Goddess Praise
- "Dear Echidne, I read your blog all the time! I love it."
- Katha Pollitt, the Nation
- 2005 Koufax Award Winner: Most Deserving of Wider Recognition
- Yes, you read it right. I won.
- DONATE: FEED THE GODDESS!
Links
- A Blog Around the Clock
- Adventus
- Agitprop
- Alas, A Blog
- Alternet
- The American Street
- And Another Thing
- Angry Black Bitch
- Baghdad Burning
- Best of Both Worlds
- Bitch. Ph.D.
- blackfeminism.org
- Blog Sisters
- Blue and White
- Bouphonia
- Broadsheet
- Bush v Choice
- Conservatives for American Values
- Crooks and Liars
- Daddy Dialectic
- Dependable Renegade
- Devil's Dictionary Defiled
- Diary of an Anxious Black Woman
- Donna's Place
- Eschaton
- eteraz.org
- Ezra Klein
- Fact-esque, A Reality-Based Blog
- Faux Real Tho!
- the f-word
- Feminist Blogs
- Feminist Campus
- Feminist Law Professors
- Feministe
- Feministing.com
- First Draft
- Frogblog
- Fuming Mucker
- TheGarance.com
- Girlistic.com
- GOTV
- Graphic Truth
- Heavens to Mergatroyd
- Hecate
- The Heretik
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo (Digby)
- I Blame The Patriarchy
- Informed Comment
- James Wolcott
- Jesus' General
- Katha Pollitt Dot Com
- Kathryn Cramer
- La Chola
- Laura, 11D
- Lance Mannion
- Lawyers, Guns and Money
- The Left Coaster
- The Liberal Avenger
- Liberal Oasis
- Liberty Street
- Mad Melancholic Feminista
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Maya's Granny
- Multi Medium
- Net Politik
- The Next HurraH
- News From the Front - Fair And Balanced
- No Capital
- Nothing New Under the Sun
- Nyarlathoteps' Miscellany
- Oh No A Woc PhD
- olvlzl
- One Good Thing
- Orcinus
- Our Word
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Paralysis of the Mind
- Pen-Elayne on the Web
- Pensito Review
- pesky'apostrophe
- Pharyngula
- Pinko Feminist Hellcat
- Preemptive Karma
- Prometheus6
- Pseudo-Adrienne's Liberal-Feminist Bias
- Raw Story
- The Reaction
- Rebel Dad
- RH Reality Check
- Rising Hegemon
- Roger Ailes
- Rox Populi
- The Rude Pundit
- Science and Politics
- scribblingwoman
- Shakespeare's Sister
- Shrillblog
- Sivacracy.Net
- skippy the bush kangaroo
- slacktivist
- Sour Duck
- Spiiderweb
- Spocko's Brain
- Steve Bates
- Stone Court
- Suburban Guerrilla
- TalkLeft
- TAPPED
- TBogg
- Think Progress
- Unclaimed Territory - By Glenn Greenwald
- The Vanity Press
- Welcome to the Sideshow (Avedon)
- What She Said
- Where in Washington, D.C...
- Zuky
- DONATE: FEED THE GODDESS!
The Liberal Coalition
Archives
- 11/01/2003 - 12/01/2003
- 12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004
- 01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004
- 02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004
- 03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004
- 04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004
- 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004
- 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004
- 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004
- 08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004
- 09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004
- 10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004
- 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004
- 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005
- 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005
- 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005
- 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005
- 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005
- 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005
- 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005
- 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005
- 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005
- 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005
- 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005
- 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005
- 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006
- 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006
- 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006
- 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006
- 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006
- 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006
- 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006
- 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006
- 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006
- 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006
- 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006
- 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006
- 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007
- 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007
- 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007
- 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007
- 04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007
- 05/01/2007 - 06/01/2007
- 06/01/2007 - 07/01/2007
- 07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007
- 08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007
- 09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007
- 10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007
- 11/01/2007 - 12/01/2007
- 12/01/2007 - 01/01/2008
- 01/01/2008 - 02/01/2008
- 02/01/2008 - 03/01/2008
- 03/01/2008 - 04/01/2008
- 04/01/2008 - 05/01/2008
- 05/01/2008 - 06/01/2008
- 06/01/2008 - 07/01/2008
- 07/01/2008 - 08/01/2008
- 08/01/2008 - 09/01/2008
- 09/01/2008 - 10/01/2008
- 10/01/2008 - 11/01/2008
- 11/01/2008 - 12/01/2008
- 12/01/2008 - 01/01/2009
- 01/01/2009 - 02/01/2009
- 02/01/2009 - 03/01/2009
- 03/01/2009 - 04/01/2009
- 04/01/2009 - 05/01/2009
- 05/01/2009 - 06/01/2009
- 06/01/2009 - 07/01/2009
- 07/01/2009 - 08/01/2009
Powered by
RSSify at WCC
ATOM Feed
OPINIONS OF ECHIDNE OF THE SNAKES, A MINOR GREEK GODDESS. She can be reached at: ECHIDNE-OF-THE-SNAKES.COM
Saturday, July 31, 2004
Holy Mary!
She's the only kind of woman that could make it to the Dean's List of the Roman Catholic church. A new 'Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World' by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Pope's favorite theologian, tells us women (and goddesses?) what our basic characteristics and roles are. I'm very happy to be enlightened about these questions by a man who is a celibate, of course. Only adequate distance can provide neutrality and objectivity, right? Thus quoth Cardinal Ratzinger about women's characteristic traits: 'Listening, welcoming, humility, faithfulness, praise and waiting.' What, nothing about vanity or competitiveness or greediness or ambition or the hunger for power? Nothing about intelligence, the love of peace, the ability to understand and manipulate people? If we start using all sorts of ancient stereotypes about women, why not add those that the Catholic church used to hold before? For example, that women might be soulless, or especially easily seduced by the Devil or like temples built on top of filthy sewers. But of course Cardinal Ratzinger knows better than I ever could what women are like. It's the woman's special ability to give birth that molds her in ways totally unknown to men. This ability, according to Ritzinger: 'allows her to acquire maturity very quickly, and gives a sense of the seriousness of life and of its responsibilities. A sense and a respect for what is concrete develop in her, opposed to abstractions which are so often fatal for the existence of individuals and society,' 'A sense and a respect for what is concrete'! Indeed. Abstractions are really hard for us female creatures. We never get them. When I hear stories about Jesus as a shepherd I always wonder why he needed to do magic about the loaves and the wishes; why didn't he just eat his flock for Chrissake? And women certainly mature very quickly. As a religious brother of Ratzinger, one Martin Luther, used to say, girls grow so much faster than boys because weeds mature before valuable plants do. Given the way women are, meek and passive and meant to think of concrete stuff, what would the Cardinal have women do in the society? Here he goes all feminist on us; he even allows for the possibility that women might hold jobs, though always remembering about the waiting and the humility and stuff. And the main place of women is at home, of course. Why this sudden feminism? I'm kidding you, sort of. In fact, the letter is an attack on feminism which the good Cardinal views responsible for all sorts of evils in this world. Feminism has: inspired ideologies which, for example, call into question the family in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father, and make homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent". Even more worrying to Cardinal Ratzinger is his belief that feminism can persuade women to become "adversaries of men" and that this can have "lethal effects in the structure of the family". Consider what this statement would sound like if Ratzinger had talked about the Civil Rights Movement as having persuaded blacks to become "adversaries of whites" and as having caused "lethal effects in the structure of the society". Just consider it. For Cardinal Ratzinger men and women are fundamentally different (remember all that waiting and humility stuff?) and the feminist attempts to increase gender equality have been misplaced because he sees them as trying to erase these fundamental differences between the sexes. But if he's right and such differences are so fundamental, what's his worry? Surely no social movement can erase fundamental god-ordained differences? So why worry about feminism? All our Cardinal needs to do is to bide his time. ------ You can read the whole letter here. |
The Savage Party
Our friendly and moderate wingnut commentator Michael Savage gave us some pearls in his July 28 radio show:
You know something; I'm voting for Bush, I just made up my mind. There's nothing in this for me. I'm a white male, I'm a white, male, married heterosexual -- I don't want the Democrats. Everywhere I turn, there's another hot coal in my eye. For example, today's DNC calendar of public events included lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender meeting, the disability meeting, the ethnic meeting, the American Indian meeting, the Asian/Pacific Islander meeting, the Hispanic meeting, and the African American meeting -- God bless 'em, they're entitled to their meeting, I'm entitled to my vote, they're not my party, end of story. And that's it. I'm not voting for a party of ethnic minorities and women and immigrants. I will not do it. And if I thought for a moment that they had changed their direction, if I thought for a moment there was a new Democrat Party that was more centrist and more focused on the real issues of today, I would have considered, well, maybe sitting the election out, or voting for Kerry -- no, I'm not. Isn't this fun! The Democrats really should have had a convention where white, heterosexual, married men had at least a tiny role to play. Too bad that they didn't set up a separate meeting for those people; then we could have had Savage, too. |
On Feminist Whiners
This is a statement that I often read in various forms from both men and women about feminism:
What (some) women need now is a prominent public figure or two to tell them to quit playing the victim and take charge of their life. Or better yet, figure it out on their own. Yes, there's inequality in every aspect of life. Get over it. It sounds so bracing and simple that I immediately want to join the military, run for the president of the United States and start my own pro-life organization selling automatic assault weapons. After I have finished with my term as the Pope, of course. This quote is an example of the way anti-feminists who are not misogynists usually argue. Often the quote is embedded in a longer diatribe which specifies that the speaker or writer is a mother, a wife, a successful businesswoman and someone who has single-handedly broken open every "No Girls Allowed" door or glass ceiling. In other words, someone who never needed feminism (or just perhaps didn't notice how feminism had paved the road for her). The diatribe usually ends with an exhortation for feminists to work on something really important, for example the sanctity of life, or to get a life themselves. The benign interpretation of this message is that everybody can succeed if they only try hard enough or work enough. Of course, the other side of that one means that those who don't succeed haven't worked hard enough or tried enough (or haven't happened to have parents with money and power, or the right markers for a high social position). But it's undeniable that there is an optimism about this message which is sorely lacking in the feminist diatribes about violence against women or sex discrimination. The less benign interpretation (and the one I prefer) takes a little bit more space to spell out. This is unfortunately the case with many complicated topics: to understand them fully some effort is needed, and the simple soundbites tend to win just by their easy digestibility. So I hope that you will bear with me. Let's look at the first two sentences in this quote: What (some) women need now is a prominent public figure or two to tell them to quit playing the victim and take charge of their life. Or better yet, figure it out on their own. This writer believes that some women (which stands for feminists, really) play the victim and refuse to take charge of their lives. In order to heal this illness the sufferers might need someone prominent to show them the cure, though they might also be spontaneously cured. I'm not sure how one 'plays the victim'; does it involve self-inflicted wounds or some complicated games with ropes? Either one is a victim or one is not, and if one is a victim very little play seems to be involved. The basic thrust of this part of the argument is pretty clear, though: women are not really victimized and could easily alter their lives by just deciding to do so. Like the 'Just Say No' campaign that Nancy Reagan used to advocate as a tool against drug abuse. Women could do the same about crimes such as rapes, perhaps, and they could just shrug off anything like unfair hirings or firings and ride off into the sunset in search of better pastures. But despite this ability that women have to take charge of their lives they still might need someone prominent to remind them. So. But it is a seductive idea, isn't it? Nobody likes the idea of being affected by external factors beyond our control, and we do indeed have some power over our lives. The crucial question here is how much power. People like the writer of this quote believe that such self-determination is quite easy, but the cost of this belief is the total dismissal of any societal constraints on our abilities to choose freely. These constraints don't bind everybody to the same extent, of course, but they exist and many of them are specifically aimed at women's choices. The gist of these two sentences is that women are not discriminated against or otherwise especially burdened. It comes as a surprise, then, that the next two sentences turn this argument upside down: Yes, there's inequality in every aspect of life. Get over it. Now the writer has decided that inequalities exist, after all! However, and this is a big however, they don't matter, because they exist everywhere! Sort of like saying that AIDS doesn't matter if it affects enough people. And then the brisk air returns, and feminists are told to get over it, it being the grudges feminists are assumed to mistakenly bear. But there is a deeper meaning to the inequality-argument here, and that is the implication that everybody suffers from all sorts of inequalities. What makes your inequality so special that it should be addressed? Or in the words of one right-wing commentator, why would misogyny be more of a problem than the fact that some people don't like those who have hair of a certain color? The answer to this one is easy: Some inequalities are based on considerations of power and access to resources, others are more random in nature. Some inequalities have been legally enshrined and embedded in religious doctrine for centuries, others (such as the hair-example) amount to not much more than personal quirks which often cancel each other out. Some inequalities affect a very large number of individuals, others only a few. Some inequalities are pervasive in almost all areas of life, others in only some. And so on. But of course I have not managed to condense any of this into a soundbite. Maybe I should just try harder? ------ Thanks to Lynne for the original link. |
Friday, July 30, 2004
Swallows
They are beautiful birds, aren't they? I read somewhere that certain types of swallows don't use their feet to climb into a nest but need a landing pad. This is probably not true, but I like the idea of kamikaze birds crashing on their pads with a nice juicy worm in their beaks. The term also has other meanings, of course. Like 'to swallow', which you do while eating and drinking if you're a human, or when someone makes you accept something that makes your inner rebel scream and kick wildly. So in this sense some people have had to swallow Kerry's speech which was a really good speech. It covered almost all the important points and didn't sound at all wimpy. In fact, it sounded mature, insightful and strong. And he kicked Republican ass which I enjoyed very much. Whether anyone outside the Convention or those who watched or listened to the few still-free media outlets will agree depends on many factors, including how much KoolAid the journalists have swallowed and how well they can distract the country with something else when the secret bitter pill is sneaked down our throats (Kerry is a flip-flopper! Look here: a terrorist has been captured! Tax rebates! Death taxes! The end of civilization as we know it!) I went to Chicago on my recent vacation. Chicago has lovely flower arrangements all over the place and a fun set of twin fountains which spray water from holographic faces. Children and goddesses and snakes can play in the water, so we all had a good time. Then we went souvenir shopping. I had a hard time choosing between a bright orange cowboy hat with a zebra-patterned rim and a t-shirt which stated:"Swallow. Bitch. Swallow." with corresponding pictures of the intended animals. Just in case the buyer didn't get that the t-shirt has nothing to do with hatred of women, noooh. And if you think so, you can't swallow even the tiniest, weeniest kind of joke. In case you're interested I chose the orange cowboy hat. It's going to make a charming present for Ares if I ever find him. |
The American Fetus
Or maybe this should be entitled "The Handmaiden's Tale: A Preamble"? It was really just a question of time before president Bush's fetal policy would cause something like this to happen: Lawyers for a pregnant woman who was deported earlier this month have said that she should be allowed to return to the United States because her 32-week-gestation fetus -- which was conceived in the United States -- is guaranteed equal protection under criminal law as a result of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 and therefore could be eligible for U.S. citizenship rights, the reports. Maria Christina Rubio was deported on July 16 after immigration officials determined that her residency request had been denied two years ago and that she previously had been deported after illegally entering the United States. In addition, immigration officials last week denied Rubio's request for a humanitarian visa to return to the United States because of pregnancy complications that are putting the health of her fetus at risk; Rubio was hospitalized during her fifth month of pregnancy and has reported severe stomach pains throughout her pregnancy, according to Luis Carrillo, Rubio's husband's attorney. Carrillo said that because Rubio's fetus would be viable outside the womb, it should be treated as a U.S. citizen because the Unborn Victims of Violence Act grants a fetus equal protection under criminal law. It's not likely that Rubio would win on this argument as the U.S. law currently defines citizenship by birth, but the seeds are sown, the seeds are sown, and one day we shall reap. I'm thinking of all the tourism the U.S. could have for conception vacations: happy couples could visit the Disney world and have a brand new American in the family by one single stroke! Of course the role of the mother as a container would also become more pronounced. We'd need laws about the containers of human beings and how such should act. But those are probably already being written in the hidden offices of the FBU (The Federal Bureau of the Unborn; I stole this from a cartoon in Mother Jones). ---- Thanks to ms CJ for the link. |
The Expected Arrest?
As an earlier post of mine mentioned the Pakistanis were supposed to capture someone important in Al Qaeida, preferably during the first three days of the Democratic Convention. Well, though yesterday was the last day of the Convention, we did indeed get some good news from Pakistan: A top al Qaeda operative, one of the world's most wanted men with a $25 million price on his head, was in custody in Pakistan on Friday for his suspected role in the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa. Of course it's good news if a real terrorist has been captured. Nothing wrong with that. But I would have wanted the date of the arrest not to fall so close to the predicted time slot. Poor me. I have gone all cynical and sour. And it isn't even my fault. |
Thursday, July 29, 2004
I'm Baa-a-ack!
But totally frazzled. It's one of the basic rules of vacationing: you return more tired than you left. And there's still unpacking to do and then I have to find out all about the politics of the last four days. But at least the Snakepit Inc. is still standing and as Addams-familiesque as ever. I really need to get into some interior designing soon. The spiderwebs look nice but they're so nineties, don't you think? I had a good time on my trip, though, and once I've slept some I'll tell you all about it and show videos, too, and photographs (just kidding here). And I'll tell you what I ate and drank and what the snakes said and so on ad infinitum (not kidding here). So count your blessings that I'm still too tired. |
Monday, July 26, 2004
A Vacation Post
Dearest, I don't know how to say this. It will hurt, however I try to frame it, I know, and I truly wish I didn't have to write this letter. We have had so many things in common, so many memories, so many moments that will for ever stay in our hearts. But time moves on and sometimes what was the right thing to do yesterday is no longer so today. I know that you understand, even if you can't really forgive me right now.... In other words, I'm taking four days off from blogging! I should be back on Thursday evening. I'm going to put up some really long and boring short stories later on tonight, and you could read a paragraph on each day or something. That way I get visitors every day! So this isn't really about you, of course, but about me and my fear of not being adored if I disappear. But such are the problems of us goddesses. I'm going to administer some traditional snake-fertility rites on a secret mountain location, and the keyboard is not a sacred object and cannot be backed with all the other paraphernalia. Is 'paraphernalia' a word? Never mind, you know what I mean: extra food for the dogs and the snakes, swimming suits, nectar and books telling how badly the Bush administation is doing. Also the sacred contained for all the skins to be shedded. And the twelve suitcases consisting of Artful Asp's makeup kit. I sure am glad when this trip will be safely over. |
Sunday, July 25, 2004
Looking For God
You can read this if you miss me! It could be better, but so could I. Looking For God Jonathan is looking for God. He has looked everywhere: in Christianity, in Judaism, in Islam, in Hinduism. He has studied native religions from all parts of the world, studied meditation and shamanism. He has read all the holy texts, but he has not found God. He has talked to believers of all the faiths he has been able to find, and he has found them convinced of their own truths, shiny-eyed in certainty and happiness, and, yet, somehow, very frightening. Of course, God might not exist, Jonathan thinks as he makes coffee in his kitchen, grinding the shiny, brown beans in the electric grinder. He probably doesn't exist. Jonathan pours the ground coffee in the filter and filtered, clean water in the coffee-maker. He clicks the on-button and waits. Who made the water? Did anybody or anything intend coffee to grow and humans to drink it? Or is the world just a chapter from books on physics, chemistry, geography and biology? And people, what are they? Lumbering apes with small lusty eyes, who can rape and kill, who can break everything with their clumsy paws, who can decode the DNA and go to space, still lumbering apes with small lusty eyes? Who, then is the god? The man with the most Nobel prizes? The man with the most money? The man who killed the most men and impregnated the most women? Jonathan takes his coffee to the balcony. It is a beautiful morning, birds sing and the sun dapples the grass under the trees below. Here he sits, watching children play, drinking good coffee and drinking in the sun and the birds, the fresh breeze of a spring morning. He doesn't see how this goes with the lumbering ape theory, and, besides, he doesn't believe in lumbering apes. Apes are a mystery at which people gaze through human eyes, a mirror which humans warp to see what they believe is there, what their theory needs to be there. The wind ruffles Jonathan's hair. It is not a chilly wind. Still, it sends shivers down his body. This is why he needs God: because everything affects him, tells him something, and he can't close his doors against that. A God would let him see patterns, understand what refuses to be understood. Not just why there are wars, holocausts, murders, cancer or airplane crashes. All religions tell stories about this, and although Jonathan doesn't believe in these stories, he is more obsessed with other patterns; patterns so subtle that he can't even see their presence, only sense them in some apparent absence. He finishes his coffee and sets the empty cup down on the balcony table. The wind tosses a green willow leaf into it. The leaf hesitates a moment on the edge before falling to the bottom of the cup. Was this a conscious act? Anne would have smiled at this thought. Jonathan picks up the leaf and looks at its intricate veining. Anne found Jonathan's search for God funny and exasperating. She knew that there was no God. They had read the holy texts together, criticized them to each other. She was the first to point out their inconsistencies, their espousal of some values which ancient tribal societies once shared but which now seemed reprehensible. She was the one noting that the god in these texts favored men over women. But they both saw the texts as reflections of what people once had thought god to be, what they had wanted god to say, not as a proof of the existence of God. Jonathan had been disappointed, Anne had been deeply hurt at his disappointment. She wanted to know why Jonathan could still seek for such a god as the texts described. She feared that he needed a heavenly father even if this father had disowned her as an equally loved daughter. Jonathan wished that she could be with him on the balcony this morning. He would tell her that the God he is seeking is not a man, is not a father. Probably God would resemble no human being. But if Jonathan had to choose he would have God be a heavenly mother, a Goddess. Anne would raise her eyebrows in disbelief. Still, Jonathan rather liked the idea of a Goddess: a beginning and an end in her dark lap. Is that where Anne was now, he wondered, in Her dark lap? Do suicides sleep there peacefully? Or is Anne simply gone like her ashes he had to sprinkle into the winds? Would she miss him if she could? He misses her, the dark twin to his light, as she laughingly once said. They were together from the beginning, sharing the womb together, hardly ever apart even later. Without her Jonathan is unfinished, neither coming nor going, a man with one foot in some other invisible world. He needs God to put him firmly in one or the other. Anne had taken the leap alone, trusting in the existence of no-one, not herself, not God, not Jonathan. She had been outfought. Her war against the world was an impossible one, and when she knew that she could never be more than half-alive, she had opted for total death. Leaving Jonathan behind, half-alive. Jonathan picks up his cup and goes indoors. He is not working today and plans to spend the whole day looking for God. It doesn't matter if God doesn't want to be found. It doesn't matter if God doesn't exist. If ancient people could create gods in their own image, Jonathan can surely look for God in his own life. Today he is going to do so by meditating in the park. The park is full of people. Joggers pass Jonathan as he walks in. Children and dogs run around and the benches are all taken. A kite climbs toward the sun. Jonathan finds a small empty corner and sits down under an oak tree. It must be an old tree; its roots are everywhere. Meditation is something Jonathan learned when he studied Buddhism. He never got enlightened, but he can relax his body, quiet his mind and, for some time, enter a state of emptiness. Should God come calling he'll be at home. He closes his eyes and the sun paints psychedelic bursts on the insides of his eyelids. His body slowly slips its tension and his breathing gently expands. Thoughts drift in and out of his mind, then stop. Somewhere deep inside him a neutral eye opens and observes. Time passes and the sun moves. He comes back to ordinary awareness when something earth-smelling and moist touches his face. He opens his eyes, staring straight into the brown curious eyes of a dog. There is barely an inch between their noses. Jonathan doesn't know dogs very well, but this seems friendly. It waves its large plume of a tail from side to side. He gives it a clumsy pat on the head. The dog looks at him with raised eyebrows. Evidently pats on the head are not correct. The dog steps back a little and then bows to Jonathan. Or whatever it does, that's how it looks. It? He? She? She. She turns around and walks away, stopping and turning her head toward him as if asking him to go along. Who does she belong to? She has no tags or collar. She doesn't act like a dog who belongs to somebody. Jonathan looks around for a possible owner, but the park is now empty. The dog keeps insisting that he follow. Perhaps he should, perhaps the dog will show him what she needs or lead him to an accident victim or to God. This amuses him as he gets up and starts trailing the dog. Dogs are used to hunt, after all, and he is a holy hunter. And wasn't Artemis, the goddess with the bow and arrows, always accompanied by hounds? Then there are the hounds of hell, of course. Better be careful. Off they go, the man and the dog, stopping every now and then for her to sniff at an interesting smell, zigzagging across the park in apparently meaningless patterns. Jonathan begins to feel like an idiot, but whenever he tries to turn around and leave, the dog looks at him again with that challenging expression in her eyes. They finally leave the park through one of the side gates. The street outside is busy and Jonathan suddenly realizes that loose dogs are dangerous in traffic. He lunges at the dog, trying to get hold of her but ends on his knees and elbows, staring at the ground. She must have evaded him at the last moment. He must have imagined that his body had gone straight through hers in its path to the ground. The dog has already crossed the street, and Jonathan rushes after her. She disappears into the crowd and is lost from sight. Suddenly following her is imperative. Jonathan starts running, bumping into people and objects. He can't spot her and is becoming desperate. He looks everywhere, almost ready to give up. Then he sees her, patiently waiting for him at a corner. She turns to a sidestreet and Jonathan follows. They walk on for what seems like hours to him. The streets begin to look alien. There are fewer and fewer people about. Jonathan is getting tired. Their tempo speeds up. She seems to know where she is going, now, and he can barely keep up. Storefronts whizz by and the occasional pedestrian on the street looks frozen in place. They go faster and faster, turning corners recklessly, crossing streets without checking for cars. Jonathan needs to catch his breath but they go on. He develops a stitch in his side. They keep going. He is sweating freely now, and his legs tremble and ache. They must have run for miles; the dog always at the same easy trot, Jonathan more and more haltingly. Finally he simply must stop and rest. He stands leaning against a lamppost, drawing in ragged breaths. He doesn't know where he is, the shop windows are full of writing in some foreign script. He doesn't see any people. The dog sits at the next street corner, a vague blurry shape. She hasn't released him yet. Jonathan closes his eyes and notices that they are full of tears. Is he that tired? The tears fall down his cheeks. He hasn't cried since Anne's death. She didn't care for tears; she managed her emotions by acting them out, by violently throwing books into the wall or by lifting weights until she was exhausted. Jonathan didn't want to cry for her but now he does. He wants her back alive and he wants God to arrange it. The dog is coming towards Jonathan, stopping once to pee on something on the sidewalk. She is not a handsome dog, her ears don't match and her coat is tangled and matted. But she has something Jonathan needs. Perhaps she knows God. She sits down nearby and waits until his tears are done. Then she gets up, tells him to follow and trots off. Jonathan is hollow and light, empty to his bones, but he follows. They pass through streets he never knew existed, cross rivers marked on no map. They walk by odd, distorted buildings, by traffic signs with constantly changing wavering messages. He doesn't understand any of them. The sun is setting and the mounting shadows take the shapes of plume-tailed dogs. Jonathan thinks that he may have walked like this not for a day but for a year, an eternity. He no longer feels tired, he can now walk tirelessly, softly like a dog. Anne walks by his side, sometimes smiling, sometimes turning her head away. She tells him stories which he doesn't understand. She storms ahead in frustration, then waits for him in mock resignation.. She takes his hand, her eyes fill with love and then she becomes ashes, scattered by the winds. Jonathan looks at his empty hand. The dog has led him into a deep forest. He has to bend down to avoid the tree branches as he makes his way in. The needles of evergreens sting his cheekbones, the roots try to snare his ankles. The dog is a dim light ahead, still moving deeper into the darkness. Jonathan follows. Finally they emerge into an open area, a hollow, a bog surrounded by trees. The air is scented with something pungent, earthly. The ground beneath him gives on each step, squishes liquid and musky half-remembered smells as he forces his weight on it. A full moon is centered in the sky. The dog leaps into the bog, splashing water everywhere, her four legs dancing in the air as she rolls onto her back. She rolls back on her stomach and lies there, panting. Jonathan can hear her panting; it is the only sound. He sits down against a tree trunk and waits. This is where God will speak to him. The dog gets up and shakes herself. Suddenly she starts running. Not the way she moved before. Now she runs in the air, rising up in impossible arabesques, twisting around in slow motion. She chases her own tail high above Jonathan's head, chases imaginary cats around the moon, bounces and leaps through Jonathan's heart. She is all motion; a gentle, piercing song of air, a wild howl of pirouettes. She runs and turns into a golden shower of ashes which rains down on Jonathan. She becomes a dog again, lies down next to him, panting, and starts licking her paws in order. She turns her head and looks at him again with that unfathomable message. Anne turns her head and looks at him, her eyebrows raised. He almost gets it. ----------- He opens his eyes. He is sitting under the oak tree in the park. It is night and he is alone. His body is stiff and numb; it takes a long time before he can get up. His clothes are wet and cold and there are pine needles in his hair. He walks home trying not to think. He takes a scaldingly hot shower still not thinking, changes into dry clothing and makes coffee. He sits down at his desk with the coffee cup and pulls open a drawer. Somewhere in there is a picture of Anne and him, looking at the photographer through sun-squinted eyes. They are smiling in that picture, wearing matching T-shirts with 'twin' emblazoned on the front. Jonathan had hidden the picture in his grief. Now he needs it. He pulls open another drawer and finds it. He props it against the cup and looks at their faces, first hers, then his, then both of them together. He thinks of the dog. He almost gets it. After a while he gives up and goes to bed, taking the picture with him. He places it on the pillow next to him and closes his eyes. Tomorrow will be a new day. Just before he falls asleep he hears, from somewhere far away, a solitary dog howl. |
Saturday, July 24, 2004
Good Deeds You Can Still Do in the Old Year
Usually we make resolutions at the beginning of a new year, which is wasteful. Right now there's plenty of this year left and lots of time for good resolutions. Here are a few I have thought of: 1. Remember to floss. It's good for your heart. 2. Don't bite your toenails. If you do, don't spit the gnawed pieces on the rug. 3. Vote for the johns. 4. First thing in the morning, look in the mirror and sing yourself a little song. Then screw your eyes, stick out your tongue. Then send yourself a big wet kiss. Now you are all emotionally balanced for the day. 5. If you're into yoga, don't go into one of the extreme postures when you're home alone. 6. Have a big funeral for all the divorced socks and grimy t-shirts. Dance around the pyre and pretend that you're witnessing the end of neoconservativism. 7. Tell your friends and relatives to vote for the johns. 8. Learn one new skill to surprise your lover with. The surprise should be a pleasant one. 9. Convert a Republican. Yes, I know that this is hard but you can first practise on something even less animate. 10.Read this blog religiously for further instructions on how to live a meaningful life or at least one that will amuse others. |
News, News, News
I can't think of a good and gripping title for this post which is a pity as it's a very interesting one, I hope. It's all about what I've read today that hasn't been on the relationships in Iraq or the relationships in American politics, you know all that stuff that women don't like to read about. Instead, I give you three pieces of varying relevance but all with the characteristic that they lit that little lamp in my head. This may happen to you, too, unless you're already dipping into your nectar reserves or totally overwhelmed by the Convention fever. Or otherwise unable to enjoy anything whatsoever. Or a Republican, of course. The first news are about daughterly love and adoration. Something we all are going to find uplifting and lovely. It's a statement by Barbara Bush, the daughter of our current president, and this is what she has to say about her "Dad": The campaign trail has been so much fun -- we have had a blast hanging out with our Dad and meeting tons of people across the US. The entire experience has been awe-inspiring; especially since this is the first time we have had a chance to contribute most of our time. I went to my first rally with my Dad two weeks ago in Michigan and was completely floored by the event. I had never witnessed so many people so excited to get my Dad reelected. As I sat on stage waiting for my Dad to deliver his remarks, I was so overcome by the unbelievable excitement in the room, watching so many people yell and chant for my father, I could not help but get tears in my eyes. It was amazing to meet so many people that respect and love my dad almost as much as I do! It must have been amazing indeed, given the amount of care and planning that goes into picking just the right people for Bush's public appearances. The ones that love him the best. Now I feel all mean and small-minded for pointing this out. It feels good. The second piece of news is nowhere near as fun; it's pretty much what I nowadays expect when decisions are made about women's freedoms in lots of countries. Egypt has decided to ban music videos which show the woman's navel in belly-dancing, an ancient indigenous art form: Egyptian TV viewers are questioning the appropriateness of suggestive music videos in a traditional, Islamic culture, saying they fear for "their daughter's morals". Last year, the exuberantly nubile Lebanese singer Nancy Agram excited the wrath of the People's Assembly, who called for a ban and fines to channels airing her video, though their threats were widely ignored. Recently, however, an Egyptian girl named Rubi upset members of parliament and the TV authority enough to institute a ban (affecting state-owned TV) on music videos where women's navels appear. In a characteristic mix of probity, lust and national pride, a Music Syndicate official described Rubi as a 'sex-bomb' whereas Nancy is merely a 'sex-pot'. Note the careful reference to the daughters' morals. Their daughters are presumably watching these videos with their tongues hanging down to their waistlines... And the references to 'sex-bomb' and 'sex-pot' are fascinating. What's the difference? Does one just dip into a sex-pot but have the whole kitchen to clean if the sex-bomb goes off? - That belly-dancing has a much deeper significance and importance than its possible use for sexual excitation purposes seems not to concern those keeping count of the daughters' morals and sex-pot status. Finally, this is a piece of news that should have general appeal: it's about someone overcoming a potentially fatal illness, about animals which are cute and about a miraculous change: A young monkey at an Israeli zoo has started walking on its hind legs only -- aping humans -- after almost dying from a stomach illness, the zoo's veterinarian said Wednesday. Cute, isn't it? Click on the link to see a picture of Natasha striding purposefully and in a very familiar posture. Maybe the snakes are right when they pity all humans as suffering from brain damage? In any case, I like Natasha. She's one uppity monkey. ------ Props to Wonkette for story number one, phmnst for story number two and blue lily for the third story. |
Friday, July 23, 2004
Correction, Correction!
It's not just Democratic uppity women that get shunned and ostracized, it's also Democratic uppity cartoons. "Doonesbury", in particular: A poll that resulted in a vote to drop "Doonesbury" was defended by the head of a Sunday-comics consortium. And why was "Doonesbury" 'singled out' in such a manner? Could it have something to do with the fact that it has recently included strong criticism of president Bush and his policies? Hmmmm. We don't have to fear government censure when the media is so eager to censure themselves. I would have loved to know how many votes all the other cartoons would have gotten. You know, fair competition and all that Republican stuff. |
Sexual Slavery in Vermont?
Vermont is supposed to be clean and beautiful and trade largely in ice-cream and foliage tourism. Could it possibly also dabble in sexual slavery? This story isn't completely clear on this question: The regulars at the Park Place Tavern weren't surprised when police raided what is being described as an Asian brothel in a small house across their shared driveway. The important distinction between something that can be joked about 'all the time' and something that is cause for concern seems to be whether the women engaging in sexwork were doing it voluntarily or not. I think that the definition of 'voluntary' can be very tricky in this particular case, especially if one is allowed to look at the women's whole lives before deciding on the answer, and always remembering that an illegal occupation lacks all the usual worker protections. But in any case there's doubt that these sexworkers had volunteered: During the raids earlier this month, authorities arrested eight women - five Korean and three Chinese - on federal immigration charges. All except two have been released, said Essex police Lt. Gary L. Taylor. No state criminal charges have been filed. There appears to be a thriving market in sexual slavery, if the word 'market' could be used for an activity in which some actors are not allowed to decide if they participate or not. So though we shouldn't really be calling sexual slavery an industry, it does seem to function like one. And there are men (and women?) willing to drive their out-of-state SUVs to Vermont to have sex with women who are perhaps not allowed to leave the premises even to buy groceries. Who is the real criminal here, I wonder? There are things that people do which are nothing but a travesty of love, a hideous imitation of intimacy, something that reeks of death and evil. Maybe even in Vermont. |
Thursday, July 22, 2004
Spot the Common Patterns!
Here's a little competition for you: which one of these individuals is the odd one out and why? 1. Natalie Maines 2. Whoopi Goldberg 3. Dennis Miller 4. Linda Rondstadt 5. Margaret Cho If you guessed number 3., you got the big prize (spare brainpower for the next Dark Ages so that you'll suffer even more). Dennis Miller is indeed the odd one out: a man, a Republican and the only one nobody has kicked out, boycotted or uninvited because of his political expressions. Because he differs in three main ways it's hard to tell why he gets treated like the princess sleeping on the pea while the real princesses get thrown into the pigstye. So what do these five have in common? Here is the answer: In March 2003, Dixie Chicks lead singer Natalie Maines told fans during a London concert the group is "ashamed" Bush is from its home state of Texas. That led several country music radio stations across the country to pull the plug on Dixie Chicks music. Slim Fast reportedly dropped Goldberg after she allegedly made sexual and comical references about President George W Bush at a Democratic fundraiser for his presidential rival John Kerry. ...comments made by Dennis Miller -- producer and host of CNBC's Dennis Miller -- at a Wisconsin rally for President George W. Bush July 14 drew none of the same media fire, despite the fact that, as Washington Post "Reliable Source" columnist reported , Miller "impl[ied] a homosexual attraction between Kerry and Edwards." Singer Linda Ronstadt not only got booed, she got the boot after lauding filmmaker Michael Moore and his new movie, Fahrenheit 9/11 during a performance at the Aladdin hotel-casino. Fearing something of a Whoopi effect, edgy comedian Margaret Cho has been uninvited from headlining a gay and lesbian unity event scheduled to coincide with the Democratic National Convention. Now, I don't think that there is anything wrong with alluding that Kerry and Edwards are gays, but this is a sexual allusion, isn't it? Sexual allusions are supposed to be a no-no as Whoopi has found out. And Dennis Miller has said much worse things about the Democrats in public, yet I doubt that he has lost any support for that. Also, Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't even have to apologize for showing contempt towards the majority of Californians. But then he is a Republican and a man, too. What is going on here, friends? Is it just that Democrats are a bunch of spineless wimps who crouch down and ask for more when they get beaten by the whip of the Godly Men, aka Republicans? Or is there something else going on here, too? Something about uppity women not allowed to be uppity, even among the lowly Democrats? Hmmm. Should we ask Martha Steward? I don't know the answer. Republicans seem to have an urgent need to shut up all criticism, whereas Democrats think self-scrutiny and criticism is part of an open exchange of ideas. Maybe this makes us liberals better, more moral people? Or maybe this is all just a desperate cowering kind of politics to appease to the timid moderates that everybody is courting? Rubbish! It's just another excuse not to get off our collective butts and take back the country! Leave it to Natalie and LInda and Whoopi and Margaret! Then when the counterattack comes we can pretend we never liked them anyway, such mouthy broads the lot. |
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
On the Homefront
You all want to know how the snakes are doing, right? And how my complicated relationships with the other remaining gods and goddesses are faring? Probably not, but I'm going to write about these intimate personal details anyway. The human interest touch, if you like. Green Mamba has been very quiet for some time. This usually means the beginning of another revolution, with several attempts to choke me to death, to destroy my nectar cellars and to organize a peaceful sitin in Snakepit Inc., all at the same time. Green Mamba has about five co-conspirators, and they all wear red bandanas which keep sliding down their bodies, so it's not too difficult for me to spot them when they come to kill me. Then I have to gently remind them that I can't be killed, being a goddess, and it's all very sad when they realize that they have to go back and hatch a new plot. To be honest, I'd love them to be successful in the revolution. I have a thick stack of literature on time-shares in the Caribbean and I really like the idea of myself as a retired, modest goddess, but these guys just can't direct themselves, let alone billions of snakes. The other snakes are doing pretty well, except for Artful Asp. She's coming into her teenage years (or that would be the human equivalent) and she's giving me one headache after another. First it was a desire to become a praying mantiss because she absolutely hated this boa constrictor who had refused her advances, and wanted to both have him and eat him in one go. When she realized that I couldn't make her into a praying mantiss (not in my training), she slithered off in terrible anger and maxed all my credit cards with purchases of artificial nails and rat poison. Then she watched too much television (my fault, I had left it on), and wanted me to pay for breast enhancement surgery. We had a long discussion about the friction effects of several bumps on her bellyside, the fact that male snakes are not turned on by bumps and the questionable aesthetic effects of having twelve bras along the length of one dainty snake, and finally she gave up. But I see her casting those glances at me which means that something not-so-nice has been added to my nectar for tonight, and I can't have any human visitors for a while. She's vicious, is the little asp, but all of you who cope with teenagers know about that. You gotta love them. On the divine front, things have been peaceful. I had a very small cocktail party for some of my nearest and dearest and Aphrodite behaved much better than I expected. Only two young men had to be returned to their rightful homes and neither one will be much the worse for wear. Aphrodite is slowing down, I think, but I wouldn't say anything to her face about it. There's only one interesting piece of gossip, which is that someone swore they had seen Ares. I thought he had expired due to lack of adulation, and so did most of the others. I was glad to hear that he might still be up to his old games (when he wasn't waging those silly hot-headed battles), but the gossiper also thought that Ares had gotten religion really bad, and was now leading a Buddhist monastery somewhere in the U.S.. Talk about karma! I hope the rumor is not true. But these news made me decide to start a website for ex-gods and ex-goddesses. "Where are you now?" sort of thing. We could all exchange recipes for survival in this fundamentalist age and maybe plot a revolution or two. |
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Girlie Men
The Governor of the state of California, one Arnold Schwarzenegger, recently coined this term in a speech that claimed that Democrats were delaying his budget to cater for 'special interests': ``If they don't have the guts to come up here in front of you and say, 'I don't want to represent you, I want to represent those special interests, the unions, the trial lawyers ... if they don't have the guts, I call them girlie men,'' Schwarzenegger said to the cheering crowd at a mall food court in Ontario. The California Democrats didn't like Arnold's taste in insults: Democrats said Schwarzenegger's remarks were insulting to women and gays and distracted from budget negotiations. State Sen. Sheila Kuehl said the governor had resorted to ``blatant homophobia.'' But Arnold will not, shall not apologize. Nope. He's holding onto his initial argument that people who obstruct his budget negotiations are nothing better than girlie men. The opposite of girlie men must then be someone who without permission bares the breasts of his female coworkers? What would such people be called? Boy-e women? Or Arnolds? Schwarzenegger's insult is not just aimed at women (which the insult identifies with weakness) or gays (which the insult identifies with an insult), it also insults girls. I looked up the definition of the term 'girlie', and my dictionary labels it as 'offensive as a term of address'. So in one sweepingly short statement the Governor of California managed to smear all women, all gays and all girls. What percentage of the citizens of his state did he leave unsmeared? A lot less than half. That Schwarzenegger's political advisors deemed his best response to the events to be an obstinate refusal to apologize tells us miles about how the society still views women, gays and girls. All rolled into one they still count less as one hypermuscular-male- movie-star-turned-into-politician. I personally wasn't insulted by Arnold's statement, because it has been obvious for some time that he is some sort of a reversal to possibly prehistoric 'me-need-meat-me-need-pussy" genes. Anyone who goes around groping women who have nothing to do with him has a problem in viewing women as independent human beings, and this problem will not disappear when the person becomes a governor of a state. So I knew that Arnold is not for women. Neither is anyone whose previous career depended on maximum muscle and minimum words likely to regard being effeminate as anything but a serious fault. But why on earth did he have to go after girls, too? What's truly interesting about this little non-incident (and I'm not referring just to what Arnold recently said) is how very much it is a non-incident. A governor who thinks of women as a dish between the first and the second course in an average dinner seems perfectly acceptable to the majority of Californian voters. A governor who thinks that 'girlie' is a really mean and manly insult is viewed in a favorable light. Yes, sure Arnold messes up, but he doesn't really mean anything by it. It's just how things are. Well, he's Arnold. This is the interesting part: that we as a culture still give the arnolds the benefit of the doubt, not those they ravage or insult. We haven't come a long way at all, baby. ------ Props to katilinne |
From the Mouth of Even Republicans!
Today's mantra: "You can't say that somebody's a terrorist when he isn't a terrorist." U.S. Senator Charles Grassley, R-Iowa. Maybe the time of miracles isn't over yet? Via pie. |
Monday, July 19, 2004
Outfoxed
This documentary is now shown in selected theaters across the country. It's an exploration of the conservative bias in Fox News, not whether it exists or not, that's a given, but how it actually seeps into the way news are presented. Robert Greenwald, the documentary's creator, spent days videotaping the broadcasts of Fox News. This helped him to divide the current conservative bias into three major categories: "the questioning of the patriotism of liberals, the relentlessly upbeat reports on Iraq and the belligerent hosts who scream at noncompliant guests". Greenwald then had volunteers watch assigned time segments of Fox News and record any news that reflected one or more of these categories. The documentary uses all this data as well as interviews with several Fox employees. But the most interesting source material comes from thirty or so memos sent by John Moody, Fox News' senior vice president for news and editorials. The memos are seen as setting the agenda for how events will be covered. I read through all these memos (via Wonkette), and created my own classification system for conservative bias: news attacking anything that might hurt Bush, news about abortion and news about Kerry and other liberals. This overlaps with Greenwald's system and is only selected because I don't have the rest of the material he used for the documentary. Here are some examples from each of these three groups, all gleaned from the Moody memos: 1. News Attacking Anything That Might Hurt Bush Iraq and the war on terrorism "Bush's G-8 trip is actually less important than his fledgling efforts to knock together the Israeli and Palestinian PMs' heads. Let's keep in mind that the G-8 contains the most obstreperous dissidents against the war on terror." 5-29-2003 "The president is doing something that few of his predecessors dared undertake: putting the US case for mideast peace to an Arab summit. It's a distinctly skeptical crowd that Bush faces. His political courage and tactical cunning are worth noting in our reporting through the day" 6/3/2003 "Terrorism is international, and the United States is the leader of the coalition to stamp it out. That's the tone we want to impart throughout the day." 3/12/2004 "Spain's neighbor, the ever-superior France, had its own spate of railway terrorist warnings last week, though it's not clear that those were in any way related to the Madrid bombings."3/12/2004 "Into Fallujah: It's called Operation Vigilant Resolve and it began Monday morning (NY time) with the US and Iraqi military surrounding Fallujah. We will cover this hour by hour today, explaining repeatedly why it is happening. It won't be long before some people start to decry the use of "excessive force." We won't be among that group. The continuing carnage in Iraq -- mostly the deaths of seven US troops in Sadr City -- is leaving the American military little choice but to punish perpetrators. When this happens, we should be ready to put in context the events that led to it. More than 600 US military dead, attacks on the UN headquarters last year, assassination of Irai officials who work with the coalition, the deaths of Spanish troops last fall, the outrage in Fallujah: whatever happens, it is richly deserved" 4/4/2004 "The events in Iraq Tuesday are going to be the top story, unless and until something else (or worse) happens. Err on the side of doing too much Iraq rather than not enough. Do not fall into the easy trap of mourning the loss of US lives and asking out loud why are we there? The US is in Iraq to help a country brutalized for 30 years protect the gains made by Operation Iraqi Freedom and set it on the path to democracy. Some people in Iraq don't want that to happen. That is why American GIs are dying. And what we should remind our viewers." 4/6/2004 "More serious and more important is the US military's end of waiting game for Fallujah. If, as promised, the coalition decides to take Fallujah back by force, it will not be for lack of opportunities for terrorists holed up there to negotiate. Let's not get lost in breast-beating about the sadness of the loss of life. They had a chance." 4/22/2004 On the 9/11 Commission: "The so-called 9/11 commission has already been meeting. In fact, this is the eighth session. The fact that former Clinton and both frmer and current Bush administration officials are testifying gives it a certain tension, but this is not "what did he know and when did he know it" stuff. Do not turn this into Watergate. Remember the fleeting sense of national unity that emerged from this tragedy. Let's not desecrate that." 3/23/2004 2. News About Abortion "Let's spend a good deal of time on the battle over judicial nominations, which the President will address this morning. Nominees who both sides admit are qualified are being held up because of their POSSIBLE, not demonstrated, views on one issue -- abortion. This should be a trademark issue for FNC today and in the days to come." 5/9/2003 "The LAci and Conner Act passed the Senate and the Prez will sign it. What does this mean for law enforcement and what does it say about the status of the unborn?" 3/26/2004 "The National Education Association -- the NEA -- is supposedly neutral on the topic of abortion. Why then is it a co sponsor of Saturday's pro choice march in DC. Herridge has lives." 4/22/2004 3. News about Kerry and Other Liberals "John Kerry may wish he'd taken off his microphone before trashing the GOP. Though he insists he meant republican "attack squads," his coarse description of his opponents has cast a lurid glow over the campaign." 3/12/2004 "Kerry, starting to feel the heat for his flip-flop voting record, is in West Virginia" 3/16/2004 "For everyone's information, the hotel where our Baghdad bureau is housed was hit by some kind of explosive device overnight. ALL FOX PERSONNEL ARE OK. The incident is a reminder of the danger our colleagues in Baghdad face, day in and day out. Please offer a prayer of thanks for their safety to whatever God you revere (and let the ACLU stick it where the sun don't shine)." 3/24/2004 "Air America, featuring Al Franken and other liberals, got on the air last week, but at what cost? Well, in New York, it took the place of an ethnic show. In LA, it knocked off a Korean program. And in CHicago,a spanish language broadcast was replaced. None of these people are happy" 4/5/2004 There are no snippets with the opposite bias for me to post. I went through the posts several times to verify that. There are a few cases where Moody insists on equal time for the speeches that Bush and Kerry were giving on the same day, but not a single case of negative news about anything Republican and certainly not about Bush. I haven't seen the documentary Outfoxed yet, but I'm going to if I get a chance. This is not so obvious, given the possibility that Fox News might take some kind of legal action to stop its showing or to curtail it in some ways. Greenwald mentions the legal difficulties in using material obtained in this way: it should fall under the "Fair Use" part of the legal rules of copyright law as Greenwald is clearly only quoting to criticize. But legal experts are uncertain how the case might actually be decided if Fox decided to sue. It is also most fascinating that many others in media refused to let Greenwald use their material in the documentary: Then there was the fact that several major news organizations were unexpectedly refusing to license their clips. (Such licensing is ordinarily pro forma.) CBS wouldn't sell Greenwald the clip of Richard Clarke's appearance on ''60 Minutes,'' explaining that it didn't want to be associated with a controversial documentary about Murdoch. WGBH, the Boston PBS station, wouldn't let Greenwald use excerpts from ''Frontline'' for fear of looking too ''political,'' it said. Hilarious, isn't it? CBS is too scared of Murdoch and PBS too scared of looking 'political'! As if refusing to give Greenwald the permission he asked for isn't political. So whatever the merits of the documentary might be, I'm going to make a very serious effort to see it. Just to show that I'm not afraid of either Rupert or coming across as too political. Sheesh. |
Eat Your Broccoli, Now!
A recent study suggests that the reason I'm so brainy and engaging has to do with my vegetarian habits. Eating vegetables can even keep humans bright and brainy much longer: Here's another reason to eat your veggies: A new study suggests certain vegetables like broccoli and spinach may help older women keep their brains sharper. I haven't looked at the actual study to see if it makes sense or not, though. A surprising number of medical studies are very poorly decided and executed, so it's always good to be suspicious. For example, to prove that the difference is truly due to green vegetable consumption, everything else about the subjects life and health should be exactly the same. As we can't do this with real people living their everyday lives, we try to control for these other effects by trying to pick people who are on average the same in all other respects and by using statistical methods to control for any other possible effect that might be operating. But how successful can we really be in doing this? Obviously the answer depends on how good the statisticians' work is and how well all the other possible causes can be anticipated and measured. Another tricky thing is that something like eating green vegetables might not be the cause in the correlation we observe. Instead, it could be something correlated with the real cause, say something to do with the lifestyle or affluence of people who eat a lot of vegetables. As an aside, note the last sentence in the quote above: "The federally funded study didn't include men". I don't remember that little reminder in any of the many studies that didn't include women, like the one which is the only basis for advocating that people take aspirin for their heart. But it's good that journalists wake up to spotting possible sex discrimination late rather than never, I guess. This study is based on a large number of nurses, almost all of whom are women. I suspect that it was started because of all those studies which were based on a large number of physicians, almost all of whom were men, and because there were so many complaints about studies omitting women as their subjects. If this is true, the neat little insertion reminds us that it's not really possible to win if you are a feminist. Though of course I'd prefer studies that are valid for both women and men, as would any normal person who has both types among the circle of loved ones. |
Sunday, July 18, 2004
A Bad Poem for Sunday
This came to me in a flash of divine inspiration, and of course I wanted to share it with you immediately: Love: What do you think? Good, huh? |
On Trolls
| I never met a real troll before the internet era, though I read about them in many fairy tales. They are large lumbering creatures, looking like boulders from a distance, and quite deficient in intelligence. They eat humans by the bucketful and one of the obvious hero-tests is to outwit a troll. Why this would make you a hero I never quite understood as the trolls are dumber than a plank of wood. Maybe the tests increase in severity as one goes on: beginning with successful looping of the shoelaces and ending with trying to actually live with the princess for a lifetime? If so, the troll-test must be placed somewhere early in the curriculum. The nice thing about troll-fighting is that all you need to do to kill them is to trick them into staying outside when the sun shines in the morning. The first rays of sun turn them into large boulders. You can verify this theory by checking how many large boulders there are! The internet trolls are a different breed altogether. They don't even derive from the same root as the mythical trolls; their root is in the verb 'to troll' or 'to trawl'. Quite boring, really, but the internet trolls are sometimes very amusing. True, they never eat humans, but they sure give it a good try. "Die, miserable smear of shit!" is what quite a few of them type on their keyboards. Strictly speaking, all one needs to do to be given the name of a troll is to try to interfere with conversations in chatrooms or on boards or on comments threads of blogs, attempts to hex people into dying are not necessary. But they seem too tempting for those who feel very frightening and powerful at their little keyboards. The ubiquity of trolls on the internet has made me a little bit more sceptical about the human race. It shouldn't be that hard to hold on to the usual verbal civilities, should it? That this doesn't happen very much makes me wonder about the future of an unregulated communal space. I predict empty chatrooms with the odd troll patrolling for any future victims, or perhaps chatrooms for nothing but barroom brawls. Anyone not willing to nuke it out will be ignored. My familiarity is largely with wingnut and misogynistic trolls, and many of these serve the admirable purpose of reminding people who sit on the fence about the evil nature of some ideologies (as well as the stupidity of some of their upholders). Still, trolls do interfere with conversations and debates, and even if they don't eat humans outright, they certainly suck away some of the space and energy that could be used for better things. What do these trolls look like, I sometimes wonder? I imagine very neat haircuts or lacquered hairdos and eyes with a fanatic glaze, perhaps fanged teeth and some type of chronical constipation. I imagine someone who doesn't have very much power in reality, someone who has a petrified ball of hatred in the pit of his or her stomach, someone who would like to be someone altogether different. Then I start to feel sorry for the poor trolls and must smack myself to get back some clarity. |
Saturday, July 17, 2004
Morgan Stanley and Women
| Morgan Stanley, a well-known Wall Street firm, has just settled a sex discrimination lawsuit out of court. Morgan Stanley will pay 54 million dollars to 340 women that are or have been employed by the firm, and it has also promised to start diversity training and to scrutinize the promotion rates of female brokers.
Settling out of court was a good idea from Morgan Stanley's point of view. After all, fewer people will then hear about stuff like: The federal agency also was set to present evidence about visits to strip clubs and how female employees and clients were excluded from golf outings such as the one at the Doral Golf resort until 1999. Trial attorneys from the federal agency were also prepared to show other ways in which the atmosphere at the company was biased against women. I have heard similar stories from women who work in the securities industry, especially frequent references to 'bitches' and equally frequent denouncements of working mothers. So Morgan Stanley is probably not alone in creating a hostile environment for women brokers. Maybe this is partly why the percentage of women in the security industry's workforce has dropped from 43% to 37% since 2001? There are other reasons why women might leave the industry, too. In fact, reasons good enough for any sane person to do so. Like the assumption that you are working too little if you happened to go home so early one day that your child was still awake. Of course, what the securities industry would like is a world where working robots come in to work for twenty hours per day, while homemaking robots keep everything else smoothly running in the working robot's life. Too bad that they still have to use human beings. |
With Jesus I Will Not Go Down
I received this letter today. It looks like one of those hoaxes that have to do with money in Nigeria or somewhere, but it also looks different. I find it quite touching:
|
Friday, July 16, 2004
Something for Friday
This is a fragment I found in my files. It isn't going anywhere except towards many adjectives, but I thought it would be nice to have in July. Hope you enjoy it as a break from politics and all the mean things that sometimes make us forget the important things in life. Gardens of the Soul These gardens have no limits. Anything and everything is possible. You can walk down a busy street, turn, and suddenly find yourself facing a secret garden behind a vine-covered crumbling stone wall, a garden no-one has entered for centuries, where nature has joined the long-dead gardener in creating a masterpiece of solitude, mystery and peace. You can push open the enormous creaking gates, just enough to slip through, and walk into green shadows where statues of mermaids spray silver wands of water into the still air, where climbing roses with trunks like oak trees hang drunkenly over moss-covered garden benches, where grassed-over brick paths turn and twist, and a new wonder awaits you behind every bend. Or you can enter a garden of night, with darkness enveloping you on all sides like wall hangings of black velvet, embroidered with the fluttering lights of live candles, the fligth paths of moths and the luminescent faces of white lilies and roses. You can let the scents of night permeate your soul or the sounds of night permeate your dreams. Does the darkness teem with playing children, children playing hide-and-seek, whispering to each other, tiptoeing past each other, their distant laughter like little tinkling bells or croaks of tiny frogs? Or visit the garden of wind, sand and stone where silence is a sound, the sky is wiped clean again and again, where the stones speak to the sand and the sand answers, and where you become sand, stone and wind, swept clean, ever moving yet still and whole. |
Teaching Assistants are Not Workers
Graduate students working in private universities as teaching assistants can't unionize. So says the labor board. Such students are to be regarded as students first:
Graduate teaching assistants at private universities can't form unions because they are students, not employees, a Republican-controlled federal labor board ruled, reversing a Clinton-era decision.
------- Blogger has 'improved' again. All new symbols and stuff, and I have an angry feeling in my stomach. What is it with computer nerds that they can never leave anything alone for even one week? They completely ignore the costs for users who have to keep on learning these 'improvements' while other work piles on.
|
Thursday, July 15, 2004
A Procrastination Post
Who is going to be remembered eternally, the sculptor who creates the idea for a statue or the stonecutter who actually cuts it out? We remember the famour writers but not those poor sods who washed their underwear and served them breakfast. Sure, there is general, vague and insincere praise for all the masses who do the maintenance and support tasks that allow a few happy people to do their own stuff, but they are not remembered or truly thought of as Important People. I always think of this when I read diatribes against Tolstoy's wife who finally rebelled against her role. Supposedly if you're married to a saint-like writer anything he inflicts on you should be suffered in silence. The reason for these thoughts is that the Snakepit Inc. desperately needs vacuuming, and I don't want to do it, as I am a goddess and an important blogger, too. But the appeals to fairness and democracy drown my voice out, so it's my turn to vacuum. The dogs did it last week and the snakes swept the floors. Vacuuming is one of those truly thankless tasks; nobody ever notices that you have just vacuumed, they only notice if you have not, and the minute you finish vacuuming the accumulation of dust and scales and doghair continues as if nothing happened. Really, it would make a lot more sense not to vacuum. Instead, we could build a new floor over the old one every ten years or so. If the rooms were built tall to begin with one could still live in the same house for quite a long time without needing to crawl. Why has nobody invented a house that doesn't need vacuum cleaning? I suspect that the answer is in what I said above: someone else does the inventors' vacuuming and that's why they don't know how to invent anything really useful for us masses. This is one of those posts that shouldn't have been written. I was going to do something heart-breaking and important on international politics and warfare, but there are plenty of other bloggers doing that work. They probably have someone else doing the vacuuming. Or that's my excuse, anyway. |
Worry Beads
The Washington Post recently had an article about a new contraceptive tool: CycleBeads. It's really just a way of counting fertile days, and in that way not truly new. The rhythm method has been with us a long time, beginning with the assumption that the least likely time for conception would be in the middle of a woman's menstrual cycle (you can imagine how successful that was in contraception) and later using the assumption that ovulation is most likely roughly seven to fourteen days after the start of the cycle. What's new about the CycleBeads is that this method is based on actual average ovulation rates and takes an extra safe position: it marks twelve days as high-risk for conceiving: It looks like an uncommonly ugly necklace, made up of 32 oblong plastic beads. Slightly more than half are a translucent amber brown, a dozen are white, like piña colada jelly beans. One bead in the center is throat-lozenge red, and next to it is a small black plastic cylinder, which bears the necklace's brand name: CycleBeads. CycleBeads are fine for women who practise contraception but for whom a pregnancy would not be a disaster. For others certain warnings should be added, and the article mentions quite a few of them: there is a 2% risk of ovulation outside the white-bead days even for those with very regular cycles, women who have irregular cycles should not use this method alone, and remembering to move a bead each day is absolutely required. Some other warnings should be added. For example, the article notes that only 15% of the couples in the study totally abstained from sex during the risky days. This suggests to me that abstinence may not work really well in this method, either, and that any user should do some soul-searching about how likely abstinence will be when the heart beats faster and the loved one looks especially delectable. Maybe adding a barrier method is needed, too? Another warning I'd like to add concerns the way the study calculated the efficacy rates of contraception for this method: Among women with regular cycles of 26 to 32 days, efficacy tests published in the journal Contraception show that over the course of a year, 12 percent will become pregnant with typical use -- a rate comparable to that for diaphragms and male condoms. Given that this method does require some abstaining from sex, and even those who don't completely abstain might have less sex during the white-bead days than if they were using barrier methods of contraception like the condom or the diaphragm, these efficacy rates are not calculated on the same basis. The number of intercourses in the CycleBead method is likely to be smaller, and this means that the pregnancy rate per intercourse is actually likely to be higher than in the barrier methods. Just something to keep in mind. If you like this method, buy your own nice beads and make a pretty bracelet or necklace. The white beads don't have to shine in the dark. If you're too shy to turn the light on to check them, choose white beads that feel different in the dark. Bulkier, for example. |
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
Hubris
Hubris: it should be the name of all that green slime that contains tadpoles and in the spring covers ponds and ditches. Instead, hubris means overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance. The Greeks saw hubris in deeds where humans pitted themselves against gods and goddesses, and the term does contain the secondary message that the possessors of hubris are going to have their comeuppance soon after. A good example of this is the tale of Arachne. She started her life as a young woman excellent in weaving, but ended her life as a spider because her skills were held in higher esteem than those of the goddess of weaving. Hubris is also the name of the goddess of insolence, lack of restraint and instinct. Not the person you like to share the occasional cup of nectar with. As might be expected, she spends most of her time with humans, so I have not made her acquaintance. But I think that the neocons have, and so has our president and his administration. At least an anonymous CIA official, the author of the new book entitled Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, seems to think so. He is anonymous because of CIA rules, and his real name is widely publicized, but I'm going to adhere to the pretense that we don't know who he is. And who knows, maybe his anonymity will keep him from the sin of hubris. "Anonymous" argues that the Bush administration has made a mess of the war on terrorism, but this should not make liberals especially pleased as he also believes in a 'military campaign that includes "killing in large numbers" and "a Sherman-like razing of infrastructure" as part of "relentless, brutal and blood-soaked defensive military action until we have annihilated the Islamists that threaten us".' His grudge with the administration is therefore not in their reluctance to spill blood but in the way they have interpreted the intelligence CIA and other organizations have gathered: Indeed,["Anonymous"] blasts most elite experts whatever their political or philosophical persuasion, for "a process of interpreting the world so it makes sense to us, a process yielding a world in which few events seem alien because we Americanize their components." Ultimately, "ignorance of their own and world history, failure to appreciate the power of faith, and disdain for the views and analyses of idiosyncratic Americans and non-Westerners" begets a particularly perilous imperialism. This is then the hubris that gives the book its name: the American tradition of not paying attention to the rest of the world, and, as is the customary thing with hubris, the current American administation is now going to get its comeuppance for acting like gods and goddesses, though this time the revenge will not come directly from the hands of Zeus or Artemis or even me. No, the revenge is largely self-created here, and it is still possible to avoid it, but only if one also gives up on the hubris that caused the crisis in the first place. To get rid of the hubris, we need to get rid of the current administration, I think. There have been many occasions for repentance and truth-telling and even for some old-fashioned humility, and none of the members of this administration have taken the bait. Their hubris is too strong, too much an essential part of their basic dogma. Thus, I agree with "Anonymous" in his accusation of excessive American hubris, but I don't agree with his recommendations directing us to even more blood-spilling. Not at least yet. There is still time for diplomacy and cunning negotiations, and John Kerry might still be able to achieve a more peaceful outcome. Might. But time is running out very quickly, and Nemesis, the goddess of revenge is hovering at the edges of our horizon, waiting for the signal to swoop and do the bidding of Hubris. Wouldn't it be lovely if we lived in a world where 'hubris' really refers to tadpole slime? |
Toothpicks
I'm suffering from blogging exhaustion. Is this common, pray, tell me all you wiser and more experienced bloggers? Would you like to read my shopping list? That's about all I've written today, and it contained strawberries and dog food, among other important items. Also toothpicks. I love toothpicks, and every house should have lots of them. They might even work against terrorism. The only thing I don't use toothpicks for is the picking of the teeth. But they're excellent for fixing door hinges: you stuff the screwholes with toothpicks and when you reattach the hinges, voila!, they're no longer loose and the door closes and opens sedately. Toothpicks are also the second most important tool (after your nails) in house-cleaning. I love to clean the metal plate with my stove's name on it with toothpicks, never mind the dried sauce rivulets in the front, and I also love to clean the crevices in baseboards with them. But there are also really bad uses for toothpicks. Some restaurants stick them into sandwiches, and if you're not aware of this you can have a toothpick stuck vertically between your tongue and your palate. This is very unpleasant, and then you need to insert your thumb and forefinger in your mouth in public to snap it into two (the toothpick, that is). And people will stare at you, wondering if you're performing emergency tonsilectomy on yourself. Hank has the same problem with tree branches. (Hank is a dog who frequently contributes to this blog). She snaps at them ferociously, and then the middle bit is lodged horizontally in the back of her mouth. The first three times the veterinarian didn't charge us anything for removing the branch, but then he started charging. I bought a tool from a mechanic for removing these branches myself, fifty bucks it cost, and then Hank stopped doing it, the devil that she is. Mae West is famous for saying witty things about real women as opposed to toothpicks, but I really like toothpicks, as long as nobody tries to get them into my mouth. |
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
The Truth about John Edwards?
This is fun. I visited a Republican anti-Edwards website and learned the following facts about John: Edwards Claims "Natural Connection" With Rural People, But Flunked Funk's Rural Q&A. (Matt Bai, "Nascar-Lovin," The New York Times, 9/15/02; Tim Funk, "Q&A With John Edwards," The Charlotte Observer, 5/26/03) That's terrible, don't you think so? I, for one, insist on a vice-president who hunts and fishes every morning and spends the rest of the day following NASCAR races. Scraping the bottom of the nasty-rumors-barrel here, aren't we? |
Monday, July 12, 2004
Hoo, Hoo, Hooters!
That's supposed to be owl sounds. I have never yet visited the Hooters restaurants, as I'm not that interested in standardized food and human female mammary glands, but I have heard that many people are. So many, that the female waitstaff at Hooters has to wear uniforms which emphasize their chests and stuff. But one shouldn't take this idea to its logical conclusion, of course. It's all supposed to be about just pretending to ogle at breasts or women who are scantily dressed. You are not supposed to really ogle. Well, one Hooter's manager didn't get this subtle distinction. He went a step further and videotaped applicants for the Hooter-role while they were changing from their usual clothes to the required uniform: A former Hooters restaurant manager accused of secretly videotaping female applicants as they changed into waitress uniforms pleaded no contest Monday to felony charges. They found about 180 digital recordings of such clothes changes in Aponte's possession... Of course the women didn't give their consent to this videotaping, while I assume that by accepting the job at Hooters you give your consent to public ogling? So that's what makes the restaurant's use of the women's bodies acceptable and Aponte's use of the same or similar bodies a felony. The Hooters probably pay more than other restaurants, given that you both serve food and also work as eyecandy, I would think, or do they? And then there's the fact that these videotapings provided no extra revenues for the restaurant chain itself. So there are differences between the two cases, that of Hooters and that of Aponte, but there are also similarities. Both, for example, are interested in the generic female body, not the body of some specific individual or her skills with it. What seems to make the Hooters case perfectly legal and fine is that specific individuals are giving their permission for the display of the generic female body... |
The Trees Don't Like This
The Bush administration is passing the control of Federal forests to state governors! The specific case has to do with whether roads should be built to remote forest areas to help with logging them: Under the proposal, governors would have to petition the federal government to block road-building in remote areas of national forests. Allowing roads to be built would open the areas to logging. 'Cooperative conserving roadless areas'? I asked a friendly pine tree what she or he (I could never figure the right pronoun for trees) thought about this new adventure into environmentalism, and all I got as an answer was a silent scream so blood-chilling that I couldn't move for several minutes. So the trees and I are opposed to this proposal, and so should you. Why? This is why: Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, called the administration proposal the biggest giveaway to the timber industry in history, arguing that many western states would likely press for development to help struggling rural economies. Look, either we want to have some undisturbed nature left or we don't. It's that simple. If we decide we don't want any, then we better work quickly to find another planet that we can go and savage next as this one will not endure us very much longer, and when earth has had enough of our incessant desire to turn perfectly good trees into umbrella stands, guess what will happen? It has something in common with what happens when you put a plastic bag over your head. And no, I'm not a treehugger, whatever that particular sexual act might involve. I just like to breathe and to have shade in the heat of summer. |
Hi! It's Me! I'm Bubbly and Cute!
This quote from the Chicago Tribune via ms. musings serves as the fodder for a not-so-deep thought for the day: "What is the most talked-about aspect of Jessica Simpson's show? How stupid she is," said Jennifer Pozner, director of the New York-based non-profit organization Women in Media & News. Time for a makeover, don't you think? Being a really polished airhead isn't that difficult. You need to widen your eyes in admiration whenever you look at someone. Think of Nancy Reagan's tactics, and you'll get this one. And then you need to purse your lips into a pretty little O, or you could stick your tongue out just a little bit, at one corner of the mouth. You could also screw your eyes when doing this. That's the cute bit. The bubbly bit means laughing a lot at wrong places and trying to stand on one foot, plus not knowing anything about cars or football or how to kill someone in 27 different ways, but being very admiring of all of this. I know, I've done this act myself; a shameful confession if there ever was one. It's good for fishing, but what you get in your net is all throw-backs and the endeavor is ultimately pointless. It's also really cruel if you think about it in more detail, and I suspect that it's sexist, too, because it's based on assumptions about men that give them a very low intelligence. And it's not at all entertaining unless you really happen to be a polished airhead. Besides, polished airheadedness is not a good earnings strategy, and if it's used for husband-hunting it needs to be kept up 24/7 and I have yet met anyone who could do this without becoming a withered balloon on a stick. That's the reason why I do a lot better with the goddess act. |
Sunday, July 11, 2004
Bush Tales
The Bush family has been busy doing many things, and some of them are more interesting than others. In Florida, Jeb Bush has had a fascinating week. First, he failed a math question asked by an eighteen year old Florida school student at an occasion where Bush was speaking about the importance of passing the Florida FCAT test that is required there for high school graduation. Here's Jeb's excuse for failing: "If the point is I haven't been in school for the last 30 years, that's true. But if I'm going to be graduating from high school and I can't pass a 10th-grade aptitude test, then I'm fooling myself," Bush said. "The fact that a 51-year-old man can't answer a question is really not relevant. You're still going to have to take the FCAT, and you're still going to have to pass it in order to get a high-school degree." Hmm. I wouldn't be convinced by this if I was a student in Florida. Though Jeb's administration does seem to suffer from some type of math angst. Consider the fact that it recently released a list of Florida felons, barred from voting, and this list missed most Hispanic felons, supposedly due to data handling problems: The decision to scrap the list was made after it was reported that the list contained few people identified as Hispanic; of the nearly 48,000 people on the list created by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, only 61 were classified as Hispanics. Hmm. What language is the name "Florida"? Never mind. I have been told by several data handlers that the omission of the Hispanic names can't have been due to computer problems, unless the Florida state workers are unusually incompetent. So perhaps this is another example of Jeb's math anxiety? Or something. Meanwhile, Jeb's big brother has been busy sulking in public and sticking his tongue out at the NAACP. He refused an invitation to speak at the annual meeting of the NAACP, and when asked to reconsider this is what Bush answered: Bush, campaigning in Pennsylvania on Friday, said he would not attend this year's NAACP event. He said his relationship with its leadership was "basically nonexistent" and he referred to being called "names" by organization members. Hmm. Interesting behavior. Reminds me of spats between little children. Its use by the president of the United States is novel, though. There are more than twelve million registered black voters in the country, but most of them vote for Democrats. Maybe the president isn't for every American anymore, just for those who vote Republican? |
Some More on Self-Defense
I'm a firm believer in learning the basics of unarmed self-defense. I'm also a pacifist in that I'd never launch an attack on anybody. But my pacifism is combined with the idea that sometimes the way to hold the peace is to kindly (in a relative sense) but firmly restrain the person who tries to attack you. That way nobody gets badly hurt. Still, the most important aspect of self-defense is what one does before a risky situation develops, and the most important skills to learn are the skills to stay out of trouble, to learn to anticipate it and to learn to diffuse it. Having said that, I also believe that it gives us more freedom and confidence if we know what to do in the undesirable event that fighting is necessary. These skills should be acquired with a good teacher of self-defense, and they need to be practised to really learn them. So now you can understand why I blow my stack every time I see women practising 'self-defense' in traditional Hollywood movies. Imagine the scene: some nasty rogue has just picked up the heroine and holds her tightly against his chest, her legs flailing in the air. She arches her back and hammers his chest with her fists. Of course all this is totally useless, and seems to demonstrate to us, the viewers, that no woman can ever defend herself. The only thing she's doing that would make any sense in a real-world situation is the leg flailing, but only if she was held with her back against his front. Then flailing the legs (or bicycling in the air, if you like) is a good idea: it moves the balance of her weight forwards and makes it very hard for him to hold her in the air. This is something small children do instinctively when they don't want to be held. Everything else she does is counterproductive. The chest is one of the best defended portions of the human body. The ribcage serves as an internal armor, and it's really pretty pointless to attack the chest in any unarmed fight. It's especially pointless to attack the chest with fists, as the fists are wider than the spaces between the ribs. And arching the back serves no useful purpose here at all. Thus, what Hollywood has been teaching women for decades is a way of fighting that wouldn't work even if the 'she' in the scene was twice as heavy and bulky as the 'he'. I can't help feeling that this is purposeful, though it probably isn't. But is sure is stupid. In reality, you don't want to be picked up as the ground is where you get your power from. But if you indeed are picked up by an assailant, then hammering on his chest is the last thing you want to. The basic principle in fighting someone mean, nasty and most likely stronger than you is to go for the most vulnerable targets using the dirtiest tricks imaginable. Any good self-defense teacher can show how this is done. Don't trust the Hollywood movies on this one. -------- Please read the Consumer Warning to the next post, too. |
Saturday, July 10, 2004
Public Health Announcement #1
The Proper Use of Elbows Elbows are excellent weapons. Imagine yourself being attacked by someone (yes, I know this isn't nice) who has you in a hug that leaves at least one of your arms free. Then imagine the movement you make if you wish to scratch your neck. Hold it right there! Now you have the 'elbow punch' ready. When your arm is bent over like this the elbow becomes its new extremity, and it's quite a hammer, even when the person who owns it is small and frail. The elbow has a limited range of movement, but not much movement is needed. To go back into the hostile hug example, all you need to do is to raise the elbow straight up in front of your body. It's good to hammer noses with, or whatever else might happen to be in its way. Of course you want to swing it, not just raise it. Another neat use for the elbow is towards the back. Suppose that you are held from behind by some nasty assailant of the night. If the creep's arm is around your neck, the first thing you want to do is to lower your chin as much as possible towards your chest. This guarantees that you won't choke. The next thing you do is to make a fist (thumb on the outside of the fist, please). Then you can swing your arm backwards towards the groin of the assailant, and as your fist hits home, you can continue the trajectory back and upwards by bending your elbow. It should reach the stomach region. If all this is combined with a nice stamp of the attacker's instep with your shod foot, you should find yourself freed. What you do next is run. (If you're all alone with the assailant and running will not work something a little more drastic is needed. I'd recommend a hip throw which might break a bone or two (not yours). I'll explain it later if there is interest.) The elbow is also efficient sideways. Imagine reaching towards the left with your right hand so that it is actually past your body on the left. This is the beginning position of a useful elbow punch to the right. You simply return the arm, bent at the elbow to its home position on the right. It's good when used at the side ribs of an attacker. Your elbows are your friends! Remember that, especially when you need something for close-quarters fighting. You can practise these moves in your mind or with a willing partner if you are both really careful not to actually hit. Repetition is needed to put the moves into the body memory. A cynic might argue that these moves won't work with all types of attacks, especially armed ones. That's true. But then appendectomy doesn't cure heart disease either, and learning to speak French is not very useful if you happen to go to China. So let's not be overly pessimistic. --------- A Consumer Warning: This post is written partly in fun, and it's important to add that no self-defense technique works in all situations and for all people, that no technique should be used where it's illegal, that sometimes it may be better not to use physical defense, that practising such techniques as these should be done with care and under proper guidance if at all possible, and that whether practising these or any other techniques is advisable depends on many factors, including the practitioner's health status. Consult a physician if you are in doubt. Add here any other warning that makes me totally free of any and all misuses of such techniques... |
Friday, July 09, 2004
Zero Sum Games: Stepford and the Wall Street
Have you seen the new movie version of the Stepford Wives? The original book and movie were thrillers focusing on the deeper meaning of misogyny and rigid sex roles in the 1970's America, but the new movie is a satire where the plot laughs at everybody, including the heroine: In the 1975 movie, Katharine Ross' Joanna was a very likable everywoman who wanted to resume her career in photography now that her children have started school. Seeing none of the other women in town shares her desire to pursue interests outside the home, Joanna thinks she's going crazy and eventually fears for her life. ... Nicole Kidman's updated Joanna is a negative stereotype of an overly ambitious, non-maternal career woman. Her best friend Bobbie, who was quirky and fun in the original, is played by Bette Midler as hilarious but also dark and bitter. The re-make adds a new gay character who is predictably neurotic and sarcastic. All three newcomers to Stepford are taking anti-anxiety or anti-depressant pills implying there is something inherently unhappy in their career-obsessed lives. It's no longer so unusual to portray a woman as wanting to do something interesting with her remaining years, of course, so it may be natural that the remake would change Joanna's character. But why make her into a career-obsessed harridan? This is what we do with many sociological and political problems, and especially those that have to do with women's roles. You're either one thing or the other, either a mother or a careerist, either a good girl or a bitch, either a virgin or a whore, either a madonna or a witch and so on. Once the problem has been reframed in this rigid two-extremes way, we then continue to decide which extreme end-point each woman should be placed at. A failed attempt, from the beginning, but there is a good reason why this false dualism is so religiously practised: it makes women's choices into zero-sum games and serves to keep women apart from each other as a social or political force. Zero-sum games are those situations where winning for one person or group by necessity means losing for the others; like deciding on how to divide a chunk of strawberry-and-cream cake between two greedy eaters. But not all social or political situations actually resemble zero-sum games. In many all parties can be winners at the same time. The way we Stepfordize women's choices makes this possibility disappear from public debate, makes the debate take the form of an either-or argument and threatens to turn it into another version of wars among women. In the real world most people are complicated creatures and want to have both water and bread, both love and work. That's why career harridans and Stepford wives are not real and shouldn't be placed in front of us as somehow the only two choices. This is utter rubbish. But it's clever rubbish, as evidenced by the fact that we talk about this silly stuff and silly movies that contain it, rather than about how to make work and home both feasible for all individuals who need and/or desire them. |
Good Morning!
People always dream about the places they're going to visit when they go on vacation (at least in countries where people get vacations, not the U.S. that much). I dream about sleep. So today I'm on vacation, and I just woke up and it's about three in the afternoon! Greetings from the Sandy Man's Island! The name is supposedly because of all that white slime you gather around your eyelashes when in deep sleep. Well, actually it's because of the way your eyes feel gritty when you're tired, but the grittiness is the white slime that slowly makes it way out to your eyelashes. It never gets to the eyebrows, for some reasons, which makes me wonder even more what eyebrows are really for. They look like windshield wipers, so they could be there to stop bugs from flying into your eyes, but most people have too puny eyebrows for that. Maybe they're primitive sunshades? Anyway, I dreamt a lot during my most recent slumber. I dreamt about people walking to and fro along a busy street, leading large pink pigs in dog harnesses. Then I dreamt about renting a collapsing manor house in deep woods. I had no money to pay the rent, so I couldn't evict the people who were already living in it: a three-foot tall English barrister who wanted to talk to me about death taxes, a wild artist with a purple beard who had invented a previously nonexisting color, and a very old royal lady who offered to sell me costume jewelry at outrageous prices. All the time in this dream I kept plastering and sawing and propping up walls that collapsed, and these people kept coming in and pestering me about death taxes and art and jewelry. And I feared the day when they'd find out that I had no money at all! But the forest was very beautiful. And this whole vacation trip cost me nothing! Now I have written about my dream! This is supposed to be an absolute no-no, and doing it feels so good. Plus you can now psychoanalyze me to your heart's content! Or tell me the best dream you ever had. Now I have to take Hank and Henrietta out and feed them, and then I can come back and post something more serious. |
Thursday, July 08, 2004
We are not Amused
This photo, via skippy the bush kangaroo, is priceless. It was taken after the president was asked unpleasant questions about his relationship to Kenneth Lay. Look at the body language. Even the flag and the door drapes reflect his grumpiness! And for more visual fun, here's a picture of Kenneth Lay with his most recent date.... Thanks to Athenae at Eschaton for this one. See how easy blogging can be some days! You just go around and reap the harvest of others who are more industrious... |
Meanwhile, in Pakistan...
The New Republic online edition has an article which is very hard to believe, but we have all gotten more and more used to 'very-hard-to-believe' matters before breakfast in the last four years. So perhaps this one is true, too: This spring, the administration significantly increased its pressure on Pakistan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman Al Zawahiri, or the Taliban's Mullah Mohammed Omar, all of whom are believed to be hiding in the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan. A succession of high-level American officials--from outgoing CIA Director George Tenet to Secretary of State Colin Powell to Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca to State Department counterterrorism chief Cofer Black to a top CIA South Asia official--have visited Pakistan in recent months to urge General Pervez Musharraf's government to do more in the war on terrorism. In April, Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador to Afghanistan, publicly chided the Pakistanis for providing a "sanctuary" for Al Qaeda and Taliban forces crossing the Afghan border. "The problem has not been solved and needs to be solved, the sooner the better," he said. The article does mention one source, Lieutenant General Esan ul-Haw, by name, and he reveals the following interesting tidbit: a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston. I have no idea if any of this is true. That I still decided to post it is based on the old adage: better safe than sorry, as well as the sum total of my recent innocence-stripping experiences with our current administration. We'll see what happens during the first three days of the Democratic National Convention, won't we? |
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
The Experiences of Some Detained at Guantanamo Bay
You can read some stories here. There is no way of corroborating what these men say, of course, but I think the mainstream media in the United States should not ignore them. Be warned, the reading might not be easy for all. |
The One that Got Away
If you write you know all about that feeling of being nothing but a conduit from some deeper, wider, more important place. Maybe you don't feel it often, but you do feel it sometimes, and then writing is more than pleasure, more than joy, something happening elsewhere yet everywhere. You look up from your work, and five hours have passed! Where did the time go? The answer is that it didn't exist, because you were in an in-between place, out of time and out of space. You were nothing but a door through which the holy winds blow and everything you wrote down was perfect and nothing you wrote down was from you. It is a blessing to have these moments, worth of years of dental visits without novocaine and good beer. This is what happened to me this morning, and I'm still weak at the knees. Then I erased it all, accidentally, and the sun died. It deserved to die, and I deserve to die and also to tell about it as publicly as possible. What I had on the screen is gone for ever, and this is because I was a clumsy oaf more in need of my decaf gallon than saving these sacred messages from Elsewhere. So. I hope you feel as bad as I do now. No, not really. Just wanted to share. |
The Contraceptive Pill: A New Frontier for the Pro-Life Movement
I googled 'contraceptive pill' and 'implantation' this morning, and found literally hundreds of biased pro-life sites. Try it, if for nothing else, than to find out what the pro-lifers are het up right now. The topic of the day seems to be the regular contraceptive pill, not the 'morning-after' type, and its abortifacient characteristics. In other words, pro-lifers argue that the birth control pill kills babies. Or rather, tiny, tiny sons and daughters. The cunning way it manages to do this is by preventing the implantation of the fertilized egg onto the lining of the uterus. Some sites tell about this in vivid terms: how 'your' desperate, starving tiny son or daughter is trying, trying, but failing to hook onto 'your' now-shriveled and hostile uterine lining. The writers of these tragedies have lost good career opportunities in some of the lesser known genres of literature, but I wish that they didn't assume the reader is a woman who is also the location of these events. The reason why taking the birth control pill is murder, in the pro-life world, is the possibility that there might be an ovulation even though the pill tries to stop ovulations from happening, and that as a consequence an egg might be fertilized, but fail because of its inability to implant. The reason I was googling with those keywords as well as others more refined was to find out the studies that show exactly how the contraceptive pill stops implantation of the fertilized egg. I was unable to find any such study, and in fact an article in the Prevention magazine states that no such research exists: At the heart of the debate between anti-Pill forces and mainstream medicine lies a profound difference of opinion about when pregnancy and life begin. The long-standing medical definition of pregnancy, held by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, is that it starts not when an egg is fertilized, but when the fertilized egg implants in the uterine lining. This is so important it bears repeating: Surprisingly, there's no science to back the theory that birth control pills really do discourage implantation. This claim, made by contraceptive manufacturers for decades, has never been proven, Grimes says. Even the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists agrees that it's just speculation. You'd never think that there is any doubt about the scientific basis for the implantation-argument in the tens and hundreds of pro-life websites. No doubt at all. Contraceptive pills are abortifacients!: The Pill and its "cousins" kill children earlier in their life than surgical abortion. In America, chemical abortions are estimated to kill more than 7 million babies each year -- while surgical abortions kill about 1.5 million babies each year. That's how pro-lifers think. Even the smallest, hypothetical possibility of a fertilized egg not being implanted is adequate grounds to 'estimate' that seven million 'babies' are killed each year by women who use the birth control pill. This is the next frontier of the pro-life warplan, the natural next step to take after fighting abortion: to fight contraception. The frontlines will no longer be drawn at the offices of physicians who perform abortions, rather, they will be in the wombs of millions and millions of American women. Or that's what the pro-life movement would like to see happen, I believe. Here's a glimpse of the first moves in this new stage of the anti-abortion war: Though three states have conscience clauses for pharmacists, there is no such legal provision in Texas, where the CVS druggist refused to fill Julee Lacey's prescription. All that Ms. Lacey suffered was a small delay and some frustration. But what would the consequences be if ethical refusals by health professionals were more generally legal? What would a woman in a rural area with just one pharmacy do? Where would she go if the only gynecologist refused to prescribe the pill? Do these ethical refusals take into account all the abortions that might ensue because women get pregnant in the absence of the birth control pill they can't get prescribed? More generally, do ethical refusals consider the fact that many women use the contraceptive pill for something else than pregnancy prevention? It is used to control acne, to reduce fibroids, to control endometriosis and to prevent ovarian cancer, a particulary deathly and symptomless form of cancer (the efficacy of birth control pills in preventing this type of cancer may be as high as 80%). Does this matter to the refusing professional? That the woman denied the pill might then actually die herself? Of course this is unlikely to happen today, given that most other professionals will not refuse to prescribe oral contraceptives, but shouldn't the ethical refuser consider his or her own choices and their consequences alone? After all, most of those denied the pill for birth control purposes will get their prescription filled elsewhere, and if the pill is killing tiny babies, it will do it irrespective of the person who prescribed or dispensed the order. I'm unhappy with this ethical refusal rule, and wonder where it might lead us. Suppose that I present myself at the front desk of a pharmacy somewhere with a big packet of red and pink condoms. If the clerk helping me doesn't believe in adultery, can she or he quiz me on my marital status and on what I intend to do with the condoms? And does it matter that I'm going to use them in lieu of birthday balloons? I'm also unhappy with the argument I found on a pro-life website that scientists have conclusively proved that life begins at conception. I believe, deeply, sincerely and fervently, that life begins before conception. The ova and the sperm are both alive and both human, and any man who ejaculates during sleep is guilty of mass murder. Likewise, any woman who needs to buy tampons this month is guilty of serial murder. When I get around to it, I'm going to start my own pro-life movement and go after the Catholic priests first of all. Think of all the lives they have denied! But even if I believed in the lukewarm version the current pro-life movement holds true, I'd be a little bit concerned about going after all women who use oral contraceptives just on the basis of a hunch. This seems a cruel and non-Christian thing to do, though to be fair to the pro-lifers, any woman who gives up her pills right now can still get forgiveness and a place in heaven. I wonder what the writers of this stuff will get when they knock on the final gates? A nasty surprise? Who knows. Via the Rubber Nun |
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
J. Leon Holmes was Approved
So. Religion has been affirmed, never mind about all that political correctness crap. You might be interested to know that Mary Landrieux voted for Mr. Holmes. I'm sure that she had asked for the permission of her husband before venturing to raise her voice in public in such a manner. If not, she can always repent later at leisure. Actually, it's a good reminder, a cold shower if you like, about what is important in this world. Religion is, and bombs are and wars. Human rights are very unimportant, except when they come handy as a shield behind which better political plots can be hatched. And you will not get a link or anything. I'm a fed-up goddess, and in fact I've put in my application to start a new world somewhere far away. Populated by nothing but snakes. |
Guess Who's Really Oppressed in America?
This is an easy one: it's white Christian men, especially the ones who try to get appointments as Federal Judges. The most recent victim of this incessant harassment of Christians is J. Leon Holmes, a district court nominee. He's mercilessly oppressed by not only the Democrats, of whom we expect nothing but such stigmatizing, but even by some wishy-washy quasi-Republicans! Yes, indeed, moles have buried deep into the Republican underbelly, and the season to get rid of them is now! So tremble, Arlen Specter, Kay Bailey Hutchison and Olympia Snowe! Quiver and shake, ye women of the Republicans in the House and Senate! We shall smite you down in your arrogance! We have heard mutterings and rumblings that all Republican female Senators are against this noble and valiant Christian soldier, and we warn you that the Right will prevail. Why does any misguided soul oppose our brother-in-faith J. Leon Holmes? He is, after all, wielding the sword against abortionists and people who refuse to see the righteous truth in the commands of the holy Bible. All Leon is accused of is stating clearly that which we all know to be true deep in our bosoms: that women are not equal to men. It is not Leon's fault that this is how things are, what is written is written. And what is written must be true. Read Ephesians 5 yourself if you doubt me. And did you ever hear anything more idiotic than this: Critics have portrayed Holmes as anti-woman. Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way, issued a statement yesterday saying that "Holmes' record and extreme views about the role of women and other subjects will make it impossible for many who come before him to believe they will get a fair hearing." How lamentably wrong can these communists be? What is wrong with taking Epheseans 5 as your guiding light in deciding on court cases concerning the weaker sex? What is wrong with holding the holy truths about the submission of women above the purely earthly concerns of this republic? What is fairer to women than the religion we know to be the only right one? See, brethren, how we battle the dark forces. Yet they rise again and again, and in their anger and wrath trample over our sacred rights and the True Way of Life. They oppress us and don't let us rule over their pagan multitudes. They discriminate against us and don't let us preach the true words from the judicial pulpits. We are the oppressed and the victimized, we are the ones who must be affirmed. Please rise and assure that our brother J. Leon Holmes receives the judgeship that is his by right. If he can be denied on such puny grounds as not seeing the sexes as equal, how can we ever grant equal opportunity to those of us who hold even firmer views on these matters? Via Holden on Atrios. |
John Edwards
So now it's a campaign of the two johns. About the only real opening this gives the wingnuts. Edwards was a good choice, I think, if there is such a thing as a good choice in thir particular election year. Anyone Kerry would nominate would be treated to an immediate autopsy by the right-wing pundits. Just to see what Edwards might have in store, I went around looking for any nasty things that was said about him. Here's a sampling: From corporate America: Wall Street was also concerned about Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's selection of John Edwards as vice president. Edwards, a trial lawyer, is seen by the conservative investment community as a proponent of the expensive class-action litigation that often plagues corporate America. From the Bush/Cheney campaign: The Bush/Cheney campaign released new TV ads in an attempt to downplay Kerry`s announcement. They show Bush and Republican Senator John McCain hugging on the campaign trail and say McCain was Kerry`s first choice in a running mate, not John Edwards. From Republican commentators more generally: But Larry Sabato also says Republicans will question whether John Edwards is qualified to become vice president. and from the mouth of the beast itself, the National Review Online: Party strategists will undoubtedly answer that in the general election it is the presidential candidate who really matters, and that in the area of national security, voters placed much more trust in John Kerry. That's true. But given that the war in Iraq, and to some extent the larger issue of national security, will likely dominate the fall campaign, it's also true that Kerry has chosen a running mate who is extraordinarily weak on those issues that matter most. All this sounds very weak to me. Which means that John Edwards was a good choice for Kerry. Let the games begin. |
Monday, July 05, 2004
Blogger Pains
The Blogger is experiencing growing pains again. If you have trouble getting here or to any other blogspot site, it's not your fault. Normally trying again a couple of times will work, or if not, alternating http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com with http://www.echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com should do the trick. We apologize for this inconvenience, but plan to do nothing to fix it as blogspot is extremely appropriately priced. Though I will personally scold them, again. |
Women Priests
I am for them, but the Roman Catholic church is somewhat less enthusiastic. Well, considerably less enthusiastic. This is not hard to understand: if women became priests, who'd be left to do all the drudge work that is needed in running the churches? Still, I don't understand the Pope's brain on the topic of women. He appears to have but the faintest idea of what women are. Maybe this isn't so unexpected given the way the Catholic church makes sure that its priests will not live in families which would be one way of finding out about women, at least partially. Not that women are very different from men, of course, but it seems to be part of the Pope's belief systems that they are. For example, women can't be priests because they weren't among Christ's disciples (ok, I have no idea if the Pope believes this, but many in the church do, and I want to make the argument here). This hasn't stopped the church from electing a Polish pope, and I'm willing to bet my pocket money against the possibility that any of the original disciples was Polish. In any case, some scholars argue that Mary Magdalene was a disciple and that her role was erased in later rewritings of the gospels. I think that women should be priests because I would have made a wonderful priest, if I had happened to have been born Catholic (and human). This makes me believe that we are losing countless numbers of wonderful priests because of attitudes which really should be outdated by now. I also don't like giving little girls messages about their second-class status, and being told that you can't become a priest simply because you are a girl tends to do funny things to your head. It may even serve to breed future feminists! So the following news should be regarded as good ones by all concerned: Six Catholic women, including two Americans, were ordained as Catholic deacons on June 26 at a service on the Danube River in Passau, Germany. The service was a continuation of a series of ordinations that began in 2002 in the same location, at which point seven women were ordained into the priesthood. ... Ida Raming, a German theologian and one of the priests who performed the ordinations of women two years ago, argued that baptism, not gender, determines eligibility for the priesthood. At the 2002 service she said that the opinion of the current church leadership on women priests--as well as the Biblical canons that it is derived from--are "based on a grave lack of respect for the human dignity of women and their Christian existence." Not that any of this will be accepted by the Catholic church. The most likely outcome is that all those involved in these ordinations will be excommunicated. There is something very sad about a church which must excommunicate those who most desperately want to serve it. |
Be Afraid! Be Very Afraid!
Welcome to the post 7/4 world. It's time to be afraid again: The federal authorities, concerned about a terror attack during this summer's national political conventions, have begun a new effort to identify potential extremists inside the United States, including conducting interviews in communities where terrorists might seek refuge, government officials said. Clearly, the counterterrorism officials have been busy protecting George Bush already from possible terrorists. In his ninth visit to West Virginia since taking office, Bush told Americans that their country is safer because Saddam Hussein is in a prison cell. However, his own security seems to have been seriously endangered by this brave public appearance: Two Bush opponents, taken out of the crowd in restraints by police, said they were told they couldn't be there because they were wearing shirts that said they opposed the president. Ok. We've got Saddam in a cell and probably the Bush protesters as well (no, turns out that they were let loose, after all!). How about catching some of Al Qaeida, too? Or is this just not doable given the current budgeted expenditures needed in Iraq? To be honest, I'd much rather pay taxes for Al Qaeida hunting than either the fiasco in Iraq or the fiasco that took place in West Virginia. Though I guess we'll soon have nothing left to protect of the freedoms that Bush argues make the terrorists so mad at us. ---------- Thanks to Tena at Eschaton for the link to the second quote. |
Sunday, July 04, 2004
Barbara Ehrenreich on the Fourth of July
From the New York Times: When they first heard the Declaration of Independence in July of 1776, New Yorkers were so electrified that they toppled a statue of King George III and had it melted down to make 42,000 bullets for the war. Two hundred twenty-eight years later, you can still get a rush from those opening paragraphs. "We hold these truths to be self-evident." The audacity! It is all good stuff. |
Saturday, July 03, 2004
Colin Sings. Colin Dances.
If you want to see and hear Colin Powell dance and sing, click here, then click on the Watch and Listen square on the right. Don't say I didn't warn you! Via the Original Amazon. |
Some News on U.S. Employment
The United States economy created 112,000 new jobs in June 2004. This is good news, or at least better news than a loss of 112,000 jobs would have been. But given the natural business cycles, recessions tend to be followed by employment upswings in due time. The latest recession appears atypical in many ways, and one of these is it's length: every other recession since 1939 has shown full recovery of the lost jobs within 31 months of the start of the recession. This time, thirty-nine months later, 1.2 million jobs are still missing. The jobless nature of this recovery has economists scratching their heads. But not the Bush administration: they believe that we are experiencing the beginning of a very vibrant recovery and that the jobs are just lagging behind a little. Perhaps. But the administration has been unable to match its own employment predictions. According to them we should have 2,230,000 more jobs now, at the end of the first year after the highly touted tax cuts took effect. In other words, they promised much more than they are delivering. Consider the numbers: The unemployment rate has remained steady at 5.6% since January this year, and the rate of underemployed people (those who work part-time involuntarily, those who are so discouraged that they have stopped looking for jobs and those who are only marginally attached to the labor force) is now 9.6%, up from 7.3% at the start of the recession. All this despite the increased number of jobs. And what are the jobs like that were lost in the recession compared to those that are now being added? It seems that the new jobs are lower paying, less stable, self-employed and part-time jobs (eBay, anybody?), while the lost jobs were what's called high-quality jobs in sectors such as transportation, utilities, natural resources and manufacturing. The numbers of part-time workers and the self-employed have risen by roughly 5% since early 2002. Compare this to the 1.7% growth in regular employees. Since late 2001, jobs in high-paying industries fell by more than 2% and the jobs in low-paying industries rose by 1.2%. It's fair to summarize these overall changes as a labor market that is paying less for jobs with less stability. We are not getting the good old jobs back; instead we are being offered poorer jobs with less hours of work. To be fair, the most recent statistics indicate that some of the better paying sectors are also beginning to hire, but the overall impact of these factors is to make the quality of the American jobs worse. For those who can find them, that is. |
Friday, July 02, 2004
TGIF
I can't force myself to post anything serious. Maybe tomorrow; I do have the materials together for something very long and tedious on labor economics. It's going to cause fireworks on the blog. Instead of such an erudite treatise on the big questions in life, I want to ask you an even bigger question, one that requires every iota (what is an iota?) of your concentration, intelligence and senses: If you could come back to life after death, what would you choose to be? I would like to be very tall if human, and have eyes which send out angry zaps. If I could be an animal I'd probably want to be a turtle, if I could be a vegetable, I'd want to be an ornamental bean (they don't get eaten), if I could be a tree, I'd want to be an oak (and drop acorns on wingnuts). Oaks live a long time and don't cause a lot of raking in the fall, and I would be a very considerate tree. Insects are not a good idea for reincarnation. Too much work for just a few days' worth of life, and I already have nightmares about being stepped on by a large rubber sole. Though being a disease-carrier could be a nice revenge for something. Ok. This is what they mean by pure waffle. As I said, it's Friday and this is all that Friday produces in early July. |
Happy Fourth of July!
I'm posting this early both because that way more people see it (and my attempt to be nice and culturally sensitive) and also because that leaves me free to go back to being nasty over the weekend. So if you're an American who celebrates the Fourth of July, have a good time! Beware of hot dogs in excess and political debates in family get-togethers. And wear sunscreen. Something very patriotic to do: Get registered to vote if you haven't done so already, or get someone else to register. Then consider the candidates for presidency carefully, and decide to vote for Kerry come hell or high water. |
Zen Sarcasms
Via heini. 1. Do not walk behind me, for I may not lead. Do not walk ahead of me, for I may not follow. Do not walk beside me either. Just pretty much leave me the heck alone. 2. The journey of a thousand miles begins with a broken fan belt and a leaky tire. 3. It's always darkest before dawn. So if you're going to steal your neighbor's newspaper, that's the time to do it. 4. Sex is like air. It's not important unless you aren't getting any. 5. Don't be irreplaceable. If you can't be replaced, you can't be promoted. 6. No one is listening until you fart. 7. Always remember you're unique. Just like everyone else. 8. Never test the depth of the water with both feet. 9. If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple of car payments. 10. Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them you're a mile away and you have their shoes. 11. If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you. 12. Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish, and he will sit in a boat and drink beer all day. 13. If you lend someone $20 and never see that person again, it was probably worth it. 14. If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything. 15. Some days you're the bug; some days you're the windshield. 16. Don't worry; it only seems kinky the first time. 17. Good judgment comes from bad experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment. 18. The quickest way to double your money is to fold it in half and put it back in your pocket. 19. A closed mouth gathers no foot. 20. Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side and a dark side, and it holds the universe together. 21. Generally speaking, you aren't learning much when your lips are moving. 22. Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it. 23. Never miss a good chance to shut up. 24. We are born naked, wet and hungry, and get slapped on our butt...Then things get worse. 25. Never, under any circumstances, take a sleeping pill and a laxative on the same night. 26. There is a fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness." 27. No matter what happens, somebody will find a way to take it too seriously. 28. There comes a time when you should stop expecting other people to make a big deal about your birthday...around age 11. 29. Everyone seems normal until you get to know them. I agree with the last one. |
Thursday, July 01, 2004
Mantras
Every time I log to my SiteMeter to check on if Aphrodite is still reading my blog I see the advertisements on the top of the page. Most of them are of the type that require being clicked on to tell the whole story. I never click on them, and so I'm only left with the mysterious messages they give at first. In the spirit of proper liberal recycling, I decided to use these mysterious sayings as my meditation mantras. Here's how it worked: The first one I chose says: "Colon Polyps. Stop them before they go bad." Translated into a mantra, this is the meditation it created: Stop the polyps. Stop the polyps. UMMMMMM. How do you stop the polyps before they go bad? Do you squeeze your anus harder? Stop the polyps before they go bad. In the colon. In the Colin. Is this what is wrong with Colin Powell? How do polyps go bad? UMMMMM. Do they stink like sour milk? How do you find out if your polyps stink like sour milk? Do you ask a kind bypasser? UMMMMM I don't think that I got any nearer to enlightenment with that one. The following week I had a new mantra:"How can you stop a car crash with a few ounces of metal?" This was very unpromising. Car crashes tend to make me uptight, and meditation is meant to do the opposite. But perhaps I was ready for the challenge: Car crashes. Stop the car crashes. AAAAAA! Don't buy a car. With a few ounces of metal, AAAAA. What metal? Buy a gun and shoot all other drivers on the road? AAAAIIIIIH! Then I had to go and have a nice liedown. The next one I'm going to work with is:"Yo. I'm Mike Mahi Mahi." It comes with a picture of a very happy fish. Happy to be eaten? I'll never know. |
Hillary Bashing
Hillary Rodham Clinton is in a lot of wingnuts' nightmares, it seems, given the amount of negative publicity she attracts. Here is Robert Novak, for example: On the June 29 edition of CNN's Crossfire, co-host and syndicated columnist Robert Novak again ridiculed Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) by calling her "Madame Defarge" -- a reference to a distasteful character from Charles Dickens's novel A Tale of Two Cities . Robert Novak has a habit of calling Senator Clinton Madame Defarge. You'd think that he could find more variation; the literary canon is full of evil and power-hungry female characters. I hope that Robert stays off cheese and wine late at night. Maybe he will then dream something nicer and more creative. Robert is not alone in his Hillary-obsession. She is hated out of all proportion to both her importance and anything that she has ever done. She isn't even especially left-wing in her opinions, and she has been a good little senator during her term in office. What makes the wingnuts say things like this?: In a Washington Times op-ed about former President Bill Clinton's memoir My Life, titled "Harry Potter and Bill Clinton: 'My Life' should be titled 'My Lie,'" Jack Wheeler, identified by The Washington Times as publisher of www.tothepointnews.com, asserted that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is bisexual. I know that there is a bizarre connection between being obsessed about sex and wingnuttiness, but it really gets sick when we add it to the stew of Hillary-bashing. Remember Limbaugh and the testicles in a lock-box? There aren't enough psychiatrists in this country to tend to all those affected by the Hillary hatred. She is not just a communist but a fascist (!), not just a sexual adventurer but a woman who wants to castrate men (!). She is Hitlery, the all-powerful, all-evil woman who is going to get us all if we don't stay alert, fight our nightmares and every morning write them down carefully for publication. I'm sick and tired of this. Hillary isn't that horrible or that wonderful. She is probably a pretty ordinary politician, but in the minds of so many she is the worst threat to Western civilization since Karl Marx. And the reason isn't that hard to figure out. She stands as a symbol for all the things that men like Novak fear in women: independence, power and refusal to play by his rules. Whether Hillary in fact is a feminist or not doesn't matter. She has become the mythological nightmare for all those who fear equality. |