US Attorney Gen. Michael B. Mukasey is testified before the Sen. Judiciary Committee today. Both skdadl and I followed his testimony as closely as our c-span streaming abilities would allow. You can read our collective notes on the hearings here:

I will clean-up these notes later today, after I’ve rested my poor, tired fingers

A quick word about the hearings: Mukasey is a loathsome human bean. You don’t have to read the entire testimony to be convinced–here’s everything you need to know about Mukasey (where “WB” is waterboarding, “D” is Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, and “M” is AG Mukasey):

12:27 PM

Durbin: I asked you who your heroes were. You said you kept a picture of Orwell b/c of his essay, Politics and the English language. I respect you for that. In that essay, Orwell was critical of misleading pol speech (“concrete melts into the abstract”) Mr. AG, I’d say, with respect to waterboarding, that the concrete melts into the abstract.

D: (I’m) still troubled as I listen to your answers. First, you say in your letter to cmtee that reasonable people can disagree with respect to WB. Can you cite any court cases, scholars, people of good faith who disagree that WB is not torture? Secondly, when you replied to Biden, you said WB in certain circs would no shock conscience, e.g discovery of nukes. Why has gov discontinued this form of interrogation if there *are* circumstances that justify it? Third, your unwillingness to take an unequivocal position against WB–our troops protected against WB. There are special forces, personnel…
[...]
12:31 PM

M: some in this chamber have disputed that it wouldn’t be legal to engage in certain techniques…and then pull back, if necessary to save American lives

D: the Senate? We’ve voted on a bipartisan, overwhelming vote to prohibit certain practices, the McCain amendment…

M: and the chamber on another occasion declined, with respect to WBg, and others who said the lang was so general that it would open things up to other things that would be so objectionable and cruel…

D: if Detainee treatment act is so clear, and went so far as to grant amnesty to employees who engaged in it, you still think the jury’s out on whether WBg is torture?

M: question is not whether Sen is “out” on this or that technique, the question is whether Senate has spoken clearly enough in leg it has passed, and that President has signed, which is all anybody has to work with

D: where is lack of clarity in McCain legislation?

M: the words, people on both sides of debate, to point to “this” or “that” seems to me is to pick nits at this point

D: as chairman has noted, Sens McCain, Warner and Graham (sponsors of legislation) that under Military Commissions Act, WBg is a “warcrime.” At this moment, you have employees of yours in Iraq, counselling employees not to use torture. Your testimony so far is that “it depends on circs”–we’re trying to teach to the world, a standard we want our own people to live by?

M: the reasons I outlined are already matters of record.
[...]
D: Sen Biden’s question? About “shocking conscience”?

M: what I described was a situation in which it *would* shock conscience. It was put in place by the person who wrote the decision. Not by me.

D: I assume you were arguing that the use of such techs to discover nukes would not shock conscience?

M: No…that’s not what I said

D: what about circs where tech would save lives?

M: not part of program. Don’t know how that would work

D: under military standards, they’re not interested in danger. They say unequivocally. You say, for non-military it’s still unresolved?

M: still unresolved. I’ve not been presented with a concrete situation.

It was to weep.

I’ve got so much to say about this. For now, it appears to be clogging my windpipe. More later.

“I admit it, there are too many portraits, pictures and monuments. I don’t find any pleasure in it, but the people demand it because of their mentality.”
–Saparmurat Niyazov, Turkmenbashi (leader of Turkmens)

CBS News’ Bob Simon, 60 Minutes, Jan 4, 2004:

If you think Saddam Hussein was fond of himself, just visit Turkmenbashi’s country. There’s a poster or a statue of him in nearly every public space.
When Soviet rule collapsed in 1991, Turkmenistan was left on its own, with no real government, and no national identity. Turkmenbashi filled that void. He built a nation and a culture based on him.
The golden likeness of the former communist party boss-turned-dictator is in the center of the capitol, always rotating to face the sun. His picture is on the airplane that brings you to the main port town called Turkmenbashi. It watches over workers in the field, over children in school, over drivers on the road. He’s also on the money, and he’s even on the national vodka.
His face is everywhere, and you can’t walk a block without seeing either a statue or photo of him.
[...] Turkmenbashi is so controlling that he has even rewritten the calendar, and he recently renamed the month of January to “Turkmenbashi.” April is named after his mother.

From Tim Naumetz, Ottawa Citizen:

Photographs of Mr. Harper in various poses, at various sites, are hung throughout the private and cosy government lobby of the House of Commons.
Ms. (Elizabeth) May and Ms. (Kady) O’Malley were surprised and a bit speechless when they saw the exhibit recently as guest Commons Speakers during a youth Parliament.
“When you walk in the door, all you see are pictures of Stephen Harper,” said Ms. May
“I’d say between every window, in every available space of the wall, at eye level, every available space has a photo of Stephen Harper.”
“You’ve got photos of Stephen Harper, but not of previous prime ministers,” she added. “Photos of Stephen Harper in different costumes, in different settings, dressed as a fireman, in Hudson Bay looking for polar bears, meeting the Dalai Lama, even the portrait of the Queen had to have Stephen Harper, but in a candid, behind her.”

No Dogs Allowed! (The Sunday Times, Dec 17, 2006):

In Ashgabat, Turkmenistan’s spotless white capital that he is building in the desert out of unfeasible quantities of imported Italian marble, dogs are banned. Turkmenbashi doesn’t like their smell. Also banned are foreign newspapers, journalists, opposition parties, and, apparently, women’s make-up, because, according to the president, Turkmen women don’t need make-up.

And…finally:

The other day, he sacked the chief weatherman for getting the forecasts wrong. Before that he got rid of the cameramen who were making the women singing his songs look fat. Turkmen women don’t get fat. Recently he banned female newsreaders from wearing studio make-up as it made their faces unnaturally white. Didn’t they know a Turkmen woman’s complexion should be the colour of Turkmen wheat?

All hail CPCbashi!

h/t Cathie for the Ottawa Citizen article
Golden bust of Turkmenbashi courtesy of tmrepublican.org
Street photo of Turkmenbashi by Alan Cooperman, AP
Classroom photo of Turkmenbashi by Burt Herman, AP
Harper & Batchelet photo, Hanoi APEC 2006, by Tom Hanson, CP
Harper with Cheddar, the kitty cat, pm.gc.ca

The word “debate” keeps coming up: debate? What debate? The “debate” over whether women have the right to self-ownership (makes me sick just to type that) ended on January 28, 1988…
I am mine. And that’s where it ends.
—JJ, aka “Unrepentant Old Hippie,” on the 20th anniversary of R. v Morgentaler

I couldn’t have said it better, myself. As many of you know, Monday marked the 20th anniversary of R. v. Morgentaler, a decision that left our country without a single law regulating abortion. Seriously! Not a one. This actually makes us sumpin’ special, as fern hill , Kuri, Chet and others pointed out today.

And how have we coped with all this lawlessness? Fire? Brimstone? Dogs & Cats? All things considered, we’re doing pretty well, relatively speaking. To get a veritable ‘lay of the land’ (no pun intended), check out the incredible 20th Anniversary blog-burst. A few weeks ago, Antonia and others put out the call, and boy, howdy, was there a RESPONSE!

The depth and breadth of Monday’s posts have been impressive. Some, like Berlynn and Regina Mom have provided us with important historical backround, particularly regarding the oppressive “Section 251″ (remember ‘Therapeutic Abortion Committees?‘). Others, like Megan and Vicky have shared their stories of pregnancy and loss.

Meanwhile, Alison and 900 Ft Jesus served as our trusty truth-squad, knocking down some of the most pervasive myths about why & when women exercise sovereignty over their own bodies. Do yourselves a grace & favour and add them to your bookmarks, to save for a rainy day. And there will be rainy days ahead. After all, us pro-choicers are just asking for it. Just ask deBeauxOs, who recounted her own interaction with “zealots who screamed “baby-killer” at me, conveniently ignoring the reality of my 18 month old daughter, snuggled up on my back.”

Ah yes. “Baby killer.” Here’s the Cynic, taking a few Blogging Tories to school over this lingo. And while you’re in Cynic-land, PLEASE check-out Lulu, who had a righteous post about that particular invective, particularly in light of all of the documented violence perpetrated by these assholes. Take it away, Lulu!

Their complaints that they’ve been silenced are plastered across national newspapers and on cars covered with abortion porn and on street corners in front of clinics but still they play the victim. They lie. And this is why I fight.
These supposedly morally superior people consider themselves “pro-life” warriors on a mission from God and accuse those who disagree with them of being “pro-death”. They use terms like “pro-aborts” and “poor choicers” to describe anyone who believes that a woman has a fundamental right to choose what happens to her body, convinced that only they know best. They argue that it isn’t a matter of choice at all even as they seek to impose their views and their choices on everyone. They refer to the pro-choice movement as one that embraces a “culture of death”, while holding themselves up as defenders of the very sanctity of life. But this doesn’t seem to stop them from standing outside clinics and screaming accusations of “baby killer” at women struggling with a decision that is no one’s business but their own as they attempt to enter those very same clinics.”(emphasis added)

So, please, I implore you: put down that sign with the picture of catsuppy roadkill* and take Debra’s advice:

Those who claim a commitment to pregnancy and to foetuses need to get off the clinic protest lines and join the protests for decent welfare payments, social housing, a livable minimum wage, universal child care, and a stronger commitment to schools.

What’s that, you say? Adoption? Pale has a response to that, untimely rip’d (as it were) from the man himself, the good Dr. M (CBC, June 16, 2005):

There are 88,000 children in foster care in Canada (I believe the number is significantly higher because there are 30,423 children in foster care in Ontario alone and the numbers are similar in Alberta); of these, 49 per cent are “Crown Wards”.
[...] Meanwhile, there are 22,000 foster children in Canada actively awaiting adoption. Every year.

Ok, let’s suppose for a sec that you’re still not willing to think rationally. Maybe you’re just not in the mood to be reasonable. If that’s the case, please go visit the ever-Rational, ever-Reasonable Mike. Here’s a hint: think ‘forced-abortions.’ Think ‘illicit organ trade.’ Think hard:

That is, it is an essential element of our humanness that we own and control our own bodies. To allow others to do so is to render us to a less-than-human life as an incubator, spare parts repository or automaton to be controlled. It is slavery and it is not life. (emphasis added)

…and, above all, know THIS:

Abortion is not about a culture of death, it is not about hating children or being sinners. It is about controlling ones health, ones life, ones future.

Yep. It’s the truth. It’s not about killing babies. Hell Heck, I’d even go as far as saying that it’s not about all that torrid, “guilt-free” sex the kids are having either, but somehow I doubt you’d buy that. In fact, I’m not even sure that Heather Mallick buys it:

…birth control and abortion rights have been a sexual volcano for men, one of those volcanoes that never stops erupting. So much more, and better, sex has been had. Men have been having a giant fling for decades, and women, able to relax about the terror of an unwanted pregnancy, have had more and better sex too.
[...] Why should I have to be the one to point out the obvious — that men always have an orgasm when they have sex, and women don’t, so why aren’t men celebrating massively this week or at least taking us out to dinner?

Heh. You know what? Men are celebrating this week. Lots of ‘em! And, no, I will give them more credit than Heather, and suggest to you that they’re celebrating for *ahem* nobler reasons than…y’know. In addition to Rational Mike, there’s Dave’s 20th anniversary celebration, reflecting on the the real crux of the anti-choice movement, and how it dovetails rather conveniently with the cuts to women’s shelters, crisis centres, child-care, etc.

Oooh! And here’s another wonderful man’s 20th anniversary contribution to the blogburst. And here’s yet another bastard’s contribution. You know, there’s a reason that he’s my favourite bastard:

Make no mistake: now more than ever, a woman’s body is a moral battle ground. We can’t cede any ground to anti-choice zealots who would fallaciously and callously equate potential people with human beings, acorns with oak trees–no matter how “reasonable” compromise may seem in theory.

And then along came another dude: here’s Daev, with an extremely thoughtful response to Lulu’s post:

I also encountered on the Wish List the phenomenon of the “supportive pro-choice man” who thinks that what the movement needs is a better understanding of “debating tactics” and is more than willing to show the wimmins how to better fight to maintain their rights, never realizing that the pro-choice side has already won, and that women know best how to lead the movement.

See? There are loads of guys celebrating this week, Heather! And you mustn’t forget our favourite Dawg–I have it on good authority that he is, in fact, a member of the XY club. And he had a lot to say on Monday. Par example:

I suggest that the fierce opposition to reproductive freedom (first expressed as opposition to contraception, which only became legal in Canada in 1968, and then to abortion as the latter emerged from its underground nightmare of coat-hangers, seedy exploiters, sepsis and death) really comes down to a defence of the traditional role of motherhood. The opposition is not grounded in fetus-fetishism, but in anti-feminism.
[...] Our victory was a major step in coming to grips with that structure of inequality, even if on-the-ground organizing played far less of a role than successful lawyering. The state, however, and the unequal relations that it mediates and reinforces, remain. (emphasis added)

Hmmm. It was such an elegant treatment of the subject, particularly the use of language in our discourse regarding abortion, that I was totally lulled into agreement with the good Dawg…that is, until that last bit (the emboldened part). But, after all, I was only 14 years old in 1988, so I am hardly in a place to argue about the relative contributions of the grassroots to the successful outcome of R. v. Morgentaler. Paging skdadl! Paging s-k-dadl to the white courtesy telephone!

In answer to Dr Dawg, all I can think to say is to remind him of the deeper historical parallels. Outlawing slavery did not immediately change the lives of all the Africans who were transported to the Caribbean or North America or northern Europe. It “freed” them, but then … Did it bring them social justice? Hardly even yet, and how long has that taken?
And yet it was a triumph to outlaw slavery, a triumph of the mind, a social triumph, a place to stand for those who would fight for genuine social justice.”
[...] No one ever liberates anyone else. People liberate themselves. Lawyers are ok, but girls are strong. (emphasis added)

And this was just the kick in my lucky-thirty-sumpin-ass I needed to go back and revisit that archival footage of Dr. Morgentaler in June 1983, as he attempted to open his first clinic in Toronto. Both he and his supporters–including Judy Rebick–were attacked. They were threatened. And yet they were determined to return every day. After reviewing the footage from the CBC archives (thanks, Kuri!), I went on to read Rebick’s thoughts on “Twenty years of freedom of choice“:

The abortion battle is probably the best example of the relationship between social struggles and legal decisions. For the almost eight years between the foundation of OCAC (Ontario Coalition for Abortion Clinics) and the Supreme Court decision, the abortion debate had been on the front pages in Ontario and then across the country. Debates, marches, direct action, clinics opening and in some cases being shut down, clashes with the “anti’s”, resolutions in the unions, on campuses and in community organizations, everyone had to take a stand, including the Justices.

This was more than just “successful lawyering;” this was a movement. And as we celebrate that wonderful 1988 SCC decision, we also have to remember that it’s not really over yet. Just last week, the Globe & Mail’s André Picard pointed out some of the barriers that stand in the way of truly universal access to abortion-care in Canada. And doctors who provide abortion care, not to mention their supporters, still face death threats in the year two-thousand-eight.

As I said last week, during our celebration of the American ‘Roe v. Wade’ decision, it doesn’t take an outright ban on abortion to reduce access. Sometimes the most successful anti-choice measures are the ones that nibble around the edges. Make no mistake: they WILL try this in Canada. Mallick explains:

Strange people still do creepy things to eat away at abortion rights. They say abortions cause cancer, mental illness and, en masse, post-traumatic stress disorder. Everyone collapses, including you, the father, your parents, siblings and your grandpa.
If you ever yearn for the mucky sensation of sticky fingers crawling down your spine, go to Hansard and read MPs discussing Alberta Tory Ken Epp’s proposed Unborn Victims of Crime Act, due for a House vote in March. The private member’s (what an appropriate name) bill means murderers should get a lower prison sentence for killing a regular woman than for killing a pregnant woman. Read them say how nice it is when a pregnant lady lets you feel her belly: “I think we’ve all experienced that,” Epp says.

Need a shower after that? It’s ok. I’m just about done here. Whew! It’s now Tuesday and I’m officially done celebrating. Time to get back to work, of course, but I promise to keep an eye on Mr. Epp, and I know that you will, too. In the meantime, promise me that you’ll do one more little thing for me?

Go watch George Carlin

Heather Mallick link via F-email Fightback
“Celebrate 20 Yrs of Choice” badge courtesy of Debra, April Reign;
“Canada Celebrates 20 Years of Reproductive Freedom” badge courtesy of Alison, Creekside.

*You think that’s a fetus? Who are you kidding?!

UPDATE [Jan 29, 2008, 12:48 PM]: Please check out Red Jenny, Yappa Ding Dong, Cathie-from-Canada, and Aurelia, for their contributions to the 20th Anniversary blogburst!

UPDATE from The Dawg! [Jan 29, 2008, 12:53 PM]: Dr. Dawg has updated his excellent post with a note about the importance of the SCC throwing out Section 251 “as a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms rather than, say, getting it repealed, or turning it into a dead letter.” Go Read!

UPDATE [Jan 29, 2008, 3:35 PM]: Please check out Justice is a Woman with a Sword, Pedgehog, Prole @ ACR, and The Rev @ Galloping Beaver (how’d I miss you, yesterday? Sorry about that!).

In the Spring of 2004 (April Fools’ Day!), former PM Paul Martin created the ‘Office of the National Science Advisor’ (ONSA). In the Spring of 2007 (again, April Fools’!), our “New” PM will officially shutter the ONSA (CBC). The first & last occupant of the position was esteemed chemist and former head of the National Research Council, Dr. Arthur Carty. Carty’s original mandate, circa 2004 (in his own words):

The principal element of the NSA’s mandate will be to provide sound, unbiased, non-partisan advice on (science and technology) to the Prime Minister in the context of Canada’s goal to be one of the most innovative countries in the world. In this regard I will certainly have to play a role in building a truly national advisory capacity that provides the PM with authoritative, well considered options for decision making.

Why was this position so important? Here’s Bob McDonald (Quirks & Quarks):

The National Science Adviser is a voice of reason to the government over actions it should take on issues such as climate change, genetically modified foods, managing fisheries, sustaining the environment – any time the politicians need to be educated on the basic science behind those often controversial issues. Of course, decisions are seldom made for purely scientific reasons; all too often, the interests of industry, special interest groups or a misinformed public will cloud the scientific truth. The Adviser’s job is to provide clarity and perspective.

Whatever his other failings, I would credit the former PM Martin for both creating the position in the first place, and for putting ONSA in the Privy Council Office. You see, Dr. Carty’s office was created with the intention of giving ONSA direct access to the Prime Minister:
Carty was no dummy. Even in his first months as NSA he knew he’d have to tread carefully. What on earth am I talking about? Well, Carty was particularly fond of a certain Joke. You will see this Joke again and again, if you take the time to visit his archive of speeches and presentations (hey! Guess what Kitty did on Saturday!). Here’s the Joke, as he related it to the Canada Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Forum, Edmonton, Alberta, June 17, 2004:

During a break in a meeting a politician and a journalist took a walk in a park, when a frog suddenly jumped out in front of them and started to speak: “I am a scientist who has been put under a spell. If you break the spell by lifting me up and kissing me I will serve you forever!”
The journalist said to the politician: “Wouldn’t that be something for you? Just imagine, you would always have an expert on hand to give you scientific advice!” But the politician said: “No, better not. We all know what scientists are like, they talk too much, know everything better than you and always want to be the centre of attention. But it would be ideal for you! Editorial offices don’t often have science writers, or if they do, they are not always very well informed. He would be really valuable for you. So, go on, pick up the frog and kiss him!” The journalist picked up the frog and looked at it briefly before putting it in his pocket. The politician was amazed and asked “Why did you put the frog in your pocket instead of kissing him?” To which the journalist replied “Because a talking frog is a hundred times more interesting for the media than the best scientist”.

*groan* Quite the knee-slapper, eh? But it brings home several points for me, both as a citizen and a (not-very-accomplished) scientist. First of all, it is clear from his repeated use of this joke that Carty knew his job would be difficult, regardless of PM. I can tell you, from my own set of trivial experiences that, with few exceptions, non-scientists generally don’t enjoy listening to scientists talk about, uhhh…science. And who can blame them, eh?

Remember: “…they talk too much…”

Ok, sometimes we get a little excited. Perhaps we’ve spent months or even years working on that one thing and can’t wait to share it with you over the dinner table. Not because we’re bragging, mind, but because it’s all we can think about lately. But, we get carried away, and before we know it, our dinner companions are face-down and blowing bubbles in their soup. Stop! Stop! For the love of Gawd, somebody switch her offffffff! And that’s just our friends. Family’s not always so subtle.

Remember: “they…know everything better than you.”

Ah Family. You see, much as they love you and can’t wait to tell their friends that their daughter/son/talking-robot is a scientist, they sure as fuck don’t want to hear about your daily science-type doin’s. Sometimes parents manage to curtail your excitement without hurting your feelings, e.g. “Oh, that’s nice, dear. Say, how are you fixed for panty-hose?” But sometimes it’s not so nice. Sometimes the reaction is one of angry, Stephen-Harper-grade insecurity: “You think you’re better than me, eh?“

While I can only speak for myself, I can honestly say that I’ve never thought I was “better” than anybody. At anything. What I can tell you for sure is that I’ve learned to never talk about my area of science anymore unless someone asks about about it first. That said, while I’ve tried to limit my discussion to small ‘blurbs,’ Mr. Kitty shows no such restraint about his own area of science. You see, although he’s an otherwise modest and considerate human bean, Mr. Kitty loves his work, and he will not stop talking until the last man’s drowned in his soup. And while this proves mildly embarrassing at times, I secretly love him to bits for it.

Shit. Where was I going with this? Right. Canada’s “New” Government. Yes: to them, scientists are like annoying gnats, forever buzzing in your ears. And when Stephen Harper became PM, he made damn sure to fumigate his office. Remember that organizational diagram from 2004? With the direct line between the (O)NSA and the PMO? Here’s what happened to that when PMS came along:

Soon after taking power, the Harper government moved the National Science Adviser position from the Privy Council Office down to Industry Canada, where Dr. Carty reports to the Minister there instead of directly to the PM.

This means that Dr. Carty’s ONSA has been effectively neutered since the council was moved from the PCO. Seriously folks, what’s the point in providing “independent” advice to the Prime Minister if that advice is first filtered through a Konservative hack like Jim Flaherty, our current Min. Industry? I reckon that lots of Carty’s advice was already…how you say? Lost in translation. Sadly, removing the ONSA entirely just makes it official.

I don’t know how the other parties will respond to this. Bear with me for a sec and take the case of the recent Chalk River/Linda Keen fiasco: while the bigger story is, quite rightly, about silencing whistleblowers, manufactured crises and the secret selling-off of our commonwealth, I also think it was illustrative of a more general unwillingness on the part of politicians of ALL stripes to educate themselves about scientific matters. I know, it’s unfair to expect them to understand nuclear physics or nuclear medicine, but some of the comments (again, from ALL parties, mind) were downright cringe-worthy. Forgive me for saying this, but somebody needs to crack a fucking book. Unrealistic? Ok, get somebody who does know a thing or two to advise you. Like, a scientific advisor or…oh. Right.

So, even when a Member of Parliament has his/her heart in the right place (e.g. Save our planet! Stop poisoning our kids!), they still need good, independent scientific advice to fully elucidate the problem and to devise plans to address that problem. Who knows? Might even be worth putting up with a few annoying gnats. A final thought: It’s worth remembering that, despite his enthusiasm for the appointment in 2004, Dr. Carty was clearly aware of the difficulties inherent in his job. It’s not uncommon for independent scientific advice to be in tension with either corporate or political interests. That said, here’s one thing the good chemist knew for sure: better to be the gnat-in-the-ear than the talking-frog that nobody listens to anymore. And with that, I’ll leave you with Bob McDonald:

…those who feel threatened by a scientific finding, such as polluting industries, will lobby the government with their own experts who try to dismiss or cast doubt on the original finding. Notice I said dismiss or cast doubt. Industry-hired guns seldom arrive on the scene with their own evidence from experiments they performed and published that counter the mainstream idea. Usually, they’ll say, “I don’t believe it,” which is just an opinion, or they’ll look for small uncertainties in the data and focus on that to cast doubt on the results.
All science involves uncertainties – that’s the way the system works. But it takes a scientific eye to determine whether those uncertainties are significant or not. Without that perspective, a politician hears conflicting views or biased information that clouds the issue and confuses the public.

h/t Runesmith and LuLu

If you haven’t visited Pale & Prole’s wicked-kewl new Awards site, you really gotta go. Go now! Nominate your favourite Canadian feminist bloggers. Need somewhere to start? Checkout my blogroll–loads of good’uns there. Personally, I’ve been on a wild, nominatin’ free-for-all! I’ve spent the last couple of hours (yes, hours *blush*) combing through my Blogroll to select my favourite feminazis…and those who love them. Some of you were out there bright ‘n early, so if I didn’t nominate you, I swear it was only ’cause someone else beat me to it BTW, “Support Bro” has gotta be the bestest category-name evah!

Oh! The inaugural F-word Awards is accepting donations to “WISE,” aka “Wellbeing thru Inclusion Socially and Economically.”

• Raising the collective voice of women who are living in poverty due to policies of exclusion;
• Changing public understanding of poverty: from that of socioeconomic inevitability, to a condition of social and economic exclusion;
• Encouraging community members to work with us to reduce poverty in our neighbourhoods to the benefit of all;
• Ensuring that policymakers understand the worsening economic situation of an increasing number of Canadians to have a systemic cause, one that they can be instrumental in changing.

Please consider giving what you can to WISE via ACR and you will be entered into a draw for one (or a pair?) of Prole’s infamous “Teutonic Titpillows.” Talk about a conversation piece!

Va-Va-Va-Vooooom! And don’t miss out on Pale’s saucy new F-words Awards promo!

You wanna talk blushing? Kitty is both astonished and grateful to have been nominated this morning. I don’t deserve it, given the lack of content here lately, but please know that I’m very touched!