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
- Hecate
- The Heretik
- 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
- 08/01/2009 - 09/01/2009
- 09/01/2009 - 10/01/2009
- 10/01/2009 - 11/01/2009
- 11/01/2009 - 12/01/2009
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
Monday, January 31, 2005
Listen to Bill Moyers
He has written a deeply feeling article on the current state of the American politics, on the Rapture gang, and on the impact of all this on the environment. The conclusion he comes to is stark and scarey: A large number of Americans don't care about warfare or about the slow dying of the trees and the animals because they believe that all this will help to expedite the end of the world, the Rapture, and that God sees this all and finds it pleasing. More frighteningly still, this is the part of America that is in power. We are ruled by Talibanish values by people who have interpreted the last U.S. election results as support and approval of policies that include attacking one country after another and letting the nature slowly wither away. Moyers is appealing to the one emotion that might work to counteract the rapturous mindset: our love for our children and grandchildren. Will this be enough? If a grandfather believes that he will Raptured up into the heavens when the mercury poisoning takes over his grandchildren, will he care? If a mother sees the war in Iraq as a step towards Heaven, will she care that it is someone's children that are killed in this war? I so hope that Moyers is overly pessimistic in his piece. So does he. |
The Freedom Loving Young Americans
U.S. teenagers appear not to care about the First Amendment. A study analyzing their opinions showed that:
Other findings of the study suggest that the teachers are more willing to allow others to express unpopular views (97%) than their students are (83%), and that many students don't know what the Bill of Rights guarantees. The reaction to these findings has been moaning and whining about the indifference of students and about the lack of teaching on these issues in schools. Yes, all that is necessary and important to do, but I wonder what earlier studies would have shown about the students of earlier generations. Were the teenagers of the 1980's and 1990's any better informed or any more passionate? I don't know the answer to this, but I suspect that the vast majority of teenagers has always been fairly uninformed and fairly uninterested in anything that doesn't affect their personal lives very directly. It's always the minorities who start change and initiate revolutions, and the real question is whether today's active and informed minorities are smaller than those in the past. ----- The study covered more than 100,000 students and was carried out early in 2004. |
Vacation...
I haven't had one for over a year. So I'm having one now, starting tomorrow morning and lasting for one week. My blogging will be reduced from its usual levels, though I won't stop altogether. Time to recharge the batteries and all that. Americans take far too few vacations. Maybe that's why we are so belligerent? My vacation will be a nice study on that! Check out my blogroll if you need to have a bigger fix than this blog will provide. |
Today's Action Alert
Today's Action: She's not always on the side of justice and light, but Maria Cantwell has been consistently one of the strongest voices in the Senate on the issue of energy market manipulation of the sort that rocked California and Washington State. She's introduced a bill -- S.22, Electricity Needs Rules and Oversight Now (ENRON) -- that will amend the Federal Power Act to broaden prohibitions on so-called "round trip" trades. Round Tripping was one of the schemes that Enron used to jack up prices. Cantwell recently explained that schemes such as Round Tripping cost the West an estimated $35 billion in domestic economic product and a loss of 589,000 jobs. Write a letter to the editor of your newpaper and explain that this country doesn't need any more Enrons. No energy traders should be allowed to engage in Round Tripping or other schemes designed just to jack up the price of an essential service such as electricity. S.22 ought to be passed this session. Thanks for taking today's action. |
Sunday, January 30, 2005
More on the Iraq Elections
I am no expert on this topic, so I wish to draw your attention to someone who is: Juan Cole. He has a good post on the meaning of these elections in terms of the politics of tomorrow. He also links to a study by Zogby which showed that
The election was in the nature of a referendum on various parties as individual candidates' names were not known to the voters beforehand (and in some cases the candidates themselves had not known that they were on a list). It's hard to see what the voters were voting for, exactly. Maybe it was just for the idea of voting? I'm glad and relieved that casualties were kept to a minimum, and I'm happy for the Iraqis who could vote for the first time in decades. But the meaning of this election will not be clear for some time. The day of voting is not all there is to democracy, and most of the real tests lie ahead. To be quite honest, I'm not more optimistic than I was before the elections. Although maybe Bush can now withdraw the troops honorably, pretending that everything has been fixed. That would be something to cheer about. |
Open Thread?
I'm cleaning house today. Dustclouds in the horizon and lots of snakes hiding in the closets. The dogs are not allowed to shake for a day because no more dog hairs are allowed. I'm going to have an important visitor and the house must be spotless. So I won't have time to blog right now. Besides, I need cleaning advice and recipes and general whining about the state of the world and anything else you might want to contribute. In other words, this is an open thread. Yes, I know that I'm not a big blog with good reasons for open threads, but I'm having one anyway. |
Voting in Iraq
This is not a proper analysis of the Iraqi elections or whether anybody voted today or what the insurgents have accomplished in blood and suffering. That must wait until later. For now, my feminist side is ascendant and immediately noticed this interesting aspect of Iraqi democracy in action:
---- A Postscript: The link I give above now leads you to a different article than the one from which I took the quote. However, if you put my quote into Google and Google the news you get the link I gave you. Does this mean that the article was changed? I don't know. I was unable to find another link to the original article, though the second paragraph of the above quote was also used here. A Second Postscript: Jay Sundahl in the comments points out that I may have misread this piece. There are two ballots, so Mr. al-Yawer may have been just filling his own two ballots. If so, I'm very glad. It's very good sometimes to be mistaken, if the reality is better than what one thought. |
Saturday, January 29, 2005
My First Job for the Administration
I'm trying to find a way to share in all this loot that the administration gives to journalists who are willing to spout their messages. Granted, I'm only a humble blogger, but there seems to be lots of money available and every little bit helps. So how about it, administration? I present, for your consideration, Echidne's song about family planning: Condoms fail you; Diaphragms slip. Jellies stain you; And coils can nip. Withdrawal's willful; Flesh is weak. The pill is sinful; You might as well breed. ---- With sincere apologies to Dorothy Parker. |
Friday, January 28, 2005
Talon News and Jeff Gannon
This may be the age of conservative journalists being in trouble. Not only are Armstrong Williams, Maggie Gallagher and Michael McManus all a little bit in trouble right now, but Media Matters for America has a series of articles on Jeff Gannon, the Washington bureau chief and White House correspondent of Talon News. Talon News is a wingnut media corporation. According to Media Matters, Gannon is well known for asking loaded pro-Republican questions at White House press briefings. Like these:
It's nice to have such a supporting reporter in these troublesome press briefings, isn't it? Gannon likes the White House point of view on issues so well that he has used the RNC talking points extensively in his own writing, word by word, it appears, in some cases. Thus, it's not surprising that Media Matters for America asks why Talon News has press credentials, especially as they appear to employ very few journalists. It might be equally engaging to ask how one gets to become the Washington bureau chief of a newspaper that has White House credentials. Gannon gives the following biographical information:
I had never heard of the Leadership Institute Broadcast School of Journalism. This is what the Leadership Institute website says about the program:
Let me see if I got this right: One becomes the Washington bureau chief of a newspaper that has White House press credentials by taking an intense two-day seminar in journalism? And it costs all of fifty dollars? |
Maggie Gallagher, the Goddess of Marriage
Maggie Gallagher is beginning to remind me of Hera, the Goddess of Marriage, the Divine Upholder of the Mrs. Degree and all that. In reality, Hera was always sneaking away to have all sorts of children with fathers whose name was not Zeus. For those who have not followed the news recently, Maggie Gallagher is a marriage expert of the conservative type: only traditional heterosexual marriages with the mother preferably at home full time are good ones, and anything else is a threat to the Western civilization, the military power of the United States and God. She has the right to say all this, of course, just as I have the right to denounce her for saying it. But Maggie has done a little bit more than that: she has taken money from the Bush administration (but only a humble wifely sum) to help them with their program of getting the poor married, and then she has stayed mum about having done so in her wingnut columns and other writings. Maggie's message is a strong one. Here she is offering expert witness testimony to the government:
Take careful notes: Maggie had been working for this good cause for at least fifteen years at the time of these hearings, and she is adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage and single mothers. Ok. Are you ready? Here's more of Maggie's opinions on marriage:
Got it? Especially the last line about adults having a basic obligation to control their desires so that children can have mothers and fathers? Good. Now, here's the thing. Maggie was a single mother for over ten years before she found the haven of a good husband. Evidence? Here it is, thanks to Vulture:
And also courtesy of Vulture:
Maggie Gallagher has been a wingnut marriage expert for about twenty years, and half of that time she was a single mother, one of those threatening the fragile institution of marriage and all things good for children. This is two-faced, to say the least. I am uncomfortable blogging about Maggie's private life, or the private lives of anyone but myself. This case, though, is an exception to the general rule of avoiding such topics. For Maggie keeps lecturing us how to control our basic desires and then she appears to have been unable to do that herself. She's also not very forthcoming about this schism in her writings. This is a worse ethics violation than anything I'm saying here. The wingnut argument on Maggie's behalf would probably be that she has Seen The Light and that She Knows What She Talks About. That's what is used to justify George Bush's youthful adventures, too. But the light must have been dim indeed if it took Maggie ten years to find a way out of her "mistake". No, she's just two-faced. ---- See also this earlier post by Digby on the same topic. |
Wingnuttia on Campuses
University campuses are known hotbeds of communism and feminism and other frightening movements that threaten the Murkan Freedom. Everybody knows this. And wise women such as Ann Coulter warn us about the danger of leaving this situation unattended:
Coulter is so tiring, but she's not alone in the fear and hatred of campus liberals. You might assume that a country where the Republicans already control most everything wouldn't have to worry about the dangers of a few lonely liberals in academic internment camps. You would be wrong. The wingnuts are very worried about this tiny, unimportant fringe group (yes, you can have it both ways), and they spend large amounts of money on counterpropaganda specifically aimed at university students:
And how much do the feminist organizations that work on campuses get? Largely pencils and mugs, I suppose. And I know that they don't have the money to give. The main difference between the Wingnuttia organizations and the rest appears to be that the Wingnuttians operate from the top down (in fact, they seldom seem to have much of a base) and pour money down the funnel to a few preselected individuals, whereas the progressives and liberals operate mainly on the grassroots level (or pencil-and-paper level) and appear to have very little money coming from the top, if there is a top interested in the campuses at all. This does not bode well for the future of liberal voices on campuses, unless the parent organizations learn their lessons and offer some support for the impending fights against radical conservatism. Whether money alone can win minds isn't clear, but I would prefer not to have to wait for the next attack by the Independent Women's Forum (very well funded by the Scaife Foundation and not independent at all) on feminism just to find out. |
Dress Codes
Dick Cheney was our representative in the sixtieth anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, one of the most infamous Nazi concentration camps. You can see that he was given a seat in the front row as is appropriate. You can also see that Dick was dressed to hit the slopes, or, as Washington Post says:
Dick knows how to dress for such events. He wasn't wearing a parka and a beanie for George Bush's coronation last week, and it was pretty cold in Washington, D.C., too. This is an example of implicit dress codes and how they can be broken. The idea is not very different from how one might dress to a funeral, say: with respect and so that one doesn't stand out in the crowd. Or with respect and so that one doesn't remind other participants of their last experiences on the skislopes or the need to shovel their front yards. The exceptions to such codes apply to people who are too poor to have several outer garments to choose from, but Dick is pretty well stocked in comparison to most of the participants, and they all managed to find something dark and unnoticeable. Is this all quite trivial and unworthy of comments here? Perhaps, but I felt like commenting on it, and it's not trivial that many Europeans will interpret Cheney's outfit as yet another example of American exceptionality or of American obliviousness. Though the Washington Post writer is wrong in arguing that Cheney would have been cold in proper clothing. Long underwear was invented for a very good reason. |
Today's Action Alert
|
Action of the Day Today's action is courtesy of the League of Conservation Voters. It's simple, too.
and send a letter telling Bush not to ruin our environment. Thanks for taking today's action.
|
Thursday, January 27, 2005
A Bit More on Michael McManus
He is indeed a religious man. According to Amazon, his book, Marriage Savers, is
Elsewhere, McManus takes the conservative churches to task for not being adequately disapproving of cohabitation before marriage: Truth is, a woman gains nothing" by cohabitating before marriage, said journalist Michael McManus, author of "Marriage Savers: Helping Your Friends and Family Stay Married." Whatever their rationalizations, these women "are just being fools. ... Too many women today are allowing themselves to be used as playmates," he said. And even:
That seems backwards. If cohabiting is so dangerous and sinful, why force the couple to continue doing it? I'm glad to know that Mr. McManus has been helping the government to figure all this out. |
And Then There Were Three...
That is intended to be a reference to a detective story by Agatha Christie and also a reference to the third journalist that has been paid by the Bush administration for their "expertise":
It's the disclosing bit that is of concern here. McManus supposedly got his ten thousand dollars for work done in the government's pro-marriage programs, not for spouting the administration's propaganda in his column. His case is similar to that of Maggie Gallagher, though he scored even less money. As I mentioned before, what is really worrisome about these two hires is that they are not impartial scientist employed for the improvement of the government's plans but partisan debaters on the issues. The Salon article says as much:
Now, I wonder who will be number four? ---- Original link via Eschaton. |
Just To Frighten You!
Unrelated Musings
Time to blog on something not based on links and events that crop up on the day's radar. Time to smell the snow, so to speak. I'm still pretty much snowed in and it's great fun. I have dug tunnels through the back yard for the dogs to race in, with little cul-de-sacs for toilet needs. The squirrels have their own little path shoveled from the trees to the remains of my gingerbread castle. It should be enough to keep them alive until the thaw. That's pretty much the nice news about me. The rest of the time I stomp around furious at one thing or another, especially at politics. It's hard to discuss politics when people in fact don't have a shared language at all. Your idea of "democracy" may be very different from mine, your view of "majority" may have nothing to do with the actual numerical majority and so on. One example of this is in the use of the word "government". As a crude oversimplification, Americans mean something very different from Europeans when they use this word. For many Americans, the government is a potentially tyrannic meanie that is after the hard-earned money of the tax-payers and has no real reason for existing in the first place. For many Europeans, at least those from the so-called old Europe, the government may be something viewed with a bit of sceptism but it's not seen as inherently different from other organizations human beings create. If governments are not to be wholly trusted, neither are large firms or large churches and so on. This is all linked to the meaning of the word "freedom", and this is surely the one word where definitions vary all over the place. Who knows what George Bush has in mind when he talks about freedom? He appears to believe that the god of the Methodists has given it to all the people on this earth, but he has never given a Biblical reference to this promise, nor has he ever explained what he means by freedom. I suspect that he's talking about the freedom of corporations from laws and regulations, not really about the freedom of individuals from exploitation by corporations. His actions support this view more than any other view. The plot is naturally to make the listener equate Bush's use of the word freedom with whatever the listener might deem as desirable in this respect. Then we all hear what we wish to hear and Bush goes on doing whatever he wants to do. Too bad that nobody really knows what we are talking about here. The extreme state of freedom is anarchy, not some earthly paradise. Our freedoms are by necessity reined in by the harm we can do others. Real political solutions always require compromises between rights and obligations and between freedoms and laws. But this is all nuanced and lefty and not interesting enough for political debates. How did I end up so preachery? Well, this is my bully pulpit, after all. |
On Domestic Violence and Muslims in Holland
An article well worth reading on honor killings in Holland is this one. It begins:
Things are not quite as uncomplicated as they might seem from these beginning paragraphs. But the article brings to light the many problems that Holland faces in trying to negotiate multiculturalism on the one hand and women's rights on the other. The common feminist response to these problems is to empower the women within a specific subculture and to let them decide what equal rights they wish to achieve first, rather than have such rights determined from above or from outside. But in practice the empowerment of women who are isolated from the mainstream culture and sometimes even physically isolated is not an easy matter. And then there is the whole problem of how to persuade individuals who equate women's rights with Western imperialism and the gaining of such rights with the loss of cultural traditions. For me human rights come first, and women's rights to be free of honor killings are part of human rights. Those parts of any tradition that dishonor humans should go. |
Ted Turner on Hitler
Ted Turner has never heard of Godwin's law:
That's it in a nutshell, the level of debate in this country. Sadly, Turner is right on several counts. Popularity does not necessarily equal truth, Fox News indeed does biased reporting and sloppy analysis, and it produces misinformed viewers as shown by a recent study. Then there is the whole story about the lemmings to keep in mind here. Mentioning Hitler exacerbates the communication problems, though, because Hitler is regarded as evil personified. Ted would have been more successful if he had moderated his comments somewhat. Maybe Mussolini? Just kidding. |
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
How It Is Done
The way changes are crammed down our throats in this country is done by repetition and by the refusal to hear any other alternatives. President Bush showed this today in his answers to questions from the press many times. Just one example is enough (and won't harm you as much as reading through the whole thing). This is about the coming destruction of Social Security and the role of Bill Thomas in it. Thomas has been musing on cutting the benefits on solely the basis of sex or race, but I'm not sure if Bush was talking about that when he praised Thomas:
Never mind that the math shows nothing of the sort of problem that would make it necessary to do something along the lines the president advocates. Never mind what other people say, what experts might say. If the president says we have a problem then we have one. Right? The wingnuts do have a problem, of course, and it is the fact that they don't want to have a Social Security system to begin with. If they had been around in the 1930's they would have voted against the program. Republicans did, in those days, too. The fact is that the abolition of the Social Security has been on the conservative long-term agenda for decades, and now seems to be the time to act on that. First, lets privatize some accounts (oops! should be "let's personalize some accounts"), next, lets get rid of guaranteed benefits, and voila!, the next step will be the death of any insurance aspect in the Social Security system and the return to the times when the poorhouses were full of the elderly. I'm exaggerating for the benefit of style, but not by much. The wingnuts really do want to erase most of governmental functions. This will bring in anarchy, which is interesting as I have never heard the wingnuts called anarchists before. |
Maggie Gallagher
Maggie Gallagher is a smiling marriage expert (well, she grins widely in the pictures I've seen). She writes a lot about the importance for all children to have two parents of different genders, and she is adamantly behind Bush's marriage initiative (the idea that marriage fixes all the ills of the poor). She also appears to have been paid by the government for her expertise in these matters:
She received another $20,000 later
Wade Horn is the wingnut who said that the foundation of the family is the father. Without a father, there is no family. These opinions are the reason why Horn is now an assistant secretary for children and families, of course. He's part of the payback to the fundamentalists. Gallagher's case may not be similar to Armstrong Williams' case. Gallagher was paid to write reports, not to go on talkshows and spout propaganda. But she was spouting the propaganda already, of course, so it's not clear if the payment really was intended to cover nothing but the reports. I have more trouble with the assertion that Gallagher is a well-known national expert in the field of marriage, and therefore deserves to be hired with our tax money. She's a well-known partisan in the discussion of marriage, and that doesn't exactly guarantee objective expert statements from her. But I have a lot more trouble with her writing style. Here's Maggie waxing poetical about fathers' rights in adoption cases:
|
Blood
In Iraq, life is cheap. This is a day of death for the U.S. troops and for the Iraqis, too: Thirty-one U.S. troops died in a helicopter crash in Iraq and five more were killed in insurgent attacks Wednesday, the deadliest day for American forces since they invaded the country 22 months ago. Bush also said, as expected, that the terrorists are afraid of a free society and that's why they try to stop people from voting. Actually, the terrorists appear to have almost total freedom to do whatever they wish right now. And what will the new "free society of Iraq" look like after the elections? I think that it will look a lot like Iran: Iraq's Shi'ites strongly support the elections. A list of candidates dominated by Shi'ite Islamists and drawn up with the guidance of revered cleric Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is expected to win the most votes, cementing their newfound political power. A society where women will have very little say over anything. This is of course the problem with democracy in general: without the institutions and the education that are needed and without the safeguards that protect minorities democracy is no miracle solution to anything. - I foresaw the rise of a theocracy in Iraq, and that was one of the reasons why I was so strongly opposed to the war in the first place. Iraq was one of the few places in the region where women had fairly good legal rights. But all that will soon be history, and it will take several generations before the situation can be corrected. Much unnecessary suffering, and we are at least partly to blame for that. Isn't it sad how we get used to this dying? Day after day the news tell us how many died in Iraq, and after a while one just notes and goes on. |
An Empress For Japan?
Not just as a consort, I mean. There are some rumors that this may be in the works:
But, as this article points out, the conservatives are likely to fight any changes in this. It would break an unbroken male lineage of 2,600 years. Which is interesting in itself, as the Japanese royal family is said to descend from Amaterasu, goddess of the sun. There might be a more ancient tradition here that could be tapped now. |
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Honoring Rush Limbaugh
According to the Media Matters for America, Brian Williams, the replacement for Tom Brokaw as the anchor of NBC's "Nightly News", thinks that Rush Limbaugh is yet to get the credit he is due:
Media Matters goes on to tell us that the sorts of things Limbaugh told his pining audience include these. That Limbaugh:
Yes. But we don't really know what Williams meant when he said that Limbaugh hasn't yet gotten his due recognition. Maybe Williams had rotten eggs expertly thrown at the Rush mug in his mind? Or public spitting? Or maybe not. Maybe Williams adores Limbaugh and is going to give him kisses and stuff in his news program. Limbaugh has not yet received his dues, I agree. He is personally responsible for a lot of lying, a lot of hatred and a lot of fear in this country. He has deliberately taken the anger he found there and he has made it more vicious, he has deliberately misdirected the anger towards a group of people who cannot fight back very well, and he is still deliberately stoking more anger, anger that may one day result in a civil war in this country and the death of people who have nothing to do with the issues that Limbaugh foams about. He has made hatreds of all kinds politically correct again. That's what he will be recognized for in the history books one day, and that's when he will get his dues. |
On Logic and Feelings
An interesting opinion piece in the Salon talks about the way the wingnuts employ feelings to get their message accepted all across the country. The writer, Jennifer Buckendorff, points out that the liberals don't do this very well; we tend to rely too much on logic and facts and they lose in the competition against a really tear-producing piece about how some poor Christian has been oppressed once again:
I agree with Buckendorff. Human beings are not just thinking creatures, but also feeling creatures and the way our feelings are manipulated can often outpower the meager "yes, but" whisperings of our logical parts. Liberals and progressives should learn to use emotions better. After all, most true victimization stories are on our side. The wingnuts control everything nowadays, yet they still screech about how poorly they are treated in the media and how oppressed Christmas and Easter are. Buckendorff singles out Oprah as someone who knows how to do the emotional persuading:
Logic and emotion shouldn't be seen as enemies in the first place. Martha Nussbaum has written an interesting book about the interconnections between them, and though emotions can be used to counter facts they can also be helpful in unearthing facts and reinforcing logical arguments. We should learn to understand emotions in politics and we should learn to use them better. Maybe hiring someone like Oprah wouldn't be a bad way to start. |
Today's Action Alert
Today's Action comes from el, a commenter at Eschaton. The vote on Gonzales' appointment for Attorney General is coming up. Let the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee know that we don't want a torturer and a perjurer for Attorney General. ******** Clips from moveon: Contact the Senate Judiciary Committee to Voice Your Opposition to the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General: United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary Phone: (202) 224-5225 Fax: (202) 224-9102 Contacts: Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee: Arlen Specter - chair 202-224-4254 Fax: 202-228-1229 mailto:arlen_specter@specter.senate.gov Patrick J. Leahy 202-234-4242 mailto:senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov Charles E. Grassley 202.224.3744 Fax: 515-288-5097 http://www.grassley.senate.gov/webform.htm Edward M. Kennedy 202-224-4543 http://www.kennedy.senate.gov/contact.html Joseph R. Biden, Jr. 202-224-5042 mailto:senator@biden.senate.gov Jon Kyl 202-224-4521 http://www.kyl.senate.gov/contact.cfm Herbert Kohl 202-224-5653 http://www.kohl.senate.gov/gen_contact.html Mike DeWine 202-224-2315 http://www.dewine.senate.gov Dianne Feinstein 202-224-3841 http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/email.html Jeff Sessions 202-224-4124 http://www.sessions.senate.gov/contact.htm#form Russell D. Feingold 202-224-5323 mailto:russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov Lindsey Graham 202-224-5972 http://www.lgraham.senate.gov/index.cfm?mode=contact Charles E. Schumer 202-224-6542 http://www.schumer.senate.gov/webform.html Larry Craig 202- 224-2752 http://www.craig.senate.gov/webform.html Richard J. Durbin 202-224-2152 http://www.durbin.senate.gov/sitepages/contact.htm Saxby Chambliss 202-224-3521 http://www.chambliss.senate.gov/Contact/default.cfm?pagemode=1 John Cornyn 202-224-2934 http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/contact/index.html Thanks for taking Today's Action. |
Monday, January 24, 2005
Some News on the Goddess Front
I'm guest blogging today on Alas, a Blog. The topic is the popularization of the results from gender science and how they are received. Thanks to Ampersand of Alas, a Blog for giving me this valuable opportunity to rant wider. Thank you also for the interesting and intelligent comments in my comments sections. I always look forward to reading them. It's a great (and free) education! Otherwise life is a little bit annoying. I'm low on chocolate due to being snowed in. But I'm going to make a pear galette instead. It will be perfect after tonight's martial arts practice. |
The Goddess with the Long Ring Fingers
That's me, and thanks to two keen-eyed people in my comments I now know that this makes me almost as good at parking cars and map-reading as men! January has been a dreadful month for women in the field of studying gender difference. First we were told that men will not marry uppity women because uppity women are more likely to be unfaithful. This has something to do with prehistoric men's fertility fears. Then we were subjected to a week-long shouting match about why women are not equally represented in the hard sciences, with ideas ranging from girls liking dolls better than trucks to autistic children possessing the extreme male brain to goddess rants on everything inbetween ending with Charles Murray in the New York Times pontificating on yet one more topic he knows nothing about. And soon there will be another article about why female and male brains would look completely different if they were viewed as light lanterns when in use. It is a flood, my friends, and it is going to drown us all. The nice thing about this newest study is naturally that it reinforces all the common stereotypes very nicely and that you can tell everything you need to know just by looking at a woman's fingers! If you are a woman and have forefingers and ring fingers of approximately the same length, well, then you are doomed to never learn parallel parking or mapreading:
With the exception of the finger stuff, there is nothing new about this research. It's the same old thing about the mental rotation of three-dimensional figures that all the tests always talk about. Do you spot something very interesting about the study methods as described in the above quote? Nowhere did they actually check how well the women and the men in the study could read maps or park cars. ---- I know that I promised another post on Steven Pinker, but I'm overdozed on this shit. Sorry. |
Bill Thomas Again
Via Atrios and Josh Marshall, I learned that Representative Bill Thomas is still putting more ideas on the table about how to
What this means is that if four people: a black woman, a black man, a white woman and a white man were all to contribute exactly the same total amount towards Social Security, the black man would get the largest annual payment back and the white woman the smallest. The longer your group lives, on average, the less you will get. No particular person may live just the average number of years for his or her group, of course, so in reality many would still receive more than the amount they paid in and others would receive less than they paid in. But as groups black women and white men, for example, would be getting the same benefits if they paid in the same amounts. I mentioned in an earlier post that deciding on the proper annuity payment by race and sex is one of those problems where someone always gets treated unfairly. In Thomas' idea it is the individuals who are going to benefit or suffer from discrimination, in the present system it is the groups as defined above (for example, black men as a group would not recoup the total they have paid in because they die younger, on average). The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that discrimination against individuals is worse than discrimination against groups. If this ruling stands, Thomas will not be successful in pushing his proposal. What is probably behind this and other similar proposals is not so much the aim to cut benefits to save money, but to cut redistribution of income. Wingnuts hate that in a system. Some aspects of the current redistribution should be in their interest, though. For example, major beneficiaries from Social Security are the women who have spent much of their lives out of the labor force, caring for children. Wingnuts like that in women, yet Thomas' proposal would severely harm this very group who has behaved so morally. There is one proposal for changing the Social Security system that Thomas doesn't want to have on the table, and that is changing the way payroll taxes are funded. Payroll taxes are regressive. If we made them at least income-neutral we'd collect more money for Social Security and we would also alleviate its unintended income redistribution effects. But for Thomas this proposal is too dangerous; it might cut back on employment. Of course, it would also make the very rich pay more. |
Sunday, January 23, 2005
The Greatest American of All Times
Discovery Channel and America Online have a contest to name "The Greatest American" ever. You can nominate up to five individuals online through February 1. What happens then is this: The top nominees will be listed in March, with Discovery planning a seven-hour, four-night series in the spring about the leading vote-getters and the winner. There is a gimmicky quality to all this, of course, but it's interesting to think about what it means to be "The Greatest American" ever. According to the ad from which I quoted, the definition of greatness would be somemone who most influenced how we work, think and live. So the person doesn't have to be "good"; someone really evil might well qualify if that person had great impact on everything. Of course future generations might have very different ideas about who the greatest American ever was, even if their selection was limited to the same time periods that we consider, for sometimes a person's impact can only be seen clearly from a distance. One is not a leader if nobody follows. So "The Greatest American" can't be too much ahead of the pack or too different. Probably someone who is just one step ahead of everyone else and who can be easily made into the myth of One Person Doing Great Things. This competition, and others like it, are really about the symbolic meaning of individuals. What we might vote for are the develoments for which they stand, not really what the individuals did themselves. And even Rosa Parks was a culmination of a long period of agitating and work by a large group of individuals. In this sense probably "The Greatest American" is the community of like-minded individuals who got something done. But this goes against the rugged individualism thing. It will be interesting to see who gets nominated. My predictions are that we are going to have George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan nominated from presidents, Martin Luther King and possibly Rosa Parks from the Civil Rights Movement, and lots of athletes and movie stars. Thomas Alva Edison, Henry Ford and some other inventors and industrialists might also be nominated. Then writers like Walt Whitman and Mark Twain and so on. Jonas Salk and other medical inventors who changed lives in concrete ways. Painters, musicians, the list goes on. But it won't have very many women on it. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan Anthony deserve to be included, and I hope that they will be. Surely the fact that women can vote has made a big difference in the way we live. On the whole, though competitions like this seek for people who had power to influence things on a large scale and only few women have been in that position. The winner should probably be the unknown American, of unknown sex, race and ethnicity, who worked so hard and strived so earnestly to produce something better, and who has, for most of American history, opened his or her arms to those who needed shelter and food. You know, the one who cares about the huddled masses. |
Talking to Steven Pinker
Not really. I'm just pretending to talk to him. Pinker is this linguist who wrote a famous book called The Blank Slate, and lots of people think that he is the bees knees in genetic research into various group differences, such as the difference between men and women. In fact, he's a linguist. Quite a few of the other men who study gender sciences have their training in fields such as political science or law, I've noticed. Which makes it perfectly fine for a goddess to comment on these things, too. Anyway, Pinker's book is really well written. It is so astonishingly well written that I suspect he was born a woman. Or I would suspect that if I was Pinker. It is so well-written that it takes very careful reading to see how very little he actually has as the proof of his various arguments. But notice that though he has a specific chapter on gender differences, he puts violence elsewhere. Pinker seems to view "gender" as synonymous with "female", and this is not unusual in the field in general. I'd say that if any form of human behavior shows strong gender differences in our current society, it's the way we express aggression, and yet violence is not in the gender chapter. Little things like this often help me to see what a person is really after. And I suspect that Pinker is after putting women in the proper place. Which is not in the kitchen for him, but as a sort of an assitant manager. His use of economic evidence in The Blank Slate is something I'm admirably able to criticize. Here's what I say about his discussion on the gender wage gap in another context:
I'm going to talk to him a little more in my next post. |
Saturday, January 22, 2005
Snow
It is snowing today in large parts of the U.S.. Snow is lovely stuff, especially if you have proper snow tires for your car and someone else to shovel the driveway. Then you can concentrate on enjoying snow. I like to put on my cross-country skis and go and harass the neighborhood. One year I got a group of drunks running after me, but of course I was on skis so they never had a chance. Skating is fun, too, if there is a frozen lake nearby, though you want to let someone else go first to test how hard the ice is. Or you need to learn the rules about how to drag yourself back onto hard ice. An icepick is a good implement for this, or a long rope tied to a tree on the shore before you venture out. You can also give all your rugs a wonderful cleaning by putting them on freshly fallen snow with the good side down. After ten minutes or so, you can gently beat the back of the rug. When you pick it up you will find, to your great astonishment, a horribly black rugshaped patch on the snow. Or at least I do. This works even with hand-made oriental rugs, and it saves you lots of money in cleaning fees. And then you can make snow lanterns. I have already given instructions for these on the Eschaton threads and maybe even here last year, but they are so beautiful that the instructions are worth repeating. They only work if the snow balls up, though. Make about nine snowballs and arrange them in a circle (outside!) so that the balls touch each other. Make the second layer above the first with seven snowballs so that they make a slightly smaller circle, then use five snowballs and so on. The idea is to make a pyramid out of snow. Before you close it off with one snowball on top, insert a lit candle, one of the sturdy fat ones preferably. When it gets dark you have this magical little lantern by your doorway. Better still, make a row of them along your front path. Then you can run into the house and have a large hot drink with a very clear conscience! |
Daniel Schorr
I like NPR's Daniel Schorr's gravely voice and his carefully expressed but blunt opinions. He's an old-time journalist, which means that he actually studies the topics on which he speaks, and that is so refreshing. So far he's said pretty much everything according to my dictates, so he must be a very competent guy! Here is Schorr on the U.S. media:
He also mentions the nonexistent WMDs and the Armstrong Williams scandal which isn't a scandal because he is on the side of the Washington Pravda and Izvestiya. And that is the real scandal. I know, I was supposed to blog only cheerful stuff today. Well, Schorr is a small source of cheerfulness in this post. |
Some Good News From Iran (or Not)
My new promise is to try to blog on positive developments on the weekends, if at all possible. That way my dear readers don't have to take antacids nonstop. Here is a positive development: Women in Iran have been judged as capable of running for the president of the country: "If they posses the necessary qualifications, women can also run for president," the television quoted Guardian Council spokesman Gholamhossein Elham as saying. For the last quarter century, "rijal" has been interpreted to mean a man. Of course what this will mean in practise is not so clear. The "necessary qualifications" could be manipulated in various ways, but at least this is a step forwards. This is good. Or is it? Thanks to Kait in the comments of this post for alerting me to this:
Hmmm. Someone must have given Elham a phone call. |
Friday, January 21, 2005
Friday's Gingerbread Blogging
Theocracy Beginning?
At the National Prayer Service today Bill Graham, the man who is said to have converted Bush to fervent Christianity, said this:
So God had a hand in Bush's re-election! I wonder what form that took. Perhaps meddling with the voting machines? But that's blasphemy! Naughty me. But apparently not naughty Bill Graham. I feel like we are all sitting in a train driven by some lunatic who doesn't know how to stop the damn thing. |
Whose Voice Is It That Bush Heard From Beyond the Stars?
The Norwegians have been aghast at the behavior of the U.S. First Family:
President Bush's "Hook 'em, 'horns" salute got lost in translation in Norway, where shocked people interpreted his hand gesture during his inauguration as a salute to Satan. Which just goes to show that religion is hard to interpret literally. Or...? |
Today's Action Alert
Today's Action comes from MoveOn: The New York Times disclosed on Sunday that the Bush administration is using the Social Security Administration to mislead the American public and sell Social Security privatization. Documents obtained by The New York Times show that Bush's plan is to insert "propaganda" into Social Security publications -- using the apparatus of this huge government agency -- and the trust millions place in it -- to sell their privatization scheme that would cut Social Security benefits. We need your help to make it clear that the Social Security Administration is not another propaganda tool of the White House. Please take one minute to send a message. Call the Social Security Administration at the number below. Tell them you oppose Social Security privatization and you expect them to deliver straight facts -- not White House spin -- to the American people. Call: 1-800-772-1213 After the greeting, dial 1 for English or 2 for Spanish. Then press 3. Then press 0 to speak to a representative. Thanks for taking today's action. |
The Other Side of the Nine Balls
We Are All Republicans Now
Or so it appears:
It's like a wedding, isn't it? Nobody ever says that the happy couple is probably going to be divorced in a year or that the groom had a big red pimple smack at the tip of his nose or that the bride was flat-footed. Or maybe like a funeral: only good things are said when someone dies. I hope the next four years doesn't finish this country off. Then we would have a real funeral. |
Thursday, January 20, 2005
What Neutrality in the Media Means
It means that the Fox News used seventeen conservative/Republican commentators and six Democratic/progressive commentators in its inaugural coverage today between the hours of 7 a.m. and 5 p.m., EST. It means that during the same time period CNN used ten conservative/Republican commentators to exactly ONE Democratic/progressive commentator. It means that MSNBC used thirteen conservative/Republican commentators to two Democratic/progressive commentators during the same time. Could this biased distribution be because the president who is being inaugurated is a wingnut, so that mostly only wingnuts are allowed to comment? But isn't he supposed to be the president of everyone? He said so, himself, quite recently. About 81% of all commentators were wingnuts today. Even some of the so-called Democrats/progressives are nothing but wingnuts. And still we hear that this not enough, that this is the liberal media! Gag me with a spoon. ---- Via Atrios. |
Flirting Instructions from the Religious Right
This is from a teenage magazine intended for girls, and it tells them how to snare a good Godly man:
Who needs feminism? ---- Link courtesy of Biblio |
Having Fun in Washington, D.C.
Mine! All Mine!
What To Do on a Boring Day
A thread on the Eschaton was full of wonderful sayings by Dorothy Parker, the woman with a sandpaper tongue. She's one of mine, of course, as are all viper tongues. You could read her and other vinegary writers. Here's something to get you started: Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song. A medley of extemporanea; And love is a thing that can never go wrong; and I am Marie of Roumania. (from Enough Rope (1926)) Razors pain you; Rivers are damp; Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp. Guns aren't lawful; Nooses give; Gas smells awful; You might as well live. (from Enough Rope (1926)) If you prefer something more thoughtful from Ms. Parker, think about these: Ridicule may be a shield, but it is not a weapon. (from John Keats' You Might As Well Live (1970)) The nowadays ruling that no word is unprintable has, I think, done nothing whatever for beautiful letters....Obscenity is too valuable a commodity to chuck around all over the place; it should be taken out of the safe on special occasions only. (from Esquire (1957)) Then you could look for other writers that suit the tenor of the day. Or you could take up knitting. It was hugely successful among those who watched the guillotine executions in the French Revolution, or so we are told by most likely biased sources. Good knitters can easily knit and watch executions at the same time. It's one of those fine motor skills that work independently of the brain. I am a sporadic knitter myself, though a very advanced one. I knit about once a decade, but then I equip all the snakes with sweaters which have roughly two hundred colors in each. I have lots of wool in storage for knitting, but writing the blog uses similar fine motor skills (you should see my fingers run!) so I haven't done anything interesting for a long time. Woodworking is another nice thing to do when you are bored. Just make sure you have plenty of insurance and learn to think of three fingers per hand as a sign of pride. I'm making some shelves to put up behind my computer. They have been in the same state of half-readiness for months now, because I can't decide how to fix them to the wall. I want something fancy. You could begin by building a miniature gallows. You could then knit the rope for it and make little stuffed figures of any particular person you want to see hanged. Or you could just drown your boredom in fancy lovemaking and nectar-sipping. |
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Here We Go
I was wondering when all this would start:
The procedure may indeed harm women. So does giving birth, and, unfortunately for the argument "Jane Roe" presents here, the potential harm of giving birth is much greater than that involved in medically performed abortions. This has nothing to do with worries about harming women, of course. If anything, the reverse is the intention. Listen to this: ...in a strongly worded concurrence, the 5th US circuit court of appeals judge Edith Jones criticised the abortion ruling and said new medical evidence may well show undue harm to a mother and her foetus. Bolds mine. Do you think that she was trying to be funny? This judge is a religious wingnut, unless I'm conflating two different Edith Joneses here. But I don't think so. Here is an excerpt from a speech an Edith Jones gave last year:
Bolds mine. I'm sure that judge Jones would just love to balance out all that unrepresentative secularity with some proper Bible-thumping. Too bad about the Constitution. |
How to Commemorate the Coronation Tomorrow
This is really fertile ground. There are so many good ideas all across the sane blogosphere, and lots of are absolutely perfect. The most popular one is the not-one-dime-day: don't spend any money tomorrow, don't buy groceries, don't buy gas, don't buy anything whatsoever. Just a little reminder of the economic power of us unwashed masses, a nudge in the well-padded side of the corporate America and a reminder that we won't help them if they spit on us. Also, for certain types of people only money speaks. This wouldn't conflict with the idea I posted earlier on the blog: that of donating money to an organization which funds abortions for poor women. You could always donate tonight or first thing Friday morning if you feel that you must remain pure on Thursday. Then you could always go to Washington, D.C., and cast a gloomy pall over all the festivities, but if that's what you're doing you don't need me to tell you anything about it. Though think about a man who has nine balls! Sounds like some sort of compensation to me, and, yes, I know that this joke is in very bad taste but then I have a bad taste in my mouth all the time nowadays. Another affirmative idea is to get together with others who feel the same way about the coronation and to arrange your own alternative orgies. Check your local listings; there might be something fun going on. Some bloggers cover their blogs in black tomorrow, as a sign of acknowledging the importance of the day, but I'm not going to do that, though I probably won't obsessively describe the dresses of the party-goers either. Whatever you do, remember that you are not alone and that you are sane. |
Women in Bush's Social Security Plan
Bill Thomas, the Republican chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has ideas about women. Specifically, he airs the idea that women's Social Security benefits should be altered:
This is one of those cases which causes statistical discrimination whatever one does. The problem is that men, on average, die earlier than women. If men and women are paid the same benefits per person per year, then women will collect more money as a group because more women will live to older ages. If, on the other hand, we changed the system in the way Thomas suggests, women would get less money each year than men, and as groups women and men would collect equal amounts. But then all the men who live longer than the average man would be getting "extra" benefits, whereas the women who die earlier than the average woman would never get their "fair" share. I'm pretty sure that the Supreme Court has ruled against Thomas' plan as discriminatory in the past. The justification was that individual discrimination is worse than unequal group outcomes. But this is a new era with a new Supreme Court so one never knows. Or, rather, one does know, of course; even if one would rather not. If you get my meaning. I'm very glad that I'm a goddess right now so that I don't have to try to eke a meager survival on my reduced Social Security checks in extreme old age. And, as someone suggested on Eschaton, why not use the same argument to cut the annual benefits of whites? Whites also have a longer life expectancy than blacks. |
This is Fun
Sara sent me an e-mail about a little rewriting she had done on a post about feminists that she found on a misogynistic website. She altered the word "feminist" to "conservative" and so on, and this is what she produced:
I think it's nice! |
Today's Action Alert
Today's Action: Write a letter to your Senators and ask them not to confirm Condalezza Rice as Secretary of State. As demonstrated by Rice's unresponsive answers to Barbara Boxer's questions, Rice is not qualified to be Secretary of State. Tell your Senators that we can do better. Thanks for taking today's action. |
Why There are So Few Women in the Hard Sciences: Part III
In this post the story of disecting the provoking thoughts of Lawrence Summers continues. As you may remember, he offered three hypotheses for the reasons why there are few women in hard sciences: 1. The eighty-hour workweek expected 2. That women might be biologically less able to do hard sciences than men and 3. Discrimination against women. I have discussed the second one quite extensively in my previous post in this series, and here I wish to tackle the first and second suggestions of our Lawrence. First, why would the eighty-hour workweek in hard sciences keep women back? What is the average workweek in the soft sciences or in the humanities, where there are more women, relatively speaking (though not by the amounts that the so-called biological studies of female superiority in writing skills would suggest...)? As far as I can tell, the average expected workweek is pretty long for all Ivy League professors and scholars, but this appears to have less effect on women outside the hard sciences. Second, why would women react differently to a long workweek than men? This is the hidden agenda in this suggestion: it has to do with who is going to take care of the children. So it's very simple, really: according to this hypothesis, women are not in the hard sciences because they need to have more time for family life. Men appear not to want to have a family life to the same extent. Why would this be the case? Here, once again, opinions differ. Some argue that women have a biological imperative to spend more time chauffeuring their children to hockey meets than men do. Others argue that the upbringing we are all subjected to convinces both girls and boys of the necessity for such tasks to belong to women. Or perhaps both of these reasons apply at the same time. Third, given this sexual division of labor in many families, why are eighty-hour workweeks so necessary? Here the answer appears to be that the quality of research would diminish if the scientists could go home, once in a while, or even take the white coat off for a day every week. I disagree with this. There is no evidence proving that this long workweeks would be good for creativity and productivity in general. In fact, there is a pretty good counterargument, based on the likelihood that we get less productive the longer the time we have already worked. Besides, eighty-hour weeks translate to zero hours with children except during the weekends, and I don't care what sex you are; if you are a parent this is crap. Talking about the "eighty-hour week" is a shorthand way of pointing out that so many things in the academia assume that the scholars have a well-equipped home base to which they return only to sleep. The scholars are certainly not expected to give birth to children, for example, though change in this has taken place in the last few decades. But hard sciences may not look like very hospitable places to a lot of women for reasons of this sort. Then consider being the only woman in a department, or one of very few. Consider a lab where people talk about what internet pornsites they visit and so on. And consider that some of your colleagues might very well be thinking all the time that women are by nature less able to do science. It takes a very specific type of person to wade through all this towards the great enjoyment that hard sciences can offer. Things are not this bad or bad at all in every department, but these departments-from-hell still exist. Most of us don't want to be the symbolic pathbreakers who get beaten to a pulp in the process, and it's not difficult to see why hard sciences might not look that attractive to a woman perfectly capable of practising them. And this brings me to Dr. Summers' third hypothesis, the one about discrimination against women. Here is the place where Dr. Summers reveals his true beliefs: Summers' third point was about discrimination. Referencing a well-known concept in economics, he said that if discrimination was the main factor limiting the advancement of women in science and engineering, then a school that does not discriminate would gain an advantage by hiring away the top women who were discriminated against elsewhere. This little conclusion is from a very early book on discrimination by Gary Becker. If you think about what is being said here for a while, you realize that if Dr. Summers is correct, then there has never been any discrimination at all! All those blacks and women who sued Wal-Mart for discrimination were wrong! Sadly, this is not the correct conclusion. Becker derived this result in a simple model of the world where he assumed that only employers wanted to discriminate. Both coworkers (colleagues) and consumers were assumed to be totally fair and unbiased. But in reality we cannot assume that neither coworkers nor consumers would be totally fair and unbiased. In fact, when Becker introduced the possibility that discrimination might not be something that only bosses do his conclusion no longer applied. Also, the conclusion is derived from a model which assumes that there is no ignorance about workers' true abilities, that everybody knows everything relevant. Once we allow for the actual amount of uncertainty and ignorance in the real world, the result would fail to follow even if only bosses were bigots. In fact, some alternative models show just the opposite in this case: that even actually unbiased bosses might discriminate if they expect that this strategy is, on average, rewarded by the overall market. That Summers served one of the earliest and very partial conclusion from the whole rich field of the economics of discrimination shows what he really thinks. For this is the one piece that is always trotted out by those who never believed in any of that discrimination bullshit in the first place. He could have at least mentioned the many alternative theories of discrimination and the fact that they lead to very different conclusions. Or he could have mentioned the many empirical studies that show gender discrimination exists. Instead of giving you a long lecture on these theories or evidence, I'm going to assume that you trust me enough to believe that they exist. Thus, Summers' argument fails to say anything very useful about the possible extent of discrimination against women in the hard sciences, even if we define discrimination as only taking place on the level of the relevant university. Then there is the whole issue of steering by teachers and career counselors on school level and the general societal expectations... Really, there is a lot of material here, and Summers' statement is a little bit inane. Which brings me to my conclusions. Whether women and men have the same average ability to do hard sciences or not, shouldn't we clear out all the other obstacles women in the hard sciences meet before we decide to throw up our hands and agree that it's-just-the-way-things-are? Especially as it might not be the way things are, after all. ----- If you are interested in real-world descriptions of sex discrimination, you might want to read through this thread in the Democratic Underground. |
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Hi There
My third post on the Lawrence Summers speech won't be up until tomorrow, because I haven't written it yet. Instead, I have read a discussion thread (courtesy of emjaybee in my comments) about the meaning of this speech, and I remembered just why I hate it when the topic of innate gender differences crops up. I had forgotten how all sorts of quite nasty people crawl out of the woodwork and state categorically that things are as they are for a good reason, that all is predestined and that the current sexual division of labor is the optimal one. Funny how these debates never surface when a study claims that women do something better than men. Let me tell you an anecdote (which, as I described in my previous post, has no generalizability): I once taught a university course which started with some discussions of the I.Q. measure. This wasn't in psychology, so the treatment was relatively short, but for some reason I mentioned to the class that Binet's initial attempts to create such a measure caused one sex to have a higher average, so he adjusted the test until both girls and boys tested the same on average. There was some whispering and rustling in the audience, and this was among the male students. A couple of them got somewhat upset and wanted to know if the test still could have been seen as valid. I then explained that it was the girls who tested higher on the original test before Binet modified it, and somehow the adjustment was not longer causing either whispers or upsets. I'm not sure what was going on, but the impression I received was that at least some of the male students had a prior idea about which sex should have scored higher. - Anyway, it was interesting. The question of gender difference is not something one can discuss in unregulated arenas without invoking the idea of gender inferiority, and especially the inferiority of women. Misogynists, in particular, always believe in great and immutable gender differences, and such differences are the rationalization of their feelings. More generally, anti-feminists base their arguments on inherent gender differences, for without such differences there would be no logical reason to be an anti-feminist. This makes a feminist approach often seem as if one is advocating the thesis that men and women are exactly the same from a biological point of view, even if one is saying no such thing. A feminist who believes in innate differences between the sexes has the extra burden of seeming as if she or he is agreeing with the misogynist or anti-feminist first, before going to argue that difference does not mean inferiority. In my experience this seldom works. But I'm not sure what would work. Note also, that those who argue most heatedly for the case of innate gender differences appear never to suggest that such differences should be ameliorated by education or other environmental modifications. We do this with congenital problems all the time, and it might make sense to do with other characteristics, too. But this part is not in the political agenda of this group. The political agenda being that status quo is perfectly swell. And, finally, it is odd how many commentators are willing to let go of their rigorous standard with respect to evidence and science when it comes to this issue. In the comments thread I linked to, at least two people advocated Stephen Pinker as an expert with respect to this question. His work is in linguistics, but what he says about sex differences appeals to the innate-and-immutable-nothing-can-be-done-about-it school. Gah. --- I almost forgot: An interesting new argument seems to have cropped up (at least it is new to me),and that is the beautiful and harmonious complementarity between the biologically innately different sexes. While such complementarity may be very beautiful in some cases, it seems to assume that all women are like the average woman and all men like the average man, and it says nothing about the not-so-beautiful "complementary" relationships that have large power differences in them. Not to mention very different financial rewards. |
You're Not Playing in My Yard
That's intended to be a line from a really old song about the rivalries of children, and how children try to exclude those they dislike. Our administration does the same thing, or so it looks:
This would be an interesting way to control the press without explicitly having any kind of governmental censure. ---- Link courtesy of Tom Daai Tou Laam on the Eschaton threads. |
Why There Are So Few Women in the Hard Sciences: Part II
Time to dive in deeper. Lawrence Summmers' little speech suggested three different explanations for the scarcity of women in hard sciences: the eighty-hour weeks one is assumed to work, possible biological differences in talent between the sexes and discrimination against women. I wish to look at each of these, and I'm going to begin with Summers' second hypothesis, the one about biological differences between the sexes. The other two questions will be addressed in my next post if I ever get there. It is useful to note at the very beginning that all these causes are likely to be extremely intertwined. For example, if people like Dr. Summers believe that women are less able to do hard sciences, and if people like Dr. Summers happen to become the presidents of major Ivy League universities, well, then there is quite likely to be discrimination against women in these places even if there was no innate sex difference in scientific talent. Likewise, if many employers accept the idea that women shy away from an eighty-hour week then they are going to be less likely to look at female applicants for such jobs seriously which can cause discrimination. And so on. Also, it is interesting to ponder on the reason why hard sciences are called hard. What is it that is hard about them? Most seem to think that this label serves to distinguish them from soft sciences, but then, once again, what is so soft about some sciences? In reality, the hard sciences are in many ways easier than the soft sciences (which tend to deal with human data) because the empirical evidence has so much less static in it. It might be interesting to ask whether this hardness has anything to do with the idea of hardness in penis comparisons. I have no opinion on this! Ok. Onwards and upwards. Are women less talented in hard sciences for purely biological reasons? The correct answer to this question is that we don't know. I can imagine many readers turning red here and starting to spew liquid on the keyboard, but bear with me for a while. How would we find about such innate differences? The obvious answer would be by using genetic study for it, but as far as I know genetic study is currently not in a position to answer such complicated questions. If anything, we are learning that the interplay between inherited tendencies and the environment is much more complicated than we previously thought. It is even possible that the environment turns genes on and off, and in that sense there might not even be any such thing as purely genetic influence. We don't have data on purely genetic influences in this field, or at least we don't have data that could be guaranteed to contain nothing else but the influence of our genes. What we have instead are three types of evidence which have been widely used to argue that differences in the numbers of women and men in hard sciences is biologically based: studies of differences in cognition between groups of girls and boys or women and men, studies which analyze the impact of some known change in the fetal stage or the impact of some known medical condition (such as autism) on cognition, and teleological studies which really use these same data but pedal backwards from them to various interesting stories about the division of labor between prehistoric housewives and brave map-reading warrior-hunters. I'm not going to say anything about the third group because discussing pseudoscience doesn't add anything (except hilarity) to what I'm trying to convey here. The first type of evidence is the most important one of the three, because it uses large samples of relatively randomly picked individuals from all types of societies. The problem it has is that the measures of cognition elicited by asking children, teenagers and adults are unavoidably not going to be pure measures of genetic differences. The environment and the general culture have had time to work on the study subjects beforehand, and factors such as the quality of schooling the person has had, the family income and the general societal norms all can be shown to influence the findings. Keeping this in mind, it's possible to note that most cognitive tests show some average gender differences in mathematics. Boys are, on average, better at certain types of mathematics problems than girls, especially in word problems, and this is true from a very early age and across various cultures. As Virginia Valian points out in her book Why So Slow, this might paradoxically be caused by the girls understanding words better in communication: most word problems require the solver to decide which parts of the statement are important for the solution, which parts are not and whether there is enough information for the solution. In the actual understanding of speech all parts have a function, even if some of the functions are half-hidden. Not knowing this may make a solver better at using the words mathematically. Such gender differences are unlikely to be purely biological. This is because the differences between children in different countries are far greater and because the gender differences within countries have been declining for some time. But some part of these differences could be purely biological. What their significance for the hard sciences participation rates might be is more complicated. Consider the one test which shows the greatest sex difference of all: the mental rotation of three-dimensional figures, in which boys outperform girls pretty much everywhere. Most studies suggest that ability to do well on this test and other mathematical ability are not correlated. Thus, it's not possible to explain women's scarcity in mathematics in general by using this single test as the explanation. The tests we develop and apply in cognitive studies are not necessarily neutrally selected. Every researcher has a gender identitity, after all. This is important to remember. For example, there are tests in which girls outperform boys by the same large and consistent margins as boys outperform girls in the mental rotation of three-dimensional figures, such as the one on perceptual speed, but these tests are not studied as intensively as the more familiar ones are. Even more generally, the tests we use are spot measures, may not reflect all important skills and tend to be overapplied to the young and then ignored for the rest of the individuals' lives. There is evidence suggesting that women have different lifetime patterns of mathematical abilities from men, and very little research exists on this and its possible meaning. For example, women outperform men in old age. Many who argue for the biological explanation for the sex-skew in hard science practitioners say that what is really important to analyze is not the average scores on all these tests but the proportion of boys and girls who score exceptionally well. Because these tests have greater variability for boys, there are many more boys than girls with exceptionally high scores, and this fact alone could explain why most mathematical geniuses appear to have been men. This is an interesting argument. Consider a different test, that of writing skills. Girls outperform boys on this test, and the variability is much greater for girls (see Dianne Hales: Just Like A Woman for references on the evidence). This means that there are many more girls in the high-scoring part of the test and therefore we should expect the geniuses of great literature to be overwhelmingly of the female denomination. The reality is very different. Either we have been excellent in compensating boys for their "innate" deficiencies in writing talents or something else has affected the outcome, too. Or perhaps we should stop taking all this so terribly seriously. A different avenue towards trying to find innate sex differences in mathematical ability uses subjects who are known to differ from the average in some pre-birth induced way. One such case is the genetic disorder of congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) which leads to an overproduction of androgens in the fetus' adrenal glands. Both boys and girls with this condition have very high levels of circulating androgens, and girls with CAH show many forms of behavior which are regarded as traditionally male (boys are harder to diagnose so there is less data on them). Girls in CAH score very high on the mental rotation of three-dimensional figures, as might be surmised, but they don't score any better in general quantitative tests than other girls. Simon Baron-Cohen has proposed a similar approach to testing gender differences in cognition by using children with autism as the study sample. He believes that autism is a form of an "extreme male brain" and that the greater mathematical abilities of many autistic children are evidence of the biological nature of gender differences in mathematics. The problems with his arguments become evident if you read his book on the topic (The Essential Difference: Men, Women and the Extreme Male Brain), which I have done. He presents no new evidence for his arguments and he even goes on for some pages about the hypothetical "extreme female brain" which doesn't exist, but if it did exist, Baron-Cohen believes that it would be favored over the "extreme male brain". Which sort of shows where he biases lie. And if you weren't convinced about them yet, you could always take the very objective test in the Appendix of his book which will tell you how biologically male your brain is by answers to questions such as:"Can you fix your own electrical problems?" "When you look at a piece of furniture, do you wonder about how the joins were made?" (What about when you look at a beautiful dress?) "Do you like to chitchat more than you like to collect coins?" Or you could take it here. Ok. Enough for one post. I'm not an expert in this area, though I'm a sort of a Renaissance goddess, so the usual caveats apply. |
Why There Are So Few Women in the Hard Sciences: Part I
Lawrence Summers, the president of Harvard University, gave a controversial speech at an economics meeting last Saturday: The president of Harvard University, Lawrence H. Summers, sparked an uproar at an academic conference Friday when he said that innate differences between men and women might be one reason fewer women succeed in science and math careers. Summers also questioned how much of a role discrimination plays in the dearth of female professors in science and engineering at elite universities. This speech has caused a sensation, or, rather, two sensations. One is the fact that Summers referred to genetic explanations of gender differences. The other one is the fact that at least one woman got up and left the room in protest of the speech. The first sensation, or rather furor, is a debate about what Summers might have meant and whether he was just presenting a theory for further inquiry (as he himself stated) or whether he was actually making a biased statement. The second furor, mostly on various right-wing blogs, is whether the behavior of the participant who left is in fact evidence of women's greater emotionality and inability to engage in logical dialogue. There is so much material in all this for me that no way will I just write one post on it. To prolong the excitement as long as possible (a sort of an intellectual foreplay), I'm going to blog on Summers' three theories on Tuesday (looking forward to that!). Today I'm going to blog about the reactions I just described. It is indeed true that proper scientific inquiry requires that all possible theories are discussed, and from that point of view Summers' bringing up the genetic difference theory is perfectly acceptable. What makes it somewhat less so, for me at least, are the pieces of evidence he quotes in its support: one an anecdotal piece about his own daughter, and the other one on a medical condition called autism. Anecdotal evidence is, by its very definition, not applicable as something we can generalize to large populations. I can find anecdotal evidence for most every single social behavior. It is not hard to do, and it is surprising that Summers would launch into what he himself calls a provocative speech while being so poorly prepared to back up his suggestions. The example on autism is equally unsuitable. Many things are genetically determined, at least partly, and to state that they are so does not throw light on the genetic inheritability of other seemingly unrelated things. On the whole, I'm wondering why Summers didn't equip himself with the many studies that exist in this area, not to mention the recent research in genetics which suggests that the way genes and the environment interact might be much more complicated than we currently understand. All this is important to explain the furor over Nancy Hopkins' departure during the speech. Hopkins was one of the authors of an MIT study into gender inequalities, and it is possible that she is considerably better read in the field than Dr. Summers appears to be. She may have walked out because she realized that no constructive dialogue would be forthcoming. Of course, she may have walked out because she was fuming, too. Or she may have been fuming and aware of the futility of further debate. Michelle Malkin (a conservative pundit) assumes that she was weeping, or at least that's how she titled her blog on the events. I see no evidence to support the weeping-argument. Malkin also argues that if Hopkins' behavior is indicative of what she teaches her female students, academia is better off without women. Taking her arguments to their logical conclusion, journalism would also be better off without women, given Ms. Malkins' own behavior. The reactions to Dr. Summers' speech have been most revealing, though. It is interesting how very hungry certain commentators are for anything that would back up their opinions, and though this is visible on both sides of the debate, it is more pronounced on the wingnut side. Thus, "emotions" suddenly crop up as somehow meaningful in a debate about scientific ability; as if men don't have emotions (such as anger) that might affect behavior. All human beings have emotions. Only us goddesses can turn them off at will and write all this without even once feeling annoyed... ---- Original link to the story via feministing.com |
Monday, January 17, 2005
A Good Diary on dkos
Remember This When Hope Seems Dead
Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable... Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals. ~Martin Luther King, Jr. |
In Alphabetical Order
Right before the Iraq invasion, I jokingly said that the only Bush administration plan of invasion is based on the alphabetical order of countries: First Afghanistan, then Iran, then Iraq and so on. That Iraq came before Iran has to do with our leader's difficulties with words. Sadly, this joke may have been no joke at all. Seymour Hersh reports on extensive preparations for a possible military attack on Iran in the latest New Yorker:
Why they are doing this is a story in itself, but essentially it is what the neo-conservatives in the administration want. In an interview on CNN's "Late Night Edition", Hersh said this: "The planning for Iran is going ahead even though Iraq is a mess," Hersh said. "I think they really think there's a chance to do something in Iran, perhaps by summer, to get the intelligence on the sites." The New Yorker article goes into much more detail about the possible war with Iran, and Hersh argues that Donald Rumsfeld is the central player in all this. He has essentially neutralized the CIA and now runs his hidden commando troups without any Congressional oversight:
Well, we have been riding with a different lot of bad boys for four years now, so not much is new about this idea. What was new to me, assuming that Hersh's arguments turn out to be true, is the enormous number of kamikazi fliers in the Bush administration. For surely attacking Iran while the U.S. troops aren't sufficient to even pacify the much smaller Iraq is totally suicidal. A general draft would be absolutely required and large numbers of nonprofessional soldiers would die. No Republican president would be re-elected as long as anyone with the memories of this war would be alive. Or so the consequences would be if this world was sane. But even in the world as it is, getting the American people to approve of an attack on Iran would require something along the lines of the 9/11 massacres with some proof on the culprits being Iranian. And this is what really worries me: that I find myself seriously considering whether the administration would mind this very much if it gave them a change to go out and play military commanders once again. |
Sunday, January 16, 2005
A Little Rant
Just to blow off some steam. This is courtesy of David Brooks' recent column about the need for women to make more babies for the glory of the United States, especially the need for educated women to breed more. Amanda at Mousewords has a much longer post on the topic, and you should read that one first, because mine will be an illegible rant. First, may I ask what expertise has David Brooks to write about an issue he clearly views as only applying to women? Second, if he believes that the issue doesn't only apply to women, why does he write about fertility as if the male part of the parenthood equation is absent? For a moral-values-wingnut this is unacceptable. Third, why does he advocate nonexistent solutions to the problem he poses about balancing careers and childbirth? According to Brooks women can just take ten years off after graduation and then go back to a graduate program explicitly tailored for the needs of returning mothers. How many graduate programs of this type are there? And if there were many, how would their reputation in the labor markets be? And how likely is it that women who take ten years off this way will ever reach the same levels in their career paths as people who don't take the same time off? The answer to the last question is that women who do this will never get the same perks or salaries or positions as those who stick to the jobs. Never, on average. Neither will they have the same incomes to retire on. What Brooks is proposing is a system where he wants more babies to be produced AND he wants the women to pay for that! Isn't that a neat solution for all but the women concerned? It will also make certain that very few women will ever get to be CEOs or full professors or Senators, and this should make most wingnuts happy as clams. Fourth, it is not at all clear that the U.S. has a problem with birth rates, especially when immigration is taken into account. Even if the U.S. birthrates fell short of replacement levels, this might not be a bad thing on the world level as we really are too many compared to animals and plants on this planet already. No, I don't think that this is the real concern of people like Brooks. The real concern is an age-old one, and it has to do with the question of who controls fertility. Brooks pretty much would like to control it if he could, and as it's not legally possible he tries to talk women into behaving the way he'd like them to. In some decades women are talked into having more children, in some decades women are talked into less children, but in either case the costs of these adjustments are commonly seen as belonging to the women and their families only, while the benefits flow largely elsewhere. Of course there are slightly more surface versions about this age-old desire to control fertility, and they are the desire to have more white babies in this country as well as the desire to control uppity women. Brooks' tender column aims at both of this objectives. None of this means that he wouldn't be right in stating that there are both women and men in their forties who regret not having children. The American labor market is horrible in terms of parents' rights, but Brooks doesn't want to meddle with the markets as he is a wingnut. Neither is he proposing any other real solutions to the problems of combining families and jobs, at least none that wouldn't predominantly benefit the wealthier (like tax subsidies for stay-at-home-parents). David Brooks is a rat. Someone should write a whole column about how ratlike he is. |
Shedding the Skin
Literally, this time. I'm the world's worst shopper. I hate shopping so much that I panic when I need something and buy the first thing I see. As a result, my wardrobe consists of a large number of mismatched things (puffy feather boas, miniskirts, carpenter's overalls, dresses with enormous sunflowers on them and so on), and I end up wearing the same pair of jeans most days. My friends sometimes go out and buy socks for me, but mostly I look like something you might have found dropped on the sidewalk. But no more! I've decided to turn a new leaf and to become a fashionable, exquisitely dressed goddess. I'm going to take out every single item of clothing I own, try it on, decide its fate and act. If there is something wrong with it, it will go to the "donate" pile (assuming anyone would want my rags). If it's ok to wear, I will have to decide what its family might be: the other things I will wear with it and the accessories. Yes, accessories!!! Even a feminist can learn to accessorize. I'm going to get a lot of jewelry with skulls and crossbones and Fuck Bush signs, and also scarves and belts with the same, and each outfit will have a little tag saying which skulls and bones go with it. Moreover, from now on I will dress from top to bottom in the same color scheme. No more bright red shoes with neon-color pink tops and plaid pants. Your eye will glide over me as if resting on a sophisticated painting, and you'll never even notice the snakey bits! Well, this is the plan. The first snag became apparent today when I went out shopping. Every single piece I looked at was made in China. I have nothing against the Chinese, but aren't there any other manufacturers alive anymore? And women's clothes are crap. They are made shoddily and cheaply and they cost more than a first class ticket to Rapture. Then they didn't let me try the jeans on in the boys' department. What did they think I would have done in the dressing room? So I went home empty-handed. Tomorrow I will try the second-hand places, to see if things are any better there. If not, I may have to get used to nakedness as a permanent state of being. It will be very hard to throw away some of may favorite pieces of clothing, I fear. Could I use the doctoral robes as a bathrobe? And an almost unused tiara must surely be good for something; maybe at a Republican tea party? Or the joke underwear? This will be a lot tougher than I expected. |
Who Is Getting Fleeced?
George Bush is telling us all in his Washington Post interview. For your benefit I have read through it and extracted the crucial pearls of something from his ramblings. Here they are:
Interpretation: I'm going to ge rid of Social Security so that we can all watch the financial acrobatics of the elderly and the disabled walking the tightrope. This also saves a lot of money as we no longer will need reality shows to keep people diverted from politics. I'm also going to change taxes so that the rich pay nothing and the middle classes everything. This will have the added advantage of killing the middle classes so that we have more obedient workers as spare labor at low wages.
Interpretation: I'm going to make it very much harder for the consumers and workers to sue corporations of any kind. Note that I'm listing the three main forms of lawsuits in which ordinary little people sue someone. I'm not mentioning all the corporate lawsuits at all! The Social Security issue is an interesting issue when it comes to African Americans. After all, the life expectancy of African American males is a lot less than other groups and, therefore, if you really think about that, you have people putting money in the system that aren't -- families won't benefit from the system. And, therefore, it seems to me to make sense, if I were a part of a group of people that were being disadvantaged by the Social Security system, that I'd at least like to have the opportunity to have some of the money I put in the system passable to my family. Interpretation: This is something I'm doing for African Americans! I don't understand why they didn't vote for me; I'm the President of Everyone. I'm giving the African Americans the savings that come from not having to pay Social Security payments. That way they don't have to worry about dying earlier than the rest of the country, and I don't have to address the question why they die earlier. Saves a lot of money all around. Are you still wondering if there is class warfare in this country? |
Saturday, January 15, 2005
Today's Deep Thought
From who else but Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: No, but you're not going to lose credibility if you smear people. People like to read smear stuff. From his January 14 program on the made-up lefty-bloggers-on-the-take scandal. He was referring to the blogosphere but as is common in our utterances he said a lot more about himself than the apparent objects of his rant. |
Maureen Dowd and the Death of Feminism
I'm doing some research on Maureen Dowd, an op-ed columnist at the New York Times, and her opinions on feminism. I have so far waded through several pages of Google and I have failed to find one single instance where she doesn't state that feminism is dead. In fact, she keenly latches to anything, anything at all, that could be used to prove feminism pointless, a failure, and dead in any case, even if the piece of news she uses is obviously total crap. What is it with Maureen and feminism? What is it with women who insist on denying their only existence? For that's what Maureen's rantings boil down to: that no woman in her position should exist. Sometimes I think that she might be like Winnie-the-Pooh, you know, a bear with a very small head. But sometimes I think that she knows the smell of money better than many otherwise excellent goddesses. |
Why Men Marry Their Secretaries?
I took a hot bath tonight. I always read in the tub and there was nothing else left to read but this magazine The Week which somehow is sent to me though I never subscribed to it. It pretends to be a compilation of all the important news issues from all over the world, but doesn't quite make it. I find the flippant and fluffy style annoying, probably because it reminds me of my own writing at its worst. Just as I was all ready to melt into the hot water I spotted a piece about men marrying their secretaries. I have an in-built feminist radar; if there is one stupid story on television or one biased article in a newspaper, trust me to glum onto that one. It's a fact, and I have interpreted it as meaning that the Great Snake wants me to talk about all that crap. So here it goes:
How did the psychologists figure out all that? They showed 120 men and 208 women pictures of people of the opposite sex (presumably the subjects were guaranteed heterosexual) who were identified as hypothetical supervisors or underlings. Then the subjects were asked to rate the pictures in attractiveness for the purposes of a one-night stand and a long-term relationship. Women's ratings showed no difference by supervisor status in either of these cases, and neither did men's ratings for the one-night stand case. But men supposedly (I haven't checked the original study statistics)preferred subordinates when the rating was for attractiveness in a long-term relationship. Ok. Assuming that the study results are correct, how can we explain them? Here comes the silly part, as explained by one of the authors of the study, Dr. Stephanie Brown:
This was the point at which I slipped underwater and got everything wet in the bathroom. Because I was laughing so hard. Evolutionary psychology is one of the reasons why I'm not fully happy with evolutionary theories. The other evolutionary scientists should make this pack shape up. So much of their research is on this level and much of the rest is outright misogynistic. What do I mean by this criticism? Well, consider how the explanation completely ignores societal effects. In the United States, the Southern Baptist Church explicitly advocates female submission in marriage and so do the Promise Keepers. Many individuals probably still hold these beliefs, though it's interesting that men appear more likely to do so than women. Also, there are still many more female subordinate jobs out there than female bosses. A female boss may be something that is viewed as an anachronism by the study subjects, so that the occupational category in itself may serve as a signal that the women whose pictures are marked with the boss label are somehow aberrant. Also consider the explanation within the evolutionary psychology framework: This school has always argued that women will select men based on their power and wealth because powerful and wealthy men are better providers for the children and thus make it more likely that a particular woman passes her genes on to the next generations. But this study appears to find that women didn't rate power any higher than the lack of it! Yet the result we are asked to focus on is not this one, but the one about the men fearing female infidelity. And where is the evidence that women in more powerful positions are more likely to be unfaithful? I have never heard of any such evidence, so the whole conclusion seems extremely far-fetched. Reading this article ruined my lovely bathtime and I hope that I have taken sufficient revenge here. I didn't even point out how the article "sells itself" by exaggerating the actual meaning of the study in its title. |
What Do You Think of This?
By this I mean the latest Dilbert cartoon which can be viewed here. It looks like the joke is on women in this one. ------ Thanks to Book Addict for the link. |
Friday, January 14, 2005
Masculine is Bad; Feminine is Also Bad
It seems that this is what I think, at least according to the The Leadership Institute which trains future conservatives to be political leaders. The website of the Institute has a handy checklist of the values of the "Ultra Left", and one of those values is that lefties think that masculine and feminine are both bad. As the terms are not defined it's hard for me to know how to respond. What do these guys mean by "masculine" and "feminine"? They don't say, but a careful reading suggests that they are talking about men bringing the bacon home and women cooking it. They may also be talking about the possibility that women and men have different sex roles because the conservative god has made us that way (there is a Phyllis Schaffly quote to that effect), or the atheist wingnut's version of this: that we are fixed by evolution so that men are active and horny and women are passive and coy. In any case, the argument boils down to the idea that conservatives like strictly segragated roles for men and women whereas liberals don't. There is some truth to that, of course, because sex roles set in stone will hurt all those people who don't fit into these roles. They will also make equal opportunity very hard if not impossible. But the Leadership Institute doesn't pay much attention to this; instead, they give us a few extremist feminist quotes (some from demonstrators in protests, for example) to show how crazy feminists are. Well, as you know (if you have read my blog before), extremist quotes tend to show that the extremist quoted is crazy. That's why we use them in political debate. The effect is even stronger if the quote is taken out of context (though I never do this as I have high moral standards). And I should point out that the extremists I quote on my blog are the ones who say that they are 51% of this country which would make them mainstream and their statements nonextremist. Though they still sound crazy. Studying the wingnuts' views of us can be useful if you can get past the red-hot anger stage. For example, you learn where your ignorant wingnut neighbor gets his talking points and you can prepare for proper responses. You also learn how the real talking points of liberals and progressives and feminists are totally absent on these conservative checklists. There is nothing about domestic violence or equal political participation by sex or labor market discrimination on the Leadership Institute's description of our species. Nothing. Feminists are feminists because they hate masculinity and because they hate femininity, too, and Robin Morgan and Andrea Dworkin are trotted out as the proof. Funnily enough, the countergirls are Phyllis Schaffly and Ann Coulter! Talk about polarization. I'm not fond of polarization because very few things in this world are truly naturally polarized. But the wingnuts have chosen polarization as their major weapon in the war to annihilate all opposition, and it is so hard to find anything else but opposing polarization to fight them. A non-polarizing response to many of their arguments requires reams and reams of pages about evidence and nuance and all that wimpy stuff, and few will read through it. At least if it's written by me or others who write condensed. But just to make this very clear: I don't think that masculinity or femininity is bad though I dislike beer can mobiles and furry car dice and pink frills on everything. ---- Original link by Biblio. |
On Hank and George
The next three posts tell the story of how Hank the Lab met George Bush for the first time and what happened then. It should be made into a movie. |
Stage I
Stage II
Stage III
Today's Action Alert
Today's Action comes from NRDC. Tell your senators and representative to oppose oil development in the Arctic Refuge! President Bush and his allies in Congress are planning to use a budget ploy to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to massive oil development in the next 90 days. If they succeed, this extraordinary wildlife nursery will soon be turned into a vast, polluted oil field. Please contact your senators and representative right away and tell them to oppose this sneak attack on the Arctic Refuge. Here's a sample letter: Dear [Senator or Representative], I am deeply opposed to President Bush’s plan for oil development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. America’s last unspoiled birthing ground for Arctic wildlife should not be sacrificed for the sake of oil company profits and a year’s worth of national energy — especially when we could save even more oil through a modest increase in fuel economy standards. I am especially outraged that House and Senate leaders are planning to attach Arctic Refuge drilling to the upcoming budget bill. The fate of America’s premiere wildlife refuge should be decided by an open debate and an up or down vote — not by a legislative ploy. Congress does not have a mandate to sacrifice the Arctic Refuge, and I will hold you accountable for your vote and your stewardship of this irreplaceable natural treasure. Again, I urge you to oppose drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in whatever manner the issue may arise: as part of an energy bill or budget bill, or as a free-standing bill Sincerely, [Your Name & Address] Go to http://www.senate.gov/ to contact your Senators. Go to http://www.house.gov/writerep/ to contact your Representative. Thanks for taking today's action! |
Our Leader
From Rush Limbaugh to Ed Schultz
Limbaugh and Schultz are both talkshow hosts, and they both shout and boom, but that's where the similarities stop. Or at least I hope so. For Limbaugh is the arch-wingnut, the man who popularized the hating of liberals and the blaming of feminazis for all the ills of this country, the man who made it politically correct to have such opinions and to express them, loudly. Ed Schultz is a recent convert to liberalism from Wingnuttia. Or at least I hope so. He could be a mercenary rather than a real soldier in the Liberal Front. Well, at least right now he shouts and hollers on our side. The radio talkshows have been part of the conservative Wingnuttia for at least a decade, and the conventional wisdom has been that liberal talkshows don't sell. Conventional wisdom may be wrong here: Air America Radio, the new liberal radio network, is not doing badly. A Vermont radio station is even getting rid of Rush Limbaugh to fit Air America in:
They are also starting to broadcast the Ed Schultz Show. Talk radio must be an acquired taste because I have a lot of trouble acquiring it; far too much musing without any obvious structure, far too many shouts and bellows and not enough interesting interviewees. But I still listen to Air America whenever I get a chance, and it is nice not to have to curse the radio all the time as I usually do. If only they could get rid of those annoying ads for penis hardeners and herbs which make you smart and slim! I can recite all of them from memory. If you haven't checked out Air America, you should. Even if your area doesn't have them on radio you can listen over the internet. ------ Link to the Vermont story via Media Matters for America. |
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Always the Bridesmaid....
Not that goddesses have bridesmaids or much marriage, either. But this is a suitable title for a post about my Koufax Award nominations for 2004. These awards are for lefty blogs and named in honor of Sandy Koufax who was a Southpaw baseball player. I have been nominated in lots of categories, which is wonderful (thank you), but which has also totally stifled my writing style. Life is perverse in that way. Now I have to worry about visitors who might be coming here just to see if I'm any good. I'm very good, of course, but thinking about it is unwholesome. So what does this have to do with bridesmaids? That's how I feel when I see my name, over and over again, in awe-inspiring company, far too elevated for me. But it also has something to do with the dresses bridesmaids must buy, dresses which will make you look green in the face, which you will never wear again and which will cost you the next month's food budget. And the discomfort of feeling that you are now not only you but also something else, a "bridesmaid", with all the duties going with that role. Like writing excitingly and finding juicy bits of news, even if you have a migraine attack or need to clean the basement. It also has something to do with the fact that I won't win anything in any of those categories, of course, but not as much as I first feared. Blogging is far too fun for any of this to have more than a short-run impact either way. |
Christianity's Foothold in Banda Aceh, Indonesia
Banda Aceh is the center of the earthquake damage, the place where the largest number of victims were found. It is also a very politically sensitive place where fundamentalist Islam is important and where the Indonesian government and the muslim rebels continually clash. Now something new is added to this stew: our very own fundamentalists:
The website of the group no longer has this message, but it doesn't mean that the group would have changed its mind about it. Individuals who believe that only those who have found Jesus can go to heaven are not going to stop proselytizing just because it would look bad to outside observers. What are the consequences of trying to plant Christian footholds among devastated people? Maybe Western aid won't be accepted in the future? That would be very sad indeed. ---- Thanks to Alishapa in my comments for the link. ---- Update: The plan has been dropped because the government of Indonesia refused to allow it. Thanks to Donna in the comments for this link. |
The FCC and Armstrong Williams
Armstrong Williams is the journalist who got paid for disseminating government propaganda. Now The Federal Communications Commission has received a few complaints about him: Jan. 13, 2005 | Washington -- A member of the Federal Communications Commission said Thursday the agency should investigate whether conservative commentator Armstrong Williams broke the law by failing to disclose that the Bush administration paid him $240,000 to plug its education policies. Note how everything in this government goes by political party lines? The same will soon be true of the judicial system, and as the wingnuts are in power you can rest assured that no case brought by a Democrat will win. It all reminds me of the Soviet Union, probably because a one-party government is a one-party government. I hope that the FCC proves me totally wrong on this one, and that it will vigorously investigate all the journalists who might have taken bribes. But then I also hope that we will all suddenly wake up one morning good and kind. |
And the Fight on Evolution in Schools Goes on
A small bump in the road for the creationists:
The use of the term "theory" is confusing. There are at least two definitions of this word, one from the scientific community where it is used to describe a connected structure of hypotheses about something, and the other from common parlance where it is used to describe something that might or might not be true. In some ways these are almost the opposites of each other, as a scientific theory, if supported by enough evidence, slowly morphs into what we call facts, whereas the colloquial use of "theory" is almost certainly not going to be validated. The creationists seem to read "theory" in the latter sense, the evolutionist in the former sense. So that's why it is true that evolution is a theory, but it is untrue that it is "just" a theory. |
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Wanna Play?
From Alas, a Blog (scroll down; I haven't figured Ampersand's new permalinks yet) I learned about a fun new computer game: Pimp: The Backhanding. You can choose your very own pimp name and then you can slap your hoes! Such fun and so funny. If you're one of those prudish P.C. types, stay away. You'd just spoil the innocent enjoyment of the game. |
Some Dog Fun
I've been throwing Hank's chewtoy for her to fetch so that Henrietta the Hound gets a break from being pestered by the Everready Labrador bunny imitation. The chewtoy is a little George Bush doll, and it was wonderful to watch Hank run after it, pick it up by the neck and do the shaking dogs do to break necks of prey animals. Then she retrieved it while all the time making it squeak! The way the Texas boots were dangling from her mouth was priceless. I know that this is not a noble source of enjoyment, but it was very satisfying. I'll put up some pictures on Friday so that you can enjoy it, too. |
How to Celebrate January 20th This Year
The following is an e-mail message I received from Katha Pollitt. It has some good ideas for inauguration protests. Are you wondering how to protest Inauguration Day (January 20)? Here's a way to make a powerful political point and also help women in need: "honor" George Bush, the most anti-choice President since Roe v Wade, by making a donation to the National Network of Abortion Funds. You know how pro-choice groups sometimes counter anti-choice demonstrations by asking people to Pledge a Picketer (give a small sum per demonstrator)? Think of this as Pledge a President! NNAF, an umbrella for 102 local abortion funds around the country, helps poor girls and women with unwanted pregnancies pay for their abortions. Last year the member funds of NNAF donated $2 million to help nearly 20,000 poor women across the country-- but the need is so much greater. By making a contribution to this important work you not only help women, you send a message to anti-choice Republicans -- and their Democratic friends -- that safe, legal and AFFORDABLE abortion matters to you and that you are not willing to have women's wombs turned into a political football to placate religious extremists. To donate by credit card, go here and click the “Donate Now” button. Checks made out to NNAF can be mailed to NNAF, c/o Hampshire College, 893 West Street, Amherst MA 01002-3359. So that we can keep track of special Inaugural donations, please be sure to write "abortions--Inaugural protest" in the designation box or memo line. Bonus for on-line donors: If you dedicate your contribution to George W. Bush, you can send an e-card from the donation page and let the White House know that you celebrated the inauguration by supporting access to safe abortion. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could raise enough money so that no woman in our rich country had to continue a crisis pregnancy for lack of a few hundred dollars? Small donations quickly add up, so whatever you would like to give, NNAF will be thrilled and grateful to receive it. Please forward this e-mail to your friends and post it in your lists! Katha Pollitt and Jennifer Baumgardner |
The Faith-Based Presidency
The Washington Times (owned by the infamous Reverend Moon) has interviewed our Dear Leader on topics as deep as religion and patriotism:
Is that clear now? Sigh. I can never get this man clear in my head. Even trying to do so gives me a divine-class migraine. Anyway, the interview then tells us what our leader has in store for us in terms of faith-based pork barreling:
The bolding is mine in the above quote, in case you otherwise don't notice the main point of the post. - The whole interview is an interesting one. We learn that Georgie doesn't believe that an atheist could be a president, though you have to translate to get to this conclusion. In general, Bush's statements remind me of the earnest endeavors of a totally unprepared student in an examination: instead of giving arguments and evidence and examples he just keeps repeating what he feels. |
Today's Action Alert
You can contact the FDA at http://www.fda.gov/cder/comment.htm . Thanks for taking today's action. |
Questions, Questions...
Question 1. When is terrorism not terrorism? The answer is here:
Question 2. Does W stand for women (in George W. Bush)? The answer, in Hilary Clinton's words:
Question 3. (Stylistic necessity requires a third one, so you are saddled with this): What did we do to deserve Ann Coulter? Not an answer but an elaboration:
Why do I have a different definition of fun than Ann Coulter? Is that why she rakes in the money while I'm an unknown blogger? I could say really stupid things, too, in fact, I often do, but I'd never dream of letting anyone but the snakes hear them. |
The Blackwellian World?
When I saw the title on Salon, I thought the story was about the Republican Kenneth Blackwell who prides himself for Bush's election victory. (Interpret that as you may.) But it wasn't! It's a totally different Blackwell, and it's about something mysterious to me: The Worst Dressed Woman Awards. I didn't know that these awards existed: Nicollette Sheridan of TV's "Desperate Housewives" is the worst of the worst when it comes to wardrobe, according to Mr. Blackwell's annual list of fashion winners and losers. Are there other interesting competitions like this? For example, the Republican with the biggest crackerjaw? Or the person with the piggiest eyes in politics? I doubt it. Men are allowed to have crackerjaws and terrible ties and even dandruff, so these competitions would be limited to women in politics, and there aren't enough of them for even a short list of winners. All this is written by someone who wears scales so there might be something to all this appearance-policing that I don't quite get. But it seems a scary thing to me: women in the public space must now worry about how their scarves match their earrings and stuff. That takes a lot of energy and delays the revolution by some further decades. Actually, I know it's all a joke, but I still would like to know what Mr. Blackwell wears, too. |
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
More Investigations of the Paid Journalists?
This was sent to me by Karl Frisch who appears to speak for Louise Slaughter:
"Deserve to know if there are more secret propaganda contracts"? Yes, but especially salivate to know! |
A Rant
I need to get one of these in before I explode. It is so easy these days to come across erudite and sophisticated and nuanced. It's all far too easy. I'm bored with wingnuts and Wingnuttian science and religion. I'm bored with the flat earthers and the believers in Joseph and Mary riding on a dinosaur and those who sit on their suitcases waiting for the first charter flight of the Raptured. I'm fed up with the corporatists and the worshippers of "freemarkets" (which barely exist outside the village market place) and those who believe that this planet is something we can flush down the toilet without any bad effects whatsoever. Even the misogynists are grating not because of their hatred but because of the old-hat nature of their attacks. This is really a boring time to live in. Yes, it is also a horrible time in many ways, and I'm going to continue shouting about the horrors. But right now I'm largely bored. A bored goddess is a dangerous one; idle hands and so on. Now, excitement abounds in my private life, but I'm not going to blog on that, and the dogs refuse to blog much right now as they have found this pack of Eurasians and spend their time dominating the boy dogs in that pack. And eating snow and then vomiting on my expensive rugs. My dogs, I mean. The snakes are hibernating or doing something behind my back. This means that I have to find something else to blog about, something that would be interesting and fascinating and that would require a little bit more effort than making fun of wingnuts. I'll have to think about this. Maybe a proposal about having to announce all spermal deaths to the closest authority? To replace Cosgrove's proposed bill in Virginia, the one that asked for the reporting of all fetal deaths? Cosgrove had to withdraw that proposal, due to the great furor we caused about it on the many internets, but my proposal could take its place. Imagine the fun bureaucrats would have in writing a tiny death certificate for each individual sperm. Maybe they could all be named, too, and little coffins could be demanded for each? And each case would have to have its own investigative report with photographs and witness statements. It would be good for the labor markets and morally significant, too. Each ejaculator could be asked to prepare tiny cemeteries for the dead sperms, though he could be left with the choice of their religious denomination. Nah. Boooooring. |
On the Coronation of George Bush
The festivities will be enormous. Washington D.C. will be one big partyground and may very well be stuck with a large chunk of the bill, too. The security arrangements, too, will be unprecedented, which is the only tiny reminder of the fact that this inauguration may be a tiny bit awkward in times of war and tsunamis and general unhappiness among most thinking and feeling people: Dozens of federal and local law enforcement agencies and military commands are planning what they describe as the heaviest possible security. Virtually everyone who gets within eyesight of the president either during the Jan. 20 inauguration ceremony at the U.S. Capitol or the inaugural parade down Pennsylvania Avenue later in the day will first go through a metal detector or receive a body pat-down. That crosses have been banned has raised the predictable furor about religious discrimination. Though the banned items include anything big enough to be used as a weapon (including paper mache puppets!), the fundamentalists want to flail their crosses freely. I think that they should be allowed to do so, actually, though I find it hard to see what the symbol of crucifixion would do to cheer up the partying. But the thing about parade performers not being allowed to look directly at Bush is eerie. It brings to mind all sorts of things about being turned into stone or salt if one looks at the wrong thing. Some cheeky monkeys think it even reminds them of my dear Medusa! Of course it's also traditional not to look directly at us divinities, though Georgie doesn't qualify. I wonder if he's shaking in his boots? Then there will be singing and rejoicing, especially by Kid Rock. Do you think that he will sing "Fuck U Blind" and "Balls in Your Mouth"? And will the fundie youth join in the refrains? What else should I mention about the inaugural balls? Oh, of course! I'm supposed to report on the dresses of the royal women. That is my proper feminine duty. Well, Laura is going to wear something predictable and boring, I predict, but the princesses are going to be dressed in something most revealing:
George himself will probably wear his usual mysterious box on the back of his suit. We of the sour-grapes camp are desperately planning our own celebrations for the event. More about those later. |
Dean Announces His Candidacy
for the chair of the Democratic National Committee. This bit I could support:
Funny. This makes me into a commie-loving fringe extremist. I have always been viewed as a rather stodgy middle-of-the-road type goddess. But the world it is a-changing. |
More on the Wonders of Creationism
There is a new twenty-five million dollar museum in Kentucky, the Museum of Creation. If you want to be one of the estimated three hundred thousand annual visitors, you need to wait until this Spring for the formal opening. But it's worth the wait: With its towering dinosaurs and a model of the Grand Canyon, America's newest tourist attraction might look like the ideal destination for fans of the film Jurassic Park. The idea is to make it all seem real, as real as the initiator of the project, the Australian creationist Ken Ham can make it. You might be able to step inside Noah's ark, feel it swaying with the floods and you might even hear the screams of those drowning outside. Afterwards, you can watch tyrannosaurus rex chasing Adam and Eve after their eviction from the garden of Eden. For the museum explicitly presents human beings and dinosaurs as coexisting, just as it depicts the world as created only six thousand years ago. And there's more: More controversial exhibits deal with diseases and famine, which are portrayed not as random disasters, but as the result of mankind's sin. Mr Ham's Answers in Genesis movement blames the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado, in which two teenagers killed 12 classmates and a teacher before killing themselves, on evolutionist teaching, claiming that the perpetrators believed in Darwin's survival of the fittest. Where did I read about Jesus as the Prince of Peace and Christianity as the religion of love? It must have been in some other context. The fundamentalist Christianity in this country seems to have veered far away from the idea of turning the other cheek to something that Jesus surely would not recognize. Plus the whole thing is totally ridiculous. But we do need a museum of wingnuttery, that's true. Otherwise nobody in the far future will believe that we actually once lived in Wingnuttia. I can't quite believe it myself, and I have the evidence right here. ---- Thanks to Lance for the original link. |
Monday, January 10, 2005
Democracy and Science Teaching in America
We've come around a full circle, back to the America of the 1925 "Scopes Monkey Trial" in Dayton, Tennessee: At the time, the battle over evolution had been raging throughout the country. It came to a head when 24-year-old teacher John Scopes challenged Tennessee's Butler Act, which prohibited the teaching of evolution in the state's public schools and universities. His persecution set the stage for a legendary courtroom showdown that pit celebrated Chicago defense attorney Clarence Darrow against Williams Jennings Bryan, the crusading populist, fundamentalist and three-time presidential candidate. Today's Monkey Trial has to do with the teaching of creationism in Dover, Pennsylvania. Though creationism now goes under the name of "intelligent design", the same basic principles apply: fundamentalists want the whole society, including the teaching of sciences, to comply with their religious worldview. If scientific findings fail to lend support to this worldview, then it is the scientific findings which must go. The justification fundamentalists present is twofold: first, they believe in the absolute truth of the Bible, and second, they argue that as the majority of Americans believe in creationism, democracy requires that creationism be taught in American schools. Some fundamentalists are a little bit rougher around the edges about these arguments. Bill Buckingham, a new board member in the Dover school that is the center of the most recent courtcase, is one of them: "Biology," he said, was "laced with Darwinism." He wanted a book that balanced theories of evolution with Christian creationism, and he was willing to turn his town into a cultural battlefield to get it. Funny that Buckingham singled out the idea of Muslim beliefs as inappropriate for America. Very similar arguments to his are used in some Muslim countries to determine what can be taught in schools: only what doesn't contradict the Koran may be freely taught. Most proponents of "intelligent design" are more diplomatic in their speech. The time is not yet right to make the teaching of creationism obligatory in U.S. schools; for that a new Supreme Court is needed, and then a court case which can be taken to it for verification. But the fundamentalists are very optimistic about their chances, and hope that schools in the future will be required to tell the students about "intelligent design". The impact of all this would be fascinating to watch. Any lead the United States currently has in scientific research would go down the drain, and it would be more and more common to see the U.S. take its rightful place among the other fundamentalist countries in international venues. This is already happening in the fields of family planning and AIDS prevention, of course. The underlying dilemma in court cases like the Scopes trial and the Dover one has to with the proper range of religion in the society. The fundamentalists argue that religion should permeate everything, including sciences, and the majority of Americans appear not to mind this, given that most believe human beings were created in their current form by a god. This shows a lack of sophistication about both science and religion. After all, there is nothing to stop a religious person from thinking that evolution was the technique god used in creating the ultimate human beings. But such talk is elitist, and indeed it seems to be an elitist position to accept evolution as the most likely rough explanation of how species, including Homo Sapiens, developed. I have nothing new and enlightening to say about all this. We are going to hell in a hand-basket, and most Americans want the road to be faster and the basket to be fuller. And don't expect the politicians to help slow down this slide: one of the most prominent supporters of "intelligent design" is Rick Santorum. |
Today's Action Alert
Michael Hirsh and John Barry report in Newsweek that the Pentagon's latest approach to "the deepening quagmire of Iraq" is called "the Salvador option" -- training assassination squads to terrorize the Sunnis. Write a letter to the editor of you newspaper and demand that Donald Rumsfeld order this approach not to be used and that he then resign. The Salvador option didn't work in Salvador and it isn't something America should be doing, regardless. What happened to winning hearts and minds? Thanks for taking Today's Action. |
Feminism in the News
Whenever this happens, I know that the news are bad for feminism. That's just how it is, and I'm not going to pontificate on the reasons. You can make your own equally informed guesses about the possible reasons. The most recent bad news about feminism are these: America's feminist leaders and their critics agree on at least one current political fact: These are daunting times for the women's movement as it braces for another term of an administration it desperately wanted to topple. What's so cute about the neutral journalistic language is the use of terms such as "feminist" and "anti-feminist" without any definition whatsoever. No wonder if some women are confused about the meaning of feminism when Falwell's comment is allowed to stand as the closest definition of feminism in the whole article. It might make things a little bit clearer if anti-feminism was defined as the belief that men and women are not of equal value and that they should not be offered the same opportunities. But that would perhaps be biased writing. The article goes on stolidly in the middle right ground: comments are included from various lefty feminists and also from various righty anti-feminists. The former argue that things will be bad for women, the latter argue that things are just dandy for women who are nearly almost equal in nearly almost all fields and who don't want to have government funded anything anyway. Then the writer of the article states this: Bush, of course, can make a strong case that he respects women — his new Cabinet will likely have four, including Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, and women for years have been among his closest political and legal advisers. Some of Bush's best friends are women, you know! Never mind that he has decided to cut family planning funds to third world countries by enormous amounts, he really respects women. Though he deplored Yale going coed, he really respects women. And if we use Cabinet numbers to judge how much respect the president gives various constitutents, it seems pretty clear that he respects white men the most. The writer is now on full fire:
And exactly how is this not a credit for the feminists who started the push to get women access to higher education, who worked very hard for nondiscriminatory treatment of women in the work force and who were among the most vociferous of those talking about the wage gap? The writer appears to imply that these developments are due to George Bush, which gives me a lot of hilarity, but is otherwise not very clever. He also fails to note that the Wingnuttia women argue that the wage gap is all due to women's choices. If women choose to have children and stuff, they are obviously going to earn less. (Especially in a system which has institutionalized this idea in its labor laws and markets.) Of course, the writer excludes the necessary next bit in truly neutral reporting: something along the lines that the majority of poor people in this country are women and that the percentage of women in the House and Senate is so low that internationally the United States ranks somewhere below Rwanda in female political representation. Maybe he had to cram everything to a certain number of words, and other words were more interesting? But he does say some things which are important to note, and one of them is that women indeed voted for Bush in larger numbers than any sane person would expect. What this shows, though, is not at all as clear as the writer surmises, as the Kerry campaign did a truly miserable job in trying to reach women before the election. They woke up far too late and then came across as insincere in their efforts. Though Bush didn't even try, of course. Feminists have an unsurmountable barrier in getting their message across these days. Feminism isn't really newsworthy unless it's something that can be framed to be negative news. We have Rush Limbaugh and his brothers and sisters to thank for this, and even more moderate commentators who see their role as placing their butts smack in the middle of the Attila-the-Hunites and the few hesitant voices of the moderate left. This distorts the discussion about feminism, and I, for one, suffer from the battle fatigue of trying to explain, over and over, the simplest thing about what feminism means to me, when the general consensus is that if I'm a feminist I like to eat babies and have hairs sprouting from every orifice and sacrifice handsome young women in weird rites at midnight. Who on earth would like to join a movement like that one? No, don't answer me on that one. Of course feminists could do better in trying to get the message across. But it's still an extemely hard job and articles like this one are not making it any easier. ---- Thanks for Philalethes for a post about this article. |
Blogging, Journalism and Credibility
This is the title of a conference to be held at Harvard University this month. Despite the general-sounding title, the conference is very specifically aimed at the question whether blogs, especially blogs about politics and current affairs, are credible. This is what the organizers say about the intention of the conference: To both journalism and blogging, credibility is essential. What are the areas of common ground shared by these very different approaches to handling news and information? Can journalists who also blog do their work without conflicting standards? Might bloggers adopt standards and a transparency that will elevate their credibility? Our purpose is to bring together a small group of smart and thoughtful people to ponder these and other related issues, which will result in a published report and - we hope - will mark the beginning of an on-going and very important dialogue. The purpose of bringing together "a small group of smart and thoughtful people to ponder these and other related issues" appears to have resulted in a list of participants which mostly excludes bloggers. Maybe bloggers are not smart and thoughtful enough to be included in such a small group? Though I think that the real reason why bloggers are only represented in a token form is that scientists don't invite the bacteria they study to give papers at their conferences. We are the bacteria. Well, the big bloggers are the bacteria, I'm something not yet even named. The response to the news about this conference in the left blogosphere has been swift and sharp. Both Digby and Seeing the Forest have valuable insights about the relationship between traditional forms of media and blogging. Seeing the Forest points out that the bloggers have made it much harder for the media to decide which news merit the most attention. Bloggers can simply pick quite different news for emphasis, and there's nothing the mainstream news can do about this: With the internet, this arbiter function is lost. Every man [sic] can be his [sic] own I.F. Stone now. Stone used to say that you could always find the truth in the newspapers, but it would often be in a short paragraph on page sixteen. Most of the damage that bloggers do to the established media doesn't come from independent reporting, but from displacing the copy editors by highlighting stories the editors wanted to downplay. Digby elaborates on another theme in Seeing the Forest's arguments: that of the extreme polarization of the blogosphere (into us and Wingnuttia!). This polarization makes blogging less credible in the eyes of the so-called liberal media. But the loss of credibility doesn't appear to stick to the Wingnuttian blogs as well as it sticks to us: On the right, the blogosphere has been incorporated into their message machine. (Indeed, the political blogosphere was really invented by a guy named Drudge, wasn't it?) They feed and are fed, without explicit direction. They know what they are supposed to say and it filters up down and around talk radio, cable news and into the mainstream. We all know how it works. This is why only a right wing freelance political blogger was invited to the conference --- the mainstream of both political parties are really only aware of the bloggers who have been pushed to the forefront by the Mighty Wurlitzer. Just as they are only aware of ... so many things that have been pushed to the forefront by the Mighty Wurlitzer. It's the essence of our political weakness. I agree. The right is organized, militarized and hierachical. We are individualistic and disorganized. This makes us much more fun to read but there is a cost, and the cost is evident in the way "everybody" knows that wingnut bloggers brought down Dan Rather, but not that many people know about the heroic deeds of the lefty blogosphere. This is all very interesting, as it casts some light on the question the conference will probably not discuss in great detail: What is credibility? Here is Seeing the Forest's definition of credibility (short and gutsy): People who promote Judith Miller, but fire Robert Parry, really need to shut up about credibility. "Credibility" is just the conventional wisdom -- if you disagree with it, you're not credible. (Scott Ritter knew as much about the facts of Iraqi WMD as anyone did, and he was right when almost everyone else was wrong, but do you see him on TV any more, or read him in the NYT? No. Not credible.) The dictionary definitions of credibility are slightly different: The quality, capability, or power to elicit belief: "America's credibility must not be squandered, especially by its leaders" (Henry A. Kissinger). n : the quality of being believable or trustworthy What is it that elicits belief? In an ideal world it would be a long thread of evidence, carefully appended to each article and opinion piece, and freely available for each reader or viewer to follow. In reality, readers and viewers have neither the time nor the inclination to study the truthfulness of each item they meet in the media, and substitutes have been invented for the need to double-check everything. That's why we rely on the reputation of the source to judge its truthfulness, and that's why writers who are known or suspected to be biased are less likely to be regarded as credible. That's why we want to know whether something interesting cropped up in the New York Times or on the blog of a nectar-influenced minor goddess, whether the writer was academically trained in journalism or whether she just picked it up in bars while carousing with Aphrodite. These things are shortcuts for checking credibility in the minds of many. But the shortcuts are only as good as their correlation with the underlying thing we seek: believability. If a respected source of news suddenly starts releasing bits and pieces of state propaganda, or propaganda from one political party, then its credibility goes down the toilet. The old signal no longer works. There is no better signal of credibility than a long and uninterrupted history of having been shown to be credible, and whatever dirties up this history destroys credibility. Many blog readers have concluded that large parts of the traditional media are no longer credible for them, and this is why there is a market for political blogs. Of course, I could have approached the dictionary definitions of credibility from a darker angle, which is to point out that people find credible whatever supports their prior beliefs. This is the reason why conservatives rave and rant about the liberal bias in the media, and probably also the reason why so many of us nice liberals rave and rant back about the so-called liberal media. Blogs can be found to agree to any prior political stance, however weird, and then the blogwriter and readers can live forevermore in a happy (though ignorant) symbiosis. If true, this state of events doesn't bode well for future peace and democracy in this country. See how unbiased I am? I keep giving you one hand and then the other. I even admit that some of the concerns of the traditional media are warranted. Many bloggers don't adhere to journalistic principles of transparency or ethics, but neither do some journalists in the mainstream. Caveat emptor is still the most useful maxim for the consumers of news or for the citizen readers of blogs. I never thought that blogs were seen as rivals for journalism before I started writing a blog, and it still seems a little odd to think of blogs in those terms. After all, very few bloggers have the investigative resources of mainstream media. For example, I have nobody in Iraq to send me reports, and I couldn't afford to have someone even in the next town. No, blogs are not in the business of reporting news. What blogs do, instead, is commenting, which is a very different endeavor altogether. And in this they provide a most useful service: it's like having an extra conscience sitting on the shoulders of all the toiling journalists! Isn't that nice? |
Food for Thought
The most inappropriate title ever, but I'm tired. Consider our reactions to the tsunami disaster. Then consider our reactions to the deaths in Iraq: Bush quoted all the numbers for the tsunami in speeches this week: 150,000 lives lost, including 90,000 in Indonesia; perhaps 5 million homeless; millions vulnerable to disease. That stands in hypocritical contrast to the refusal to count the Iraqi civilians killed in his invasion over false claims of weapons of mass destruction and the crime-ridden chaos of an occupation that did not plan on an "insurgency." Collateral damage is a way of framing the deaths into oblivion. Strictly speaking, of course, all the tsunami dead were collateral damage also: the nature didn't start an earthquake in order to kill a lot of us. But the media made one kind of death important to know about, the other kind of death into something inadvertent, regrettable, but necessary. Then there is the whole thorny issue of guilt. |
Sunday, January 09, 2005
Jared Diamond: Collapse
I haven't read the book, only a review about it in the Salon. But it seems like an interesting read for an idle weekend in the near future. Diamond has written about the same concepts before: how the environment and culture presage the rise and fall of civilizations. This most recent book is relevant for the United States, and Diamond argues that we will go the way of the dodo bird (no, nobody will come and hunt us to death), if we don't attend to a few of our current values. One example is the dislike of family planning by the Bush administration, especially because of it's effects on the U.S. foreign policy and ultimately on overpopulation in poor countries. Two other are, in Diamond's own words:
He would seem to be right on both counts, though I might not necessarily stop with these two values. The Bush administration, for example, would do well by discarding the outdated value of arrogance. It causes real havoc in international relations and may even increase the risk of terrorist attacks against this country. But empire builders have never been quick to rid themselves of arrogance, so I don't expect much from this lot, either. It's not very kosher to write about a book I haven't read. Maybe some of you have, and can tell us more about its value? |
Interesting...
Why is it that the only excess lawsuits George Bush is worried about are those where consumers or workers are suing firms? We all know his fanatic belief that medical malpractice suits are bankrupting the system. Now he is attacking the suits brought by workers against asbestos-producing firms. Aren't there any frivolous lawsuits brought by businesses themselves? I would think so. But these don't spark the fire in our president's eyes. |
Saturday, January 08, 2005
Eggs for Sex with Minors
Read this: U.N. peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of Congo exchanged eggs, bread and a few dollars for sex with girls they were meant to protect, the United Nations watchdog agency has said. Disgusting. But it gets worse:
And the most cowardly part of it all is this: The OIOS report stated it had planned to name the countries whose troops were guilty of sexual abuse but the U.N.'s Department of Peacekeeping Operations prevented it. Yes, let's not name and shame any countries! Let's just ask them to participate in future eggs for sex missions. The girls are not that important. -------- Sources familiar with the investigation said allegations have been made against soldiers from South Africa, Uruguay, Morocco, Pakistan, Tunisia and Nepal. |
A Reminder
I blog on the American Street on Saturdays. If you want more of me than will be here, check it out. Though I behave somewhat better there, which might not satisfy you... I have now been nominated for two Koufax awards. The one I missed earlier is for the Best Single-Issue Blog. The only fly in this wonderful heaping cup of ice-cream is that I supposedly blog single-mindedly on feminism, whereas I really blog single-mindedly about me. So the nomination should be for the Best Selfish Blog or perhaps the Best Blog on a Single-Minded Goddess. But I'm extremely happy with the nomination. Thank you! Though you will agree that I don't deserve either one of these nominations, when you see who else has been nominated. |
Friday, January 07, 2005
Happy, Happy Williams!
It's so nice when what you want to do and what you get paid to do coincide, isn't it? If only we all could be as lucky as Armstrong Williams: he really believes in George Bush, and he gets paid for it, too! It's a little bit awkward that he shouldn't have been paid for it in the exact way he was: Seeking to build support among black families for its education reform law, the Bush administration paid a prominent black pundit $240,000 to promote the law on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same. See how happy he is!
Maybe not for very long. His contract for this propaganda was funded by taxpayers, and this is not yet quite legal. Sorry, Armstrong. Better luck in Gilead. |
Barney the Dinosaur is Gay?
There was a time when the Teletubbies were all about homosexuality. Now a much wider selection of characters from children's television shows has joined the fight for homosexuality, according to wingnuts: A pro-family group is accusing homosexual activists of using popular children's TV characters to indoctrinate young children into their lifestyle. Specifically, the group is questioning the intention of a new children's video featuring those characters. It must be really hard to be a wingnut: dangers everywhere! Gay cartoon characters, the worry that a fertilized egg might slip down a toilet somewhere, the existence of all those godless East Coast Elitist liberals... I don't know how they do it. ---- Link by Sanna Emilin |
Did You Ejaculate Last Night?
Was it while you were asleep? Have you called the police to report the spermal death? You do have twelve hours before your lack of reporting becomes something that might be punishable by a jail term or a fine, so you have time to read the rest of this post. Relax. Relax even more. This will not apply to your ejaculations, but it might apply to your wife's or girlfriend's delayed period, because such a period may be a sign of fetal death! Yes, fetal death. At least in the mind of delegate John Cosgrove of Virginia. He's a Republican, of course, and he's also busy trying to ban same-sex marriage. The other thing he is trying to ban is the tremendous underreporting of fetal death, and he is doing this by introducing a proposal to make such underreporting illegal. Maura on Daily Kos has an excellent diary on the issue and its likely consequences. Go and read it. If the world decided to obey John Cosgrove, every miscarriage would be studied as a potential crime, my dears. If it wasn't promptly reported, the woman who just suffered the miscarriage might go to prison or suffer a large fine or perhaps even both. You know, this sounds so very much like something from the Taliban era in Afghanistan, a place where women go to prison for very similar kinds of reasons. It also sounds a lot like Margaret Atwood's dystopian replacement of the United States, the imaginary Gilead, a country where women's fertility is under constant observation and manipulation by the state powers. It is the sort of world that Cosgrove is busily building: First, we define various types of miscarriages as death, death of an unborn baby, then we institute control systems that keep on eye on the menstrual cycles of all women, then we declare abortion illegal and there you are! Put on your color-coded fertility bonnets, sisters. The state knows when you ovulate. If this upsets you (as it should), you can take action: John Cosgrove P.O. Box 15483 Chesapeake, Virginia 23328 (757) 547-3422 --- Thanks to Anne in my comments for first telling me about this. |
Today's Action Alert
Today's Action is to write or email a Virginia State Senator asking them to support Virginia's Birth Control Protection Act. Legislators in the Virginia General Assembly are continuing to try to blur the lines between contraception and abortion. Senate Bill 456 will make it clear that birth control is basic health care and must not be subject to the political agenda of anti-choice hardliners. Here's a sample letter: Dear State Senator, I urge you to support Senate Bill 456. This measure makes it clear that "contraception does not constitute abortion" and it defines contraception in accordance with standard medical practice. It is sad that such a bill is necessary, but opponents of reproductive freedom have been trying to blur the lines between contraception and abortion for several years in the General Assembly. Their legislative attacks on contraception have attempted to restrict women's access to basic birth control, including birth control pills and emergency contraception. The women and families of Virginia are depending on you to represent them and their need to plan and space their children. Doing so greatly enhances family well-being. With contraception used by 95% of American women, your vote in favor of Senate Bill 456 is a vote for women, families and children. Sincerely, ********************* Even if you don't live in Virginia, it's important to stop state efforts to prevent access to birth control. Today, the threat is in Virginia, but tomorrow, it could be in your state. Here's a list of Virginia State Senators and their contact information. Thanks for taking today's action. |
Today's Deep Thought
Where democracy refuses to die |
Thursday, January 06, 2005
Cancel Yesterday's Good News
Staples hasn't stopped advertizing with Sinclair, after all. In fact, they plan to continue in the future. Staples has nothing against the Sinclair Broadcasting Company, nothing. They believe that money smells good wherever it has been. |
Good News And Nothing But Good News
It is rumored that our Leader wants to hear no bad news from Iraq. His example is surely one worthy of imitation, so this post is going to be only about news which are positive and affirming of the greatness of this country and especially of its administration. Therefore, I'm not going to say a word about the hearings of Alberto Gonzales' nomination to the post of Attorney General, except that his use of the term "quaint" shows a very nice active vocabulary. For this reason he might be an excellent addition to the current administration. What I shall blog about, instead, is the new puppy that Laura and George Bush have acquired. A puppy is an infant dog, and many humans find infant dogs very appealing. Pointing out the appeal of the puppy will make George Bush look like a nice guy, a man who cares about puppies and tsunami victims and the homeless, a man who would never want to kill lots of Iraqis for reasons of political power or wacko ideology or oil. An infant dog is a life-affirming choice. It is especially nice that George gave the infant dog to Laura as a birthday present. That way the whole thing doesn't make anyone wonder whether George is a hundred percent he-man, as he-men are not really supposed to find puppies that cute. But their wives, who are supposed to be a hundred percent she-women, are encouraged to goo over infant dogs, because this enforces the idea of women as caring and emotional creatures. Which is a good thing. That Andrea Yates' murder conviction was overturned is also a good thing. She is the fundamentalist Christian woman who drowned all five of her children in a bathtub. She is clearly mentally ill and convicting her in the first place as if she was sane made no sense. Because this post is all about good news, I'm not going to say a word about the value system that would make a mentally ill woman solely responsible for the care of so many small children, and I'm going to stay equally silent about the great cries for Andrea Yates' head which were heard from her own people, the wingnuts, when she was convicted in the first place. Finally, this blog has been nominated for the 2004 Koufax Awards in the category: Best Overall Blog by a Nonprofessional (whatever nonprofessional might mean in this context). This is wonderful news for me, because the other blogs also nominated are absolutely awe-inspiringly good. I won't mention that this is so wonderful that the rest of my life will be just one big disappointment, because that sounds far too pessimistic in a post full of good news. |
A Dark Day for Democracy
So the Congress has re-selected George Bush. But it was at least somewhat interesting. A handful of Democrats: forced a challenge to the quadrennial count of electoral votes for just the second time since 1877 The Democratic leadership, however, distanced itself from all this filthy and boring stuff about voting rights. They don't want to look like sore losers, after all. Who cares how black voters were treated in Ohio? What's important is how the Democratic leadership looks. And what did the Republicans do? Well, they cast aspersions on the Democrats as sore losers. They definitely were not interested in how many hours old black pensioners had to stand in the rain to have their vote then rejected. I'm not disappointed as I didn't expect anything better from this lot. My sincere thanks to those brave souls who made an effort to talk about something that is very important in a democracy: voting rights, and my heartfelt contempt to the rest of these so-called representatives of the people. The Republicans love money and a vengeful god who looks a whole lot like Pat Robertson. The Democrats love money and munching on Republican dingleberries. |
Alas, Poor Murka: No Longer Free
That's a little bit exaggerated. In reality, the United States dropped from the top ten countries in this year's Index of Economic Freedom. This index is the creation of the conservative Heritage Foundation which defines "economic freedom" as follows: Economic freedom is the measure of the roadblocks governments put in place that prevent their citizens from achieving success. Not surprisingly, countries with the greatest economic freedom enjoy strong economic growth. Unfree countries, conversely, do not. And what, exactly, might these roadblocks be? The index measures them by using fifty empirical variables from these ten groups:
Most of these classes cover the activities of the government as expected. The Heritage Foundation definition of economic freedom appears to be a country in which the government has no say in how business behaves, in which the property rights of capital owners are strongly enforced and in which wages are allowed to be low and prices high. Environmental regulation would be seen as a bad thing, and so would any laws guaranteeing safety and health at the workplace. No wonder, then, that Hong Kong and Singapore are the top two countries in freedom. Even Chile beats the United States in this definition of "economic freedom". For this is only one of many ways one might define economic freedom, and despite the aura of legitimacy given to the Freedom Index by its fifty variables, it would be perfectly feasible to construct completely different indexes by using a different set of fifty variables. It's worth returning momentarily to the Heritage Foundation's definition of economic freedom: Economic freedom is the measure of the roadblocks governments put in place that prevent their citizens from achieving success. Such a clever piece of framing! The wingnuts are the masters of framing, I must admit. Note how the use of "roadblocks" gives the government activity a very negative label: no-one wants to be stopped by roadblocks or interrogated by police officers. And note how these roadblocks are the fault of government, something put in place purely to harass the poor citizens. There is no explanation of the reasons for laws that try to reduce pollution or maintain a minimum wage level. They are just put there as roadblocks. And finally, note how "their citizens" gives the impression that all citizens would be the beneficiaries if only the government stopped obstructing everything so much. Even those citizens whose wages will be low in the state of economic freedom, or those who are paying high prices for this freedom. In reality, there are winners and losers in this game, and the way the Heritage Foundation defines economic freedom would make most of us into losers. |
They Just Don't Get It #3
This is my series on the itsy-bitsy things which are like the peas under the fortieth mattress of the sensitive princess who is a feminist. Not big and obvious things, but the almost unnoticed little stings. Let's see if you get this one. It's from the threads on Eschaton on January 3, 2005:
These are three different commenters. |
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
Tucker Carlson Axed!!!
As I said earlier, I take my good news where I can find them in these barren times. So CNN is letting Carlson and his bowtie go! That is in itself not such good news as they might be considering to replace him with someone even more awful, but this is good news: The bow-tied wearing conservative pundit got into a public tussle last fall with comic Jon Stewart, who has been critical of cable political programs that devolve into shoutfests. Klein in this quote is Jonathan Klein, who was appointed the chief executive of CNN's U.S. programming last November. I like what I hear, though of course I'm fully prepared to be sorely disappointed. Rational debate is so 1970's or something. But maybe, just maybe... |
Balls in Your Mouth
That's a song title by Kid Rock who is going to perform in the presidential Inaugural Ball (for Bush): The Bush twins, Jenna and Barbara, will be hosts of the youth concert, where the teenage singer JoJo will appear along with Kid Rock. The Kid, as he is called, notably said at a party during the Republican National Convention that if he were president he would never get caught having sex in the Oval Office but would instead install cameras in the Lincoln Bedroom. I heard about this guy on Randy Rhodes yesterday. This is such fun. Kid Rock is just what the moral values party needs. His values are...interesting. Here are some of the lyrics of his song titled "The Pimp of the Nation":
Hmm. Maybe these are the real values of the Bush administration? Lots of hatred of women here, for one thing, and lots of domination language for another. God is absent a little, though, but it seems that the president of the country is alluded to. Will the wingnuts mind or will they boogie away at the party? ---- Link to the lyrics by Woody Guthrie's Guitar on Eschaton. |
Today's Action Alert
Today's Action Staples, the large office supply chain, has decided to stop advertising with Sinclair. Send Staples an e-mail and let them know that you appreciate their decision. Talk to the office supply person at your job and suggest that they give Staples some business. You can contact Staples at: http://www.staples.com/content/help/Contact/other_quest.asp Thanks for taking today's action! |
From the Mouth of Tom deLay
Via Eschaton and Amcop (I don't want to spell out the full name of this blog here...), this is what the very religious deLay decided to read aloud in the live telecast of the 109th Congressional Prayer Service at a church on Capitol Hill:
There! Now no-one can say that I don't quote the Bible. The bolding shows what deLay himself chose to stress. Given the timing of this reading, Mr. deLay must be a Very Bad Person. No ifs or buts about it. But he is also a Very Bad Person In Power, and we have allowed that to happen. It seems that I was a bit premature earlier when I argued that it's no longer possible to interpret natural catastrophies as God's punishment for the sins of human beings. If your name is Tom deLay, that's the proper interpretation, and the reason we had no tsunami in Murka is because there are an adequate number of deLays here. |
Hello!
My apologies for the two mammoth posts below. I promise to make lots of really short and cute posts from now on. Like this one. I learned some brand new ways of kicking butt tonight (in my martial arts class), and they were all short and cute. |
Exit Polls Make My Heart Beat Faster
They do. Statistics is one of those fields which are almost impossible to popularize without making serious mistakes, and I have noticed that the many articles on the exit polls of the 2004 presidential elections in the U.S. don't seem to make the arguments clear enough for the average intelligent reader. My attempts are no better in this respect, but I'm going to try nevertheless, with a new study by Jonathan D. Simon and Ron P. Baiman ('The 2004 Presidential Election: Who Won the Popular Vote?'), because this is a very important topic and statistics shouldn't keep it from being understood more widely. Here we go: Suppose that some unknown admirer delivers you a large shipment of wonderful chocolates, say, a hundred million boxes. They are delectable chocolates, and you want to give a box to most everyone you know and even to people you don't know. But you worry that such joy can't be for you, that something, after all, might be wrong with the chocolates. Why else would someone send them to you? So you walk around this mountain of chocolates in your warehouse, thinking over this problem, one of quality control. Finally you decide to hire lots of people to go around and randomly test chocolates by opening a box here and there and by eating its contents. You tell your testers to eat a total of 13, 047 boxes, and to rate each box as either "great" or "so-so". Because a hundred million boxes is a lot of boxes and takes a large area, you tell your testers that they can choose a corner of the warehouse or one wall and choose their samples by taking boxes from the assigned area only, but you scatter the testers so that most of the perimeter of the chocolate mountain is covered. The results come in from this testing. It turns out that 50.8% of the boxes are labeled "great" and 48.2% "so-so". The rest are unassigned to these categories. The testers go home with aching tummies, and you send out all the remaining boxes with a questionnaire asking the eater to rate the chocolates as either "great" or "so-so". The responses come back and 50.9% say that the chocolates are "so-so", only 48.1% think that they are "great". Thus, your testing indicated that the majority of the chocolates are "excellent", but the overall eating indicated the opposite: that the chocolates were just "so-so". This doesn't seam to mean very much in my example, but suppose that the question was whether the chocolates were spoiled or not. Then the example becomes a lot less trivial. Or suppose that the testing is exit polling, the final eating the election results, and the qualities of chocolate are votes for Kerry or Bush. You might want to know why your testing didn't produce the same ratio of excellent to so-so as the final questionnaires, and you might also want to know whether the difference matters. For an example of the latter, maybe your testers somehow picked more boxes of excellent chocolates than their average number in the chocolate mountain. Or maybe the questionnaires you sent all the eaters asked the question wrong so that the eaters answered differently than your testers. It's possible to sample something and to get results which don't represent the whole process or population. For example, if you make soup, tasting it is a way of taking a sample of its flavor. If you don't stir first you might taste only the last seasoning you added and get the flavor wrong. In statistics the stirring bit is achieved by making certain that the sampling takes place over as properly randomized population as possible, without focusing only on some corner of the warehouse. That we allowed the tasters to use clusters of boxes rather than requiring them to run around to a different spot for every box makes the randomization a little less, so there is a slightly larger possibility that the testers didn't sample randomly. Here comes the statistics bit: It is possible to figure out what the odds are of getting a result as different as the one we got if we made this mental experiment: Suppose that the chocolate mountain actually contains 50.9% of "so-so" boxes of chocolate. If we could go back and repeat the testing, say, a hundred times, how many out of those hundred times might our testers report a result of 50.8% or more of "excellent" quality boxes? Or in election terms, if 50.9% of voters actually voted for Bush, how often would exit polls, repeated (mentally) a hundred times in exactly the same way, lead us to believe that the Kerry votes are at least 50.8%? The answer to these questions is that we would get such testing or exit poll results not even once in a hundred repetitions. In fact, we would get this result once in 959,000 repetitions. This means either that the chocolate testing was not a correct drawing from the chocolate mountain or that the essentially impossible happened. I would argue for the first explanation. In other words, both our chocolate testing and the exit polls differ from the results obtained from eating the mountain and from voting respectively. What went wrong? Here I drop the chocolate example, as it's getting awfully boring. Two possibilities exist: either the exit polls were not done properly or the election results were not proper. If the first possibility is the correct one, the pollsters should explain why their methods resulted in such very biased findings (biased meaning that the error almost always favored Kerry; if the error had been random we should expect some samples to favor Bush). As Simon and Baiman point out, the two theories that exist about this are not at all strong. The first one argues that the exit polls oversampled women and women were more likely to vote for Kerry. But even if we adjust our sampling for this, we still get an impossible reading on the conformity of the exit polls and the final results. The second theory is the "reluctant voter" idea: that Republican voters are less likely to fill in the form that was used in exit polling. There is no evidence for this theory, nothing to explain why Republicans would be more reluctant than Democrats. Thus, unless the final release of the exit poll data tells us something new, the conclusion is that we should address the question of the election process itself. This is not being a tinfoilhatter or a conspiracy theorist or a fraudster (using just some of the labels that have cropped up among the Democrats on the net). It is common sense. Note that the Simon-Baiman paper addresses the popular vote, not the specific situation on Ohio or Florida. In the plainest terms, it asks some very awkward questions about Bush's victory margin in the popular vote numbers. Though these numbers don't legally matter in deciding the winner of the elections, they do offer the facade of legitimacy to Bush which he didn't have after the 2000 elections (as Gore won the popular vote). You might wonder why I make such a fuss about differences between numbers which are very close together. How can we make such clear-cut arguments about a test that ended showing 50.8% of votes to Kerry and an election that gave him 48.1% of the votes? The answer is in the enormous numbers used in the exit polling, 13,047 voters answered the questions in the national poll. The more data we have, the sharper distinctions we can make with some confidence. It is very important to explain why the exit poll results differed as much as they did from the final results. If we don't get an acceptable explanation, and preferably quite soon, the legitimacy of any future elections in the U.S. will be doubtful. ---- I have not included the criticisms of the Simon-Baiman paper here, but you can get a flavor of them at the Mystery Pollster. The problem with even the statistical wars about this topic is that the individuals' political views seem to affect their ideas about statistics, too. This is nothing new, of course, but we sometimes forget to be wary when reading more scientific-looking stuff. In general, the only criticism that is important is that the standard errors may be underestimated in this paper as in the earlier Friedman paper. But they could be enormously larger without changing any of the conclusions the authors make. |
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
Visiting Wingnuttia
It's always good to travel. That way you don't get as ingrown as a bad toenail. I have been to Wingnuttia, a part of the blogosphere that may not be a safe place for a pagan goddess. But I am back in one piece. Thanks to miguel for the travel plan! One of the places I visited was a blog called Vox Popoli (here's where I found it). I especially enjoyed the following post about the New York Times article on Asian sex workers who leave their poor rural villages for better money and prospects: One of the aspects of feminism that I've always found particularly amusing is the way in which it dances around a basic and apparently universal fact of life: most women don't like to work* and they won't if they can avoid it by having sex instead. Although I suppose it's remotely possible that an early feminist capable of long-range strategic thinking may have known the likely economics effects of doubling the size of the work force and hoped to use falling real wages to force women out of the home if they wished to maintain a normal standard of living. There you have it on a toenail, though a little ingrown. Work is misdefined or defined twice over and the sinister spectre of evil feminists is invoked with a denial of the effect of the same in terms of some faulty economics. The post also contains some more backpedalling about men possibly disliking work, too, and perhaps even preferring sex to work, too. But the gist of the message is here. And what is this message? It's a little fuzzy as three different arguments are conflated. One is about women being really lazy and rather whorish at core, most women, anyway. This is a traditional misogynist argument. The second one is about women's true desires which are assumed to be related to staying at home, and the third one is about the important distinction (important in the writer's mind) between Work which is what gets paid and work which doesn't get paid in money. The latter type of work is not Work. If you get my meaning. What is so delightful about this post is how little material it required to get this all going on at the same time. An article about sex workers seemed to do the trick, never mind that sex workers by definition confuse the issues of Work and sex rather badly. Still, at the time when I was reading this, nearly seventy comments had been added. These comments were also fun reading. They tell me a lot about what feminism means in Wingnuttia, and how hard it is to stay within the allowed frames of thought without getting into something resembling a pretzel. At least one commenter is a stay-at-home-dad, and he was congratulated for it, but none of the stay-at-home-mothers got any praise. This is sort of understandable as a major theme of the comments is that mothering comes naturally to women and isn't Work. Only Work is worthy of praise. Though some gentle souls disagreed with this, too. Two conclusions were fairly universally accepted: that the desire to care for children, to clean, dust and cook are inbuilt biological drives and that feminists are really evil people. Women have a natural yearning to stay at home, men don't. Hence, some writers in the comments felt anxious about the stay-at-home-dads, and wanted to know if they'd really rather Work. But at least they were sacrificing. The agreement on the evils of feminism was complete. It seems that feminists in the 1960's went around and got perfectly happy housewives disgruntled by their whisperings. Then all these housewives went out to work and look at the world now! Everybody weeping in their own corner. No-one willing to do the unselfish thing anymore! Families falling apart. I presume that unselfishness is also an innate female trait in Wingnuttia, that selfishness is all one would find in the men over there? Many of the arguments were novel. One commenter argued that men's greater physical power frees them from most other tasks except heavy lifting. One theory explained that it was the nasty feminist propaganda that made women enter the labor market in record numbers in the 1970's, that this entry depressed real wages for everybody (More supply would do that, but only if nothing else changed.), and that now women are locked into Work which they hate (Why are they locked? Using the same elementary economic theory, lowered wages could make everybody cut back on their working hours). Except that feminists never had the sort of powers this assumes, except that many educated women were truly frustrated in the 1960's by the then-prevailing social norms and this was partly what created the feminist wave, except that the demand for labor went up a lot in the 1970's, too (if demand rises as well, real wages might even rise) and except that labor markets are highly segregated by sex so the influx of women didn't really affect men's wages downwards (though outsourcing to other countries did). And also, of course, this theory ignores the whole history of women's labor market participation: women have always worked in large numbers in the labor market. The 1950's was an exceptional era in many ways, though it's always viewed as the Golden Era in Wingnuttia. What I found interesting, too, was the total silence among the commenters about the possibility that our behavior is not only affected by our biology but also our upbringing, the culture that surrounds us and so on. None of them seem to think these are at all relevant matters, though somehow feminism is. As feminism is one social movement, it is very odd that the rest of societal effects are ignored while this one is pulled out for a thorough trashing. A similar illogicality is evident in the way in which sex differences are seen as inborn, yet these inborn differences have been so powerless in affecting behavior that a small group of women with hairy armpits could overpower them. It's like speaking a foreign language, but I think I did pretty good. What do you think? |
Monday, January 03, 2005
Pray for Me
Since you will be funding such prayer from your taxes, anyway, you might as well just pray for me. Pray that I don't overuse nectar or take up other sinful habits. The Bush administration believes in faith-healing and is lavishing money on it: President Bush has succeeded in opening the checkbooks of five federal departments to religious organizations. Now he's setting his sights on money doled out by the states. We certainly are the sunny-side-up, in a giant faith-based frying pan. The results will be like my omelettes: raw in the middle and burnt around the edges. And very bad for you. But nobody listens to a goddess in this faith-based world of ours. Why am I so negative about all this? How about because of this: Also advancing Bush's initiative: a drug treatment program that is just getting under way. Called Access to Recovery, it gives drug users vouchers to take to any organization they choose - including those that rely on a religious conversion to break the addiction. Because the program uses vouchers, it can legally fund explicitly religious activity. I should put a ticking clock in the right uppper corner of my blog: Time left to Middle Ages. Or to the Tally-Ban (the Texas version of Talibanization)? What do you think? |
No Ethics Rule Changes in the House, After All
I take my good news where they're found, and these days you have to dig for them. But this is good news. The House Ethics Rules aren't going to be changed to make it easier for slimy politicians to stay in power. My blogging on the topic had no impact, but I'm going to pretend that it did. At least this turnabout is supposedly due to public criticism of the initial plan to change the rules, and I'm as public as anybody. In totally unrelated news, I just went out through the garage door. The lightbulb had gone out and I decided to walk straight into a stone wall that had been standing there for only the last sixty years. My martial arts training came in handy, for once, and I didn't lose any teeth. I did slap down rather hard on the stones which wasn't the best news for my poor palms. Tomorrow will show how my jaw and nose will look. |
No Technical Problems
I now have a new computer, new in the sense that rich people use it! It is a previously untouched virgin computer! It's hard to enter the room without falling on my knees. The feeling I get is the same as when I get lost in the megamansion district nearby: awe and anger. But now I feel this way about myself. It's like a Rich Goddess has somehow stepped into the Snakepit Inc. and taken over. Though it's the same old me who has to pay for this luxury. We'll see what I can sell to finance it. But did you know that computers can actually ask you what you want to do and then they just do it! No need to keep clicking on the Alt-F3 to keep the screen visible, no need to restart every five minutes. And memory!!! I'm wallowing in memory now, memory everywhere, large puffy white clouds of it! I can even fit Norton AntiVirus in! It's almost too good to be true. Something will surely fail soon. |
Back to the 1970's
Did you know that it's not sex discrimination to require that women bartenders at Harrah's casinos wear makeup but not to require the same of men bartenders? This is what a three-judge-panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decided with a two-to-one majority. Interesting. And what is the reasoning behind this decision? Well: "We have previously held that grooming and appearance standards that apply differently to women and men do not constitute discrimination on the basis of sex," Judge Wallace Tashima wrote for the majority. I wonder if the same argument could be used, for example, to force me into a burqa? Or high heels, even if I have tender feet? Or what about the expectation that I should weigh about twenty pounds less than whatever the healthy weight for a woman of my height should be? All these can be argued to be grooming and appearance standards that apply differently to women and men. But I'd definitely argue that they are also discriminatory. The ruling also found that ...the casino's appearance standards were no more burdensome for women than for men. I'm not sure what the casino demands of the male bartenders, but to require someone to wear makeup every day is pretty burdensome. It means having to spend an extra half-an-hour a day on preparation before going to work, it means having to spend quite a few dollars on mascara and foundation and lipstick and so on, and it means, for some women, at least, the likelihood of allergic reactions to all the chemicals in the cosmetics. This is a really stupid ruling. I rule that the two judges in the majority should spend the next year putting makeup on every morning and that they should then be assessed by a jury of female bartenders who would rank the judges' appearance on some simple ten-point scale. No, the only judge who got it was the third one, the one in the minority. This is what he said: "Harrah's fired Jespersen because of her failure to conform to sex stereotypes, which is discrimination based on sex and is therefore impermissible under Title VII," ----- Thanks to Wyzardess for the original link. |
Today's Action Alert
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm |
Shirley Chisholm, RIP
She died on Sunday at the age of eighty. She was the first black woman elected to Congress. She was also one heck of a fighter for the minorities and women. As she noted herself: "My greatest political asset, which professional politicians fear, is my mouth, out of which come all kinds of things one shouldn't always discuss for reasons of political expediency," she told voters. Indeed. I love the things that have come out of Shirley Chisholm's mouth. Here are some examples from her 1970 book Unbought and Unbossed:
I don't measure America by its achievement, but by its potential. We need voices like hers today. |
Sunday, January 02, 2005
The Babbling Brooks
The New York Times probably hired David Brooks for the sole reason to give us something to laugh about. His recent column on the tsunami death toll would be a C-minus essay in college-level writing courses, but as he is a Republican writer who invents sociological trends it's worthy of being printed in the most important newspaper in this country, while wonderful lefty writers go begging on the outer fringes of the blogosphere (no, I'm not necessarily referring to myself here). Here's a summary of Brooks' column: Nature is horrible and cruel. Humans had no power over the tsunamis which is very bad. At least in the past we thought such disasters were fair rewards for sin and a way to purify humanity. This put humankind into the center of the picture as is proper. Now we can't do that anymore, so we are left trying to feel good about the relief efforts. And, by the way, environmentalists are all wrong in trying to prettify nature. The real nature is just like all those programs on television which show only the last minutes of some poor gazelle in the mouth of the devouring Well, it's almost a summary of his column, with a few interpretative touches by Yours Truly. Brooks doesn't like the idea that "If you listen to the discussion of the tsunami this past week, you receive the clear impression that the meaning of this event is that there is no meaning. Humans are not the universe's main concern. We're just gnats on the crust of the earth. The earth shrugs and 140,000 gnats die, victims of forces far larger and more permanent than themselves." This is rude to the gnats, for one thing, and also quite impertinent towards the god that Brooks might believe in if he is a believer like most of his Republican brethren. Why should a god explain anything to us? Why should we be any more important than gnats? That human beings search for meaning is true, but it is equally true that the meaning of things such as natural disasters is not for us to judge. To suppose otherwise is arrogance out of all proportion with the actual standing of human beings in the order of things. My explanation of the mess that Brooks has made is simple: He tried to argue that fundamentalists have an upper hand in enduring catastrophies of all types, because they see these as punishment from God and therefore controllable by human beings who just need to behave differently. But most of his readers will not swallow that explanation as superior to our post-modern angst, so he tried to rewrite it as suitably angstful. He failed. |
Meanwhile, in the Middle Ages...
Cardinal Ratzinger (of the misogynistic fame) has appeared as a major candidate for future Popedom: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the chief architect of Pope John Paul II's traditionalist moral policy, has long been a bugaboo for liberal Catholics. But they had stopped worrying that the German might one day ascend to St. Peter's throne. His hard-line views and blunt approach had earned him the epithet of panzerkardinal and too many enemies. Well, their worrying may now resume. Sources in Rome tell TIME that Ratzinger has re-emerged as the top papal candidate within the Vatican hierarchy, joining other front runners such as Dionigi Tettamanzi of Milan and Claudio Hummes of Sao Paolo. "The Ratzinger solution is definitely on," said a well-placed Vatican insider. It was Ratzinger who wrote the recent Vatican letter on the position of women (beneath that of the men and naturally so). He's not fond of feminism and all things modern. If the current Pope is the greatest mind of the fourteenth century, Cardinal Ratzinger may very well be one of the brightest plugs in the twelfth century. I don't think that he is worthy of the dress he wears. |
Technical Problems...
I have a new used computer and it doesn't work (well, it does, except that it takes ten minutes to find a website and then it doesn't find any). So I'm blogging on a loan computer right now, and I don't have my favorites folder and no addresses or research notes. Which means that I'm just babbling right now. Things should improve soon as I plan to go out and make pancakes out of the guy who sold me the computer. Then I can have pancakes with strawberry preserves and tell you all about it. |
The Powerful Wingnuts...
Do you know who is behind this political attack campaign? Excerpts: promises "a battle of enormous proportions from sea to shining sea" if President Bush fails to appoint "strict constructionist" jurists or if Democrats filibuster to block conservative nominees. "Let his colleagues beware," [name deleted] warned, "especially those representing 'red' states. Many of them will be in the 'bull's-eye' the next time they seek re-election." Sounds strong and scary, doesn't it? Must be someone of mighty powers, someone who can make Democrats quake in their boots. And some of them seem to be doing just that: James Manley, a spokesman for Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the new Democratic leader, said Democrats had allowed 204 judicial appointments to move forward in Mr. Bush's first term. and David DiMartino, a spokesman for Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, said the senator was already an opponent of abortion rights and had never supported a filibuster of one of Mr. Bush's appellate nominees. So who is this mighty mouse of the right? It is James C. Dobson, a radical Evangelist cleric and the founder of the wingnut farm called Focus on Family. His major political agenda has always been directed towards maintaining a patriarchal family structure, so it's not hard to see why he would be so adamant on the types of judges to be selected for the Supreme Court. But it is some Democrats who are the real mice here; scared of Dr. Dobson and his wingnut followers, ready to bare their bellies and hand over their basic values. These Democrats shouldn't be so frightened of Dr. Dobson. Others are keeping a beady eye on them, too, including a few goddesses. |
Saturday, January 01, 2005
From the Annals of the Weird
Another activist judge doing his thing: A Spokane woman trying to divorce her estranged husband two years after he was jailed for beating her has been told by a judge she can't get out of the marriage while she's pregnant. This is such a shining example of the idiocy one arrives at when institutions are adulated while the individuals in them are totally scorned. --- Via Democratic Underground. |
Some Poetry on American Street
The American Street is a blog where I talk on Saturdays, like today. But the reason to go there today is not my writing, but the wonderful poetry that has just been posted there. It's a result of a poetry competition about Donald Rumsfeld's famous statement: "You go to war with what you have." All the entries are published and they are very good (scroll down, there are seven posts of poems on the page). They show the enormous talent amongst the liberal-progressive blogosphere. |




