting altercation between SC State Rep. John Graham Altman III and reporter Kara Gormley). I could go on and on about how horrifying and disgusting I find the whole matter. I could go

It's all done and over with. Finally!I have to say, despite the fact that I had to go all the way out there to take care of this (something I still find utterly ridiculous), everyone involved (directly and indirectly) was extremely kind and accomodating, and I am very grateful for that.I arrived in Manchester on Sunday afternoon, and had to take a cab to Salem (because there are no buses or

More wacky goings-on from the theater of the absurd we like to call the U.S. House of Representatives.

It seems the House Ethics Committee is ready to open an investigation into Tom DeLay's smarmy doings. So you're thinking, "It's about damn time - the committee must have had a sudden attack of conscience!"

Er... not exactly. It's a bribe - they'll open the investigation if the Democrats let them pass their new rules. Which are designed to protect DeLay from an investigation. Love that circular logic.

But the big news here is that the committee is willing to open ANY investigation into DeLay. Only a few months ago, they would rather have French kissed Michael Moore than put DeLay under the ethics microscope. My, how things change.

Gee, d'ya think they'd like some mint jelly with their sacrificial lamb?

Via Jill at Third Wave Agenda, this kick-ass editorial by Adam Cohen in yesterday's New York Times has the gumption to say what a lot of us already knew: that the most blatantly "activist" judge of all is none other than Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia - the self-proclaimed "strict constructionist" who, were he held to the standard he claims to uphold, would be called out as the Constitutional revisionist he truly is.

The classic example of conservative inconsistency remains Bush v. Gore. Not only did the court's conservative bloc trample on the Florida state courts and stop the vote counting - it declared its ruling would not be a precedent for future cases. How does Justice Scalia explain that decision? In a recent New Yorker profile, he is quoted as saying, with startling candor, that "the only issue was whether we should put an end to it, after three weeks of looking like a fool in the eyes of the world." That, of course, isn't a constitutional argument - it is an unapologetic defense of judicial activism.

Feel free to print Cohen's editorial and send it to Tom DeLay.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday postponed its vote on John Bolton's nomination as U.N. ambassador. This came as a bit of a surprise, as Bolton's nomination was expected to scoot out of committee and onto the Senate floor despite Democratic objections - y'know, just like all of Bush's other non-judiciary nominees - and despite the fact that Bolton may be the least diplomatic government employee in the galaxy.

It all seemed to be going according to plan for committee chair Richard "I Wasn't Born Yesterday" Lugar, who made clear during the panel meeting that he had no interest in hearing any more of the rapidly mounting charges against Bolton (here and here) and pressed for a vote. Time and again, he shot down objections and requests to postpone from Democrats Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd. Just when Lugar thought a 10-8 party-line vote was in the bag, Ohio Senator George Voinovich - a Republican - peed in ol' Dick's corn flakes.

...Voinovich, who had sat silently through 75 minutes of debate, suddenly announced: "I've heard enough today that gives me some real concern about Mr. Bolton." The former Ohio governor, who has opposed the White House on such issues as deep tax cuts, urged the panel to "take a little bit more time."

When two other Republicans -- Chafee and Chuck Hagel (Neb.) -- sided with Voinovich, Lugar had no choice but to agree to let committee staffers pursue the various allegations and reconvene the committee the week of May 9.

Lincoln Chafee, who just last week said he had concerns about Bolton but still planned to vote for him, appears to have had a spine transplant - although it's a fair bet he wouldn't have strayed off the party line if Voinovich hadn't wandered into the minefield first.

Yesterday's mini-revolt is a huge deal, because if the nomination gets to the floor of the Senate, it will certainly go through - but if the panel rejects the nomination, Bolton's cooked.

Of course, it all may come to naught in the end - there's plenty of time between now and May 9 for Bush's goon squad to put the screws to Voinovich, Chafee, and Hagel - but what Voinovich did yesterday took real guts... and it'll probably get him sent to the steerage section of the GOP.

Time, which has evidently run out of important things to write about, features Ann Coulter on the cover of this week's issue. Well, more precisely, Ann Coulter's very long, very thin legs, which take up most of the cover and look alarmingly like tentacles. The perspective of the photo gives her the appearance of being a circus freak. Which, come to think of it, pretty well sums her up.

The cover story itself, oh-so-cleverly titled "Ms. Right," seeks to position Coulter as a symbol of the partisan divisiveness that currently plagues America:

...no one on the right is so iconic, such a totem of this particular moment. Coulter epitomizes the way politics is now discussed on the airwaves, where opinions must come violently fast and cause as much friction as possible. No one, right or left, delivers the required apothegmatic commentary on the world with as much glee or effectiveness as Coulter. It is almost impossible to watch her and not be sluiced into rage or elation, depending on your views. As a congressional staff member 10 years ago, Coulter used to help write the nation's laws. Now she is far more powerful: she helps set the nation's tone.

At the same time, it portrays her as a white burgundy-drinking, Nicorette-scarfing cutie pie who blushes when overheard excoriating liberals in a restaurant and is horribly, horribly misunderstood. Moreover, it implies that part of the reason people at both ends of the political spectrum are so het up about her is that no one expects to hear such rancorous bilge spewing from the mouth of a pretty blue-eyed blonde who's thin as a drinking straw.

...one is astounded to hear from Coulter something like, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity," as she famously wrote of Muslims who were cheering after the Sept. 11 attacks, not least because Coulter might be shrink-wrapped in a black-leather mini as she says it. The combination of hard-charging righteousness and willowy, sex-kitten pulchritude is vertiginous and—for her many young male fans—intoxicating.

Oh, please.

Coulter is no more appalling than any other conservative blowhard simply because she's female - hell, she's preceded by any number of viperous women, among them Phyllis Schlafly, Laura Schlessinger, Mary G. Kilbreth, and (as noted in the Time article) Claire Booth Luce.

Nor should her physical attractiveness make her statements more shocking. Why should we be somehow more aggrieved by the deranged rantings of a nutter who looks like Ann Coulter than one who looks like John McLaughlin? A crackpot is a crackpot, no matter what package it comes in. And Coulter is most certainly a crackpot. What else do you call someone who lobs grenades like "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building"? Bertrand Russell, she ain't.

But Coulter's true agenda emerges about halfway through the Time article:

"Most of what I say, I say to amuse myself and amuse my friends. I don't spend a lot of time thinking about anything beyond that."

So will someone please explain to me why we still spend so much time thinking about what she says?

Her continued fame (or, more accurately, infamy) must surely constitute the longest 15 minutes in recorded history.

OK, so my favorite President-for-Life Sheelzebub hurled down a meme gauntlet... and who am I to turn it aside?

You're stuck inside Fahrenheit 451. Which book do you want to be?

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou.

Have you ever had a crush on a fictional character?

Yep - Phineas in A Separate Peace, when I was in the 7th grade.

The last book you bought is?

I hate to admit it, but the last book I bought was the 2004 edition of the AP Stylebook. Honest.

What are you currently reading?

These days, nothing but the newspaper and the script for the show I'm in. When the show closes, I plan to get back to Queen Noor's memoir, which is fascinating, and Cokie Roberts' Founding Mothers, which I borrowed from my own founding mother.

Five books you would take to a deserted island:

The Riverside Shakespeare... Richard Bach's Illusions... a comprehensive thesaurus... The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Presents America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction... and The Book of Abigail and John: Selected Letters of the Adams Family, 1762-1784.

Who are you going to pass this stick to (3 persons) and why?

Hm. Like Sheelzebub, I have no desire to impose on anyone... but it'd be kick to read memes from Amanda, JJ, and Papabeargary - and Engineers Anonymous as a bonus pick.

Ice Skaters Spotted in Hell

Your favorite exterminator and mine, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, "apologized" yesterday for threatening federal judges because they refused to prolong Terri Schiavo's persistent vegetativeness. I say "apologized" because he didn't regret what he said - he merely regretted the way he said it:

"I said something in an inartful way, and I shouldn't have said it that way, and I apologize for saying it that way. It was taken wrong. I didn't explain it or clarify my remarks, as I'm clarifying them here. I am sorry that I said it that way, and I shouldn't have."

Lest you start looking for flocks of pigs flying over the Capitol, however, The Hammer also said this:

"Congress has constitutionally mandated oversight responsibilities over the judiciary. We would be shirking our constitutional obligations if we did not look at these issues as they come up."

I'm sure the members of the federal judiciary feel much better now.

Can you believe the audacity of this creep?

Meanwhile, DeLay also said he's not going to answer any more questions about his travel and dealings with lobbyists (paging Jack Abramoff...). As more and more evidence mounts that he's the corrupt, lying sack of guano we always knew he was, who wouldn't recognize ethical behavior if it bit him on the tuchus (what, three admonitions from the House ethics panel weren't enough to convince you?) - his response is to clam up and wait for House Republicans to circle the wagons.

Before you get too comfortable, Tommy, let me offer you these two small words of reminder: Newt. Gingrich.

Take Your War and Shove It

Yesterday also saw George "I'm Only Here Because It's Close to Crawford" Bush descend on Fort Hood to thank the troops on the second anniversary of the "liberation" of Baghdad. It was clearly meant to be yet another flag-waving, pablum-spouting pep rally - but several widows of soldiers killed in Iraq didn't get the memo. According to the WaPo's Dan Froomkin,

Bush spent more than three hours Tuesday meeting with 33 families of soldiers who died in Iraq. But the meetings were closed to the press and the White House only released sketchy details about what his interactions were like.

Whatta surprise.

Linnie Blankenbecler, whose husband died in Samara when his convoy was attacked, said,

"I love the U. S. and I am proud of the way my husband died, but I think the way they are treating the families now is a disgrace to my husband and what he believed."

Froomkin elaborates:

Blankenbecler is most upset about two things.

One is the rule that widows call the SBP-DIC offset, which actually takes away a dollar from one benefit for every dollar they get in the other.

"It's disgusting," Blankenbecler said.

The second is a provision in a bill Bush signed in December 2003 that added an extra $250 per dependent child to the DIC payment. But widows whose husbands died before the effective date -- Jan. 1, 2005 -- saw little or nothing of that benefit.

Ms. Blankenbecler is right. It is disgusting. Also disgraceful when you consider that this same president has spent the last four-and-a-half years making rich people richer - but his administration won't cough up a few extra bucks for the families of soldiers who died fighting its filthy little war.

I know it's been a while since I've really done any blogging. I've been sick with a cold for a week, and before that, well, I just wasn't much up for being on the computer. Anyway, I figured I'd at least let you all know what's been going on.Regarding the mice: We've had an exterminator in, and he laid a bunch of poison out in the walls and crawlspaces. Since then, we haven't seen any (or many)