OPINIONS OF ECHIDNE OF THE SNAKES, A MINOR GREEK GODDESS. She can be reached at: ECHIDNE-OF-THE-SNAKES.COM

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

On Biased Polls 



I wrote about this particular poll for TAPPED last week. It is a biased poll, intended to produce biased answers. Glenn Beck has used it and now Fox News is using it, too:

On the February 27 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, anchor Bill Hemmer cited the results of a "new poll" by Public Opinion Strategies that 53 percent of voters say "victory in Iraq is still possible." Hemmer failed to acknowledge that, as noted by Media Matters for America (here and here), POS has described itself as a "Republican polling firm," and a Republican pollster has reportedly stated that the question Hemmer cited was worded in a "completely unprofessional" manner.

The POS poll, conducted February 5-7, asked voters to rate their level of agreement/disagreement with the statement "Victory in Iraq, that is creating a young but stable democracy and reducing the threat of terrorism at home, is no longer possible for the US." Media Matters has noted that, according to blogger Greg Sargent, Republican pollster David E. Johnson, CEO of the Strategic Vision polling firm, criticized the poll as, in Sargent's words, "leading and designed to elicit the answers they got." Johnson also asserted, according to Sargent, that the wording of the poll's statement was "completely unprofessional" because "[i]t's designed to confuse the respondent. People are being asked whether two different things can be accomplished -- establishing democracy in Iraq and reducing the threat of terrorism at home -- and doesn't clarify which one people are talking about."

The danger I see in all this is a total corruption of polls as at least partly useful strategies for learning about voters' preferences. If the right-wing is going to start praising biased polls on purpose it will not be very long when the left-wing must do the same or lose the game. And the overall result is that nobody will trust any polls at all. Part of the return to the faith-based times?

Actually, this trend has existed for a while. The conservative think tanks have been spewing out biased research (research without the proper anonymous refereeing of academic papers or the tournament of seminars where it is ripped apart if it is bad) for a long time, and this research has been given the same respect as research that came out of the peer-review system. I'm sure similar examples can be given from the left if one digs deep enough.

This is dangerous, because it removes another leg from the stool of reasoned arguments on which we all try to sit. (And yes, I did have the mental image of all people jostling to try to sit on the same stool. My sense of humor is quite sick.)

|

Mr.Ms. Stanton 



Steve Stanton is the City Manager of Largo. He plans to become Susan Stanton, and Largo just might fire him:

Three undecided Largo city commissioners could determine the fate of City Manager Steve Stanton tonight.

Last week, Stanton's announcement that he plans to have a sex-change operation roiled this city of 76,000, with its mobile home parks full of retirees and its feed store in the middle of downtown.

By Monday, Mayor Pat Gerard was the only member of the seven-member City Commission to say she still stands by Stanton, 48.

Three other commissioners say they intend to fire the 14-year city manager or are likely do so.

That leaves three commissioners — Gigi Arntzen, Gay Gentry and Rodney Woods — as the deciding votes. Largo's city charter requires a vote of five out of seven city commissioners to fire the city manager.

At a special meeting called to discuss Stanton, commissioners expect to face more than 500 people.

City Hall has received more than 250 e-mails about Stanton, more than 40 percent from people who identified themselves as Largo residents. Those e-mails called for his removal by a 7-to-1 ratio.

What the commissioners appear to plan would be illegal if being transgendered was protected under Civil Rights legislation, because it satisfies the economic definition of labor market discrimination. After all, nobody is arguing that Mr. Stanton wouldn't be able to do the same job equally well just because of sex change operation. The reason why so many want him out of the job has nothing to do with the concrete details of his job performance and everything to do with the frightened feelings about transgendered individuals.

Would the reaction be the same if a City Manager called Susan Stanton announced that she is going to become Steve Stanton? What do you think?
---
The link from a commenter on Eschaton threads.

|

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

And In The Rooms The Women Come And Go 



Talking of Michelangelo. So said T.S. Eliot. But what do we talk about in the public media? What are the things that make women and men interested enough to turn on the television or open a newspaper or click on a website?

Anna Nicole Smith's corpse?

What are the really crucial questions that should be talked about, should somehow be made into as interesting as the corpse of that poor woman, should be made sexy if need be, because they are important to talk about? Important, do you hear me!

That the earth is ailing, ready to shrug off some of the fleas on her surface, and, as a byproduct of that (because we are the fleas), all of us might be dying, too? Before our time, dead of hunger or pollution? Not sexy, I fear. The honey bees no longer buzz enough. Who is going to pollinate our food plants? - Do most people understand the importance of the humble bee to our continued existence?

That we are not doing very much to prevent a third world war, right now? Indeed, we are slipping and sliding and skipping towards the abyss, as I speak. But that is scary, too, smelling of corpses and death. Why all the interest in one single corpse and so little in the possibility that we may all be corpses sooner than we hoped. Do you think it would help to tag labels on people's chests? This 22-year old man, newly engaged, is going to die a horrible death in the war. This 45-year old woman, mother of three children, is going to burn to death in an attack. Would that make a difference in our interest levels?

That epidemics are killing millions and millions of people each year, and more epidemics are being predicted? Would duct tape help? More stocked antibiotics in the medicine cupboards? At least that way my family won't die though yours will.

This is horrible to read, the words of a gloomy seeress, a goddess exaggerating the dark cloud inside the golden lining. No wonder nobody wants to talk about any of this. No wonder, at all.

And do you know what? I don't think we should have to talk about this to get change. Proper political leaders would carry the heavy burdens for us, would arrange meetings for peace and would arrange funds for medical research and environmental protection, would make laws which keep the planet going for a while longer, would ask the difficult and horrible questions and would demand some real answers. That is what leaders are for, in my idealistic world.

Now that was a pessimistic post.

|

Cheney Escaped, Blogger Was Down, So Was the Stock Market 



Blogger still is, if I use Firefox. What a weird world this cyberspace is.

Not as weird as the stock market:

A wave of frantic selling engulfed the world's financial markets today after the biggest fall in the Chinese stock market in a decade triggered a domino effect across Asia, Europe and North America.

Fears about the health of the US economy and sabre-rattling from the White House about an air assault on Iran's nuclear plants were heightened by an almost 9% plunge in Shanghai's benchmark index, amid hints from Beijing that it was planning action to control the speculation that had driven the bourse to a record high this week.

Puncturing the recent mood of optimism that has seen financial markets across the globe recover from the post 9/11 bear market, the sell-off in Shanghai spread rapidly to Hong Kong and Tokyo, before moving westwards to Europe.

By the close of business in the City, London's index of blue-chip shares - the FTSE 100 - closed almost 150 points down on the day at 6,286.1, with the fall of 2.31% the sharpest since last June.

That is from the U.K. Guardian. Here in the U.S. I read a different explanation of the events, mostly centering on the Chinese market alone. I also hear a lot of soothing talk about an overdue-correction and a glitch and how the automatic trading programs caused the sudden strong drop.

Nobody suggests that there is any connection between the stock market plunge and Cheney's hair-thin escape from the bombing in Afghanistan which took the lives of many other people. I'm not suggesting this, either, but need to put the Cheney thing somewhere on the blog today, because it occurred to me that if the flytrap theory about terrorism (that we need to keep them busy abroad so they don't find us here) is correct, it would seem that having Cheney abroad permanently would keep the rest of us safe. - Just kidding.

|

On Winter 



I took the dog for a walk last night, all wrapped up in my to-do-list and my worries and the future and the past. She trotted happily in the freshly fallen snow, stopping every few yards to read those mysterious messages only dogs can interpret, and slowly my mental wrappings came undone and I lived in the present for a while.

So beautiful, the present can be. It would be a pity to forget that with all the ugliness of this world. The night was dark but the lights from the buildings and the cars shone upwards, coloring the sky that odd silvery gray which is not really gray and not really silver, but somehow the color of blueness in the dark. Against that background the trees shone black, lit from behind as if from some inner tree-lights. The dark branches stretched across the sky, the white lace of snow dressing the bare branches into something new, something different. Winter having a party.

This is not like the parties of summer, full of scents and song and the soft petals of flowers. It is an austere affair, held in rooms of enormous size, with music of ice flutes and cymbals and silence. And all through it the Wife of Winter dances, creating spirals in the snow, making the black trees hum, throwing a cold kiss on the faces of passers-by.

Or so it seemed to me, for a few minutes.

|

A Government Small Enough To Drown In A Bathtub 



Will also let us die of tainted spinach or of peanut butter with salmonella in it or possibly even of a terrorist strike through the food chain. Not to mention Mad Cow Disease. Did I mention Mad Cow Disease? Hmmm. Did I eat beef recently?

No, as I'm a plant-devouring goddess. But the concerns about the safety of food are real and important:

The federal agency that's been front and center in warning the public about tainted spinach and contaminated peanut butter is conducting just half the food safety inspections it did three years ago.

This photo provided by the Food and Drug Administration shows consumer safety officers Dean Cook, and Matthew M. Henciak, right, members of FDA's Office of Regulatory Affairs' Baltimore District import operations group, inspecting spices at the port of Baltimore in 2000. The FDA had been front and center in warning the public about tainted spinach, and contaminated peanut butter, though it is conducting about half the number of food safety inspections that it did three years ago.

The cuts by the Food and Drug Administration come despite a barrage of high-profile food recalls.

"We have a food safety crisis on the horizon," said Michael Doyle, director of the Center for Food Safety at the University of Georgia.

Between 2003 and 2006, FDA food safety inspections dropped 47 percent, according to a database analysis of federal records by The Associated Press.

That's not all that's dropping at the FDA in terms of food safety. The analysis also shows:

_There are 12 percent fewer FDA employees in field offices who concentrate on food issues.

_Safety tests for U.S.-produced food have dropped nearly 75 percent, from 9,748 in 2003 to 2,455 last year, according to the agency's own statistics.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, the FDA, at the urging of Congress, increased the number of food inspectors and inspections amid fears that the nation's food system was vulnerable to terrorists. Inspectors and inspections spiked in 2003, but now both have fallen enough to erase the gains.

"The only difference is now it's worse, because there are more inspections to do _ more facilities _ and more food coming into America, which requires more inspections," said Tommy Thompson, who as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services pushed to increase the numbers. He's now part of a coalition lobbying to turn around several years of stagnant spending.

I would never have expected to see Tommy Thompson on the side of angels. It shows how bad things have become.

To return back to that saying by Grover Norquist, about getting the government small enough to drown in a bathtub: There are very good reasons why we need a government bigger than a bathtub and those reasons are sometimes lives saved. The private food industry firms do not have the same incentives to test food for safety as the consumers of those foods would wish them to have. The firms will compare the benefits to them from such testing to its costs to them and will test less than an independent government office would, if such a government bases its testing frequency on the benefits and costs of testing to everybody concerned, including especially the consumers.

Also, there will always be fly-by-night firms who don't care about the safety of the food at all, as well as owners of firms too greedy or too ignorant or too strapped for cash to practice proper health and sanitation measures. In fact, the firms owned by people who are not greedy or ignorant will want government inspections, because one bad case of tainted spinach can kill the whole market for all the spinach producers, even the ones whose spinach would have been fine to eat.

So much for the economist chat. What do I say about a government which cuts back on the safety inspections of the food we eat while every day telling us what great dangers we face from terrorists? Oh dear. I've promised not to use vile blogger language anymore, so I can't answer my own questions.

|

Monday, February 26, 2007

Me: Careful and Thought-Provoking. You: Tarzan 



And which do you think Washington Post would love best? Tarzan, of course. I've been reading Eric Boehlert's piece in Media Matters for America, about the love-hate affair the Post has with wingnut bloggers. The Post loves them, the bloggers hate the post. That's how it sometimes goes in love:

Under normal circumstances, the recent lunch at at a Filipino cafe in Washington, D.C., between Washington Post media writer Howard Kurtz and right-wing blogger Michelle Malkin would have been an awkward affair. Kurtz was there to profile Malkin for the paper's Style section, yet Malkin in her writings had made it clear she despises the mainstream media and holds the Post in contempt. ("Washington Post Sinks To A New Low," read a Malkin blog entry on July 22, 2005.) She has written that the paper's managing editor displays an "anti-American mindset" and has specifically singled Kurtz out for being a dishonest and incompetent reporter.

Talk about tension. The lunch and the subsequent feature could have set off some real fireworks with Kurtz not only defending his work and the Post's reputation, but pressing Malkin hard to explain her wild and often fact-free allegations against journalists. Instead, the profile, which skated over Malkin's anti-media rants as well as her loathing of the Post, was published as a Valentine's Day week mash note, presenting Malkin as a pugnacious, on-the-rise pundit who has her liberal critics up in arms.

As Paul McLeary noted at CJR Daily: "It really takes a talented writer to paint conservative commentator Michelle Malkin as the voice of reason. ... But the Washington Post's Howie Kurtz ... manages to do just that."

Boehlert then goes out to explain the astonishing fact that lefty/liberal/progressive bloggers don't get no love from the Washington Post. That must be because it's a masochistic newspaper and only likes the steel stiletto heel of Michelle Malkin on its throat.

This is the last paragraph of the piece and the source of the title I chose:

Two years ago this month, Kurtz noted, "Many bloggers are careful and thought-provoking, others partisan or mean-spirited." The question is: Why has the Post has made a conscious decision to champion mean-spirited bloggers like Malkin at the expense of the thought-provoking ones?

Sigh. It's because us careful and thought-provoking bloggers are a) boring, b) too obtruse and c) deficient in talk about anal sex, breast sizes, the desirability of a genocide of all darker skinned people or the best ways of lynching the members of the Supreme Court. So yes, I do know how to become mean-spirited and partisan (and the sweetheart of the Washington Post?), and I might even do that one day if I lose my dayjob.

Oops. Goddesses don't have dayjobs.

|

Idle Feminist (?) Thoughts 



Not even quite thoughts but the first inklings of thoughts. Embryos of thoughts? Probably not worth writing down. But I will write them down, as usual.

You know all the smear-stuff about Barack Obama? About his background and his second name being Hussein and about his father who was born in Africa and about whether he actually attended a madrassa or not in Indonesia? Do you think that all this is just because it helps the conservatives to paint Obama in ways which make him look as scary prospect for presidency to certain types of people?

Could be. But I wonder why we never hear about his mother, except that she is white. What influence did she have on her son? How did she affect what he became? It's both what Obama himself says and what others say about him that largely excludes her. An almost Biblical way of looking at which man begat which man and nary a woman in sight.

|

Socially Awkward 



A sorority at DePauw University solved the problem of declining enrollment in an interesting fashion: They got rid of all the sorority sisters who didn't show proper commitment to recruiting:

When a psychology professor at DePauw University here surveyed students, they described one sorority as a group of "daddy's little princesses" and another as "offbeat hippies." The sisters of Delta Zeta were seen as "socially awkward."

Worried that a negative stereotype of the sorority was contributing to a decline in membership that had left its Greek-columned house here half empty, Delta Zeta's national officers interviewed 35 DePauw members in November, quizzing them about their dedication to recruitment. They judged 23 of the women insufficiently committed and later told them to vacate the sorority house.

The 23 members included every woman who was overweight. They also included the only black, Korean and Vietnamese members. The dozen students allowed to stay were slender and popular with fraternity men — conventionally pretty women the sorority hoped could attract new recruits. Six of the 12 were so infuriated they quit.

Now that is some spring cleaning! It is also very depressing and a good reminder why there is no such thing as post-feminism, unless the term is intended to be sarcastic.

|

Ann Althouse And Me 



We have a lot in common. We are both female bloggers (though they don't really exist) and we are both experts in the obvious. But Ann is winning, because she is doing obvious in the New York Times and I'm still stuck on this crummy blog. That she is obviously so much better at all this made me first try to beat her:


Water! Is it wet, I wonder?


But I could not, alas, alas. That led me to studying her recent opinion piece in the NYT for more hints. The piece is about the fluctuating and weather-vanish abortion views of conservative presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, both guys who are now trying to please the fundamentalist base of the Republican party and who therefore desperately paddle away from their previous pro-choice positions with various two-faced statements. You know, "strict constructionist" judges will be appointed, a codeword for what the wingnuts want: Both Giuliani and Romney are promising the base the return of coathangers in at least some states of the union.

Or that is my understanding of the issue. But Althouse shows us why it is she who is at the New York Times, because the real message in all this is as follows:

If we listen with a decent sympathy, the things Giuliani and Romney say about abortion make sense. When Romney ran for governor, he made a commitment to Massachusetts voters not to attack the law he knew they supported. That was politically expedient, of course, but it also took an admirably limited view of executive power and acknowledged the independence of the legal system.

Similarly, Giuliani respects the distinctive work of judges and the separate role of the state legislatures. If Roe were overruled, those legislatures would decide how to regulate abortion. And decentralized legislation really is fairly called "part of our freedom" because the Constitution's framers saw the balance of power between the national government and the states as a safeguard against tyranny.

So I'd like to see a little more patience with what Romney and Giuliani are saying. But that doesn't mean we should be naïve. The next president will select real individuals to be judges, and no matter how diligent they are, they will bring something of their humanity to their interpretation of the law, a version of humanity that will express something of the president's cast of mind.

Damn! I never realized that humanity bit!

I get it now! To write like Althouse I must pretend that I'm not one of those women who will be affected by the overturning of Roe v. Wade in the next wingnut presidency! I must pretend that I'm some kind of an abstract spirit of judicial wisdom instead.

|

The Poor Are Getting Poorer 



So suggests a new McClatchy Newspapers analysis of the 2005 Census:

The McClatchy analysis found that the number of severely poor Americans grew by 26 percent from 2000 to 2005. That's 56 percent faster than the overall poverty population grew in the same period. McClatchy's review also found statistically significant increases in the percentage of the population in severe poverty in 65 of 215 large U.S. counties, and similar increases in 28 states. The review also suggested that the rise in severely poor residents isn't confined to large urban counties but extends to suburban and rural areas.

The plight of the severely poor is a distressing sidebar to an unusual economic expansion. Worker productivity has increased dramatically since the brief recession of 2001, but wages and job growth have lagged behind. At the same time, the share of national income going to corporate profits has dwarfed the amount going to wages and salaries. That helps explain why the median household income of working-age families, adjusted for inflation, has fallen for five straight years.

These and other factors have helped push 43 percent of the nation's 37 million poor people into deep poverty - the highest rate since at least 1975.

A deeply ironic use of the term "unusual economic expansion"? An expansion which increases the number of the very poor, hardly budges the earnings of most of the remaining workers, but allows the profits to skyrocket deserves a funnier name. Perhaps something honoring the tax cuts to the wealthy would do. Taxcutpansion?

The topic is anything but funny, and though economists can argue about how well the Census figures measure poverty it is clear that deep poverty has risen and that many more are falling through the cracks in the floorboards of our welfare system:

The Census Bureau's Survey of Income and Program Participation shows that, in a given month, only 10 percent of severely poor Americans received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families in 2003 - the latest year available - and that only 36 percent received food stamps.

Many could have exhausted their eligibility for welfare or decided that the new program requirements were too onerous. But the low participation rates are troubling because the worst byproducts of poverty, such as higher crime and violence rates and poor health, nutrition and educational outcomes, are worse for those in deep poverty.

Over the last two decades, America has had the highest or near-highest poverty rates for children, individual adults and families among 31 developed countries, according to the Luxembourg Income Study, a 23-year project that compares poverty and income data from 31 industrial nations.

That is one international competition the U.S. probably doesn't want to win.

|

Sunday, February 25, 2007

Fudging or Meta-Fudging. What’s The Right Word For It? 

Posted by olvlzl.
Yesterday, discussing the local recycling program with a former town official we both cited the necessity of taking into account that a lot of people won’t sort or clean or limit things thrown into the recycling bin. I was trying to figure out a word for the act of taking that kind of sloppiness into account, “fudging” or even “meta-fudging” don’t seem to work just right. Using them would be an act of whatever it should be called.

Just about everything in life, even those things supposedly of great precision involve some kind of ignoring the less than pristine compliance with what should be. Most of the mewling I’ve been doing here about lapses in science would fall into that category. IQ, the fact that no one can define what it is or prove that it exists as something other than the product of reification doesn’t stop even relatively serious people from making believe that they can build science and, more dangerously, educational systems on the, perhaps, illusory stuff. As it is, there is a professional conspiracy to sweep the sullied pedigree of it under the rug.

We need a formal term for this kind of fudging and a science to identify and study it. Maybe one exists already and I’m just ignorant of it. Anyone know? If this kind of stuff, accepted only because it is either necessary or professionally desirable, could be studied, papers published and, most essential to any of the behavioral sciences, paying jobs produced at universities, tenure and endowed chairs, then maybe the possible negative effects could be controlled. As it is, that kind of junk is rampant.
|

Erratum 

Posted by olvlzl.
Yes, I did misspell “Steven Pinker”. I plead exhaustion. When you have a leaky pipe keeping you awake at night, attention suffers. It will be fixed this week.

I’d once thought of starting a Steven Pinker watch blog. I toyed with calling it “Peven Stinker Watch” and writing it in pig Latin. Thought it would mix appropriate symbolism with a bit of fun. Then I thought it was probably too puerile. Then I lost interest.

But I could change my mind some day.
|

Bush Crossed The Rubicon A Long Time Ago. 

Posted by olvlzl.
Even the weak, first effort of Democrats in the Senate to advise against escalation of war in Iraq has been met with a stonewall of Republican resistance. Their effective majority of the Republican Royalists and phony “moderates”, with the help of the de facto Republican, Lieberman, will ensure that the United States will follow Bush and Cheney into an expanded folly.

When the Constitution was first taught to us the “balance of powers” was given as the proof that the “founders” were geniuses. We were taught that the powers of congress would eternally be enough to ensure that, among other monarchal catastrophes, one man couldn’t take the country into a disastrous war of conquest. By that time a line of presidents from Truman on had shown that to be a lie. We don’t live in a Republic in so far as our foreign policy goes, certainly not in matters of war. Any president can conduct a minor war at will. And with this war on top of the Vietnam war they can honestly claim absolute power to get us into wars longer than both of the World Wars.

War is different. It is the most serious thing that a country can do. It is a guarantee that large numbers of people will be killed by the state, both on the other side and on “our” side. War always brings with it every evil imaginable as order and morality give way to the war itself. Our constitution as it really is, not as the liars teach it, gives the power to start war to the executive branch with no real limit. Our media tried to use the war Clinton conducted against Serbia to hurt him politically but they didn’t really try to stop him. Other than that little has been done to discourage participation in a war since Republican isolationists, delayed the entry of the United States into the developing World War. I will point out, because I will never forget, that more than a few of the isolationists were great fans of Hitler and Mussolini.

The Bush war in Iraq, following on his father’s war on Iraq, is the most incompetent of the dishonest and illegal wars brought by American presidents. The inability of the congress, specifically the Senate, to pull us out of it is absolute proof that the Constitution as it really is endangers all of us. The consensus that there is no way to prevent the insane junta from getting us involved in what anyone with a brain would know will be an even greater disaster, war with Iran, should make us rise up as a body and yell at the top of our voices. But, now as it is beginning, an effective majority of seem to either be on the take or more interested in trivia.

The American People can do the right thing if they know what is really happening. The presidential horse-race, the Oscars, the rotting corpse of what passes these days as a sex goddess and a thousand other distractions are presented by the media to keep them from doing the right thing. By the time the People can’t avoid dealing with it, Bush’s attempted use of a larger disaster to save his crime family from the garbage heap of history, the world could be a much different place than it is today. Blair’s pre-Iran bugging out might indicate that even he knows what’s coming. He is a known rat, the ship is taking on water fast.
|

Since Someone Asked 

The incompetence in the poem was all my own, not a plumber's. Being working class when a pipe leaks the first impulse isn't to blow a week's wages on a plumber. The point of the poem is I might know what a clepsydra is and I might be able to get at least one 'p' in each line but I'm too incompetent to stop the damned leak myself.

I'll bet the plumber I know who is an expert in Bela Bartok's music ( no, he's not Hungarian) just might know what a clepsydra is. He'd certainly know enough to look it up. And HE could fix the pipe too.
|

OK, Shoot The Piano Player But There’s More To It Than That 

Posted by olvlzl.
Listening to Liane Hansen and talking with Nathaniel Kahn the director of the movie “Two Hands” about the physical problems of the pianist and conductor Leon Fleisher several things were striking. First, the number of times NPR alone has done stories about Fleisher would qualify as enough, already. He’s a great musician with an interesting story but there are many thousands of pianists, not to mention players of less glamourous instruments, who could be the subject of interesting stories. Why not do something that hasn’t already been done to death on NPR? And why not do stories about classical music that aren’t centered on the movies?

Second, the stories and pieces about Fleisher have all been the same and superficial. They aren’t about music. Our media has just about a blanket boycott on actually covering classical music as music. With the exception of a few pieces done by classical music critics they’ve all been about his disability. The really important thing about that wouldn’t make very interesting radio for non-musicians. If Fleisher really wanted to say the most useful thing he could about his disability, it would be to document the aspects of his technique that could have lead to his problems. Fingering, in short. How was he using his hands when he got into trouble and what could that tell us about how to avoid those problems? Maybe a comparison with fingerings of pianists who worked for many decades without problems would tell something interesting.

The piano being my instrument, I’ll tell you that it was when I used other peoples’ fingerings without thinking of what they did to my hand that I got into trouble. This first came to my notice when I tried practicing with my eyes closed, concentrating on how my hands position in relation to the keyboard changed as they moved up and down. The keyboard is a very large object and the hands position has to change as they move from the middle of it. Fingerings that work perfectly in the middle don’t work nearly as well as they move up and down octaves. The use of the weaker small and ring fingers are especially difficult in the right hand. Having been taught the standard fingerings and using them well past the positions they really worked in for years it was necessary to really think about how to use them in a way that worked. And I did find out that what was physically most comfortable tended to work better musically.

I also got into trouble when I studied classical guitar in college. The very unnatural right hand position insisted on by the teacher lead to really bad problems in the ring and pinky fingers. After two semesters I dumped it and switched my minor instrument to one with a teacher who cared more about their students hands than their own teacher’s orthodoxy. That was what got me started on looking at my piano problems.

If NPR wanted to do a useful story about this kind of thing, they might look at the work of Dorothy Taubman. Or they could actually do something about classical music that wasn’t related to the movies or the Pulitzers. They could actually do some reporting on music that hasn’t been done to death already.
|

Saturday, February 24, 2007

Mouth Forged Manacles 

Posted by olvlzl.
Talking and thinking about the use of identifying words for different groups of people takes up way too much time, it seems to me. It’s too complex to really be able to understand just what the ever shifting implications about them are. And by the time you’ve figured something out, someone has changed it. The worst, though, is that too many people tend to use labels as limits past which people aren’t supposed to go. Call yourself one thing and express an opinion outside of the prescribed role and you’ll get your head handed to you. That’s as big a danger as it ever was.

Interesting piece by Joel Bleifuss about the current use of identifiers among various people who may or may not belong to various groups. I tend to use the terminology that became current in the early 1970s, maybe because of my age. It’s funny to think back at how I didn’t like the word “gay” because it seemed to imply that gay men didn’t take themselves seriously. It seemed to me to be an adoption of the stereotype of what gay men were supposed to be. Now it’s just a word.

Feminist” seems to me to be useful because calling yourself a feminist is a sign that you didn’t retreat in the backlash of the last three decades but just kept going.

I think it’s entirely wise to steer clear of using terms of invective, no matter how fashionable those become. Most importantly because they can still hurt people but, also, by the time you’ve found out, they’ll have reverted back to their original connotation. This is especially true of the use of reclaimed invective by people not in the group. Besides, there are few things more tempting than calling up someone on their use of one.

Actually, it’s best to avoid using all of them unless it’s impossible.
|

Call It The Lieberman Rule 

What anyone asking for the nomination of the Democratic Party must be forced to promise Democratic voters.

Reposted by olvlzl.
The Democratic Party is owned by the members of the party, not by the leaders of it, not by the connected beltway bright things looking for their next press opportunity and handout.

The election and the seat won through it are owned by the voters, not by the candidates.

While the party has no right to require a guarantee of ideological conformity, especially since there is no Democratic ideology, there are things which a Democratic candidate owes to the members of the party.

1. Democratic candidates must make a binding promise that they will not leave the party for another one while holding an office gained as the candidate of the party.
2. If a Democrat leaves the party while holding office they must agree to vacate the office.
3. A Democratic candidate will accept the results of the nominating process.
4. A Democratic candidate will fight a crooked election.

A person who holds office has an obligation to represent all of their constiuents, they cannot be bound by the party to a given position on an issue. That is a matter of trust between the office holder and their consituents. But a person who holds office through the Democratic Party takes on additional obligations to the party. Through their own actions they have asked for our support and so have made it a matter of honor that they will not betray us.

No candidate who asks the support of the members of the party should be allowed to flim-flam us. If they don't gain the nomination through the rules of the Democratic Party they have to accept that. They should be required to promise at the beginning of the nomination process not to act as a spoiler in the general election by being a candidate outside the party or by campaigning for a rival of the party. No office holder who has gained a seat through the Democratic party should be able to leave the party while holding that seat. All candidates should be required to make these promises to members of the Democratic Party from the start as a pledge of trust. If they refuse? Democrats will know what to expect of them and can vote accordingly.

I am sure someone will ask about Jeffords. Much as I respect him, that's not out problem. His party left him and he had an R after his name.

#4. NEVER FORGET THE STOLEN ELECTION OF 2000 OR THE DISASTER OF A GOVERNMENT IT CREATED!

Employees of the Democratic Party in any of its branches and people employed by Democratic politicians should sign a contract stating that they will not go on the cabloids or other news and alleged news outlets to slam the party, its members, its candidates or its motives for three presidential election cycles after their employment ends. Russert, Matthews and the guy with the hair are stinking quislings who would be nobodies without the patronage of fools who trusted them. If the party doesn't learn from their example and institute contractual remedies to prevent the production of more of these it can expect more of the same.

Any Democrat who has anything to do with the likes of Dick Morris should be put up against the wall.
|

Arguing About A Total Waste Of Time While People Defer Healthcare Because They Don’t Have Insurance Now. 

Posted by olvlzl.
Note: I was going to hold this till later but a piece of junk mail came today, from “Skeptical Inquirer” magazine published by what I consider to be the pseudo-skeptical group, CSICOP*. You can imagine the effect it had on me. I might post a piece on that group someday about why I am very skeptical of its skepticism. Maybe it was the praise of Stephen Pinker in the come on that really got me going. I assume that there are any number of feminists who will understand why that might be. This is also posted as motivation to skeptical evaluation of claims of the kind of science he and many others toute. Until then, hope you find this fun. I did.

Query
: What did you mean when you said the “prayer studies both pro and con are bogus”?

Now, you will remember, before we begin, that no claims are made here as to the effectiveness of prayer. This is about why the studies are bogus, nothing else. It is also about why both the believers and skeptics are being dishonest about these widely reported “scientific studies”. The real point is, spend the money and effort on getting a universal health care system, that would really save lives and improve health.

In order to study something you have to be able to observe it, to define what you are observing within some limits and to be able to verify that it is present in your study. “Prayer” is not definable and it can’t be known to be one thing or to exist at any particular time. Any possible mechanism of its operation or the results of it are also undefinable or prone to ambiguity. The widely reported “prayer studies” don’t even get past the first hurdle of logic, never mind science.

Prayer” is an undefined activity, it is also an activity that can’t be observed. It seems that the only verification of the presence of “prayer” in these studies were the reports of those doing the “praying”. Self-reporting, one assumes by people who “believe in the effectiveness of prayer”, is hardly objective verification. It isn’t even knowable if they had the same idea of what they were supposed to be doing. One person might have been trying to appeal to a god to effect healing, one may have been trying to send out healing “energy” from themself, someone might have been trying to do both at once or at different times. Another might have been doing something else. It could be that two people who used exactly the same words to describe what they were doing were actually doing different things. It is quite possible that the mental activities of two such people were quite distinctly different. How would the researchers have controlled for that? If imaging or other techniques were used to monitor brain activity during prayer, there isn’t any way to know if that would have an effect on the outcome.

It could be that any single person was actually doing different things on different occasions, even if they thought they were consistent. We have it on the authority of people who pray that they don’t always “get it right”. So, there is no defined activity that can even be tested for its presence. It gets worse.

It is possible that a subset of the group studied would have actually shown a result different than that of the whole group. It is possible that those were the only ones “doing it the right way”. There is no way of knowing which of the results, positive or negative, might have been right or if neither of them were valid.

Given the very nature of what was allegedly being studied, there is a possible participant in the study whose participation didn’t even seem to enter into consideration. What could be a rather important “other”. If every single person who was “praying” was praying in exactly the same way for the intercession of a god or other spiritual consciousness there is no way to know, 1. If they exist, 2. If they would cooperate with the sloppy study, 3. If they found the entire thing too insulting and so sabotaged it. Maybe the “agent of healing” had entirely different motives and chose to act in an entirely mysterious way without informing the participants. There are precedents reported in the literature of prayer that are consistent with that kind of thing.

And now for one of my pet peeves in this kind of “science”, the control group. It is entirely possible that such an agent of healing had motives entirely separate from those of the study and who chose to effect healing within the people in the “control” group. Maybe God took pity on people who were set aside by the protocols set up for the convenience of the researchers. You think a God who is willing to heal people on the basis of abject, desperate, requests wouldn’t have thought of that?

There isn’t any way to know that either a member of the control group or prayed over group was praying for themselves or if other people, unknown to those doing the study, were praying for them. There isn’t any way to know if such prayer would be more of less effective than that prayer sanctioned by those conducting an official “scientific” study. There is no way to know if the effects of prayer might not be cumulative. Maybe the number of people praying has no effect whatsoever, that is if there is any effect. Even if all of the participants in the “control group”, both non-pray-ers and prayed not-overs were self-declared atheists there isn’t any way to know if some of them might have cheated and snuck in some prayer just to cover all the bases. I suspect Balzac would have suspected that as a possibility*.

Why any scientist, skeptic or religious believer would give a “study” that begins so badly the time of day is probably the most interesting question that could come from this kind of thing. With a lack of validity being so clear, questions of motives must arise. Why the media would is clear, it takes up air time and pushes agendas.

These “studies” are a waste of resources that could be better spent in other ways. It’s quite shocking that religious believers, particularly Christians, would put God to a test like this. Even if its being literally against the word of Jesus didn’t bother them, the literature of religion tells us over and over that doing this kind of thing is just asking for trouble.

The motives of “scientific skeptics” who take their side of this thing seriously are even more suspect. If they are willing to accept such sloppy science their skepticism is of a very low order. As long as no one is being charged for services or delaying treatment, let people pray as much as they want to. While it might offend the tender sensibilities of the pseudo-skeptics, it’s really none of their business how people in despair try to alleviate their distress. They certainly haven’t come up with something any more guaranteed to do that. If skeptics want to go after charlatans who bilk the vulnerable and who endanger people by encouraging them to stop or delay treatment, that would be an entirely worthy use of their time. Otherwise, it’s not only none of their business, it’s cruel.

Spend the money and effort on getting a universal health care system, there is an enormous amount of evidence that a universal healthcare system would really save lives and improve health. So important, it needed repeating.

* Marcello Truzzi was a co-founder and later somewhat a hertitic of CSICOP. He is often cited as the author of the slogan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof," so beloved of Carl Sagan. Apparently he broke with a number of avocational ‘skeptics’ over the fact that much of not most of the activity and writing surrounding most of the well publicized “skeptics” isn’t skeptical at all but is a promotion of their fixed opinion. The term “pseudo-skeptics” is a good word to describe the intellectual conceit that is currently fashionable with so many of the fans of the cult of materialism.

By the way, the slogan itself is scientifically problematic. Who gets to decide what claims are extraordinary to start with? Presumably the same people get to decide what evidence is extraordinary enough to fulfill their requirements. And isn’t demanding anything above what would be the normal level of verification be a bald faced violation of the foundation that scienctific inquiry has to be controlled, that no one gets to choose standards of rigor for one area of study that other areas aren't subjected to? The danger of that is clear, it would be an open door for allowing prejudice into what must be as objective as possible. Why would the designation of a claim as extraordinary require more than the, presumably, sufficiently rigorous level of evidence that makes ideas in science accepted? Is there something wrong with the normal level of scrutiny that science practices? I kind of think it works, when it’s actually practiced.

That is, that’s the level of verification necessary in science. What it takes to convince people in normal, everyday life is an entirely different matter. That’s too variable to get a handle on. People have a right to be skeptical for their own reasons that might have nothing to do with what can be demonstrated with the very limited and specialized tools of science. And they should be free to believe on that same basis. Tha's what we call freedom.

** See his short story, The Atheist’s Mass.
|

A Question 

Posted by olvlzl.
Last week, discussing a report of a violent attack on a woman, one of my relatives told me that he had advised his daughter to fight back with everything they could if they were attacked. He told her that she should assume that she was fighting for her life. What do you think?

I have had no luck getting posts up on the blog I began last October on this subject. I’ll start up again soon in a different form.
|

Posted With Annotation 

by olvlzl.
Can the reader now understand the importance of an opinion, of a sarcastic word, a letter, a jest, a smile, or, with still greater reason, of a book in the eyes of a government thus favored by the credulity of its people, and by the complaisance of all foreigners? A word of truth dropped in Russia is a spark that may fall on a barrel of gunpowder.

What do the men who govern the empire care for the want, the pallid visages of the soldiers of the emperor? Those living specters have the most beautiful uniforms in Europe; what matters, then, the filthy smocks in which the gilded phantoms are concealed in the interior of their barracks? Provided they are only shabby and becdirty in secret, and that they shine when they show themselves, nothing is asked from them, nothing is given them. With the Russians, appearance is everything, and among them appearance deceives more than it does among others. It follows that whoever lifts a corner of the curtain loses his reputation in Petersburg beyond the chance of retrieving it.

Social life in that country is a permanent conspiracy against the truth.

There, whoever is not a dupe, is viewed as a traitor, – there, to laugh at a gasconade, to refute a falsehood, to contradict a political boast, to find a reason for obedience, is to be guilty of an attempt at the safety of the state and the prince*; it is to incur the fate of a revolutionist, a conspirator, an enemy of order, a Pole: and we all know whether this fate is a merciful one. It must be owned the SUSCEPTIBILITY which thus manifests itself is more formidable than laughable; the minute surveillance of such a government, in accord with the enlightened vanity of such a people, beomes fearful; it is no longer ludicrous.”

Marquis de Custine c.1839: Empire of the Czar

* Dedicated to Helen Thomas. Molly Ivins once pointed out how craven the Washington Press Corps is for not backing her up in the face of the Bush Junta's attempts to turn her into a joke, and then a non-person.
|

Late Night Lament 

Clepsydra of
Incompetence,
Despite
Repair
The pipe
Still drips.

Posted by olvlzl.
|

Friday, February 23, 2007

What Is Out, What Is In 



You know those articles where you are told why those 900-dollar shoes with the 20 inch cork heels you bought last year are totally OUT now, because the IN shoes this year are made of lucite with little razor blades as buckles? And how eating the mustache hairs of Brazilian goats is the IN thing in restaurant dining now, whereas nobody, but nobody, eats the eyeballs of Ukrainian mollusks anymore? Likewise, I've started seeing political articles with the same idea, the idea of the author deciding what is in and what is out this year. No need to have a reason for it. Just a declaration from high above and that's it.

So I decided to do one of those articles, the INS and OUTS of politics. I'm a goddess, after all. Here it goes:

OUT:
Joe Lieberman. Any mention of him, all pictures of him. OUT, dratted spot, OUT.

IN:
The total absence of Joe Lieberman.

OUT:
The 2008 presidential campaign, beginning in 2006 and lasting forever.

IN:
Real articles about real political problems of today. (Yes, I know I'm a naif.)

OUT:
Any descriptions of the buffness of Mitt Romney and other homoerotic rants about male politicians. (Do you hear me, Tweety? Bush will never leave Laura for you.)

IN:
Articles which explore the question why Chris Matthews (aka Tweety) fears Hillary Clinton so very much and why he thinks women are those slightly ridiculous things that someone forgot to provide with a silence-button.

You can probably suggest better ins and outs. Of course, the serious OUT should be all pre-emptive warmongering for domestic political purposes.

|

The Army Marches On Its Stomachs 



An old saying stressing the importance of the supply and maintenance aspects in any military operation, and the reason why those who engage in direct battle operations are a small percentage of the total military strength in Iraq.

I learned all this from science fiction or fantasy, by the way. Elizabeth Moon's The Deed of Paksenarrion, probably. Just to explain why a female divine would say anything about this stern and manly bidness of war.

Now the hook, as they call it in writing, meaning the reasoning for my babble above:

A point seemingly missed in much early coverage of the UK withdrawal from the south (that I have seen, at least) is the potential impact of that withdrawal on the eventual withdrawal of US forces.
There already has been discussion of how vital the Baghdad-Kuwait supply line is for ongoing US operations, and this concern is well-founded. The south is not as has been portrayed in some upbeat UK and US official comments today. Southern Iraq is a very much troubled region where most localities are dominated by militias (sometimes rival militias), governance (to the extent governance linked to Baghdad exists at all beyond the symbolic in large areas) is tenuous, security forces are in most cases far more loyal to militias (often local, semi-autonomous militia elements) than legal authorities (such as the mayor of Basrah), criminality (including large-scale oil & fuel smuggling) is endemic, and low-level assassinations of the relatively few Sunni Arabs still present there is ongoing.

My bolds. Now I'm feeling hungry, again.

|

The Koufax Awards 



Some clever and discerning person has gotten me into the first round of the Koufax awards this year for "Best Writing". How very nice! I won the "Deserves More Hits" award last year, and my greatest fear is that I win it this year, too. And next year. And the one after that.

The Koufax Awards are a good way of finding more interesting liberal/progressive blogs to read. I encourage you to surf the candidates.

|

Friday Feminist Funnies 



Feministing.com often posts on interesting consumer products based on the bodies of women. Here is one recent example. When I saw it I remembered my file of things I see when I log on to my e-mail address. This is one of them:





The ad offers something for everyone, don't you think? If you don't like cute puppies, surely you want a woman with hanging tits as your wallpaper? What other choices could there possibly be? Heh.

To balance things out a bit, there is this image I copied from an e-mail offer, first thinking that it might be a chastity ring... Can you guess what it really is?




|

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Free Kareem 



A young Egyptian blogger, Abdel Kareem Nabil Soliman, has been sentenced to four years in prison for "for contempt of religion, insulting the president and spreading false information."

To learn more, go to the Free Kareem website.

|

Come Shower With Me, Michael 



Michael Medved, a shining star in the tiara of wingnuttism, explains to us why we shouldn't allow gay men to join professional sports teams:

In the wake of the nearly-universal condemnation of Tim Hardaway's statements to a radio interviewer, the substantive issue remains. Is it a reasonable for an NBA basketball player (or a soldier in basic training, for that matter) to feel uncomfortable sharing intimate quarters with a homosexual, or does this represent an outrageous, irrational fear? In response to the Hardaway controversy, several sports columnists compared his resistance to the idea of playing alongside gay teammates to the racism of previous years when white players tried to avoid competing with (or against) blacks.

The analogy is ridiculous, of course. There is no rational basis for discomfort at playing with athletes of another race since science and experience show that human racial differences remain insignificant. The much better analogy for discomfort at gay teammates involves the widespread (and generally accepted) idea that women and men shouldn't share locker rooms. Making gay males unwelcome in the intimate circumstances of an NBA team makes just as much sense as making straight males unwelcome in the showers for a women's team at the WNBA. Most female athletes would prefer not to shower together with men not because they hate males (though some of them no doubt do), but because they hope to avoid the tension, distraction and complication that prove inevitable when issues of sexual attraction (and even arousal) intrude into the arena of competitive sports.

Tim Hardaway (and most of his former NBA teammates) wouldn't welcome openly gay players into the locker room any more than they'd welcome profoundly unattractive, morbidly obese women. I specify unattractive females because if a young lady is attractive (or, even better, downright "hot") most guys, very much including the notorious love machines of the National Basketball Association, would probably welcome her joining their showers. The ill-favored, grossly overweight female is the right counterpart to a gay male because, like the homosexual, she causes discomfort due to the fact that attraction can only operate in one direction. She might well feel drawn to the straight guys with whom she's grouped, while they feel downright repulsed at the very idea of sex with her.

What Michael objects to is the idea of someone else perhaps hunting him as a sex object. That's what makes him feel so very uncomfortable, I think. He never asks whether the heterosexual men in the shower look attractive to the young hottie women he imagines, with some enjoyment. He simply assumes that the attraction would be mutual. Or rather, that the guys would do the hunting, so that's ok, too. And not one sentence about lesbians in the women's showers. Maybe Michael is like Queen Victoria and doesn't believe that women could be so perfidious.

Then there is the whole "ill-favored, grossly overweight female" schtick. Remind me again how men don't really want women to go on diets and how it is the other women who force dieting on their sisters.

The whole column is rather vomit-worthy, if you like that sort of thing. Medved builds his arguments into a crescendo, ending in the to-him-obvious conclusion that mixing genders or mixing heterosexuals with gays and lesbians will not work in any professional setting where sex might rear its ugly head. Well, you can guess which groups would be excluded in this scenario.

Besides, he thinks that gay sex is disgusting. I think all sex looks pretty hilarious and certainly would seem incomprehensible to a Martian or some other alien species which propagates by division.
---
Thanks to spocko.

|

Tap Dancing 



Don't forget that I'm in the chorus on the American Prospect blog TAPPED. You can find some of my more tech-nerdy posts there and also some other stuff. Not to mention the great posts by other writers there.

|

A "Larry Summers Moment" 



Ann on the TAPPED blog has a nice post on the reasons why so few reviewers of the New York Times Book Review are women:

Amy Hoffman, editor-in-chief of the Women's Review of Books, recently reported that she attended a lecture at the Radcliffe Institute by Barry Gewen, an editor at the New York Times Book Review. In what even he described as a "Larry Summers moment" he explained that the reason so few women reviewers appear in the NYTBR is that they just can't write for a general audience about such topics as military history. He explained that NYTBR editors find reviewers by talking to colleagues and reading publications such as The New Yorker, The New York Review of Books, and The New Republic, insisting that he and his colleagues are not overtly prejudiced people but admitted they might have subconscious prejudices.

Note the perfect circle of self-referrals or referrals to People Just Like Me. Note also how odd it is that an intelligent and experienced editor would give such an extremely weak excuse for the dearth of women among the reviewers. I wonder if anyone asked what percentage of the books to be reviewed are on military history and why this percentage (probably not an enormous one) dictated the gender of the reviewers so totally, or if anyone asked what evidence Gewen has to assume that women don't write on military history. Could women at least review cook books, then? Please, pretty please?

Gewen also stated, according to the Harvard Crimson, that he feels squeamish about the idea of seeking reviewers who are not white just for the sake of them not being white. Presumably this is because he has not yet scraped the bottom of the white-guy barrel and only then would someone not white be an equally talented reviewer.

All this is exasperating, because the underpinnings of Gewen's thoughts are made so very bare. It's like spotting someone naked in an embarrassing way. Now we know how Gewen thinks and now we can see how no woman reviewer could ever be hired by him just on her own merits. The next one who gets hired will always be seen as an affirmative action hire, even if she writes on war books better than the angels of death.

|

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

A Nonpolitical Post, Yet Again 



I have a migraine through my right eye. I hope this garden post doesn't make you feel the same way:

Flower Beds

This last week two visitors to the house complimented me on the bed of flowers in the sun I have in my back yard. One called it pretty, the other lush. Although it is, to me at least, both of those, "lush" comes closer to its actual meaning than "pretty".

If I asked you to come and see my plants copulate, would you call this pretty? Yet copulation is what flowering most closely resembles in the animal world; a drawn-out (I hope!) foreplay or sexual display, the finding of a suitable partner, and the deed itself. The buds swell and mature, then slowly, slowly they open pushing, pushing into the sun's hot fingers. "I am here, ready and open" they whisper in alluring colors and mind-altering perfumes. "Come" they croon to the bumblebees, who obey all day long with their silky brown fur smeared yellow with pollen. What exstacy! Even deadheading is not dissimilar from cleaning up the dishevelment after a careless night on the town: the pink dress, now torn, wrinkled and smeared, needs to be gotten rid of, the hangover needs to be treated.

This view of flowering casts a new light on the old debate between people who like structured, orderly gardens with no flowers - just green trees, water and stone - and those who want flowers. I always felt that the structuralists had the higher moral or aesthetic ground, but now I am beginning to wonder if they are just prudish. I bet they would call flower beds pretty.

|

Where Do You Get Your News? 



Dick Cheney, the Vice-President of the United States of America, gets his from friends. Or so it seems, given his reaction to the news that the British troops are going to start withdrawing from Basra and the surrounding area in southern Iraq:

But in an exclusive interview with ABC News, Vice President Dick Cheney said the move was actually good news and a sign of progress in Iraq.

"Well, I look at it and see it is actually an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well," Cheney told ABC News' Jonathan Karl.

"In fact, I talked to a friend just the other day who had driven to Baghdad down to Basra, seven hours, found the situation dramatically improved from a year or so ago, sort of validated the British view they had made progress in southern Iraq and that they can therefore reduce their force levels," Cheney said.

I feel very comforted by this. So comforted that I'm not quite sure what to make of the almost simultaneous comment by Iraq's vice-president, Tariq al-Hashemi, about how insurgents and militia members might be leaving Baghdad for?... you guessed it, Basra:

Iraq's Sunni vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi, warned that advance publicity on the security operation had given Shiite militias time to flee the city for bases elsewhere in the country.

``I have information that numerous of their leaders are now in Basra and other southern provinces in safe havens,'' he told Al-Arabiya television. ``I believe that those who were behind the bloodshed and the chaos should be pursued and criminals must face justice.''

For some odd reason I want to walk away after this post while singing "Singing In The Rain".

|

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

The British Are Going! 



They are going home from Iraq:

All British troops will be pulled out of Iraq by the end of 2008, starting with the withdrawal of 1,000 in the early summer, the Guardian has learned.

Tony Blair is to announce the moves - the result of months of intense debate in Whitehall - within 24 hours, possibly later today, according to officials.

The prime minister is expected to say that Britain intends to gradually reduce the number of troops in southern Iraq over the next 22 months as Iraqi forces take on more responsibility for the security of Basra and the surrounding areas.

I can imagine what the British will now be called by our neoconservative leaders...

Glenn Greenwald proposes a frightening explanation for Blair's apparent flipflopping on this matter of troop withdrawal:

In comments, C&G suggests that Blair's decision may be grounded in an expectation of some sort of imminent conflict between the U.S. and Iran. That, of course, is pure speculation, but it certainly is the case that even cross-border incidents between U.S. troops and Iran, let alone larger-scale military confrontations, would leave British troops in Southern Iraq most vulnerable both to retaliatory attacks and the risk of inadvertent involvement. It is reasonable to assume (though an assumption is all it is) that the increasingly likely prospect of escalation played at least some role in the deliberations leading up to the British withdrawal announcement.

I'm going to pull a pillow on my head. Tell me when the next war is over.

|

How To Troll A Feminist Blog 



Let's see if this one doesn't make me calm and cheerful again. Worth a try, though I could have given the post some other name, such as "fuck off, you plague-chewed asshole". I'm beginning to sound like a real bigoted feminist blogger here! Hee!

Here are the rules for being a Proper Troll on a feminist blog, or the rules as to the available types of trolling:

1. Just call the blogger an evil bitch or a stoopid bitch. Ask her how she would feel if she had a son born and the son wouldn't be allowed to lord over all women.

2. Then you could point out that the blogger is only a feminist because she is too ugly, too fat, too shrill, too old, too stoopid to be something else. You might sign her up for the support group of big-assed women or big-nosed women.

3. If you are a religious sort of troll, you can quote a lot of Bible or Koran verses. Now that will shut her up. You can also tell her that she is going to Hell. And you can arrange for prayer circles to pray for her.

4. All these too crude for you, but you still want to be a troll on feminist blogs? Worry not! You can always argue that any woman wanting equality really, really hates men. That's it!

5. Now, if you happen to be really stupid yourself, don't hesitate to troll feminist blogs. Your pseudoevidence is always the valid one, and you can say so in many different forms without budging an inch. That'll show them. No, you don't have to read the responses or to check out any other evidence that might be presented. No, you don't have to know how to spell, either.

6. Now we are getting to the higher levels of trolling, the insidious ones. You are getting a graduate degree in trolling here! On this level you will act like a concern troll (Phila's term), which means that you pretend to be on the blogger's side. But alas, the stoopid blogger is writing about something unimportant! Something trivial! Something that will make feminism the laughing-stock of every upstanding anti-feminist out there. Had she only selected the Correct Topic! But she failed, alas, and feminism will be ruined for all times. Just too bad that almost all topics are trivial and unimportant, isn't it?

7. An advanced variation of this is to point out that yes, sometimes women do indeed have it rough, but so do all sorts of other people. What about carpenters? What about carpenter ants? People with crooked front teeth? Those who ride mopeds? People who live in wooded areas? This works very well, as long as you don't remind everyone that being a woman doesn't save you from any of those other problems.

8. The PhD level of trolling on feminist blogs requires quite a few years of work first, so I'm only putting it out there as a goal towards which to strive. The idea is to tell the blogger how very smart and intelligent she is, how really wonderful a blogger she is. What a pity, then, that she squanders her enormous brilliance on such an unimportant and dead topic as feminism. What a great pity, indeed. Imagine what she could do if she was writing on whether Barack Obama is handsome or awkward! Imagine what she could do by writing on the very interesting questions concerning Important Political Topics, topics which reek of testosterone and ballistic integrity. Like what size of an airplane Nancy Pelosi is allowed to have.

|

More On The Unattainable Perfection 



Having to do with the next post below this one, and the further thoughts I had on the topic, the topic being the view of eating and exercise as a moral or religious enterprise or a competition as to who can get closest to an almost nonexistent thinness without dying, without dying EVER!

These are two very different ideas and putting them together looks like an oxymoron. But it is not, or if it is, then life is full of oxymorons (oxymora?).

The first idea is the Puritanical one, still quite common in this country, the idea of life as a moral struggle against temptations, a religious walk through nonreligious sins. Everything, I have noticed, can be twisted into a moral failure by some people, often by experts. Who was it who said that only in the United States it is the fault of the elderly that they die? Because clearly, if you try hard enough, if you are earnest enough, pure enough, you will live forever. And your body will look like that of a twenty-year old, forever, too. If it does not you have sinned, and perhaps the health insurance shouldn't cover your sinning.

Why does this anger me so? Partly because I'm using my red-hot anger as a source of energy, but mostly because su