I’m feeling domestic today, so I whipped up my favorite chocolate cake. While it bakes, I thought I’d share the recipe. Great with either fluffy white or coconut pecan frosting. Cut it into individual pieces and wrap in plastic or foil - it freezes beautifully.

Sour Cream Chocolate Cake
Beat together:
2 eggs
2 cups sour cream
2 cups sugar
1 tsp vanilla

Combine:
6 tbs cocoa
2 tsp baking soda
3/4 cup boiling water

Combine:
2 1/2 cups flour
1/2 tsp salt

Add wet and dry alternately to sour cream mixture. Bake 40 minutes at 350 degrees.

Sharia–traditional Islamic family law–soon may not only be the problem of women in officially Islamic countries but in what we consider the “western world” as well. A movement is underway to set up sharia courts in Ontario, Canada under the 1991 Ontario Arbitration Act designed to help unburden an over-taxed court system–and make their decisions legally enforceable by the province’s regular courts.

Former Ontario Attorney General Marion Boyd has recommended that the province allow sharia tribunals to settle family disputes for Muslims. Her report examining the issue was commissioned by current Attorney General Michael Bryant, as Ontario considers whether to let Islamic law be used in private arbitration of civil and family-law disputes when all parties agree to it. Participation under the Arbitration Act is voluntary, though critics say Muslim women can be pressured in participating.

I have been unable to find any final disposition to the attempt, but you can read an editorial against the consideration here. More information available from NoSharia.com.

Now Perth, Australia is considering the same move. Sharia courts have been proposed to settle divorce and child custody disputes, and allow annulments without a trip to an Islamic country for the order. Without an annulment, women are unable to remarry; however, sharia does allow for multiple spouses on the part of the male.

While proponents claim that sharia would protect the interests of women and would not overrule established civil law, others disagree. The establishment of sharia in Islamic areas of Nigeria has resulted in horrific abuses, such as the case of a women sentenced to death by stoning for bearing a child out of wedlock. The case was eventually thrown out by the Nigerian civil authorities on a technicality, but without a ruling that sharia justice was wrong.

No one is advocating full sharia “justice” in either Canada or Australia. But I am concerned about precedents set in the name of religious equality and freedom that have the potential to establish a separate tier of legal protection for Muslim women. We should not allow them to be relegated to a “separate but equal” legal standing based upon their religion. We should oppose all efforts to do so, whether in Iraq, Africa or the “western world.”

I am not unsympathetic to the unique problems of Muslim women; far from it. I have a friend in the process of obtaining a civil divorce right now, a decision she decided to pursue in the United States rather than in Saudi Arabia for the legal protections the US system gives her which sharia does not. She’s done it despite great family pressure to preserve her marriage at all cost, and I applaud her strength in doing what is best for her. Once her divorce is granted she will still need to pursue a religious annulment if she ever wishes to remarry, and that will involve leaving the the country to do it. That will be expensive, money she doesn’t have.

However, I don’t believe that if she were living in Canada or Australia rather than the US she should have to trade the protection of civil law to streamline a religious process. Should a sharia court have been available, I have no doubt her family would have exerted considerable effort to have her case heard there, to her detriment. Should Muslim communities really wish to help those in the throes of divorce, they should be free to set up sharia courts to ease the process of ending the religious marital obligations in the same manner that a Roman Catholic may pursue a religious annulment through the church courts. However, in my opinion, those religious bodies–Islamic or Christian or Jewish or Hindu–should not replace the civil process, nor be allowed to make their support or custody decisions enforceable in any arena other than the religious.

I’ll be following these developments closely. Watch for more information as it becomes available.

Belgian doctors today released a 15-year-old Iraqi girl, wounded by a cluster bomb during the US invasion, and sent a bill for her treatment to the US Embassy. 5 surgeries and weeks of physiotherapy managed to save her leg, injured in the same blast which killed her brother in Baghdad in 2003.

Dr. Bert De Belder, coordinator of the humanitarian agency Medical Aid for Third World, said he sent the 51,570 euro ($66,650) bill to the U.S. embassy because international law dictates that an occupying force is responsible for the well-being of the country’s people.

No response as yet from the US. Read the full story on Reuters.

The state of New York today filed a lawsuit against Intermix Media of Los Angeles, claiming the company installed spyware and adware that secretly install nuisance pop-up advertising on screens which can slow and crash personal computers.

New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said in Wired the suit combats the redirecting of home computer users to unwanted websites and its own website that includes ads, the adding of unnecessary toolbar items and the delivery of unwanted ads that pop up on computer screens. After a six-month investigation, Spitzer concluded the company installed a wide range of advertising software on countless personal computers nationwide.

“Spyware and adware are more than an annoyance,” Spitzer said. “These fraudulent programs foul machines, undermine productivity and in many cases frustrate consumers’ efforts to remove them from their computers. These issues can serve to be a hindrance to the growth of e-commerce.”

An Intermix spokesman didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Spitzer’s civil suit accuses Intermix of violating state General Business Law provisions against false advertising and deceptive business practices. He also accuses them of trespass under New York common law.

Advertisers who use Intermix, including some Fortune 500 companies, are not targeted by the suit.

That is a mistake, in my opinion. As long as corporations are willing to pay for stealth delivery of their advertising, some one will pop up (no pun intended) to make it happen. Only when they face penalties for the actions of their subcontractors will this crap stop.

Jeff at Have Coffee Will Write has a nice piece yesterday about the new definition of “woman” being written into Senate Bill 51. I urge you to take a moment right now to read it, then come back here for a discussion of the rest of the bill.

This bill, entitled The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2005, is one nasty piece of legislation, sponsored by Sam Brownback (R-KS) and cosponsored by 32 of the Usual Suspects whose names I believe deserve inclusion here.

Sen Alexander, Lamar [TN] Sen Allen, George [VA]
Sen Bunning, Jim [KY] Sen Burns, Conrad R. [MT]
Sen Chambliss, Saxby [GA] Sen Coburn, Tom [OK]
Sen Cochran, Thad [MS] Sen Coleman, Norm [MN]
Sen Cornyn, John [TX] Sen Crapo, Mike [ID]
Sen DeMint, Jim [SC] Sen DeWine, Mike [OH]
Sen Dole, Elizabeth [NC] Sen Ensign, John [NV]
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY] Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC]
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] Sen Hagel, Chuck [NE]
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]
Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA] Sen Kyl, Jon [AZ]
Sen Lott, Trent [MS] Sen Martinez, Mel [FL]
Sen McConnell, Mitch [KY] Sen Roberts, Pat [KS]
Sen Santorum, Rick [PA] Sen Sessions, Jeff [AL]
Sen Shelby, Richard C. [AL] Sen Talent, Jim [MO]
Sen Thune, John [SD] Sen Vitter, David [LA]
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH]

If you are represented by any of these Senators, I urge you to contact them and express your disapproval.

To find the full text of the legislation, click here, select Bill Number and enter S51 in the search window. The bill status is currently read twice and referred to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee, where it is still in committee.

The full title of the bill is: “A bill to ensure that women seeking an abortion are fully informed regarding the pain experienced by their unborn child.”

The following statement is to be read to the woman contempating abortion:

“You are considering having an abortion of an unborn child who will have developed, at the time of the abortion, approximately XX weeks after fertilization. The Congress of the United States has determined that at this stage of development, an unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain. There is substantial evidence that by this point, unborn children draw away from surgical instruments in a manner which in an infant or an adult would be interpreted as a response to pain. Congress finds that there is substantial evidence that the process of being killed in an abortion will cause the unborn child pain, even though you receive a pain-reducing drug or drugs. Under the Federal Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2005, you have the option of choosing to have anesthesia or other pain-reducing drug or drugs administered directly to the pain-capable unborn child if you so desire. The purpose of administering such drug or drugs would be to reduce or eliminate the capacity of the unborn child to experience pain during the abortion procedure. In some cases, there may be some additional risk to you associated with administering such a drug.”

You will note by my emphasis that Congress has determined that it will cause pain, not a medical or scientific body. Also note how “life begins at fertilization” has been slipped in there, too.

She is also to be given a brochure on the subject.

(1) DEVELOPMENT- Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this title, the Secretary shall develop an Unborn Child Pain Awareness Brochure. Such Brochure shall be written in English and Spanish and shall contain the same information as required under the statement under subsection (b)(2)(A)(i), including greater detail on her option of having a pain-reducing drug or drugs administered to the unborn child to reduce the experience of pain by the unborn child during the abortion. Such information shall be written in an objective and nonjudgmental manner and be printed in a typeface large enough to be clearly legible. The Brochure shall be made available by the Secretary at no cost to any abortion provider.

Written by doctors? No. Written by the government, developed and distributed with your tax dollars.

After receipt of this brochure, a woman must sign a release form consenting to anethesia for the fetus (at perhaps increased risk to her own health) or specifically decline the anesthesia.

Also of concern is this new regulation concerning clinics where abortions may be performed.

(iii) ADMINISTRATION OF ANESTHESIA- If the abortion provider is not qualified or willing to administer the anesthesia or other pain-reducing drug in response to the request of a pregnant woman after making the statement required under clause (i), the provider shall–

(I) arrange for a qualified specialist to administer such anesthesia or drug; or

(II) advise the pregnant woman–
(aa) where she may obtain such anesthesia or other pain-reducing drugs for the unborn child in the course of an abortion; or

(bb) that the abortion provider is unable to perform the abortion if the woman elects to receive anesthesia or other pain-reducing drugs for her unborn child.

If the plan works, and women are guilted into requesting anesthesia for the fetus, chances are she won’t get the abortion at all, because of the requirement to have an anesthesiologist standing by in case someone opts for it.

In introducing the bill, Sen. Brownback gave the following speech: “I am introducing today, with over 30 cosponsors, a bill that speaks to this critical issue. It is S. 51, the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. It has 31 cosponsors. This legislation, I believe, is strongly pro-woman, pro-child and pro-life, and it will help in the creation of a culture of life in America.”

Tell your senators NO, this is not a pro-woman, pro-child bill. It’s propaganda, pure and simple. I urge you to contact Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), Committee Chairman and a cosponsor of S51, and tell him to keep the government out of private medical decisions.

If you’re a resident of Washington or Montana, you can now record your wishes to be an organ and/or tissue donor online. The Living Legacy Register was established by state law and is a computerized list of those who wish to give the gift of life beyond death. By signing up to signify your intent, you remove the burden of consent from your family. Register today.

This just struck me as funny. From the People’s Pharmacy column in today’s Spokesman-Review.

K-Y Jelly poses no danger to oxygen users’ lungs
Reader says personal lubricant can ease dry nostrils
Joe Graedon and Teresa Graedon
King Features Syndicate
April 26, 2005

Q. Some people have written about dryness in the nose. I work for a man on oxygen all the time. His doctor said we could use K-Y Jelly to help keep his nose moist.

A. Thanks for the tip. K-Y Jelly is a personal lubricant that is not petroleum-based. As a result, it should not pose the danger that petroleum jelly does: that oil from the product could collect in the lungs and cause inflammation.

What do women want?

I want to own my body,
Not hold a lease like a tenant residing at the landlord’s pleasure,
But clear title to the property,
with the freedom to paint the walls and change the carpet
and strip the baseboards down to the bare wood if it takes my fancy.
I will decide who to ask inside,
Or whether to answer the door at all.
I may proclaim that the Lady Of The House isn’t receiving today,
Then tomorrow throw a party,
Inviting the Rotary Club, some college students and
A biker gang or two.
I would not settle for a room of one’s own;
I want to own the entire building,
Myself.

Copyright Terry 2005

Spokane City Council last night took the plunge and approved family benefit status for unmarried domestic partners, gay and straight. “It’s about respect, dignity, justice,” said Council President Dennis Hession, who sponsored the measure and won enough yes votes that he could also win an override of any potential veto by Mayor Jim West, who has previously said he’s against the measure. The vote was 5-2, with Council members Joe Shogan, Cherie Rodgers, Al French and Mary Verner joining Hession in favor, and Council members Brad Stark and Bob Apple voting no.

From the Spokesman-Review:

Stark said he is concerned about the potential cost of extending benefits while Apple said that he, too, is concerned about cost, but also finds the measure to be morally suspect since unmarried employees might use the benefits as a lure to entice a partner into a relationship. (emphasis TK)

During lengthy testimony, proponents argued that extending benefits is a matter of workplace equity. Opponents warned that such steps are contrary to God’s law, undermine the institution of marriage and put government in the position of condoning alternative lifestyles.

“I hate to get God into it,” said Rodgers, explaining that she sees the issue as one of equity.

The ordinance as amended by the council during Monday’s meeting allows domestic partners to obtain health care benefits, city-sponsored life insurance and pension rights. Employees could take paid leave from work to attend to emergencies or illnesses involving their partners.

To qualify, employees and their partners of the same or opposite sex would have to submit an affidavit declaring their domestic relationship.

Currently only council members and 17 non-union employees qualify for the benefit, but unions will be able to bargain for inclusion in their next contract talks.