Via Eve Tushnet, Mark Shea quotes a letter from a reader on the “outsourcing torture” bill. Mark comments “If the Right manages to push this through, they will have earned my contempt. I see no way a Catholic could possibly support such a heinous law.”

That’s nice, but I don’t think the Republicans really care if they’ve earned Mark’s contempt or not, so long as they have his vote.

(Although Mark’s views on torture are, of course, much to his credit, I have to admit I have an ulterior motive for linking to this; I thought it might amuse “Alas” readers to be reminded of a worldview in which the Democrats are the Party of Evil and the Republicans are the Party of Stupid.)

It’s not an elephant.

It’s not a whale.

It’s not a redwood.

It’s a mushroom. A really, really big mushroom.

(Via Eve Tushnet).

From the St. Petersburg Times (and via Trish Wilson).

Jeb Bush is quoted attributing the increase to frayed nerves.

Maybe so, but I wonder (when my nerves are frayed, I don’t find myself punching my housemates). Many abused women don’t report the abuse because they don’t want to destroy a home life they’ve invested so much in. When your home has already been destroyed, is the motive to take abuse silently reduced?

The article also contained this intereting tidbit about divorce.

The article also noted that Dade County’s domestic violence levels took two years to return to normal.

So what happens when a soldier in Iraq - “an NCO with 20 years of service” - dares to criticize the war? Rivka, back from a brief posting hiatus, has the story.

Pinko Femnist Hellcat has a fascinating (although disturbing) post describing events on ultra-small Pitcairn Island, where over 15% of the population (that is to say, 7 men) have been charged with rape. The seven men, who include the mayor, are currently building a very plush prison for themselves in case they lose their trial.

In the sentence “it’s a used car,” I pronounce “used” yoozed.

But in the sentence “I’m used to the cold,” I pronounce it yoost.

I’ve never before noticed that the pronunciation varies according to which definition of the word I’m using. Are there any other English words like that?

In an earlier post, I complained that the Kansas Healthy Marriage Institute seemed unduly interested in diverting TANF money away from proven anti-poverty programs and towards experimental marriage initiatives.

As Sara Butler at the Family Scholars Blog points out, I was utterly wrong. Why? Because I didn’t realize that the $200 million the KHMI was talking about is money earmarked by the Feds for marriage initiatives; the only way Kansas can see any of that money is by spending it on marriage initiatives.

So no money is being diverted, except on a federal level, where $200 million is really not all that much money (for comparison’s sake, the 2003 TANF budget is around $20 billion). My apologies for my error, and thanks to Sara for straightening me out.

* * *

That said, do I think spending $200 million on “marriage initiatives” is wrong? Not really. The marriage movement folks could be right to say that a little free marriage counseling will substantially improve people’s lives, and it’s worth spending some money to find out.

On the other hand, I’m not as blasé about diverting TANF money as Sara is. $200 million doesn’t sound like a lot when you compare it the total TANF budget, as Sara did - but that comparison obscures what’s really being cut to pay for the marriage initiative.

$200 million is a lot of money compared to the $100 million TANF used to spend rewarding programs that reduce illegitimate births. That $100 million has been completely eliminated to pay for the marriage initiative. The other $100 million comes from cutting in half the budget for High Performance Bonuses - bonuses for states that show that they’ve got an especially effective welfare-to-work program, for instance, or a program successfully getting food stamps to working families.

So although I don’t have anything against spending money on marriage movement experiments, let’s not pretend that real services aren’t being cut. It would have been better to pay for the marriage initiative by increasing the total TANF budget, rather than by cutting incentives for states to provide other services.

* * *

Budget matters aside, there are other reasons to object to the marriage initiative. The most important is the possibility that it will lead states to encourage abused women to stay married to their abusers. The marriage initiative’s supporters have insisted this won’t happen.

So far, I’m a fence-sitter on this issue; of course, any program that keeps women tied to abusers would be bad, but I’m not convinced that the marriage initiative - which seems to focus more on educational programs than on direct financial incentives to women to stay married - will have that impact.

While the marriage initiative wonks at Family Scholars are paying attention to “Alas,” I do have a question. How will the success or failure of states marriage initiative programs be measured? And will future funding be contingent on past success (however that’s measured)? Most of the marriage initiative materials online are long on happy platitudes but short on specifics.

Recently, this corner of the blogosphere has been discussing women smiling (or not) at strangers. (You will find dicussions by: Amanda at “Mousewords”, Amp, here, at “Alas, a Blog”, Astarte at “Utopian Hell”, and Hugo at “Hugo Schwyzer”.) There have a been a number of issues raised; many are interesting and important. I’m going to ignore most. Rather, I will discuss this one:

With some frequency, strange men, suddenly, out of the blue, instruct women whom they have never met to smile.

Many women find the man’s behavior intrusive and often, aggravating. At the very least, the woman would prefer to be left alone so they can go about their business as they originally planned. They certainly do not wish to be forced to devote their attention to this complete stranger simply because he has suddenly demanded it.

The woman’s question: What response does etiquette dictate?

Well, it turns out that Miss Manners weighed in on this situation some time ago. Her advice:

There we have it! According to traditional etiquette, those who accost strangers and demand smiles are guilty of rudeness. The correct response by the innocent who has been rudely accosted is to ignore the rudeness.

The correct response has nothing to do with moral guilt or innocence or concerns over physical safety. It has nothing to do with friendliness and coldness. The etiquette question is resolved by examining who controls their boundaries. You get to decide if you are going to smile; I get to decide if I am going to smile. Complete strangers do not have the right to demand others smile.

Of course, we all know why this issue is a feminist one: Some people don’t believe women have a right to boundaries. Women do.