I don't even know where to begin with this. I saw a quick blurb about the volvo "made by women, for women" on cnn and thought it was offensive then. The print version is just as bad. They point out that women are focused on as much storage as possible - for shopping bags! I'm all for storage, but couldn't we talk about making room for camping equipment, bicycles, art supplies, etc. Are children and shopping bags really the only thing women ever put in their cars?

"Ms. Rosen [one of the designers], 28, said the car was aimed at independent women. While they could be mothers, the more likely owner is single." (?!)

-snip-

"The seat covers can be easily removed, giving the owner the option of changing colors and patterns. The headrests have a gap in the center to accommodate a ponytail.

The doors, which swing up and out at the touch of a button, are the car's most eye-catching detail. Volvo's designers say they would be a godsend to a woman laden with shopping bags."

-snip-

"The wrap-around bumper drew similar catcalls. Ms. Rosen said the car could tolerate "creative driving" in parking lots and other tight spaces, without having to be returned to the shop for repairs. Mr. Lutz said this perpetuated the image that women are worse drivers than men."

Well, at least someone at the car show got how stupid this whole thing was.

Anyway, I'm outta here - headed to Chicago for a few days.

Holy crap, can this be true? Is this preemptive strikes only when we feel like it and it's politically convenient? (not that I'm really in favor of preemptive strikes, but hey, at least a little consistency would be nice)

"With Tuesday’s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq."

-snip-

"And despite the Bush administration’s tough talk about hitting the terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi’s killing streak continues today."

According to the article, the Pentagon presented attack plans to the White House three times, due to what it considered to be strong evidence of Zarqawi's terrorist plans, and each time the National Security Council nixed the plan, supposedly because "...the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam."

More gay marriage amendment craziness on the local level. The good news is the bill did not pass last week. The bad news is it'll probably come up for vote again today or tomorrow.

From Sadie Fields, chairman of the Christian Coalition of Georgia:
"I think some of these legislators are going to have a lot to answer for come this fall," Ms. Fields said. "If I was African-American, I would be furious that homosexuals are comparing what they want to do with civil rights."

And Representative Earnest Williams:
"You just can't equate sexual orientation to racial discrimination," Mr. Williams said. "You can make a choice of who you want in your bedroom, but you can't choose your skin color."

I'd love for him (or anyone else who makes this argument) to explain to me just when they chose to be heterosexual.

This is really too absurd to be anything other than funny.

"'It's pure sexuality. It's almost like pure heroin. It's such a rush. They are committed in almost a religious way. And they'll take enormous risks, do anything.' He [Paul Cameron] says that for married men and women, gay sex would be irresistible. "Marital sex tends toward the boring end," he points out. 'Generally, it doesn't deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does.'"

Damn, now he tells me! Is it too late to switch teams?

I could just hug this man. (via atrios)

"Why can't we be as kind and generous in interpreting the Bible for homosexuals as we are for ourselves?"

Gives me hope that there really are Christians out there who take that whole love your neighbor and judge not lest ye be judged thing seriously.

Sheesh

Much like atrios, I must begin with the disclaimer that I know nothing about the nuances of the situation in Haiti or any details regarding whether Aristide or his successor would be "better for the country." But, given our overwhelmingly successful history of helping to oust democratically elected leaders (/sarcasm on) should we really be ditching Aristide simply because a powerful member of the DC elite doesn't like him? Perhaps he has totally legitimate reasons, but articles like this make me nervous about the motivations behind my government's actions.

"'Roger Noriega has been dedicated to ousting Aristide for many, many years, and now he's in a singularly powerful position to accomplish it,' Robert White, a former U.S. ambassador to El Salvador and Paraguay, said last week."

-snip-

"'On a day-to-day basis, Roger Noriega [has been] making policy, but with a very strong role played by Otto Reich,' Birns said.

Reich is a controversial Cuban-American criticized by some who have lingering concerns about his contacts with opposition figures who plotted a short-lived coup against Venezuela's leftist president, Hugo Chávez, two years ago. Reich also is linked to the Iran-contra scandal of two decades ago that was part of President Ronald Reagan's policy of defeating Marxists in Central America."

In more personal news, this past weekend was remarkably good, considering that I was alternating between studying for and freaking out about my three (now two!) midterms this week. Spent a beautiful Saturday afternoon playing in the fountains in Centennial Park with prospective students, was rescued from a long Saturday night studying at Caribou by Travers and Sanna's insistence that I join them for gelato, and dinner with Andy's parents last night turned into hours curled up on the couch watching the Academy Awards and drinking beer. Took 35 minutes to complete my health policy and management midterm, so I now have a little over an hour to study (aka - catnap in the sun) before yoga. Life ain't half bad.