What about a special case -- the worst word in American English, as some of us see it, namely the N-word? When I was growing up, in Ann Arbor, Mich., there was a little debate: Should school officials try to prevent black students from using the N-word? I don't believe the issue was ever settled. And this brings up the question of whether "teabagger" could be kind of a conservative N-word: to be used in the family, but radioactive outside the family.

(Missouri) House Bill 1234 claims to promote "heterosexual marriage" by making divorce more difficult; what it really does is to strip away hard-won protections for the victims of domestic violence. Indeed, the bill's proposals are so one-sided, it should be renamed "The Full Protection of Batterers Act."

The proposals start by limiting divorce to cases of mutual consent or "marital irresponsibility." Marital irresponsibility, however, includes domestic abuse only in cases of "serious spousal abuse involving injury to petitioner where petitioner was not the initiator of physical violence" or a "history of serious emotional or physical abuse."

Consider what this means. Husband and wife argue. Husband threatens to kill the wife, and beats her up so badly she ends up in the hospital. Wife sues for divorce.

The husband insists that the wife slapped him first (a common allegation whether true or not) and that the episode of "serious" abuse was an isolated incident. Wife, in the hospital with a skull fracture, has no grounds for divorce.

The bill gets worse. It mandates that the assertion of domestic violence "shall not be deemed credible in the absence of physical evidence or convincing testimony by parties unrelated to the spouses."

There's more, and it doesn't get better...

The proposed legislation also makes it more difficult to protect children. Impressive empirical evidence demonstrates that exposing children to domestic abuse has lifelong negative consequences even if the abuse is directed only at the spouse.

[snip]

It provides that even if a spouse meets the act's tough standards and proves domestic violence to the satisfaction of the court, "a protective order shall not deny the [abuser] parenting time if the petition for dissolution does not allege child abuse or neglect."

In other words, if the husband cracks open his wife's skull, but does not touch the children, he cannot be denied parenting time.

But, what about child abuse?  Oh, the legislation has an answer for that, too:

And the new definitions of child abuse are even harder to prove than spousal abuse. Punching and hitting children is not physical abuse unless it causes injury.

Moreover, if repeatedly striking a child causes injury only rarely, it is not abuse where it can be said to be an "infrequent" mistake or a manifestation of parental differences about appropriate discipline.

Yet, interfering with the other spouse's parenting time because the children are terrified is emotional abuse, while threatening to kill a child becomes abuse only if it is "continuing and chronic."

So, what happens if abuse is alleged, but cannot be proven?  I thought you'd never ask:

Finally, the bill punishes spouses who allege domestic abuse, but fail to prove it under these draconian standards.

To take only one example, the proposed legislation would threaten a spouse who alleges domestic violence with loss of custody if the court does not find in her favor, while a battering spouse who commits perjury is guaranteed continuing contact with the children unless he has been separately found guilty of child abuse.

Taken together, these measures provide a handbook on how to inflict domestic terror with impunity. The bill threatens all of us as it puts the cycle of violence that brutalizes parents and children outside of public view - until the violence tragically erupts in ways that are impossible to ignore.

What's the natter with Arizona?  I want to know what the hell is the matter with Missouri...

The bill, authored by Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Col.), would prohibit any member of the House or Senate from taking a job with a lobbying firm after retiring. It would force staffers to wait six years before becoming lobbyists, and it would force lobbyists to wait six years before they can become staffers -- a phenomenon that gets little attention despite its prevalence. And the bill would ban campaign contributions from lobbyists, who contribute tens of thousands of dollars over meals and hundreds of thousands in mysteriously legal "bundles." link

Looks like the DEA is fixing to beat dem Saints.

Great post by digby here.

A good friend and former senior government official sent me this inquiry today. I'm just not an environment/oil industry expert, but the way this person frames the question certainly puts me on edge:

Steve,
Are you following the oil spill?

I have had several scientists and engineers -- not the alarmist types -- e-mail me in the last 48 hours that this is a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions. One engineer suggested the USG use a small yield nuclear device to try to seal the leak.

Another said that every ocean on earth is threatened -- and not in a long time but a relatively short time. He also suggested there was no way to seal the leak due to the depth, high pressure with which the oil is being released -- compared it to Krakatoa -- and the fact that the heavy rig sunk and now lies on the site of the leak.

I have no way of evaluating the leak but find these scientists' and engineers' fears of deep concern -- particularly when I know somewhat the track record of the WH, BP, Haliburton, et al with regard to these sorts of crises.

Are you hearing anything remotely like what I'm hearing?

[Steve C] It would be useful for knowledgeable commentators to share what they know or think in Comments.