Target Centermass

Day: January 30, 2006

  • Dominatrix Acquitted in Bondage Death

    Why, oh why, didn’t this sordid case get the national attention poured onto so many other so-called trials o’ the century?!! At least this one appears to have been truly interesting.

    A dominatrix was acquitted of manslaughter Monday in the death of a man who prosecutors say suffered a heart attack while strapped to a replica of a medieval rack.

    Barbara Asher, a 56-year-old woman who called herself Mistress Lauren M, was also cleared of dismemberment.

    Prosecutors said that 53-year-old Michael Lord suffered a heart attack in 2000 during a bondage session in a “dungeon” in Asher’s condominium and that Asher did nothing to help him for five minutes for fear authorities would find out about her business.

    Asher had her boyfriend chop up the body of the 275-pound retired telephone company worker, and they dumped it behind a restaurant in Maine, prosecutors said. His remains have never been found.

    Prosecutors said Asher confessed to police, but the alleged confession was not taped, and investigators testified they did not save their notes.

    Asher’s lawyer, Stephanie Page, said there was nothing to prove Lord was even dead — no body, no blood, no DNA.

    One does have to give mucho credit for the prosecutor’s closing theatrical Gimp routine.

    During his closing argument to the jury, prosecutor Robert Nelson put on a black leather mask with a zippered mouth opening and re-enacted the bondage session. With both hands, he reached back and clutched the top of a blackboard as if strapped to the rack. Then he hung his head as if dead.

    Asher’s lawyer objected, and the judge agreed.

    “That’s enough Mr. Nelson,” Judge Charles Grabau said. “Thank you for your demonstration.”

    Suddenly, my mind rattles with a mostly-forgotten early ’80s song with the following majestic lyrics:

    Whip me, beat me, call me Edna
    Tie me down and stomp my head now

    Does anybody else remember that sweet little tune?

  • Dutch Debate Sending Troops to Afghanistan

    The Dutch parliament is set to vote on a commitment of troops to the more volatile southern provinces of Afghanistan and, surprisingly, Kofi Annan is campaigning in favor of the deployment.

    UN Secretary General Kofi Annan is urging the Dutch parliament not to leave Canadian and British soldiers in the lurch in southern Afghanistan. Annan warns international efforts in Afghanistan may fail if the Dutch balk at the deployment of over 1,000 troops.

    “No one can afford to see a destabilized Afghanistan in the region,” said Annan, speaking in The Hague. “We saw what it meant when Afghanistan was destabilized in the hands of the Taliban and terrorists. Do we want to go back to that?”

    Yes, it isn’t very often that I find myself in complete concurrence with dear ol’ Kofi. Let’s cherish this moment.

    Okay, that’s enough cherishing.

    The Dutch government supports the move, but public opposition is growing over the increasing risks to troops in Afghanistan.

    Dutch parliamentarians will vote on the issue on Thursday.

    The Dutch forces would be part of a NATO-led mission. The Afghanistan operation is reviving bitter memories of other peacekeeping missions and stirring fresh debate among the people of the Netherlands.

    It was just over 10 years ago that Dutch peacekeepers faced frustration and horror as they tried to operate in Srebrenica under a restrictive UN mandate. They ended up looking on as Serbs killed thousands of Bosnian Muslim men and boys.

    This time, the public and politicians are asking a lot of questions.

    I’ve said before that such questions and concerns are understandable in light of earlier Dutch involvement in a NATO misadventure.

    Afghanistan Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah even flew to The Hague to plead his nation’s case for Dutch help. Later, upon his arrival in London for an international conference on the future of his country, Abdullah hinted at his frustration.

    “It’s good that these debates are underway,” he said, “but signs of hesitation will not help anybody.”

    I don’t want too hang too much on the Dutch, who most assuredly have their own domest radical Islamist issues, but a vote against military involvement would only serve to strengthen my concerns about the future value of prolonging NATO’s existence.

  • Security Council to Review Iran Nuke Case

    Well, it’s about time the UNSC agreed to take a closer look at the Iranian quest for nukes. Actually, it’s well past time and, even now, too meekly begun.

    The United States and other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council agreed Tuesday that Iran should be hauled before that powerful body over its disputed nuclear program.

    China and Russia, longtime allies and trading partners of Iran, signed on to a statement that calls on the U.N. nuclear watchdog to transfer the Iran dossier to the Security Council, which could impose sanctions or take other harsh action.

    Foreign ministers from those nations, plus the United States, Britain and France, also said the Security Council should wait until March to take up the Iran case, after a formal report on Tehran’s activities from the watchdog agency.

    Any of the five permanent members of the Security Council, all nuclear powers themselves, can veto an action voted by the full council membership.

    Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other foreign ministers discussed Iran at a private dinner at the home of British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. After the four-hour meeting, which spilled over into the early hours Tuesday, a joint statement called on the International Atomic Energy Agency to report the Iran case when it meets in Vienna on Thursday.

    Foreign ministers from Germany and the European Union also attended the dinner and agreed to what amounted to a compromise – take the case to the Security Council but allow a short breather before the council undertakes what could be a divisive debate.

    A short breather? I’m sure the Iranian nuclear program will use the interim just for catching its collective breath, hoping cooler heads prevail. That, or perhaps March will give the Iranians all the time they need to become a nuclear menace.

  • Another Sci-Fi Quiz

    If you ever wondered which sci-fi crew you would best fit in with, here’s your chance (hat tip to the Llama Butchers). My results are as follows:

    You scored as Serenity (Firefly). You like to live your own way and don’t enjoy when anyone but a friend tries to tell you should do different. Now if only the Reavers would quit trying to skin you.

    Serenity (Firefly)
    		81%

    Deep Space Nine (Star Trek)
    		69%

    SG-1 (Stargate)
    		69%

    Babylon 5 (Babylon 5)
    		56%

    Galactica (Battlestar: Galactica)
    		56%

    Enterprise D (Star Trek)
    		50%

    Millennium Falcon (Star Wars)
    		50%

    Nebuchadnezzar (The Matrix)
    		50%

    Moya (Farscape)
    		44%

    Andromeda Ascendant (Andromeda)
    		38%

    Bebop (Cowboy Bebop)
    		38%

    FBI's X-Files Division (The X-Files)
    		25%

    Your Ultimate Sci-Fi Profile II: which sci-fi crew would you best fit in? (pics)
    created with QuizFarm.com

  • Quote of the Week, 30 JAN 06

    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.

    —Theodore Roosevelt