For nearly four years, a South Carolina man held his wife and two sons captive in a house infested with maggots and human waste, authorities said.

The boys slept on a bare mattress as their mother was kept in a drug-induced stupor in a house that was decrepit except for a tidy one-room illegal gambling parlor run by Danny William Dove, police said.

Police found maggots infesting the refrigerator. Human waste and used toilet paper littered the bathroom floor and the house smelled like a dead animal, according to police photographs and authorities who visited the home after Dove was arrested this week.

The living room was covered in trash and upturned furniture, the kitchen's cabinets were falling apart and dirty clothing was piled in waist-high heaps.... The young boys, ages 4 and 8, didn't go to school. Police say they rarely were allowed out of the house and that a video camera monitored their room and the doors to the home. The boys' own grandmother says they're hard to understand unless they're cursing.

"I have done several abortions on women who have regularly picketed my clinics, including a 16 year old schoolgirl who came back to picket the day after her abortion, about three years ago. During her whole stay at the clinic, we felt that she was not quite right, but there were no real warning bells. She insisted that the abortion was her idea and assured us that all was OK. She went through the procedure very smoothly and was discharged with no problems. A quite routine operation. Next morning she was with her mother and several school mates in front of the clinic with the usual anti posters and chants. It appears that she got the abortion she needed and still displayed the appropriate anti views expected of her by her parents, teachers, and peers."

More tales of anti-choice women choosing to have abortions here.

Via Sullivan.

A vegan couple was sentenced Wednesday to life in prison for the death of their malnourished 6-week-old baby boy, who was fed a diet largely consisting of soy milk and apple juice.

Superior Court Judge L.A. McConnell imposed the sentences on Jade Sanders, 27, and Lamont Thomas, 31. Their son, Crown Shakur, weighed just 3 1/2 pounds when he died of starvation on April 25, 2004.

The couple was found guilty May 2 of malice murder, felony murder, involuntary manslaughter and cruelty to children. A jury deliberated about seven hours before returning the guilty verdicts.

Defense lawyers said the first-time parents did the best they could while adhering to the lifestyle of vegans, who typically use no animal products. They said Sanders and Thomas did not realize the baby, who was born at home, was in danger until minutes before he died.

I'm generally con-starving-infants-to-death, as everyone reading this I hope knows, but I have to say a life sentence seems... a bit harsh. I wasn't on the jury; I didn't hear the evidence. And these two had to be the dumbest fucking vegans on the planet--and that's saying something. I'm sure they were traumatized by their own stupidity, and I can't imagine they intended for the child to die--was it murder then? Or manslaughter? Maybe 20 years, but not life.

But, hey, the jury heard the evidence--and they said malice murder, felony murder, and involuntary manslaughter. So there must have been something else going on here, this must have been more than a case of stupid vegan parents and vengeful southern jury.

I'm filing this under "Hetero" because most babies' parents are straight:

40 percent of babies watch TV, UW study finds

Babies are glued to television sets these days, with 40 percent of 3-month- olds and 90 percent of 2-year-olds regularly watching TV, according to a University of Washington study released Monday.

These tiny viewers are further proof that baby TV is a booming business in 2007. Today, infants have their own 24-hour network, Brainy Baby and Baby Einstein DVDs, and a growing list of other programs made just for them. Many also have sets in their bedrooms.

There was a piece in the New York Times "Sunday Styles" section this weekend about the fallout from the Washington Madam scandal--particularly for Randall L. Tobias, the latest Bush administration official to be exposed for a lying sack of shit

Tobias, you'll recall, was out there stumping for abstinence and insisting condoms don't provide protection against sexually transmitted infections--and all the while he was visiting prostitutes for "massages." Just another case of GOP's sex-ed program, a.k.a. "Abstinence for thee, not for me."

Anyway, the "Sunday Styles" piece is about what happens when a man gets caught cheating--Mr. Tobias, for example (and for the moment), is a married man. How do couples like Mr. and Mrs. Tobias survive infidelity? How do a husband and wife put the pieces back together after he strays?

The piece doesn't go into female infidelity. Because as we all know--thanks to Oprah and Dr. Phil--that all cheaters have dicks, all wronged parties have uteruses. "Sunday Styles" queries a panel of female authors, shrinks, and guest experts. (There's one guy, for window dressing, but he's not allowed to say much.) The women dissect husbands and boyfriends who cheat and all agree that men suck, cheating is never okay, and nothing can justify it.

The anti-male, anti-sex bias is laid on pretty thick. Take, instance, this graph:

"They have a very healthy sense of denial," [Norma Hotaling] said [of men that get caught with prostitutes]. "They blame the people they're in relationships with. 'My girlfriend won't do this. My wife is a bitch.'"

Those statements could be rationalizations, sure. Maybe they are most of the time But are they always? Just as some husbands are thoughtless, selfish brutes, some wives are, well, bitches. Some wives aren't very nice and there have been cases--go with me, Oprah--where men have stayed with women for their kids' sake or for some other equally legit reason. In these cases, sex lives tend to wither and die and the guys may seek sex elsewhere. (And so may the girls.) Maybe we needed a quote to balance this graph out?

Likewise, some wives simply won't do things that some husbands don't merely enjoy, but view as central to their sexual expression. Does that excuse cheating? Well, not in all cases. I urge men into cross-dressing, bondage, feet, etc., who are burdened with non-GGG spouses to get permission to indulge their kinks discreetly--and with pros if the wife is threatened by outside emotional entanglements. There's a reason why sex workers' stories about married men confiding in them about the Wives Who Won't are a cliche: They're usually true.

Meanwhile in the same issue of the New York Times, Randy "The Ethicist" Cohen tackles a question that touches on issues I've been covering in Savage Love lately...

My wife of 30 years and I are in our 60s. A few years ago she asked that we no longer engage in sex. “It’s not such a big deal anymore,” she said. She would not see a doctor or consider other help. I began an affair with a widow. Recently my wife found out and went ballistic. If she can casually renounce sex, can’t I seek it elsewhere?

So the wife cuts the husband, because sex is "not a big deal anymore," and goes ballistic when she discovers that her husband has gone elsewhere for some no big deals. Randy tells the man that he was at fault for being dishonest--he needed to tell the wife that he would be going elsewhere--but then comes down, appropriately, on the wife...

What your wife wants is not merely fidelity, of course, but the repudiation of what for many people is a profound and exultant part of life. So be it. People change, even about something so fundamental, even when they pledged, at least implicitly, through their conduct, to live in a particular way. Your wife may wish to live differently at 60 than she did at 30.... But she may not unilaterally impose on you the abnegation of erotic happiness.

And that gets to the meat of the matter.

If you expect fidelity then when you marry--or commit to someone for the long-term--then you must take responsibility for your partner's sexual fulfillment, just as he or she must take responsibility for yours. Yes, there will be dry spells. No one can or must be sexually available at all times. "My wife has the flu" or "my husband threw his back out"--anything that sidelines a partner for a few days, weeks, or even months (like pregnancy, Charles)--is not a justification for adultery.

But being unilaterally cut off from sex, being trapped in a loveless and/or sexless marriage (there are loving, sexless marriages out there), or being denied a kind of sexual expression that's central to your erotic fulfillment... these things are not "rationalizations" for infidelity.

They're grounds.

Two brothers were locked up in a dog cage when their father used drugs and when they were being punished, and one had to wear a shock collar, authorities said.

The parents appeared briefly in court Thursday on charges of child endangerment and making or selling drugs in front of the children, ages 10 and 5.

Jessica Botzko, 28, and John Westover, 37, were arrested a day earlier, after the boys ran away from home and were found on a neighbor's porch. The boys told officers that they had been abused and locked in a dog cage at their home, said police Capt. Ray Carroll. They also said their father put them in the cage when he was using drugs, according to Carroll.

Court documents say the 10-year-old boy was repeatedly shocked at the family's home through a remote-controlled collar meant as a training device for animals.

A former Medford man who converted to Judaism wants his 12-year-old son to do the same. That requires circumcision--something the mother adamantly opposes.

The divorced couple has been battling over the issue for three years, including whether the boy wants to undergo the procedure. So far, Oregon courts have squarely sided with the father, who has custody....

The mother responded by going to court, saying her son told her that he was afraid to defy his father, but didn't want the procedure.

Deputy Secretary of State Randall L. Tobias has resigned. It seems that Randy was patronizing escorts in D.C., and he just got caught. Before joining the State Department Tobias was the Bush administration's AIDS Czar--and a big backer of abstinence and monogamy over condoms.

Just another Republican urging us to "screw as I say, not as I screw."

Says Joe over at Americablog...

Abstinence is for the little people, not the loyal Bushies. They don't have to practice what they preach.

Asswipes.

Remember how Rudolph Giuliani's position on same-sex marriage--flower girl--was going to hurt him with the religious right? Not anymore. Yesterday Giuliani pulled a Romney-esque flip flop on gay marriage, coming out--get it? coming out?--against New Hampshire's new law creating civil unions for same-sex couples. There's a lot of very thoughtful commentary out there already about Giuliani's craven attempts to appease the religious right--Giuliani's the Neville Chamberlain of gay marriage!--but I think Gawker says it best...

America's Mayor is a Liar

Yesterday Rudy Giuliani announced that he had been pretending for years that he believed that the gays should have civil unions—including the gays he lived with when he was kicked out of Gracie Mansion by his spurned former wife, right after he broke up with her via press conference—and said that he would now immediately begin pretending to believe that he is firmly against civil unions. Giuliani, the most rat-faced and most-married of all the former mayors of New York, is now running for President on a platform that his advisers refer to as Operation Two-Faced Gay-Traitor, which is intended to convince national voters that clearly he will use any opportunity to seize power and then turn this country into a morally-pure fatherland united in opposition to both the filthy Arabs and anyone who doesn't want to have sex with Judith Regan—a transformation he can effect in just under ten days, unless he's too busy cheating on a wife or committing incest.

The Concerned Women for America hate homos. But apparently they looooove racists. John Aravosis busts 'em over Americablog.

A Bentonville, Ark., man is seeking $20,000 from the city after his two teenage sons found a book on lesbian sex on a public library bookshelf. He also wants the library director fired.

Earl Adams said his 14- and 16-year-old sons were "greatly disturbed" after finding the book, titled "The Whole Lesbian Sex Book." Adams said the book caused "many sleepless nights in our house."

I'll bet it did.

Today, as Dan noted earlier, five men decided that even a nonviable fetus has more rights than a living woman. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the first total ban on an abortion procedure with no exceptions for a woman's life or health. Most so-called "partial birth abortions" are performed because a fetus is terminally ill, or to save the life of the woman. The only woman on the court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, wrote the dissent:

Today’'s decision is alarming. ... It tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). It blurs the line... between previability and postviability abortions. And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman’s health.
[...]

“There was a time, not so long ago,” when women were “regarded as the center of home and family life, with attendant special responsibilities that precluded full and independent legal status under the Constitution.” Those views, this Court made clear in Casey, “are no longer consistent with our understanding of the family, the individual, or the Constitution. Women, it is now acknowledged, have the talent, capacity, and right “to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation.” Their ability to realize their full potential, the Court recognized, is intimately connected to “their ability to control their reproductive lives.” Thus, legal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman’'s autonomy to determine her life'’s course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature.

In keeping with this comprehension of the right to reproductive choice, the Court has consistently required that laws regulating abortion, at any stage of pregnancy and in
all cases, safeguard a woman'’s health. We have thus ruled that a State must avoid subjecting women to health risks not only where the pregnancy itself creates danger, but also where state regulation forces women to resort to less safe methods of abortion.

The Court offers flimsy and transparent justifications for upholding a nationwide ban on intact D&E sans any exception to safeguard a women'’s health.
[...]
Ultimately, the Court admits that “moral concerns” are at work, concerns that could yield prohibitions on any abortion. Notably, the concerns expressed are untethered to any
ground genuinely serving the Government’'s interest in preserving life. By allowing such concerns to carry the day and case, overriding fundamental rights, the Court dishonors our precedent. (“Some of us as individuals find abortion offensive to our most basic principles of morality, but that cannot control our decision. Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.”)

Revealing in this regard, the Court invokes an antiabortion shibboleth for which it concededly has no reliable evidence: Women who have abortions come to regret their choices, and consequently suffer from “[s]evere depression and loss of esteem.” Because of women’'s fragile emotional state and because of the “bond of love the mother has for her child,” the Court worries, doctors may withhold information about the nature of the intact D&E procedure. The solution the Court approves, then, is not to require doctors to inform women, accurately and adequately, of the different procedures and their attendant risks. Instead, the Court deprives women of the right to make an autonomous choice, even at the expense of their safety.

This way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women’'s place in the family and under the Constitution—--ideas that have long since been discredited. ...

Though today'’s majority may regard women’'s feelings on the matter as “self-evident,” ante, at 29, this Court has repeatedly confirmed that “[t]he destiny of the woman
must be shaped . . . on her own conception of her spiritual imperatives and her place in society.”

One wonders how long a line that saves no fetus from destruction will hold in face of the Court'’s “moral concerns. ”The Court’'s hostility to the right Roe and Casey secured is not concealed. Throughout, the opinion refers to obstetrician-gynecologists and surgeons who perform abortions not by the titles of their medical specialties, but by the pejorative label “abortion doctor.” A fetus is described as an “unborn child,” and as a “baby,” previability abortions are referred to as “late-term,” and the reasoned medical judgments of highly trained doctors are dismissed as “preferences” motivated by “mere convenience.

In sum, the notion that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act furthers any legitimate governmental interest is, quite simply, irrational. The Court’s defense of the statute provides no saving explanation. In candor, the Act, and the Court’'s defense of it, cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court— and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women’'s lives.

Researchers in Australia have discovered three very interesting things about folks into BDSM. First, engaging in BDSM makes people--kinky people--happy. Who'da thunk it? Second, folks into BDSM were not abused as children at higher rates than folks who aren't into BDSM. Third, gays, lesbians, bi, and the heteroflexible--a.k.a. sexually adventurous straights--are likelier to be into BDSM.

The new sex study has revealed that two per cent of Australian men and 1.4 per cent of women admit to enjoying dominance, submission and sadomasochism-type sex in the past year.... The survey results, to be presented at the World Association of Sexual Health congress in Sydney this week, give the first snapshot of Australians involved in bondage behaviour.

These fetishes were most common among gay, lesbian and bisexual people and heterosexuals who are "bi-interested", said Dr Richters, the lead researcher.... They were [also] no more likely to have suffered sexual difficulties, sexual abuse or coercion or anxiety than other Australians.

In fact, says Dr Richters, men into BDSM scored significantly better on a scale of psychological wellbeing than other men.

"This seems to imply that these men are actually happier as a result of their behaviour, though we're not sure why," she said.

"It might just be that they're more in harmony with themselves because they're into something unusual and are comfortable with that.... Researchers said the study helps break down the reigning stereotype that people into bondage and discipline were damaged as children and were therefore "dysfunctional".

Hello, Dr. Drew? Please unclench long enough to stick the results of this survey up your ass.

Oh, and the reasons that GLBT folks are likelier to be into BDSM? Because queers are crazy and out of control and sexually perverted? Nope, we're just likelier to admit being kinky. The Australian researchers interviewed 20,000 people about their sexual habits, and say they concluded that lots more Australians get into BDSM than care to admit it.

"There will definitely be more men and women who have sexual tastes in this direction but won't call it this," said Dr Juliet Richters, of the University of New South Wales. "[They] just happen to like being tied up and spanked as part of foreplay. "Ask them if they're into BDSM they'll say 'Yuck, no'."

These "Yuck, no" folks, it seems, were not counted among the 2 percent of men and 1.4 percent of women that "admit to enjoying dominance, submission and sadomasochism-type sex." People that are openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual are likelier to own up to--and happily indulge--their kinks and fetishes. For us, coming out is the mountain and kink is the molehill. Before we can be sexually active we have to let go of "normal." Once you've embraced your sexual difference--and perhaps paid a steep price for your honesty and integrity--what point is there in not doing the things that really turn you on?

For straights, on the other hand, kink is the mountain. Straight people don't have to let go of "normal" to be straight. So often kinky straight people have a harder time embracing their kinks. Half my mail at "Savage Love" is from straight men and women who want to be reassured that their kinks--from BDSM to cross-dressing to fucking animals (!)--are "normal." Kinky gays and lesbians never ask me if their "normal." They're not, they know it, they've moved on, and they're happier for it.

This is going to break your heart: The right-wing quacks, religious abusive parents, and fundamentalist fuckwits willing to gamble with the health of young people--assholes that believe it's better for teenagers to have unplanned pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections, and cervical cancer than to have access to accurate information about birth control, disease-prevention, and life-saving vaccines--are crying to the media about the possibility that those big meanies in the Democratically-controlled congress are going to cut their funding.

Democratic lawmakers have introduced legislation promoting comprehensive sex education instead of abstinence-only curriculum. They want to send money to schools that stress abstinence while also instructing students about the health benefits and side effects of contraceptives.

Besides opening their own trade association, abstinence educators hired a public relations firm with a long list of Republican and conservative clients....

Currently, Congress uses three different programs to fund abstinence education. The largest of those programs has gone from $20 million to $113 million in seven years. President Bush is requesting $141 million next year.

The second largest pot of money, $50 million, goes through the states, which match that funding with $3 for every $4 they get from the federal government. The programs teach that sex outside of marriage is likely to be psychologically and physically harmful....

Wade Horn, who oversaw the two largest abstinence education programs until he resigned last week, predicted Congress will give states more flexibility in determining how Title V money is spent.

But he doesn't believe Congress will make major funding cuts.

"I think it's going to evolve, but I don't think it's going to go away," he said. "I've seen some bills introduced by Democrats that suggest they want a separate fund dedicated to comprehensive sex education, but my sense is that it won't be at the expense of abstinence education. I think it's a matter of both, not one or the other."

Hilarious. When Republicans were in control of Congress the abstinence-only crowd insisted that it had to one program--their program--never both. Never mind that their programs were backfiring everywhere. Teenagers subjected to abstinence-only education do not abstain from sex until marriage--and when they do become sexually active they were less likely to use birth control and condoms and, consequently, get themselves knocked up and infected with various STIs at higher rates than teenagers that receive comprehensive sex education.

Sorry, Wade, but there isn't room for both--Congress should cut all funding for abstinence-only sex "education." It was a grand experiment, a nice way for the corrupt Republicans to funnel money to the religious right, as well as a full-employment program for sexually stunted Jesus freaks terrified of their own desires. But guess what? Abstinence education hurts kids. Kill it, Nancy. Kill it, Harry.

This just in...

The Catholic Church has yet to issue any authoritative teaching on embryo adoptions, said Peter J. Cataldo, an ethical consultant to the Philadelphia-based National Catholic Bioethics Center.

At issue is what may morally be done to the excess embryos created through in vitro fertilization and frozen for possible later use. Over the years, many have been discarded while some have been adopted.... The church teaches that in vitro fertilization is not morally acceptable because the egg and sperm are joined outside of sexual intercourse between a husband and wife. The 1987 document “On Respect for Human Life” (“Donum Vitae”) from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, noted that through in vitro fertilization, “(T)he generation of the human person is objectively deprived of its proper perfection: namely, that of being the result and fruit of a conjugal act.”

Those who believe embryo adoption to be illicit follow a similar argument.

Hee-hee. I love the Pope--the man's hilarious. And so is his flock of Cardinals, and all those US Bishops. All those old, fruity celibates telling the rest of us what to do in the sack, in the lab, in the voting booth, in our Democratically-elected parliaments and congresses.

What I don't love is the deference the media shows the Pope when he's got something idiotic to say about gay issues. The Pope sure doesn't get the same "God Has Spoken!" treatment when he speaks about straight issues. In-vitro fertilization is pretty much a straight issue, and the church is pretty much con. Strongly con. And yet you don't hear much about that--I'll bet you didn't know the Pope was opposed to in-vitro fertilzation. And that's because when it comes to straight sex and issue that touch on straight sexual rights and freedoms, straight reporters, editors, publishers, and readers aren't interested in what Pope Ratzi has to say. The Pope is against birth control--big deal. The Pope says divorce is a mortal sin--who gives a fuck. The Pope thinks yoga is satanic (really)--nothing to see here.

But when the Pope say something equally idiotic about gay people--when he comes out strongly con concerning our sexual rights and freedoms--we get screaming headlines about the Pope's "non-negotiable" positions on gay marriage, civil unions, same-sex couples adopting children, and on and on, as the Pope's position suddenly matters or should matter.

Uh, straight people? If you're going to ignore the Pope when he says idiotic, backwards, retrograde crap about you, then we really ought to ignore him when he says idiotic, backwards, retrograde things about me. And remember, straight folks, every idiot thing the Pope says about gay sex is grounded in the same fearful, idiotic, anti-pleasure arguments the Pope makes against birth control, in-vitro, blowjobs, and jacking off, etc.: If it can't make a baby, it's not okay with the Pope.

Unless straight people are prepared to limit their sexual rights, freedoms, and expression and live in as the Pope would like you to--no birth control, no blowjobs, no pre-marital sex, no yoga--then straight people should stop making an elaborate show of deference and respect for the Pope's delicate feelings when it comes to my sexual rights, freedoms, and expression.

Ignore the Pope or not. But don't ignore him when he has something to say about your sexual conduct and then prick up your ears when he's got something to say about mine.

Does Jesus Christ approve of BDSM? Yes, says Sir Gardener at ChristiansAndBDSM.com, but only when the man--the straight married man--is the top.

Does [Christian BDSM] differ from "secular" BDSM?

It does differ from secular BDSM in that the relationship is (or should be) confined to a husband and wife in male dominant/female submissive roles. Also, the Bible is the ultimate authority... if something is "accepted" in BDSM circles but prohibited by the Bible, then it is prohibited in a Christian BDSM relationship.

Are BDSM relationships different in Christian BDSM? If so, how do they differ?

They are different since there is a specific spiritual component to their relationship. The Master and submissive/slave worship, pray and grow together as Christians. The Master is head of the wife. She submits to Him. Christ is the head of the church. Master and submissive are both in submission to Christ. A Christian submissive’s first responsibility is to God and His commandments. Unlike her secular sister, a Christian submissive should not participate in something against God’s teaching, even if ordered by her Dominant/Master.

Can we do anything we want in Christian BDSM?

CAN we? Of course! SHOULD we? Of course NOT!

If not, what are the prohibitions for Christian BDSMers?

Anything prohibited by the Bible, plus anything not agreed upon by the couple.

Hm... the bible says you can kill your kids if they smart talk you. So if your submissive wife is down with murdering her children... uh... Christian BDSMers can kill their kids. Femdoms, male subs, and kinky fags with uppity children, however, just have to put up with their brats giving 'em lip.

There's no porn--heaven forbid!--at ChristiansandBDSM.com. But anyone that's ever asked himself "WWJD with these tit clamps?" can find Godly direction and spiritual uplift clicking here.

If my "Every Child..." posts offend you, then don't click here.

A local couple is being held at the King County Jail after their 6-month-old baby died of a drug overdose while the family was in California.

The baby's parents, Lorrie Peck and Tom Boettger, appeared before a judge on Thursday. They are now being held on $1 million bail each on a fugitive charge. They have not been charged in the baby's death.

The western Washington couple took a family trip to San Diego last fall with the baby and Peck's 10-year-old daughter. They came back from the trip without the baby and reportedly told friends the baby had tragically died.

A report from the San Diego Police Department details the baby's last few days.

Boettger told police the baby had an upset stomach. He said he crushed a cocktail of pills, including Mylanta, Unisom, Zantac, Benadryl and Sudafed, then mixed the drugs with water and fed it to the baby.

Oh. My. God. I'm sitting here writing a silly little blog post about General Peter Pace when I get an email from a friend telling to go read Garrison Keillor's piece on marriage and family over at Salon.

Keillor, concerned about the emotional well-being of children, comes to praise heterosexual marriage, monogamy, and life-long commitment:

I grew up the child of a mixed-gender marriage that lasted until death parted them.... Back in the day, that was the standard arrangement. Everyone had a yard, a garage, a female mom, a male dad, and a refrigerator with leftover boiled potatoes in plastic dishes with snap-on lids....

Under the old monogamous system, we didn't have the problem of apportioning Thanksgiving and Christmas among your mother and stepdad, your dad and his third wife, your mother-in-law and her boyfriend Hal, and your father-in-law and his boyfriend Chuck. Today, serial monogamy has stretched the extended family to the breaking point. A child can now grow up with eight or nine or 10 grandparents--Gampa, Gammy, Goopa, Gumby, Papa, Poopsy, Goofy, Gaga and Chuck--and need a program to keep track of the actors.

Keillor has been married THREE TIMES. He has children from two of his marriages, children who presumably need a computer program to keep track of their step-siblings, half-siblings, and sprawling extended families, children that have to be "apportioned out on Thanksgiving and Christmas." Okay, fine, whatever. Keillor can recognize marriage, life-long commitment, and less complicated family structures as the ideal, even if he himself has failed--failed spectacularly--to live up to that ideal himself. It might have been nice, however, if the withered old hypocrite had admitted to Salon readers that he has failed to live up to the ideals he's espousing. How about a little full disclosure, Garrison?

From Keillor's wiki entry:

Keillor has been married three times:

To Mary Guntzel, from 1965 to 1976. The couple has one son, Jason, born in 1969.

To Ulla Skaerved (a former exchange student from Denmark whom he famously re-encountered at a high school reunion), from 1985 to 1990. Keillor is mildly notorious for having dumped his long-time lover and PHC producer Margaret Moos to marry Ulla. The marriage failed when Keillor had an affair with his Danish language teacher.

His current wife, violinist Jenny Lind Nilsson (b. 1958), from his hometown of Anoka,whom he married in 1995. They have one daughter, Maia, born in 1998.

Oh, tell me more about the old monogamous system, Uncle Garrison, you old serial adulterer you. (Note to Salon's editors: I know the Internets can be confusing, but surely you had access to this information. It didn't occur to you to make Keillor admit that he hasn't exactly lived up to his own standards?)

But Keillor really didn't come to praise heterosexual marriage and monogamy. He came to bury gay couples--particularly gay couples with children.

And now gay marriage will produce a whole new string of hyphenated relatives. In addition to the ex-stepson and ex-in-laws and your wife's first husband's second wife, there now will be Bruce and Kevin's in-laws and Bruce's ex, Mark, and Mark's current partner, and I suppose we'll get used to it.

The country has come to accept stereotypical gay men--sardonic fellows with fussy hair who live in over-decorated apartments with a striped sofa and a small weird dog and who worship campy performers and go in for flamboyance now and then themselves. If they want to be accepted as couples and daddies, however, the flamboyance may have to be brought under control. Parents are supposed to stand in back and not wear chartreuse pants and black polka-dot shirts. That's for the kids. It's their show.

Oh. My. God.

Where to start? How about that one sentence that somehow manages to pack in six flaming stereotypes about gay men--fussy hair, small dogs, over-decorated apartments, and on and on. Yes, Garrison, all of us gay men--particularly us gay parents!--are decadent, flamboyant creatures. Sure, having kids means puke on your chartreuse trousers and candy ground into your expensive sofa--but, hey, those are small prices to pay if it means getting to show off your chartreuse pants at PTA meetings!

What an asshole. Asshole, asshole, asshole. What Keillor wrote today on Salon is every bit as offensive as Ann Coulter's "faggot" joke about John Edwards and relies on the same set of cultural prejudices.

I know a lot of gay couples with children--some of which, as I type these words, are losing their health insurance in Michigan because of an anti-gay marriage amendment passed in that state by hateful motherfuckers who, like Keillor, hate, fear and know nothing about gay couples. None of the gay couples with kids I know go in for chartreuse pants and polka-dot shirts or striped (?) sofas.

Most of the gay male parents I know adopted children that men and women in "opposite-sex marriages" weren't interested in--children with HIV, older children, mixed-race children, children with developmental disabilities, children abused, neglected and abandoned by their heterosexual parents. Every year I go to Michigan for Gay Family Week in Saugatuck and I'm staggered by the love, patience, and compassion demonstrated by these men. These couples deserve our gratitude and support. What they don't deserve is a rich, old hypocrite insinuating that they're more interested in their fussy hairdos and over-decorated apartments than they are in raising their kids.

And Garrison? Ultimately gay parents aren't interested in being "accepted as couples and daddies" by withered old adulterers. We exist irrespective of your "acceptance." And if I seem angry, you fucking motherfucker, it's because I am. Angered and shocked. I'm used to being attacked by right-wingers obsessed with gay sex and fixated on anti-gay stereotypes. It's a new and different sensation to be attacked so crudely by a man of the left--particularly when that man's fat ass squats in a large glass house.

Oh, and in the spirit of full disclosure/self-obsession...

Last week the This American Life tour stopped in Minneapolis and Keillor attended the performance. I read a piece about... being a gay parent and having a "small weird dog." I used, in jest, the phrase "opposite-sex parents" to describe a straight couple with kids, which sounds a lot like "mixed-gender marriage." David Rakoff, also on the tour, read a piece that touched on his homosexuality and mentioned, in passing, his love for All About Eve, which could be interpreted, I suppose, as Rakoff "worship[ing] campy performers." Is there some sort of connection, Garrison?

Oh, and what was i wearing when I read in front of Keillor? Chartreuse pants and a black polka-dot shirt? No. Try blue jeans, a t-shirt, and a green hoodie.

UPDATE: And what if some gay parents are flamboyant? Flamers, even? So what? What if some gay parents have striped sofas and over-decorated apartments and wear chartreuse pants and make their kids write book reports on All About Eve? The idea that effeminate gay men can't or shouldn't be parents is bullshit, just another iteration of the same old anti-gay double standard the right trots out.

People opposed to same-sex marriage are just fucking addicted to double standards. Marriage is about children--unless you're straight, in which case you can get married without having children. Marriage is about monogamy--unless you're straight, in which case you can get married and swing and cheat or have threeways. Marriage is about a life-long commitment--unless you're straight, in which case you can marry multiple times, like Keillor.

Now marriage is about gender-appropriate behavior. So you shouldn't get married and have kids if you're not a manly man and a womanly woman--unless, of course, you're straight. Straight female tomboys marry and have kids without attracting Keillor's ire, as do effeminate straight men. (How many NPR listeners have over-decorated apartments, I wonder?) And straights can obsess about their hair (they're not selling all that RoGain to gay men) and wear appalling clothes (they're not selling all those low-rise jeans to lesbians)--it's only when gay men have children that it becomes a problem.

Also, Keillor's piece rests on the assumption that gay marriage is leading to the creation of gay families. It's not. Same-sex couples are having children in all 50 states, not just the one state where it's legal. One of the reasons the need for same-sex marriage is so pressing is because there are real children out there being raised by same-sex couples and our kids need the rights and protections that marriage provides for children. To see friends losing their health insurance--including a couple whose son has leukemia!--characterized as selfish attention-seekers by an attention-seeking star... it makes my freaking blood boil.

I mean obviously, right?

A 27-year-old Everett man and his girlfriend were arrested Friday for allegedly starving the man's 4-year-old son....

The 22-pound boy told deputies he had only consumed popcorn and water that day, Hover said. He was taken into protective custody, treated at a local hospital and then transferred to Children's Hospital in Seattle.

The child suffers from conditions associated with severe malnutrition, Hover said, including hypothermia caused by a lack of body fat, anemia and muscle degeneration.

The boy had lived with his father, the man's girlfriend and his 14-month-old half-sister for about a year, Hover said. The girl, who appeared to be well-fed and healthy, also was removed from the home.

The father initially told deputies his son had always been skinny and had medical issues, Hover said. After his arrest, Hover said, he allegedly told detectives he had deliberately denied the child food and had asked his girlfriend to follow suit.

So a feminist goes to a bachelorette party and sees cock everywhere...

Who the hell started the tradition of putting pensises on everything at a bachelorette party? This one was pretty typical—we had penis whistles and penis party favors that also had pictures of sperm on them, which seems sort of like a threat if you’re the bride and not really planning on getting pregnant right away. We even had a penis cake....

Let’s face it--as funny as eating a penis cake is, it’s undeniable that the act of doing so is engaging in an alarming and peculiar inequality. Men at bachelor parties don’t eat vulva cakes. That’s probably because they detect and revolt at the underlying communion-taking of eating symbolic foods. Which is really too bad, because a vulva cake makes much more sense as a visual pun than a penis cake.

All of this is to say that bachelorette parties are the worst sort of “post-feminism”, if you take the term to mean “the cultural attempts to pretend that equality has already been achieved”. Bachelorette parties are supposed to be about how women are are equal to men now, so when we get married, we get to have the same drunken bacchanalia that is subtly-to-blatantly punishing of the person about to get married. Bachelorette parties should be like gloriously feminist in theory, and yet in practice they tend to be a rowdy, drunken bout of phallic worship. They’re supposed to be one last fling as a single woman with your female friends, so basically female-centered, but penises are everywhere, as if we need to keep a lot on hand as a reminder. It’s all weirdly unfair.

Hm. I like to think of myself as feminist... but I wouldn't go so far as to say that a bachelorette party represents an alarming inequality. If one of my fellow feminists feels that way--if she isn't engaged in a little comic exaggeration --then I think she's a little too easily alarmed. I do, however, have a theory about what those cock cakes are about. Well, two theories:

1. It's an attempt, in theory at least, to humiliate the bride-to-be (BTB) by shoving cocks in her face. The underlying assumption is that the BTB will naturally be embarrassed by cock because she hasn't encountered one before. Because like all BTBs, of course, she's a virgin. Yes yes: 95% of us have pre-marital sex (and while some of us can only have pre-marital sex). Yet women keep wearing white, symbolizing virginity, at their weddings. Many wedding traditions invoke and, at the same time, mock the ideal of sexual purity. The horror at the sight of cock is just another way for the BTB and her friends to send up and/or live out the virgin thang.

2. It's about ownership. The traditional bachelor party is a wake for male sexual freedom; it's about the death of sexual autonomy and male friends gathering together to grieve the end of their doggin' around days. For the women at the bachelorette party, all those cocks represent the cock she's about to take possession of. A bachelor party is about male fear of castration; a bachelorette party is about female anticipation of castration.

Those are my theories, anyway, and I'm sure there are other, better theories out there. Whatever the reason for all those cock cakes at bachelorette parties... I don't think we need to be alarmed by them, do we?

The headline:

"A Youth Ministry Some Call Antigay Tests Tolerance"

The story:

It is the type of event that cities usually salivate over: more than 20,000 teenagers, all with a keen interest in pop culture, plenty of chaperones, and, of course, pockets full of disposable income.

But when the group in question is a Christian ministry from Texas that condemns homosexuality, and the place is San Francisco, often referred to as “the gayest city in America,” the civic welcome wagon collapses pretty quickly.

A two-day event called BattleCry starts Friday at AT&T Park, the downtown baseball stadium....

[One participant stated] that she did not think there was anything antigay about the event, though she believes gay people are “misguided.”

Mr. Luce echoed that sentiment, saying his group loves gay people, but does firmly believe their sexuality is sinful.

“We see homosexuality like a lot of other things that do harm to us, like lying, or cheating, or stealing,” he said, adding that he said he had seen studies suggesting that many gay people are depressed or unhappy. “And it’s not very loving to leave them in that state and not show them another way.”

Uh, this is a group that "some call" anti-gay? It seems to me that this is a group that is pretty upfront about opposing homosexuality--which is hilarious in and of itself. You might as well "oppose" the dawn. The sun is going to come up tomorrow just the same, your opposition notwithstanding. But any group that says that homosexuality is akin to lying, cheating, and stealing, and that describes it as a sin, and seeks to lead homosexuals out of "that state" and show us another way? It's objectively anti-gay. You don't need to qualify that descriptor with "some call."

The group is upset about the chilly reception its received from San Francisco's politicians. But an anti-gay group that holds quasi-militeristic rallies in San Francisco--on the steps of SF's City Hall, site of all those gay marriages a few years back--is making a political statement. Hell, they're engaged in political provocation. (What's the name of that rally again? Oh yes: BattleCry!) They can't then turn to weepy bags of sensitive slop and run crying to the New York Times, of all publications, when their political provocation provokes a political response.

But, hey, it's a free country--despite the best efforts of Christian fundies. So by all means, BattleCryBabies, go to San Francisco and spend your idiot money. (But if you don't want any of that money going into the pockets of gays and lesbians you might want to bring your own food and sleep on the sidewalks--the hotels and restaurants are crawling with queers.) Your little rally won't harm SF and it will do the closeted gay kids dragged to SF by their hateful parents and church youth pastors a world of good. They need to see that there's another way to live.

Oh, and you gotta love this: "...many gay people are depressed or unhappy." Yeah, unlike straight people, who are all ecstatically happy, each and every one. There's no cure for depression quite as effective as the heterosexual lifestyle. Just ask Laci Peterson.

So a pregnant Boston woman went to Planned Parenthood for an abortion and the doctor somehow failed to, uh, complete the mission. Then the woman--still pregnant--went to another doctor, and the second doctor somehow failed to detect that she was 20 weeks pregnant. The woman later went to the hospital complaining of "pelvic pain" and--surprise!--gave birth. So now the woman is suing--perhaps rightly so. But this detail made my head explode:

A Boston woman who gave birth after a failed abortion has filed a lawsuit against two doctors and Planned Parenthood seeking the costs of raising her child. The complaint was filed by Jennifer Raper, 45... she gave birth to a daughter on Dec. 7, 2004. She is seeking damages, including child-rearing costs.

Uh... gee. Maybe I have a bias, being an adoptive parent and all, but it seems to me that if you tried to abort your baby and the abortion failed and the baby was born... shit... maybe you should have put that kid up for adoption. Raper is raising the kid herself? Knowing that mom tried to abort her is going to be a nuclear zap on that poor kid's head. It's not like that detail of little Miss Raper's birth narrative is some deep, dark family secret. Mom's name--Raper? Who's her lawyer? Vholes, Esq.?--is right there in the paper, along with the kid's date of birth. (A day that will live in infamy, no doubt.)

However much money mom gets to cover her child-rearing costs--and she'll probably get a nice chunk of change--here's hoping mom sets half aside therapy expenses.

That faggot Isaiah Washington--fresh from anti-gay rehab--was given an NAACP "Image Award" last night. Hm. One can't help but wonder what the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People would have to say if the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation had presented a GLAAD Award to a gay guy that freely used racial slurs. Probably nothing nice.

And, no, Isaiah Washington is not a fag. But as Ann Coulter pointed out on Fox News yesterday, there's nothing wrong with calling a guy a faggot--so long as he's straight.

"I've got her, and you're not going to get her."

Beth Johnson heard those words from her ex-husband Monday morning, shortly before he crashed his rented single-engine plane into his former mother-in-law's southern Indiana home, killing himself and the couple's 8-year-old daughter.

The mother-in-law, Vivian Pace, gave the account of the cell phone call Tuesday as federal and state investigators were trying to determine why Eric Johnson, a student pilot who had soloed before, strapped daughter Emily into the passenger seat of the Cessna and took off from Virgil I. Grissom Municipal Airport....

The plane had already crashed but the occupants hadn't been identified when Beth Johnson arrived at the Bedford Police Department to file a missing person report because her daughter hadn't arrived at school that morning after spending the weekend with her father, Bedford Police Maj. Dennis Parsley said Tuesday...

"It is just gut-wrenching to think about what was happening to that child just prior to the crash".

Being a total girl--I love you, Erica, my sister!--my absolute favorite new mag is Engagement 101. I wrote about this slick new publication last week--it's just packed with tons of great advice for engaged couples!--and mentioned, in passing, E101's are-you-ready-to-pop-the-question quiz on page 26. Now you can take the quiz yourself by clicking here.

For twenty or more years now right wingers--from the old maid Ann Coulter to high-profile divorce-a-holic Newt Gingrich--have been screaming about the supposed assault of the "cultural elite" on marriage and family. It's the elite that are out there smoking dope, pushing sex education, dismissing the two-parent family, and in general doing all they can to destroy the institution of marriage, devaluing it and degrading it. Meanwhile average, patriotic, God-fearing Americans--the ones the elite haven't been able to lead astray--still hew to traditional values like marriage and family.

So how do we account for this trend?

As marriage with children becomes an exception rather than the norm, social scientists say it is also becoming the self-selected province of the college-educated and the affluent. The working class and the poor, meanwhile, increasingly steer away from marriage, while living together and bearing children out of wedlock.

...

Marriage has declined across all income groups, but it has declined far less among couples who make the most money and have the best education. These couples are also less likely to divorce.

Couples with high levels of education and income are also more likely to be atheists, more likely to support same-sex marriage, and less likely to divorce.

Take a look at all those bridal magazines. There has to a hundred or more titles. I took this a pic at one of a magazine shop at Boston's airport this morning. Logan International isn't just the leaping-off point of choice for crazed Islamic terrorist motherfuckers, it would appear. Logan is also preferred half-crazed brides-to-be too everywhere--how else to explain all that shelf space devoted to all that wedding porn?

Now looking at this pic you might think the bridal mag market is completely saturated. That’s what I thought. But then I spotted the premiere issue of…

Engagement 101!

And I bought it. Because after three days in airports you pretty much run out of decent magazines to read. So you make do with indecent ones.

Now, the mission of your traditional bridal magazines is making sure that the happy couple is bankrupt after their wedding. Engagement 101--brought to us by the publishers of Wedding Dresses—is dedicated to the proposition that the truly happy couple really ought to go bankrupt before the wedding. Some of the teasers from the cover…

“Over 600 Rings Inside!”

“The Hottest Celebrity Ring Trends!”

“Engagement Party Essentials!”

“Buying Guide—From A to Z!”

Inside there are real life engagement stories (so romantic!), page after page of ads for rings featuring diamonds bigger than my house (so expensive!), and advice about living together before marriage (so depends!). In addition to advice about staging the perfect engagement dinner (do try to keep it to under 100 guests--it's more intimate that way), pricey bridal party fashions (surprise--another dress to buy!), and a bizarre soft-core porn photo spread of a couple rolling around in bed (what the fuck was selling us? romantic pre-honeymoons?), I particularly loved the article about whether a woman should allow her dolt of a husband-to-be to buy her an engagement ring without her supervision.

In this modern day and age, should women be completely surprised by their new ring or should they provide guidance to their guys? Will a few subtle hints work? Can you future husband be trusted with such an important task by himself?

The answer is no. But doesn’t dragging your man down to the jewelers to buy your engagement ring ruin the surprise? Nope, says one of the women who helped pick her own ring, as “the exact day, moment, and location of the official proposal remained a surprise to her.” Here's hoping he surprised her by giving the ring to a woman that isn't so controlling and materialistic.

In the bad-timing department, Kid Rock and Pamela Anderson--appearing now in divorce court--are one of the celeb couples whose choice of engagement ring is written up. (Rock gave Anderson an 18-carat heart-shaped canary yellow diamond.) Nicole Kidman and Tori Spelling, those twin pillars of matrimonial bliss, are also written up. (A three stone diamond ring and a diamond and sapphire ring, respectively.)

But the award for most single hilarious aspect of Engagement 101 goes to…. it’s a tie! The “Editor’s Note” and the “Ring-Buying Guide--For Him” both presume, hilariously enough, that straight men are going to read this magazine. That is not gonna happen. Yet listen as the editor--Severine Ferrari--yammers on...

Love is in the air. You have been dating for more than two years, and you are still gazing at each other like you just met. Even the mess he leaves behind or the hours of shopping you have to endure for her cannot turn you away from the fact that there he/she is: the one… (If you are not sure, check out our quiz on page 26.) A major part of this issue is dedicated to help both of you go through the proposal and ring-buying process…. [and we] round out the issue with all you need to know to prepare for your official engagement party, from tipping on the reception to what you should wear.

Hm… sounds romantic, doesn’t it? Hey, Severine lives in New York City. Anyone care to do a quick records search and see how many times she's been divorced?

"No, you suspend your industrial-scale uranium enrichment."

(It would be kind of funny if it wasn't, you know, uranium enrichment.)

A bunch of folks have sent me a link to this story about adoptive parents. New research gives the lie to one of the arguments the Washington State Supreme Court used to deny marriage rights to homosexuals. The WA Supremes claimed that reserving marriage for straight couples...

...furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race, and further the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children's biological parents... [Children] tend to thrive in families consisting of a father, mother and their biological children.

Take that, gay and straight adoptive parents! Our children "tend to thrive" less optimally than children raised by their biological parents! Those lines were written--let us never forget--by Barbara Madsen, the lying sack of ape shit that intentionally misrepresented her position on gay marriage in order to get her lying-sack-of-ape-shit ass elected. A concurring opinion, written by a justice even more bigoted--if that's possible--than Madsen herself, was even more disrespectful to adoptive parents: only biological parents are capable of "responsible child rearing."

You know, like these biological parents. And these. And these.

Well, according to researchers the perceived superiority of biological parents is total bullshit:

Adoptive parents invest more time and financial resources in their children than biological parents, according to a new national study challenging arguments that have been used to oppose same-sex marriage and gay adoption.

The study, published in the new issue of the American Sociological Review, found that couples who adopt spend more money on their children and invest more time on such activities as reading to them, eating together and talking with them about their problems.

Why do adoptive parents do a better job? Well, isn't it obvious?

“One of the reasons adoptive parents invest more is that they really want children, and they go to extraordinary means to have them,” Indiana University sociologist Brian Powell, one of the study’s three co-authors.

But while this new research knocks down the idiotic anti-gay marriage decision handed down by the WA Supremes--to say nothing of their appalling bias against adoptive parents, gay and straight--it actually supports the idiotic anti-gay marriage decision handed down by New York Court of Appeals, that state's highest court. It's worth quoting from the howlingly stupid NY decision at length. Watch as the court twists itself in knots trying to justify a rationale basis for denying same-sex couples the right to marry:

Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement--in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits--to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.

Oh, yeah. Those heterosexual relationships--so unstable! So fleeting! Why can't those people settle down? Clearly without the inducement of marriage straight people would just fuck and fuck and fuck and abandoned babies would be scattered all over the place, like takeout menus. But what about those children adopted by same-sex couples? In Washington state they're unlucky non-thrivers, irresponsibly reared. And in New York?

[Gay and lesbian] couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more.

So because opposite-sex couples do not become parents by accident or impulse--because we are better prepared to be parents, because our children are wanted, planned-for children, because we can't get drunk and adopt one night--we don't need an "inducement... to make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other." And because so many straight people are so irresponsible that they need this inducement, my child's life has to be made more insecure, his future more uncertain. Because if I could get married to my boyfriend that would somehow make marriage less enticing to straights in needing inducement. Or something.

So this study is welcome--even if it support the NY CoA's homos-make-much-better-parents-than-heteros argument at the same time that it obliterates the WA Supremes' bios-do-it-best argument. But it doesn't really change the fundamentals of the gay marriage debate. When one state's highest court argues that adoptive parents are more fit than biological parents in order to deny marriage rights to gays and lesbians, and another state's highest court turns a few weeks later and argues that adoptive parents are less fit than biological parents, it can only mean this: Opponents of same-sex marriage are motivated by animus, pure and simple, and they will make any argument, however shameless, to support their bigotry and excuse discrimination.

And no single study will sway them.

Okay, nobody died--but still.

Sheboygan police arrested a woman after she allegedly left her two children in a freezing car for 20 minutes while she went tanning.

The 27-year-old woman was arrested after two people spotted the children, ages 23 months and 10 years, in the car, the police department said in a news release. The vehicle was locked but not running.... The temperature at the time was 12 degrees, with a wind chill index of about minus 2 degrees.

The woman could be charged Friday with two counts of misdemeanor child neglect, police said. "She said she was going on vacation and felt that the tanning was a priority," Lt. Jeff Johnston said Friday.

Prosecutors say a husband and wife in Hull ignored their four-year-old daughter's cries for help after intentionally giving her an overdose of medication that ended up killing her. Carolyn and Michael Riley were arrested Monday on murder charges. They were arraigned Tuesday in Hingham District Court and held without bail.

Prosecutors say 4-year-old Rebecca Riley was taking prescribed drugs for bi-polar disorder and ADHD.

Police were called to the Rileys' home in Hull back on December 13 and when they arrived they found Rebecca dead on the floor of her parents' bedroom... investigators say she was curled up on newspapers beside her parents bed holding a teddy bear. The court paper quotes witnesses who claim Michael Riley angrily refused to allow her into the bed while she was sick.

We've been following the case of the diaper-clad, hammer-totin' lady astronaut pretty closely here on Slog. In the comments on my original post today, TSM writes...

I say that drugs were involved, perhaps meth. It wouldn't surprise me to hear that they give astronauts the stuff to keep them going, and she kept up the habit.

Meth would explain the sheer, maniacal determination the lady astronaut displayed. She drove 950 miles in diapers so that she wouldn't have to stop along the way to use the toilet--that's methy. It also might explain the before-and-after pictures of astronaut Lisa "Diapers" Nowak currently up on the Drudge Report. On the left, she's a healthy looking lady astronaut. On the right, she's an alleged first-degree attempted murderess. Note the weight loss, thinner hair, and papery skin...

Unfortunately we can't see her teeth, which are usually the dead giveway. But that looks like the face of meth to me. How long until Nowak announces that she's entering rehab?

From yesterday's Seattle Times:

An Albany father used a 100,000-volt stun gun on his 18-month-old son, police said today. Rian Whittman, 23, has been accused of assault and criminal mistreatment.

Police said he used it "multiple times" over three weeks. A police spokesman said there were up to 10 instances. Police said Whittman's wife, 21, who was not named, reported the abuse on Saturday.

Well, that depends on your definition of "right stuff."

A NASA astronaut who drove hundreds of miles to confront a romantic rival, wearing diapers on the journey so that she would not have to stop to use the restroom, appeared in court today facing charges that included attempted kidnapping, and was ordered released on $15,500 bond.

The astronaut, Lisa Nowak, 43, who flew on a shuttle mission last summer, mostly kept her head down during the preliminary appearance in an Orange County, Fla. court....

The Orlando police allege that Mrs. Nowak drove 950 miles from Houston to Orlando--wearing adult diapers--and disguised herself in a dark wig, glasses and trench coat to confront Ms. Shipman in the parking lot of Orlando International Airport, according to a police affidavit. Mrs. Nowak considered her a rival for the affections of a fellow astronaut, Bill Oefelein, according to the affidavit.

The Orlando police said that Mrs. Nowak followed Ms. Shipman to a parking lot at the airport, where Ms. Shipman entered her car. Mrs. Nowak approached the car window and tried to open the door. When Ms. Shipman would not open the door, Mrs. Nowak began to cry, the police said. Ms. Shipman cracked the window, and Mrs. Nowak sprayed pepper spray into the vehicle.

Sadly, the adult-diapers-wearing astronaut has three children and a husband back at home--good luck at school, kids--and her husband isn't the man she peed her pants or pepper sprayed her rival over. What really gets me about this story, though, is the diaper detail. She drove almost a 1000 miles in adult diapers? Wouldn't a long drive like that, particularly in a puddle of your own urine, give you some time to think things over? And come to your senses?

In addition to diapers and pepper spray, Nowak brought along a BB gun, a steel hammer, a 4-inch folding knife, rubber tubing, and rubber gloves. (Oh, and some love letters) All the right stuff, I guess, if Nowak was planning to reenact that scene from Apollo 13 where they build an air filtration system out of spare parts--perhaps using spare parts carved out of her rival?

On the bright side, Mrs. Nowak is definitely 100% heterosexual.