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

Saturday, March 31, 2007

April Fools Guilty Secret Blogging 

Posted by olvlzl.
I'd always felt that the odd affection I have for Brian Hughes "The Bridge" is a kind of guilty secret. It is clearly an example of the banal smooth jazz genre. It wasn't the music itself, it had to do with a certain Canadian adventure, but we don't need to go into that. Now, to find out that he's played on The Weather Channel during Weather On The Eights there's no denying it anymore.

So, I've told. What's your guilty secret?
|

The Republican Court Soon Won't Bother Pretending To Be Restrained Anymore 

Posted by olvlzl
If you think the warning below about an emergency is overblown, read this interview with Martin Garbus. He points out some things that make it almost a certainty that Bush will get one more nomination to the Supreme Court, that unless we do something to prevent it he will get another anti-democratic royalist like Roberts on the court and that we could lose just about all the progress made in the past century if another one lies their way into confirmation.

Watching the Senate Judiciary Committee the other day they don’t seem to have lost their ability to put comity before the Constitution, though some of that could be due to the fact that our media seems to think that Arlen Specter and the Republicans are still in the majority*. If we are going to save our civil rights, our environment, any kind of justice then we are going to have to do everything we can to force them to reject anyone who isn’t clearly on record as being considerably to the left of the RATS, and I’d add Kennedy to that list too. Consider this quote:

Words like judicial activism and judicial restraint have absolutely no meaning. If I have a liberal court, I want to see judicial activism. I want to see them go out and do things. If there’s a conservative court, I want to see judicial restraint, so they can’t do too much damage. The language that the Rehnquist Court and the conservatives have used over the last decades accusing the Warren Court of being too judicially active, and that they’re restrainers, is nonsense. The Rehnquist Court struck down more federal legislation than any other Court before it.

-- Martin Garbus, trial lawyer and author of The Next 25 Years.

The words replace reality and they argue about the words. The record is clear, conservatives will rule from the bench and lie about it as they are doing it, they can depend on Republican politicians and the corporate media to repeat the lies for them. Their determination to thwart democracy through a radically conservative judiciary might already be impossible to avoid except through attrition and then only if we can prevent more Roberts, Alitos, Thomases and Scalias being appointed. And that’s going to be hard enough to be getting on with.

* It seems so long ago, when it was only last December, how the media seemed unaware that there were ranking members. The policy was to entirely ignore them when they were Democrats. Now, it’s the majority who seems to have largely disappeared. Notice that the next time you’re watching the news.
|

Living In An Ocean Of Uncertainty 

Like we’ve got a choice.
Posted by olvlzl.
My thanks to ProfWombat, a distinguished habituee of Eschaton, for steering me to this wonderful paper, The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences by Eugene Wigner, in response to some questions about the eight-dimensional object defined by David Vogan* .

The questions were about the number of possible dimensions, the limits to the possible calculation of them, the limits of calculation itself, and the presence of these dimensions in the physical universe. Do these dimensions impinge on our lives? What are the limits of our knowledge of the possible impact could be?

The article, published in 1960, is about the surprising relevance of math in the physical sciences. It surprised me by containing several passages relevant to recent postings here. Here are just three:

"How do we know that, if we made a theory which focuses its attention on phenomena we disregard and disregards some of the phenomena now commanding our attention, that we could not build another theory which has little in common with the present one but which, nevertheless, explains just as many phenomena as the present theory?" It has to be admitted that we have no definite evidence that there is no such theory.

The complex numbers provide a particularly striking example for the foregoing. Certainly, nothing in our experience suggests the introduction of these quantities. Indeed, if a mathematician is asked to justify his interest in complex numbers, he will point, with some indignation, to the many beautiful theorems in the theory of equations, of power series, and of analytic functions in general, which owe their origin to the introduction of complex numbers. The mathematician is not willing to give up his interest in these most beautiful accomplishments of his genius.

A much more difficult and confusing situation would arise if we could, some day, establish a theory of the phenomena of consciousness, or of biology, which would be as coherent and convincing as our present theories of the inanimate world. Mendel's laws of inheritance and the subsequent work on genes may well form the beginning of such a theory as far as biology is concerned. Furthermore,, it is quite possible that an abstract argument can be found which shows that there is a conflict between such a theory and the accepted principles of physics. The argument could be of such abstract nature that it might not be possible to resolve the conflict, in favor of one or of the other theory, by an experiment. Such a situation would put a heavy strain on our faith in our theories and on our belief in the reality of the concepts which we form. It would give us a deep sense of frustration in our search for what I called "the ultimate truth." The reason that such a situation is conceivable is that, fundamentally, we do not know why our theories work so well. Hence, their accuracy may not prove their truth and consistency. Indeed, it is this writer's belief that something rather akin to the situation which was described above exists if the present laws of heredity and of physics are confronted.

I don’t know if forty-seven years later we have any more reason to be optimistic about the possibility of a coherent theory of consciousness. There doesn’t seem to be much more progress of even defining what consciousness might be or, when it suits the purpose of the pseudo-skeptics, if it exists. I doubt it’s possible.

Also this week, the statement repeated by Richard Dawkins on Terry Gross’ program that he can prove that the probability of there being an intelligent god is virtually nil has got to count as one of the most astoundingly absurd and arrogant things that a scientist of his standing has said in at least as long. As I recall Dawkins heaped quite a bit of mockery on some deluded Bayesians for attempting to prove the existence of God through their version of probability. But what other standards of probability he could hope to use in his debunking effort?

Two things jump out. First is the impossibility of even figuring out the possible outcomes to the question.** Without those, how could probability be estimated. Second, and most clear, is that there isn’t any way to know if any form of probability would apply to anything that is supernatural. Probability, like all math, is derived from the experience of the physical universe and human imagination. The belief in its applicability to any proposed supernatural entity is a leap of faith larger than that required to believe in any unique, supernaturally instigated miracle. I don’t happen to believe in miracles of that kind, though I’d point out that they would be, by definition, outside of the usual experience of the universe. As in that little piece about “prayer studies”, being unique and outside of nature you couldn’t do honest science about them.

If I was one of Dawkins professional rivals or enemies I’d go back and check his math, especially anything approaching the application of probability.

And that was just one of the absurd things Dawkins is still pushing on the subject. But I don’t really care about that. Reading Creation "Science" Is the Christian Right's Trojan Horse Against Reason by Chris Hedges scared me. We don’t have time to follow Dawkins, Harris and Dennet down the cul-de-sac from which there isn’t any emerging. This is an emergency. For the left, we’ve got real problems with fundamentalists, here and now. We don’t have political capital to spend on getting involved with this nonsense. We have to defeat the religio-fascists politically and that will require everyone, progressive believers and non-believers alike. Getting involved in unsolvable arguments is worse than a waste of time, it will end up with us divided and so the success of the fundamentalists.

* Vogan’s M.I.T. website is pretty delightful in itself. Those with an eye for that kind of thing should look at the flat representation of his eight-dimensional object. Considering his acknowledgment that his project left a trail of super-computers crashed, this notice thrilled me.

I have followed the department's instructions for creating a home page, and copied the home page of Richard Melrose. I regret the inevitable errors that this process must have introduced.

** Karen Armstrong’s classic book “A History of God” goes into some discussion of how a number of religious mystics have held that “God doesn’t exist”. That isn’t to say that they didn’t believe that there was a God but that to talk as if God was an object that could exist was meaningless. How would Dawkins figure that into his probabilistic calculations?
|

Ert to Eat 

Posted by olvlzl.
Can you believe that Matt Semler, the now former director of the Lab Gallery didn’t know exactly what would result from the aborted “My Sweet Lord” exhibit? That’s the one with the big chocolate Jesus on the cross - without loincloth - just to gild the lily. It was announced for New York City, the home base of America’s most reliable rent-a-reactionary, Bill Donohue. Certainly someone in Semler’s profession had noticed his performance art on at least one occasion, including his “Sensations” reaction. He's the Christo of "christianity". So, I’ve got very little sympathy for Semler's resignation even as I wearily roll my eyes and say “Yes, yes. Of course it is a matter of free speech”, to which a polite person wouldn’t add, no matter how juvenile the message was.

The work of “art” is apparently one of a number of rather silly sounding pieces by Cosimo Cavallario. His previous production includes large installations featuring 5 tons of pepper jack sprayed on a Wyoming house and a four poster bed made of ham, sounds more hors’ d’oeuvre than oeuvre. If not intended to be quite ephemeral this is certainly visual art that is more than begging for that most common of olfactory comparisons. Even observing the three day rule wouldn’t prevent that. Perhaps working in chocolate is an attempt to pass the test of time. I haven’t read anywhere but the edible aspect of the chocolate would invite the suspicion that it was an Easter season satire on Catholic communion. If that didn’t occur to the artiste, he’s just one dumb bunny. If you’re afraid that I’m having trouble taking this seriously, it’s much worse. I can’t take seriously anyone who pretends to take it seriously. They’re not even fooling themselves.

Of course the giant chocolate Jesus to be eaten was certain to call out Donohue and his latest eminence gris, Edward Cardinal Egan. Any but the most uninformed and dizzy figures on the fringes of the New York arts scene would have figured their fulminations and frothing into the performance concept. And here let me point out that as a voluntary part of that art scene, Donohue really is going to have to stop saying that these drearily predictable, pedestrian and boringly mild attempts at blasphemy are “one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever,” . After the six or seven hundredth time that gets as old as moldy mozzarella on the walls of a Manhattan hotel room. For a man who endorsed Mel Gibson’s truly offensive Jesus snuff movie, he’s working with no cred. Anyone who can tolerate the usual use of the crucifix as schlock, on full display in most venues of alleged piety is too jaded to see the speck in his brother’s eye.

You know what I'd really like to see someday? I’d like to see something that would really get the likes of the Catholic League in a real tizzy instead of one of these pay per view ones. I’ll bet the real Jesus would just have them fit to be tied.
|

Friday, March 30, 2007

Ellen Goodman in the WAM 2007 Conference 



WAM stands for the Women, Action And Media conference and Ellen Goodman stands for Ellen Goodman, a syndicated columnist who has forty years of columns in the Boston Globe under her belt. She spoke tonight on women and journalism at the opening event of this year's conference, and I made diligent notes all through her speech because I was there on a Press Pass. On a Press Pass! Me!

The problem is that I can't decipher my notes, after all. For instance, what is the stick figure doing going up and down a painter's ladder in my notes? And why the large question mark with little birds flying through it carrying ribbons with hearts in them? It must stand for a question I had.
Sigh.

I guess I must write this post on the basis of my memory, mostly. Goodman was witty and interesting on the topic of her early start in journalism and on that dark era when women's issues were on the women's page "back there" in the paper, when most women were "researchers" and men were the journalists and when all this was quite legal, too. The good old times, for the wingnuts among us.

She then made a very interesting argument about the old feminist slogan: Personal is Political, in the context of media coverage. She argued that the recent focus on the adultery and health problems of politicians as well as the whole family values debate might be at least partially seen as what happens when the press takes this slogan seriously without actually understanding what it means. Or so I understood her, in any case.

From my corner slightly different explanations for the current focus on politicians' private lives look more likely. News these days must make a profit, and if the way to make a profit is by talking about missing white women, shark attacks or the adultery of a politician, then that is what the news will focus on. Thirty years ago the news departments were not expected to produce a profit on their own and this gave them more freedom to stay on "real" news. When one adds to this the rise of the Christian right with its very specific interpretation of family values, what we get is not "Personal is Political" as much as "Personal is Politically and Economically Profitable."

Nevertheless, I heartily agree with Goodman when she described today's political commentary as oversimplifying and too personalized. As she pointed out, most political talk shows pit two camps against each other and nobody is supposed to talk about the uncertainties and gray areas and the ambivalence. It's infotainment, all the way.

And infotainment in increasingly niche markets. Goodman argued that news for women focus on relationships and health whereas news for men are the traditional "hard news", framed in the form of stories about conflict (for international politics) or oneupmanship (for stories about electoral politics). Neither of these framings applies to the majority of women, and that might be one reason why women are in general less informed about the "hard news" than men. She suggested that women might want to know how the news affect other events and their own lives. A good idea, I would think.

At that point I started thinking up alternative frames for discussing political topics. Cleaning the kitchen is an old and venerable alternative frame, but I'm sure we could come up with many others which don't rely on war and baseball games. Fairy tales, for example.

It's always important to put gender gaps into a proper perspective. For example, Goodman noted that less than a quarter of women identify as "hard news" junkies. Now that is worrisome, perhaps, but not terribly, considering that she told us that only a third of men identify in that way. Yes, there are differences between the news consumption of the average man and the average woman but the differences are not gigantic.

The task of the future is to make sure that all adult citizens are adequately informed about how our shared concerns are going (another way to frame politics), and that includes making sure that women get the information they need. According to Goodman there is no shortcut to presenting the news in a way which is genuinely interesting to both women and men.

|

"Down came the World Trade Center towers. That was God speaking. " 



Who said that most recently? It was Michael Savage, a stark-mad talkshow host:

God abhors a spiritual vacuum. That is why he has permitted, in fact probably not only permitted, but in a way orchestrated the rise of radical Islam.

[...]

SAVAGE: It's becoming increasingly clear to me that God wants radical Islam on this planet at this time -- that it's not actually the scourge you think it is. What it is -- it's a counterpoint to the Romanization of the United States of America and the West. The collapse -- the spiritual collapse of the West, the death of the West in that regard, is being countered by the birth of fanatic religion, which is fundamentally a fanatic love of God, when you think about it.

[...]

SAVAGE: And God, who is the center of this monotheistic religion, has said, "Oh, you don't worship me anymore? Oh, you don't like me anymore? Oh, I don't exist anymore? Really? All right, I'm going to show you boys in Hollywood and you girls in New York City that I do exist. But since you're very hard-headed, stiff-necked people, and you don't really believe that I exist because you've gotten away with everything you've done all your life without any repercussions, I'm going to show you I exist in a way that you can't believe." Down came the World Trade Center towers. That was God speaking.

The god of the fundamentalist is a vengeful god and a god with a very bad aim if the purpose was to attack the Hollywood media and the uppity women of NYC. How did Pentagon get its share of this god's rage? What was this god trying to smite with the tzunami? And why was the Democratic victory in last year's elections allowed? Or was that the devil smiting the faithful?

Now, Savage is quite mad, but he is not alone in sympathizing with the Islamic terrorists. Dinesh D'Souza also blamed the secular values of America for the attacks and so did our own radical clerics in 2001. In some ways their fellow Americans are more attractive enemies to these children of the wrathful god than the true terrorists.

And all the time while writing this my heart is bleeding. I knew two young men who died in the World Trade Centers. Their memory deserves better than this shit.

|

The Little Red Riot-Helmet; Repost 



This is a fairy tale adaptation I wrote some time ago on The Little Red Riding-Hood. It's quite funny, don't you think?

Once upon a time in a country far away lived a little boy called Georgie. He lived in a large, beautiful house with his mama and his papa, but the family was not happy with the house. They wanted an even larger and more beautiful house. That's why one spring morning when Georgie was outside playing riot police in his brand new red helmet, his mama called him in. "Georgie Porgie", she said, "Your papa and I have an important job for you. We want you to take a basket of Bible literature and food to your dear old granny Fundie. She's not feeling well, and we need her up by the elections." "Aawww, do I hafta?" moaned Georgie.

"Yes, you do. Elections will get us a bigger house," his mama said firmly. Then she packed a basket with some inspirational fundamentalist literature, a bottle of papa's Secret Health Elixir, and several hard-boiled unborn chickens. "Now, Georgie, remember to walk straight to granny Fundie's house. Don't stay gawking in the forest. There are dangerous Democrats there and even a terrorist who eats little boys!" And after having said this, Georgie's mama pushed Georgie out of the house.

Georgie was scared of the dark woods. He had heard about dreadful happenings there; stories about hordes of horrible feminazis attacking innocent wingnuts, stories about evil people who lived off the hard-earned savings of others and who were always on the lookout for more. Georgie feared that they might steal his basket of food or his brand-new riot helmet, but he didn't believe in any terrorists. Mama was just trying to scare him!

So off into the woods went Georgie, walking very rapidly, as rapidly as he could while carrying the heavy basket. He refused to look to the right or to the left, but went straight down the path. Evening was approaching and light was falling rapidly. Georgie could hear twigs snapping in the woods and he became very afraid. To keep his spirits up, he started singing a little ditty:

I'm Georgie, my helmet is red
I'm going to granny who is sick in bed
My basket will feed her and make her sing
And then mama and papa and I will win.

This was fortunate or unfortunate for Georgie, depending on your view. A very hungry and desperate terrorist was indeed roaming the woods, looking for something to devour. He saw little Georgie, all alone in his red helmet, and thought of making a quick snack out of him, but the ditty made him plan more carefully. Here was a way of getting a real meal: both the pudgy little boy and the granny. So the terrorist quickly ran along a sidepath to granny Fundie's house and knocked on the door.

"Who's there?" croaked old granny through the door. "It's me, little Georgie, granny. I've come to see you with a basket of goodies from mama" piped the terrorist in a convincing imitation of Georgie. "Come in boy, the door is unlocked" the granny answered. The terrorist obeyed. What happened next is too awful to describe. Let's just say that granny Fundie ended up in the terrorist's stomach. The terrorist then dressed in granny's large Christian nightgown and lay down in her bed to wait for Georgie.

Georgie was unaware of all this, of course. He had been walking fast and scared and singing his ditty until he was too tired to sing. He had scratches from tree branches, and his knee hurt from a tumble caused by a nasty tree root. After that one he had taken a break and eaten all the unborn chickens. He had washed them down with papa's Elixir. Thereafter, the path seemed much shorter though curvier than before, and Georgie arrived at granny's door quite happy, except for a small fear that she might not like the basket's contents without the food and the drink. Still, what's done is done, Georgie thought, and straightened his red helmet. He knocked on the door and went in without waiting for an answer. Granny Fundie's door was always unlocked for boys like him, he knew.

Inside the cottage it was quite dark, and Georgie could just distinguish the looming shape of granny in her bed. "Hi granny, how are you?" Georgie said and sat down by the bedside. "Would you like me to open the drapes more to let in some light?" It seemed to him that granny was really unwell. She looked so different. "No! No light, please, my eyes hurt" the terrorist squaked.

"What's the matter with them, granny Fundie?" Georgie asked. "They look sort of red and bloated."

'It's all that pornography that Hollywood keeps pouring out, my dear boy. It corrupts us, even the most innocent of us."

"Ok, granny. And that's why your nose is quivering, too, I guess."

"Yes, my child. I can smell the infidels at their evil plans."

"Infidels?" George said, a little confused. "Never mind, granny. But why is your mouth so open?"

"So that I can better GOBBLE YOU UP!" shouted the terrorist and quickly swallowed poor Georgie, red helmet and all. Poor, poor Georgie. He was all eaten up.

You might think that this is the end of the story, but you'd be wrong. What happened next was this: the terrorist fell asleep, having eaten enough for the day. But he had been so greedy that neither granny Fundie nor Georgie were properly digested. In fact, they were both alive in the terrorist's belly, kicking each other and arguing over whose fault the whole disaster might be. They even made a long list of possible culprits.

All this made a terrible racket, of course, though the terrorist didn't wake up. He might have turned over in his sleep, though. But a brave young carpenter, called Murkanpeeple did hear the racket as he was walking by on his way to fell some Democrats. He looked into the cottage through a window, saw the terrorist snoring away, and immediately knew that something was really wrong. He tiptoed to the front door of the cottage and peeked in. The terrorist was still very asleep and didn't notice a thing. The carpenter gathered his courage and took hold of his trusty axe. Then he took a deep breath, rushed into the room and smote the terrorist's stomach open with one blow of the axe.

Out popped granny Fundie and Georgie, only slightly digested. They were so happy that they kissed and hugged the carpenter and sang great psalms of joy. They promised the carpenter all sorts of good things, like lower taxes and eternal peace as a reward and Murkanpeeple was very pleased. In fact, he was so pleased and flattered that he offered to go out into the world to look for more terrorists. Which he did.

Georgie and granny Fundie didn't go with him. Instead, they skipped hand-in-hand through the dark forest back to Georgie's house where his mama and papa greeted them with great joy and celebration. The election victory was now certain.

The terrorist also got up, holding his stomach together with his hands. He wasn't dead, you know. Instead, he was now very very angry, and ready to find many more terrorists. They would start a big war against that stupid carpenter, Murkanpeeple.

Now, all's well that ends well, don't you think?

|

The Amnesia Defence 



This is a popular one these days in politics. Here is Kyle Sampson, the former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, testifying on the firing of the eight federal prosecutors:

"I can't pretend to know or remember every fact that may be of relevance," he warned at the start -- and he wasn't kidding. He used the phrase "I don't remember" a memorable 122 times.

It may have been a tactical effort to limit his risk of perjury, but Sampson displayed the recall of a man who recently fell off a ladder.

"Since the 2004 election, did you speak with the president about replacing U.S. attorneys?" Leahy asked.

"I don't ever remember speaking to the president after the 2004 election," he said. (He later remembered that he had.) "Did you have further communications with the White House regarding the plan to regard and replace several U.S. attorneys?"

"I don't remember specifically."

"I wish you did remember," Leahy finally said. "I would hope that you would search your memory as we go along."

Sampson searched. He came up empty.

After Schumer elicited three consecutive I-don't-remembers, John Cornyn (R-Tex.) objected to the questioning style.

Leahy overruled him. "We're trying to find what in heaven's name he does remember," the chairman said.

Schumer persisted, eventually asking the witness a question about Rove's role. "I don't remember," Sampson said. "I don't remember anything like that. I don't think so. I don't remember. I don't remember."

Of course if we took this quite seriously we should be concerned about the number of amnesiacs working in this administration. Scary!

|

Eric Keroack Resigns 



He was the latest Bush administration pick for the wingnuts to run women's health and reproductive concerns, in his case to run the federal family planning program under Title X. Now he has resigned his post:

The head of the federal agency responsible for providing women with access to contraceptives and counseling to prevent pregnancy resigned unexpectedly Thursday after Medicaid officials took action against him in Massachusetts.

The Health and Human Services Department provided no details about the nature of the Massachusetts action that led to Dr. Eric Keroack's resignation.

Just five months ago, Keroack was chosen by President Bush to oversee HHS' Office of Population Affairs and its $283 million annual budget. The pick angered Planned Parenthood and other abortion rights groups that viewed him as opposed to birth control and comprehensive sex education. Keroack had worked for an organization that opposes contraception.

"Yesterday, Dr. Eric Keroack alerted us to an action taken against him by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Office of Medicaid. As a result of this action I accepted his resignation," Dr. John Agwunobi, assistant secretary for health, said in a terse statement Thursday evening.

Massachusetts Medicaid officials did not return phone calls seeking comment.

We will probably learn more tomorrow (or rather later today) about the contents of the action that Medicaid of Massachusetts has taken, so I will not speculate, though it may be irresponsible not to. Heh.

|

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Echidne's Guide On How To Interpret Research - Again 



Now this sounds like something a man-hating feminazi should welcome with open arms (or at least an open lap):

Single women reach orgasm 'more often'

A new sexuality survey has confirmed what women know and some men fear - single females have far more luck achieving orgasm than those partnered off.

Taking men out of the picture allows women to "better connect with themselves", according to sex therapists behind the Queensland study of 500 older women.

The research found that 56 per cent of sexually-active women with no current partner could reach orgasm every time with masturbation compared with only 24 per cent of women with partners.

See! Men are as useful as bicycles for fish. End of story.

Except that the study doesn't actually tell that single women reach orgasm 'more often'. What it argues is that they reach orgasm 'more often' through masturbation. There is a big difference between the two sentences.

Suppose that one gets better at solo orgasming the more one experiments with masturbation. Suppose also that those women who are partnered get more of their orgasms with their partners and therefore practice less masturbation. The results don't tell us anything about the overall level of orgasms the various groups of women get.

Here is Echidne's guide to interpreting research: Make sure that you ignore the overall statements at the beginning of the story initially. Read down to find which measures the study actually used and how those measures correlated with each other. Think about what this might mean. Then go back and read the overall arguments and assertions and see if they actually follow from the study's mechanical findings.

|

The Fear Of Pederasts 



Kevin Drum and others reacted today to a story in the Los Angeles Times on the fear of sexual predators of children:

FEAR, FEAR, FEAR....In the LA Times today, L.J. Williamson writes about one of my all-time pet peeves: the insane fear that modern suburban parents have of sexual predators:

At a PTA meeting, during a discussion of traffic problems around the school campus, I asked what we could do to encourage families to walk or bike to school. Other parents looked at me as if I'd suggested we stuff the children into barrels and roll them into the nearest active volcano. One teacher looked at me in shock. "I wouldn't let my children walk to school alone ... would you?"

"Haven't you heard about all of the predators in this area?" asked a father.

"No, I haven't," I said. "I think this is a pretty safe neighborhood."

"You'd be surprised," he replied, lowering his eyebrows. "You should read the Megan's Law website." He continued: "You know how to solve the traffic problem around this school? Get rid of all the predators. Then you won't have any more traffic."

Huh?

Kevin then goes on to point out that the likelihood of a pederast kidnapping a child is extremely low, like that of the child being hit by a lightning. I think it is probably lower than that, even. But the comments thread at Kevin's joint pointed out that parents wouldn't put a child out in a thunder storm and that a lightning out of the blue sky wouldn't be seen as the parent's fault, whereas not walking your child to school would make the parent guilty of contributory behavior.

Atrios chimed in with this:

If parents want to be paranoid and not let their kids walk/bike to school, that's their choice. The problem really develops when those personal choices become cultural norms and parents are scared to let their kids walk/bike to school because if they do they'll be seen as bad parents.

I can't help seeing all the connections between this story and the story about how daycare causes your child to become a juvenile delinquent. The world is a dangerous place and the only thing standing between it and your child is your body. That this might mean that many people are turned off from the idea of parenthood altogether doesn't seem to have hit anyone's antennas yet. Note how we are told simultaneously to have more (white) children and how we are also told all the time that nothing we do for those children is enough, nothing. Now go and get pregnant, stat!

The way we interpret risks is sometimes quite illogical. For example, pederasts preying on children have probably always existed, but the media didn't pay as much attention to those stories in the past. Now every pederast incident is widely disseminated, analyzed and repeated, and very few people point out how rare such incidents truly are. That more and more parents will take their children to school in cars as a consequence will probably cause more children (as well as parents) to die in traffic accidents than the number that is being saved from death in the hands of a pederast.

I am not blaming parents for this miscalculation of risks. The buttons the media are pushing are very deep ones and have to do with the worst fears of any parent. But I am blaming the media. They have a responsibility to explain how rare the pederast incidents truly are. Perhaps they could focus more on the children who are dying in warzones. Now those are deaths we could actually prevent fairly easily.

|

Going To Get My Hair Cut 



In the meantime, read my post on health reporting and feminism below, because it is important stuff. Or you could watch sleeping otters holding hands instead.

Back soon with less hair and more posts.

|

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Where Your Tax Money Goes 



Via Atrios




|

Reporting On Feminism And Health 



Do you remember the big fuss the media made over the 1999 study by Kawachi and others which found that greater gender equality appeared to be correlated with better health for both sexes in the United States? How about the even bigger media fuss caused by the 2005 study by Chen and others which found that gender equality appeared to be correlated with better mental health for women? And surely you remember the excitement in the media last year when we all learned about the Swedish study which showed that both men and women have better health when roles are shared more equally at home?

You don't recall? Neither do I, because there was no such fuss at all. Studies with those findings are not mentioned in the popular media at all or only fleetingly. But when a Swedish study in 2007 suggests that greater gender equality leads to less health for both sexes, what happens? You guessed it. The media is on the study right away:

Warning: feminism is bad for your health
By Roger Dobson
Published: 25 March 2007

Since before Germaine Greer published The Female Eunuch in 1970, and even before Mary Wollstonecraft wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Woman in 1792, campaigners have fought for sexual equality, convinced it is the key to a better society. Now researchers have discovered that gender equality may make people unwell.

It is most interesting, is it not? Consider this: Hundreds of studies are published each month in the social science literature, and only a very few of these are ever publicized extensively. How do those lucky studies get picked? Some of them are obviously important in their findings, but many are selected because they might sell more newspapers or get more television watchers glued to their sets. And I'm beginning to suspect (heh) that there is an ideological point to deciding which studies are to be given more advertising. It will not be studies which suggest that feminism is a good thing.

This has two important consequences. The first one is that the general audience obtains a biased understanding of what the studies show in general. The second one is that people like me have to spend an awful lot of time criticizing and analyzing the mispopularization of studies. It doesn't matter how well I do that, because it LOOKS like all the studies out there are proving points for the anti-feminist side. What is urgently needed is some sort of a way of getting a more representative sample of studies into the popular debate. But this is not something the anti-feminists want to do.

Sigh. I am bitter, bitter.

Here is my take on the Swedish study which has made Rush Limbaugh so happy. The study tries to establish whether increasing gender equality causes illness levels for men and women to equalize. What it states it found is that it does, to some extent, but that increasing gender equality is also correlated with lower health levels for both women and men.

The data the study uses is on the level of a municipality. Municipalities are very small geographical units. For each municipality, the study gathered information on measures of gender equality in occupations, in public spending, in who has positions of political power in the availability of parental leave and the relative rate of gender segregation in various industries. These measures are all about the society and tell nothing about the gender-equality of individual lives. The measures are then analyzed as possible determinants of ill health.

Ill health is measured in two ways: with sick days and with data on age-adjusted death rates for each municipality. This is the first econometric problem of the study: the death rates are from the same time period as the data on gender-equality.

It is hard to see how this year's data on gender equality could have much effect on this year's death rates. Death rates depend on past events, possibly on events over a long period of time. An even bigger problem (but related to the mortality measure) is that people don't stay in one tiny municipality all their lives and the one they die in may not be the one in which they lived most of their lives, and that one would be the place where gender equality might have had an influence. The researchers had no data on migration patterns, however, so they had no way of checking that possibility out.

The study includes some variables that are controlled for because they are known to have an effect on illness, separately from what the researchers want to study. These are the age distribution of the municipality, the average education level and some variables relating to income and labor market conditions.

Here comes my second major econometric problem with the study: These confounding extra variables do not include the rate of urbanization. Some of those municipalities are in Stockholm, some are rural places in the north. In general urban areas have lower health levels because of pollution and urban stress and the related lifestyle aspects. But note that urban areas are also going to have greater levels of gender equality, or so I would suspect. Omitting the urbanization variable doesn't allow us to disentangle the two effects. What it does instead is make the urbanization effects work through the gender equality measures.

Perhaps adding the urbanization measure wouldn't change the results. There is no way of knowing, but it sure would be interesting to check.

I find it odd that one would expect gender equality to differ in its effects on such a low level of measurement as a municipality. Most laws and customs in Sweden are country-level ones and already very egalitarian, and although recent immigrants might have different sex role expectations the study did control for that among the confounding variables.

|

North Dakota, Again* 



That is one pesky name for a state, Dakota, when it comes to the treatment of women. South Dakota was most recently in the news for the abortion bill which would have declared abortion illegal (if Roe v. Wade falls) except when the mother's life is threatened had it not been defeated in a referendum later on. Now the North Dakota state House has decided that pregnant teenagers can't access prenatal care without their parents' knowledge:

Pregnant girls should get adult permission before they get medical checkups for their unborn babies, the state House decided as representatives defeated a proposal to allow teenagers to seek confidential prenatal care.

North Dakota law now requires a doctor to have permission from a parent or guardian to treat pregnant girls who are younger than 18.

The rejected measure would have allowed pregnant girls to see a doctor privately, although it required health care providers to try to coax their patients to tell their parents about a pregnancy.

Bitch, Ph.D., wrote about the feminist implications of this, so I can concentrate on the health implications. Note what this requirement to tell the parents to get prenatal care means for a pregnant teen whose relationship with her parents is a bad one. Suppose that she is afraid of them, afraid of them possibly kicking her out or beating her or at least yelling at her a lot. And suppose then that she realizes that the moment all this will happen is when she seeks prenatal care. What do you think she might do? I'm trying to imagine being, say, fourteen and pregnant and with parents I fear. I'd delay the prenatal care as long as possible.

And that is very bad news, because being pregnant at an early age can pose special medical risks.

The proponents of getting the parents involved are all about parental rights but not for the teenager, and they explicitly discount the importance of the kind of case I described. But wouldn't it be just those teenagers who would NOT tell their parents in any case?

Or in a very short form: Pregnant teenagers can stay without prenatal care and not need any permission from their parents for that. Now that is upside-down.
----
*My apologies for confusing South and North Dakota initially.

|

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Want To See A Baby Karl Rove? 



Cliff Schechter points to this YouTube video on his blog. I got this via Trademark Dave on the Eschaton threads. It is an interesting video to watch if you like the history of politics in general, too. And note the strict gender division of labor in the films the video shows from early 1970s.




|

Eumerica? 



The Pew Research Center survey I wrote about yesterday has provoked some interesting discussion on the blogs. John Quiggin suggests that we might see "Eumerica" in the making: a situation where the Democrats and Independents in the U.S. acquire social and political values similar to those currently dominant in Europe, whereas the hard-core Republican base will drift ever further away from all this (toward what? Talibamerica?)

I doubt that this will happen unless the hard-core base is seen as an ever-dwindling one, given that the proportion of the Pew survey respondents which chose the most socially conservative answers was quite a lot lower than the 25% of the population that is supposed to be Bush's base. In any case, a very small hard-core base of Talibamericans wouldn't have much political power on their own. But something else Quiggin notes is quite interesting:

On the other hand, Republican support is contracting to a base of about 25 per cent of the population whose views are getting more extreme, not merely because moderate conservatives are peeling off to become Independents, but also because of the party's success in constructing a parallel universe of news sources, thinktanks, blogs, pseudo-scientists and so on, which has led to the core becoming more tightly committed to an extremist ideology.

Kevin Drum wonders if the possible back-firing of the separate right-wing universe might mean that the liberals and progressives shouldn't try to invest in their own think-tanks, for example.

I'd argue that the conservative media and research system have served their cause very well indeed, if it helped to bring them to power during the last two decades. What is worrisome from a wider angle is the current situation where like tends to flock with like and debate across the political aisle becomes increasingly difficult, not only because of heightened emotions but because of disagreements about the facts themselves. Those who get their news from Fox are not going to see the same facts as those who listen to the BBC or read progressive blogs, for example.

|

And Then The Guilt And The Freaking Out 



Reporting on the front lines of the Mommy Wars here. Can you hear the bombs going off in the distance? They are not physical bombs but that doesn't mean they don't hurt.

I read some blog-type reactions on the piece of research I wrote about yesterday and found them very interesting. A few examples:


As if I don't already feel guilty for putting my son in day care at the tender age of three months, a new study shows that the more time children spend in center-based care before kindergarten, the more likely they'll fight, disobey and argue, according to their 6th grade teachers.

The increase in problem behavior was slight, but studies like this inspire me to look for the silver lining. And I always return to the same thing: "the hygiene hypothesis," or the belief that early exposure to germs helps the immune system develop properly.

There's the mother-guilt with some fighting back.

And here's the freaking out:

First, some background: I'm 28 and don't have children. Every morning I pass a day-care center near my home with a sign that says "Jungle of Fun 'Child Care'" and I feel a little shiver run up my spine. Sure, part of that shiver has to do with the fact that on the sign "child care" is in quotation marks instead of the "jungle of fun." But there's something more: I find the idea of parenthood overwhelming. I know I want children eventually, but every time I think I might be getting over my fear of babies, I see an article like this one from The New York Times and start to freak out all over again.

...

Are we ever going to figure this out? Is there a good way to have a kid and have a career? Will there come a time when I can stop running away from strollers? If so, do tell. As it stands now, I'm worried that if I put my as-of-yet hypothetical children into day care, I'll be sending them into a jungle -- and not necessarily a fun one.

This is freaking out, because what the study found was that the children in daycare were slightly more disruptive in class at school. It didn't find out that their eyeballs fell out or that they were learning less at school. The study found that parenting swamped all other influences, and that there were even vocabulary benefits to going to high-quality daycare which lasted to the age of ten.

I hope my writing doesn't read too exasperated, because I am. It is not that I don't feel enormous sympathy for the writers whom I quoted and almost equally enormous anger at those finger-wagging know-alls whom I decided not to quote here. It is just that I've been through so many earlier rounds of the Mommy Wars (remember the alcoholic stay-at-home mommies?) and writing about them in a reasoned and calm way is pointless because everybody is running around yelling "Ohmygod". All shades of gray disappear, everything becomes starkly black-and-white, and the harsh floodlights look for the mothers and the mothers alone. Add to that my inability to find the study itself yet and the numbers it reports, which means that I have no idea what the size of the molehill is though I know it is not a mountain.

|

Monday, March 26, 2007

And When She Is Bad She Is Horrid 



That would be me. But I've been a very good goddess today, writing reams and reams of my usual babbles. Hence you are going to be given a reward, too: A picture of a spring forest to disappear into, to meditate in, to use as the starting point of your daydreams. Someone you really want to meet will soon appear between those trees, smiling gently at you and happy and eager to meet you. Now, who would that be? I would love to meet Lucy, actually.





Picture via hecate.

|

Taking the Fifth 



Hold on to your seatbelts. The ride is getting wilder. One of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez's aids is refusing to testify:

Monica Goodling, a senior Justice Department official involved in the firings of federal prosecutors, will refuse to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings, citing Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, her lawyer said Monday.

Oh my.

Here is some background on Goodling.

|

Mommy Wars - Installment 3,546, 790 



It's that time of the year again. Take your seats, gentlemen, for here are the Mommy Gladiators! The first round will pit childless uppity women against mothers who are producing future citizens! May I have a round of applause? The second round will match the single-mothers on welfare with the upright Christian married women! Look at those godly shields and those spears! We are going to have fun watching the bloodshed. And then, gentlemen....are you ready for this? The finale! The uppity working mothers against the stay-at-home mothers, also known as the ladies who lunch. Place your bets, gentlemen! Beer will be available from the vendors all through this exciting evening.

I once wrote a parody which is summarized in the above paragraph. The point of it is sharper than the spear in a Mommy Gladiator's hand, I hope, and it is that these Mommy Wars are staged pageants which nicely leave out everybody but women of all stripes, whether mothers or not.

Now for the most recent installment in the so-called Mommy Wars: "Day-Care vs. Stay-At-Home-Mothering." A new study installment has come out in the long-term research project funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development which analyzes the effects of child-care on children's development. I have been so far unable to get hold of the actual study, but the newspaper reports argue that it has found that children who spent time in day-care, even in good quality day-care, were slightly more likely to be viewed as causing disruptive behavior at school. The effect was slight and so was the second effect the study noted which was that children who went to good quality day-care had a somewhat better vocabulary even at the age of ten. The study also noted that good parenting swamped all the other effects in importance.

Can you guess which of these findings would make the newspaper headline? I'm sure you can, because this is about Mommy Wars, after all. Hence, what we read are headlines like this:

Study Links Child Care to Poor Behavior

Study links extensive child care with more aggressive behavior in school

Child Care Linked to Bad Behavior

Poor Behavior Is Linked to Time in Day Care

How nurseries 'still breed aggression'

I found exactly one headline in my Googling which decided to tell us about the improved vocabulary instead. The actual study findings, assuming the popularized reports are correct, are quite a lot more muted than those headlines suggest:

The latest installment of a long-term study of child care in the United States has found that children who spent more time in center-based settings from birth through school entry have somewhat more problems with aggressive and disobedient behavior through sixth grade than children who spent less time in centers, regardless of the quality of care. However, problem behavior and teacher-child conflicts experienced by children who spent extensive time in other types of child care did not continue beyond first grade.

Notice that the findings are about center-based settings and not about child-care by someone else than the mother (as most popularizations summarized the findings)? None of the other sources I consulted bothered to make that distinction. Not a single source gave percentage figures of the children whom teachers rated as disruptive. The earlier study done at kindergarten stage had the disruptive figure at 17% for children who had been in daycare and at 9% for children who had been taken care of by the mother at home. Are the new figures the same? Closer to each other? Further away from each other? I really want to know.

Notice also that the researchers very carefully explained that the disruptive behavior they reported is well within the normal range. But that doesn't stop a headline about "nurseries breeding aggression". An alternative explanation of this phenomenon is as likely but not of headline material:

Loudell Robb, program director of the Rosemount Center in Washington, which cares for 147 children ages 5 and under at its main center and in homes, said she was not surprised that some children might have trouble making the transition from day care to school.

"At least our philosophy here is that children are given choices, to work alone or in a group, to move around," Ms. Robb said. "By first or second grade, they're expected to sit still for long periods, to form lines, not to talk to friends when they want to; their time is far more teacher-directed."


In a sense writing about any of this is almost macabre. Just think about the setup for this long-term study: to see if children suffer from being in a day-care where day-care is defined as care given by anyone else but the mother. Even fathers are but babysitters. Just think about that initial framing. Then think about what the results from such a study might mean and how they would be interpreted. Any result which suggests that day-care by others is not harmful will insult stay-at-home mothers who appear to have thrown away several years of earnings for the sake of nothing. Any result which suggests that day-care by others is harmful will insult employed mothers and will lead to calls for making day-care illegal without any financial help for families to organize something else instead.

What I'm trying to say in the above paragraph is not that studying all this wouldn't be a good thing to do. But there is no way in hell the results can ever be interpreted neutrally and in a balanced way, because the initial setup is one from the Mommy Wars arena and because almost every single person has a bet on one or the other of the fighting gladiator teams.
----
Note: I'm trying to get hold of the study to find out what it actually says. But I did notice an interesting exchange that took place in 2001 when the previous installment was published, an exchange which suggests that some of the researchers have bets on one side, too. I also learned that the initial choice of the families to follow didn't randomly allocate them to the home or day-care groups. This would have been ethically impossible in any case, but it causes problems for interpretation because the people who choose one care option over the other may have other things in common, things which may cause any outcomes we observe. For instance, income might vary between the studied groups or the people who chose the day-care option may have different personalities from those who chose the care-at-home option and these different personalities may be passed on to the children.



|

Pope Benedict And The End of Europe 



Pope Benedict is concerned about other people not having enough children. Celibacy is something he values for himself, though.

But being child-free or childless is not for other people:

Europe appears to be losing faith in its own future, Pope Benedict XVI said Saturday, warning against "dangerous individualism" on a continent where many people are having fewer children.

"One must unfortunately note that Europe seems to be going down a road which could lead it to take its leave from history," the pontiff told bishops in Rome for ceremonies to mark the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome, a major step toward the creation of today's European Union.

Benedict said he was concerned about Europe's "demographic profile" – though he did not describe the trends that have alarmed the continent for decades.

I'm sorry, but I can't take his concern seriously, given that his position makes him singularly unsuitable for judging the reasons why people have or do not have children.

Don't you think that he would LOVE to blame feminists for this? Too bad for him that the countries with the lowest fertility rates are not at all feminist havens. Poland, a staunchly Catholic country, has the lowest birth rate in the European Union and is about as hostile to feminism as any developed country can be. The Poles are very socially conservative as the euphemism goes.

Hmm. Benedict must work harder to turn all this into something that can be put on the frail shoulders of us feminists.

Perhaps that reference to "dangerous individualism" is code for selfish and uppity women not having enough children. Or the reference I heard on Fox News about a year ago, where a conservative pundit explained the European low fertility rates as a consequence of people not wanting to get child saliva on their BMWs. See how easy it is to create an alternative reality where all Europeans are suddenly driving selfishly around in extremely expensive cars using gasoline that costs more than any American can imagine?

I'm not for a world of self-centered individuals gazing at their own navels. Such a world would be a terrible place to live in. But all my sensors start bleeping madly when someone with enormous power, wealth and influence starts blaming others for being overly individualistic. That usually means that someone else is going to get the steamroller treatment.

|

An End To The Republican Conservative Era? 



That was Bruce Bartlett's reaction on hearing about the new Pew Research center survey on the political views of Americans. Bartlett is a conservative analyst but also the author of an anti-Bush book. And what caused his strong statement? This:

Increased public support for the social safety net, signs of growing public concern about income inequality, and a diminished appetite for assertive national security policies have improved the political landscape for the Democrats as the 2008 presidential campaign gets underway.

At the same time, many of the key trends that nurtured the Republican resurgence in the mid-1990s have moderated, according to Pew's longitudinal measures of the public's basic political, social and economic values. The proportion of Americans who support traditional social values has edged downward since 1994, while the proportion of Americans expressing strong personal religious commitment also has declined modestly.

Even more striking than the changes in some core political and social values is the dramatic shift in party identification that has occurred during the past five years. In 2002, the country was equally divided along partisan lines: 43% identified with the Republican Party or leaned to the GOP, while an identical proportion said they were Democrats. Today, half of the public (50%) either identifies as a Democrat or says they lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 35% who align with the GOP.

Survey findings can be tricky to interpret. As an example, one of the questions used to elicit information about the support for traditional social values asks whether the respondent believes in "traditional family values". I have never been able to find out a list of those values anywhere and I'm not sure what the responses might mean.

Setting that problem aside, the survey findings are good news to the Democrats, for the time being. For the time being, because the shift in attitudes it portrays has two separate causes: the long-term slow change in general social attitudes and the disastrous consequences of the most recent Republican administration. It is the latter which most likely created the increased suppport for a social safety net and the decreased tolerance for war-waging, not some fundamental shift in the underlying attitudes of the respondents. If I'm right about this the attitudes could shift back once a Democratic administration is elected and has finished the needed spring cleaning. Which means that I'm not quite as optimistic as Bartlett about this signaling the end of an era for the conservatives. Heh.

|

Sunday, March 25, 2007

Taking Back Sexual Morality From The Hypocrites 

Posted by olvlzl.

Paglia’s view of sex – that it is irrational, violent, immoral, and wounding – is so glum that one hesitates to suggest that it might be instead, well, a lot of fun, and maybe even affectionate and loving.

I Am The Cosmos, Molly Ivins: Mother Jones, October 1991
Thinking about Peter Pace’s recent fatwa on gay sex, it’s pretty astounding how much use conservatives have made of the issue. Having some experience of how the Bush regime works I couldn’t believe that the issue being raised just then could have been entirely by chance. In the coming year you can bet on issues involving gay rights to spring up at the most opportune times for Republicans. It’s kind of odd, considering that we’re not really that big a minority group, how obsessed conservatives are with us. But I digress, hope you enjoyed the pictures.

One of the great benefits of realistic sexual morality would probably be that it makes sex more sexy. Instead of the guilt ridden product of Axial era prohibition which sanctions sex only as the exploitation and objectification of a subservient inferior by a dominator, wouldn’t sex as expression of friendship and even, pardon the expression, love, be more fun? As Molly Ivin’s implies, it’s supposed to be enjoyable, isn't it? Why would anyone want to do “it” any other way?

Any morality in human interactions starts in the mutual respect of rights, the practice of not doing things that aren’t freely agreed to. It also means not doing things that endanger or hurt someone, not even if they think they want it. Traditional morality grew up with the assumption of dominance and submission, males were assumed to rightfully dominate women - and, in practice, economically, socially and racially inferior males. It was often considered immoral or wrong to have sex in any way that didn’t act out these dominance-submission relationships. Screwed up traditional sexual morality and it’s equally evil twin, unofficial, domination-based, license have so twisted peoples’ sexual identities that a lot of people can’t seem to recognize sex without Grand Guignol, S&M shtick. And sex also became a commodity. The inevitable results of this were that sex, even within officially sanctioned marriage, often took on aspects of commerce. Arranged marriages were often little else.

Morality is a concept in disrepute. That is because people mistake the system of taboos based on authority for morality. Those tediously repeated, hypocritically observed taboos are the officially recognized “morals”, the only ones that are allowed. But those taboos, based in inequality and disrespect for the equal rights of individuals, are alien to a modern democracy. Their utter failure, even within the most tradition ridden families and communities, show that they are false. They inevitably break down and the results will be to compound their inherent immorality with more violence and injustice. But we don’t have to continually play out the cycle of misery and exploitation.

Real sexual morality has to be democratic, it has to be responsible and it has to be realistic. The real results of it have to be the final criterion for evaluation. Consent of the individuals involved is the basis of it, not the gender or contractual status of the participants.* It has to be mutually beneficial, not endangering the partners. In other words, sexual morality is just an extension of justice and respect. If presented as an expression of fairness that kind of morality might have a better chance since all parties have a stake in observing it.

The left shouldn’t abandon the concept of morality for the facilely stated and rather brainlessly accepted “anything goes”. Anything goes most often turns into “might makes right”, the real moral outcome of conservatism. The kind of morality I’m talking about wouldn’t be enforced by punishment, that would invite in other parties who have no business getting involved. It wouldn’t be universally practiced, people will still make their own choices, however bad. But I think the world is ripe for this kind of democratically based, sexual morality.

* The age of the participants is important because children aren’t mature enough to protect themselves. Pretending that children are little adults is dishonest and leaves them without the protection that they are entitled to. Dealing with the fact that children are sexual beings is difficult but that doesn’t make it impossible to at least try. Not lying to them about masturbation, contraception and disease prevention are the least they are entitled to. Educating them about the detection and avoidance of con-men is at least as important.
|

How Do You Feel About Birth Of A Nation? 

Posted by olvlzl.
You say you didn't like a lousy movie on the basis of it's lousy morality and people assume you're demanding censorship. Ok, I wonder how many people who got exercised about people who don't appreciate the brilliant art of Billy Bob Thornton (see below), nevertheless, say that Birth of a Nation or Triumph of the Will are morally corrupt propaganda.

And, by the way, dear e-mail flamer, Tipper Gore wasn't asking for censorship, she was asking for consumer content labels, which I don't have any problem with. If it's all right for trans fat why not sexist crap?
|

The War on Choice In All It's Forms 

Is the war against women.
Posted by olvlzl.
In their continuing war on women, the Republicans’ mean spirited and just plain stupid Medicaid legislation will lead to more unplanned pregnancies. The cost of birth control is going through the roof for many college students.

The change is the result of a chain reaction started by a 2005 deficit-reduction bill that focused on Medicaid, the main federal health insurance program for the poor. College health officials say they had little idea the bill would affect them.

Before the change, pharmaceutical companies typically sold drugs at deep discounts to a range of health care providers, including colleges. With contraceptives, one motivation was attracting customers who would stay with their products for years.

Another reason the discounts made business sense was that they didn't count against the drug makers in a formula calculating rebates they owed states to participate in Medicaid.

The results, predictably, will include more unplanned pregnancies and more need for abortions. That’s so certain that you know the people who wrote this into the bill and who voted for it know beyond doubt, that would be the result. It's high time that we all hold these people accountable for the results of their phony morality. This won't save money, it's not going to have the effect of preventing college students from having sex, it's only going to cause more of what conservatives falsely claim is what they intend.

Morality divorced from its results is phony morality. You don't get to throw a rock and pretend that you didn't know it would hurt the target.

Democrats in Congress should fix this one right away.
|

The Attacks On John Edwards Begin 

Posted by olvlzl.
When Mona Gable wrote a few days ago that the attacks on John Edwards were certain to come, it could have been predicted that the Boston Globe’s attack harpy, Joan Vennochi, would be near the head of the line. I don’t know exactly what it is about Vennochi that makes her such a reliably nasty piece of work. Today's column is just her opening gambit. If Edwards starts gaining in the polls, it will increase in nastiness. Notice the insinuations almost hidden between the lines. Her Jew-baiting John Kerry, her constant attribution of cynical motivations, reliably aimed at people who are relatively free of cynical self-interest, just wait a week and another one will appear. Like the incompetent and predictable Republican propaganda of Jeff Jacoby, the talking Portrait of Dorian Gray act of Avi Nelson, the Republican shill as everyman slime of Howie Carr, Mike Barnicle, ..... Joan Vennochi’s first blood hits on Democrats and pulled punches on Republicans - delivered only when the spectacle of their corruption mandates saying something - are a constant in the allegedly liberal New England media scene.

With both Elizabeth Edwards’ and her husbands’ clear devotion to public service, it’s not surprise me that virtue would be invisible to a carbolic spitting cynic like Vennochi. Acknowledging that there is something higher than self-interest is beyond the shriveled, twisted souls of these people. Why couldn’t The Globe have bought her out instead of the fine reporters they’ve been shedding like a dog’s winter coat? If they got rid of a few of their god-awful op-ed shills they might be able to do what a paper is supposed to, report NEWS*.

* Losing Stephen Kurkjian after the other great reporters they've let fall through their fingers. They should have lost the entire op-ed page first.

Update: Here is a more realistic column about why the Edwards have made the choice they made, by Eugene Robinson.
|

Saturday, March 24, 2007

Yes, yes, yes. Impeach Gonzales 

Posted by olvlzl.
Robert Kuttner has it so right that it almost hurts. Impeachment of Alberto Gonzales would be a very valuable thing, more useful than his forced retirement.

But can the House impeach the attorney general? The Constitution is clear that Congress may impeach "all civil officers of the United States." In our history, the House has impeached two presidents, and just one member of the Cabinet, William Belknap, secretary of war under president Ulysses S. Grant.

Belknap had profited from kickbacks by military contractors. The House began impeachment proceedings, documented the charges, and just before the articles were formally voted, on March 2, 1876, Belknap resigned. But the House voted impeachment anyway. The reason, as House Judiciary Chairman J. Proctor Knott explained to the Senate, "was that his infamy might be rendered conspicuous, historic, eternal, in order to prevent the occurrence of like offenses in the future."


Impeachment has to become real or we don't have a republic but a monarchy. If we had a parlimentary system we would have an effective vote of no confidence, as it it we have only the quasi-mythic tool of impeachment. If the Bush regime crimes aren't punished by impeachment it is truly a myth.
|

Uncle olvlzl Learns a Lesson 

Posted by olvlzl.
Baseball season would appear to be on us again. I would have been able to ignore it as usual if it hadn’t been for my 12-year-old niece begging me to let her watch a movie last night. Uncle olvlzl was baby-sitting. As I was reading the paper and it was a Friday night I asked her what movie she had in mind. “Bad News Bears”, she said. Not being much of a movie watcher I had a vague memory of something featuring Walter Matthau in a sort of seedy O Henry role. Ok, I said. Lesson one, don't let the name fool you.

Before a minute had passed the Hollywood school of rock music informed me that this wasn’t that movie. After another ten minutes I was disgusted to find that there had been a remake with Billy Bob Thornton leading a bunch of foul-mouthed, sexist piglets in a thoroughly awful movie. Now, there are generally three plots that comprise the entire oeuvre of the sports movie, young athlete gets cut down in his prime, immature jock can’t cut it in life, and, worst of all, team of misfits gets their asses in gear and win. This was the last one and it was the most revolting example of that genre I’ve ever had the misfortune of experiencing. The Thornton character, Morris Buttermaker starts off a boring, vulgar, stupid, sexist drunk and goes downhill from there. The rather would-be cloying wisdom that gets introduced (according to formula) only makes things worse.

I don’t know what kind of children Thornton or the director, Richard Linklater, know but these movies that present obnoxious guttersnipes as examples of cute kids aren’t only disgusting, there have been enough of them to be intensely boring. The scene of the little leaguers victory celebration at a Hooters leads me to wonder what the producers got by way of product placement.

The irresponsible in loco parentis plot device probably reached its highest point with Jason Robards in “A Thousand Clowns”. He had the last word in 1965. It should be retired.

Another lesson, 12-year-olds aren't old enough to pick out the movie unattended.
|

Elizabeth Edwards’ Choice 

Posted by olvlzl
The decision of Elizabeth and John Edwards to continue with the campaign for president in the face of what is euphemistically called a life threatening illness is bravery of a kind that is so rare among the well off that it seems incredible to a lot of people. Having watched both of them but especially Elizabeth Edwards they seem to be something rare in the United States these days, people who believe that public service is the highest calling.

I agree with John Nichols that the decision was Elizabeth Edwards to make, John Edwards would certainly have stopped if she had wanted him to. There doesn’t seem to be anything about their marriage that is staged for the cameras. I also agree with him that Elizabeth Edwards seems to have taken the place in John Edwards’ political career that was so unfortunately held by an incompetent and back-biting idiot like Bob Shrum .

Shrum takes what he assumes is credit for being one of the professional losers who talked a reluctant Edwards into voting for the authorization of the war:

Shrum writes that Edwards, then a North Carolina senator, called his foreign policy and political advisers together in his Washington living room in the fall of 2002 to get their advice. Edwards was "skeptical, even exercised" about the idea of voting yes and his wife Elizabeth was forcefully against it, according to Shrum.

But Shrum said the consensus among the advisers was that Edwards, just four years in office, did not have the credibility to vote against the resolution and had to support it to be taken seriously on national security. Shrum said Edwards' facial expressions showed he did not like where he was being pushed to go.

Even before her husband abandoned such bad council and apologized for his vote Elizabeth Edwards came out in support of Cindy Sheehan:

"Whether you agree or disagree with every part, or any part, of what Cindy wants to say, you know it is better that the president hear different opinions, particularly from those with such a deep and personal interest in the decisions of our government. Today, another voice would be helpful. Cindy Sheehan can be that voice. She has earned the right to be that voice."

Ms. Edwards must have considered the cost so involuntarily paid by Cindy Sheehan for the added burden of having public service thrust on her. Both have had a child die young, she must have known more than most of us what that means. Being intelligent and brave, Elizabeth Edwards must have looked into what both her original diagnosis with cancer and this recurrence means in terms of the possibilities and the percentages. There is no way that she can know at this stage which of those possibilities she will be forced to face but none of them will be easy or good. She must believe that John Edwards would be a very good president, she is willing to sacrifice her private life for the public good.

John Edwards isn’t “my” candidate since I don’t have one yet. As I've repeatedly said, I will support whichever Democrat seems to have the best chance to defeat the Republican nominee, the world cannot stand another Republican presidency. I respect the decision that Elizabeth and her husband have made. If some people are too cynical to think that it was made out of a deep commitment to public service then maybe that only shows how badly needed such people are in our politics these days. Facing the loss of everything, in the most literal meaning of that phrase, Elizabeth Edwards has given us an example of what service to the public can entail so as to shame the typical politician who makes the same claim.
|

Friday, March 23, 2007

Chinese Scenery 



These nature pictures are astonishingly beautiful. I was shocked to see that what I always believed were conventions in Chinese ink-drawings and paintings are realistic depictions instead. Enjoy.







---
These are from Thrilling Wonder, via Ptarmigan's Nest.

|

House Passes Iraq Withdrawal Timetable Bill 



That sounds like a professional headline! I'm so proud. I'm also pretty chuffed about this:

A sharply divided House voted Friday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year, a victory for Democrats in an epic war-powers struggle and Congress' boldest challenge yet to the administration's policy.

Ignoring a White House veto threat, lawmakers voted 218-212, mostly along party lines, for a binding war spending bill requiring that combat operations cease before September 2008, or earlier if the Iraqi government does not meet certain requirements. Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress.

The House may be sharply divided, but the majority of Americans want a timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and this is one of the main reasons why the Democrats won the elections last November.

|

Rat Poison Found In Pet Food 



If you have pets you have been following the story about cat and dog deaths from kidney failure, attributed to contaminated pet food. Now it seems that the cause is rat poison.

How did rat poison get into pet food?

When I was reading about this story earlier I found it odd that Menu Foods, the manufacturer whose products were contaminated, suggested that the cause was in the wheat gluten used as a binding agent in the foods, and that this wheat gluten had been provided by a new subcontractor. But the name of the subcontractor was never given. Not only was it not given but it seemed almost protected knowledge.

This may be the way it should be, given that the actual cause of the contamination had not been determined. But why even hint at this subcontractor in that case? It smells off to me, somehow.

Economies to scale are a term economists use to explain why very large factories may offer certain products at a much lower price, and this is a good thing, on the whole. But concentrating food provision or energy provision to just a few central units is also risky, because if the system fails the repercussions will be felt everywhere. This is an example of those risks and the not-so-beneficial aspects of centralized production.
---
An update:

The toxin was identified as aminopterin, which is used to kill rats in some countries, state Agriculture Commissioner Patrick Hooker said. Aminopterin is not registered for killing rodents in the United States, though it is used as a cancer drug, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

The rumor (which I have not been able to verify) is that the country of origin is China.


|

Friday Funnies 




Over at the Swampland, Time's political blog, one post starts like this:

David Brooks has an excellent column today, and not for the usual reasons that liberals praise Brooks (and he drives conservatives crazy): because he comes halfway toward us.

This is indeed the same "halfway" David Brooks that I praise here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here, for example.

|

Death Becomes You, Young Lady! 



This is what one of the judges in America's Next Top Model said during Week Four of the competition when the topic was....

Crime Scene Victims

Each of the model-wannabes is posed as the victim of some gruesome type of murder, and the judges are very focused on how well the women do dead. Or really dead violent crime victims. Jennifer Pozner has written an excellent post on the misogyny this necrophilia conveys:

I'm so disgusted by the photos that I refuse to give them extra visual traction on this blog - but do click over to Zap2it's photo gallery if you'd like to see for yourself how ANTM gives new definition to the phrase "suicide girls." The lithe lot of 'em are arrayed in awkward, broken poses, splayed out in cold concrete corridors, lifeless limbs positioned bloodily, just so, at the bottom of staircases, bathtubs and back alleys, mimicking their demise via stabbing, shooting, electrocution, drowning, poisoning, strangulation, decapitation and organ theft (!), to judges' comments of "Gorgeous!" "Fantastic!" "Amazing!" "Absolutely beautiful!" and, of my favorite, "Death becomes you, young lady!"


But this isn't the first week of America's Next Misogynism Victim. Last week, Week Three, had as its theme Sundaes, which meant that each competitor was photographed naked while pretending to be an ice-cream sundae. None of the judges praised them "for looking good as food", though I did catch this comment from Tyra Banks (about Week Two photo shots):

Tyra: I saw your film and you did do some more sexy stuff. You just seemed so unsure: "I think I'm a ho?" Most modeling is acting like a ho but making it fashion. (later) So much potential, but so bottled up. It's almost like she needs pre-"America's Next Top Model" school.

My bolds.

Let's see if I get this: Most modeling is acting like a ho but making it fashion. Except when the model plays the victim of a violent crime or a food item. Got it.

Now for the letdown: None of this comes as a surprise for anyone who has leafed through the pages of high-end fashion magazines. The models are routinely portrayed as broken dolls, with vacant eyes and permanently gaping mouths, like toys flung about after the giant child who played with them has left. If this is mainstream art in fashion photography, what is the finely honed artistic edge, then? Perhaps dead women will do? Dead women gruesomely murdered? See? I know why they had to go there. I'm not just a humorless feminist prig, though I play one on the blogs.

|

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Soft Spring Rain, Caresses Of The Spring Wind , Crocuses And Hope 






These are my wishes to all who are ailing or sad or stumbling in the dark places of the soul. It is the season of rejuvenation and the rebirth of earth.

|

It Takes Two To Tango 




But it only takes one to be sentenced to death by stoning for adultery in Sudan. Of course that one will be the woman:

Two Sudanese women have been sentenced to death by stoning for adultery after a trial in which they had no lawyer and which used Arabic, not their first language, the rights group Amnesty International said.

Sadia Idriss Fadul was sentenced on February 13 and Amouna Abdallah Daldoum on March 6 and their sentences could be carried out at any time, the London-based group said in a statement released late on Monday.

North Sudan implements Islamic sharia law.

...

The male accused in Fadul's case was let off because there was not enough evidence against him. Witnesses are usually required to gain a conviction and forensic tests are not normally used in such cases.

I'm trying to get my brain around this idea that witnesses might have seen the adulterous intercourse well enough to name the woman but not the man. Or what is it that they mean by witnesses? Is it the four male witnesses that some versions of sharia law require? How does one get four male witnesses to adultery without any one of them interfering to stop it?

This looks to me like patriarchy at its starkest.

To protest the planned stonings, go here.
---
via feministe

|

Sending Cyberhugs Or Community Building Through Blogs 



The feeling of a community is something I never would have predicted the Internet would provide. But it does, and this is a tremendous benefit for those of us who are geographically isolated, homebound or who live in an area where others think differently. The progressive/liberal blogs are our megachurches, though I hope with more ethical pastors and ministers, and the community of caring and sharing is very important.

The mainstream media hasn't quite understood the community side of blogs. In fact, it is something that can be made fun of or ridiculed. An otherwise interesting article on political blogs in the Los Angeles Times had this paragraph, for example:

Duncan Black, an economist who writes as Atrios on his website, Eschaton, receives hundreds of comments for almost anything he posts. Thursday morning, he posted a short note saying he would not be writing much that day as he was going to be traveling. Within the hour, 492 people posted comments on that. A political reporter at a metropolitan daily might not get that much reader response in a year.

If you don't read political blogs at all you might be concerned about this. Are the readers of Eschaton such odd creatures that they parse a short blog about a travel day to the tune of nearly five hundred comments? Is what Atrios says something like the divine drops of wisdom in a cult? Heh.

Perhaps, but the real explanation for the five hundred comments on that thread is that Eschaton is a community where people exchange views on politics and on other things, where support and friendly criticism and funny and sad news are swopped. It's a cybermegachurch for us dirty lefty hippies, and it is not the only one. Feminist communities also abound, at places such as Pandagon or feministing.com or feministe or Bitch Ph.D. (all these blogs and other communities such as Kos can be found in my Blogroll in the right column).

Communities are that gooey stuff that political bloggers, stern and hard, are not expected to value. Well, I do, but then I'm a girl goddess blogger. Communities are very important because humans are pack animals and we need each other for communication, for affection, for validation and for squabbling, too.

|

A Spring Sale in Texas Babies 



Imagine this: You are a pregnant woman and go to have an abortion. The health care provider at the clinic tells you that if you continue with the pregnancy, give birth and then give the baby up for adoption, you will be given five hundred dollars! Five hundred dollars for just nine months of labor! What a bargain! Astonishingly, if you continue with the pregnancy and decide to keep the baby you get nothing.

Why should you imagine any of this? Because Texas State Senator Dan Patrick has proposed a bill to do exactly this in Texas: to require abortion providers to tell the pregnant women about this wonderful opportunity to make some real money, though only after checking that the woman is an American citizen. There will be no illegal baby market!

The contempt for women so many on the religious anti-choice right exhibit always leaves me gagging. How does Dan Patrick think of women to arrive at a bill like this one? He must assume that women are greedy and stupid, greedy to accept money for making babies and stupid to accept such a puny sum. Is he thinking: Heh, heh, this will fool you into making babies for adoption, bitch?

Who am I fooling here? People like State Sen. Patrick don't think of those women as human beings at all. They think of their votes and campaign contributions.

|

Oops! Gonzales-Gate Heating Up 



From the Washington Post:

The leader of the Justice Department team that prosecuted a landmark lawsuit against tobacco companies said yesterday that Bush administration political appointees repeatedly ordered her to take steps that weakened the government's racketeering case.

Sharon Y. Eubanks said Bush loyalists in Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's office began micromanaging the team's strategy in the final weeks of the 2005 trial, to the detriment of the government's claim that the industry had conspired to lie to U.S. smokers.

She said a supervisor demanded that she and her trial team drop recommendations that tobacco executives be removed from their corporate positions as a possible penalty. He and two others instructed her to tell key witnesses to change their testimony. And they ordered Eubanks to read verbatim a closing argument they had rewritten for her, she said.

"The political people were pushing the buttons and ordering us to say what we said," Eubanks said. "And because of that, we failed to zealously represent the interests of the American public."

This looks very serious. But I'm still going to stock up on popcorn.

|

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

A Happy Ending Story 



Read a wonderful study about two women who prevented a third woman from being raped. Thanks to spocko who gave us the link.

|

Curing Cancer 



Ezra Klein has a post on the NIH (National Institutes of Health) budget. After several years of rapid rise in budget allocations, the NIH is now faced with the lean years. The puny promised increases in research funds amount to a drop in the budget in real terms. This creates problems for young researchers who can't get funding for new research and for the universities and other research institutions which would like to keep the young researchers employed with something better than the writing of multiple grant applications in the vain hope of finding enough money somewhere.

As some of Ezra's commenters pointed out, it is not feasible to expect the NIH budget to just surge year after year, and perhaps this is the time to put a halt to the considerable increases of the past. But the whole process looks a little like a car coming from 100 miles per hour to a full stop in ten seconds, not a soft landing for the researchers.

The NIH is an important funding source for medical research which doesn't offer money-making opportunities through patents, the kind which is often viewed as basic medical research. The kind which we hope will find a cure for cancer one day. Most economists, even conservative ones, acknowledge that funding basic medical research is something the government should be involved in, because the markets will underprovide it.

Something to keep in mind when looking at how much money the NIH will get next year.

|

Don't Forget Poland! 



That has to do with the Axis of Good in the Bush wars against terror. But we shouldn't forget Poland in other ways, either. For example, as Rorschach points out, Poland has very restrictive laws on abortion. Abortion is only allowed for pregnancies which result from rape or when the woman's life or health is endangered. But what are the medical grounds that qualify a woman for abortion? Not many, it seems:

The European court of human rights ruled yesterday that Poland was failing to guarantee access to lawful abortions in a test case hailed as a victory for women across Europe and a blow to the deeply conservative government in Warsaw.

The Strasbourg-based court awarded damages to Alicia Tysiac, 35, a single mother of three from Warsaw who is nearly blind. She sued the Polish government after being denied an abortion in 2000 despite medical testimony that her pregnancy would seriously impair her failing eyesight.

In a ruling that obliges all 46 member states of the Council of Europe to ensure abortions are available where they are legal, the court found that Ms Tysiac's privacy rights had been violated and her treatment had caused her "severe distress and anguish". She was awarded costs and €25,000 (£17,000) in damages. After giving birth, Ms Tysiac suffered a retinal haemorrhage, making her eyesight so poor she needed daily medical treatment. She can see no further than 1.5 metres and fears she will go completely blind.

The gist of the court's argument has to do with limiting access to legal abortions. Now wouldn't that be interesting if similar cases could somehow be brought up here in the United States? Limiting access to legal abortions is one of the main tools of the anti-choice legislators everywhere. This is done by hounding abortion clinics, by requiring them to comply with impossible and every-expanding lists of zoning regulations and by attempts to control the ability of minors to cross state borders in order to get an abortion.

|

Subpoenaed 



From the New York Times:

A House Judiciary subcommittee today authorized subpoenas for Karl Rove, President Bush's political adviser, and other senior White House officials in the investigation into the firing of eight United States attorneys.

Democrats said the subpoenas, approved on a voice vote of the panel, would not be issued immediately but could provide leverage for Congress in trying to win the testimony of the aides being sought.

"We have worked toward voluntary cooperation on this investigation, but we must prepare for the possibility that the Justice Department and White House will continue to hide the truth," said Representative Linda Sanchez of California, chairwoman of the subcommittee on commercial and administrative law.

Republicans on the subcommittee said they did not dispute the power of Congress to call the officials, but said the action was premature and smacked of politics.

"The only purpose of the subpoenas is to the fan the flames and photo ops of partisan controversy," said Representative Chris Cannon of Utah, the senior Republican on the subcommittee.

President Bush and Congress appear to be headed toward a constitutional showdown over the demands for testimony and for internal White House documents.

We are headed toward a constitutional showdown, indeed. I'd call it a constitutional crisis, all having to do with signing statements which take away the power of the Congress to make laws, with secret eavesdropping programs which take away the power of the judiciary to make sure that laws are upheld and with attempts to use the press for the political purposes of one single party through the government.

The current problem is just another example of the disrespect of the constitution this administration practices.

|

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Just Finished Cleaning the Bedroom 



See? I can quit blogging whenever I feel like it. I'm not addicted, not me. For instance, I just spent two hours dusting, vacuuming and floor washing. All tasks which can't be done while on the net. I'm balanced. A perfectly stable goddess. That the last time I cleaned the bedroom was in ancient history is immaterial.

Isn't it?

|

Lakshmi Chaudhry on Soft-Core Sexism 



Black Snake Moan is a movie with an "interesting" plot: Childhood abuse has made a woman into "a nymphomaniac", always seeking sex with strangers. The cure is to chain her to a radiator wearing nothing but her panties. There she can moan and wriggle harmlessly.

Then add a layer of race onto this story of fairly obvious misogyny. Make the woman chained to the radiator white and the man who does the (well-intentioned!) chaining black and set the whole story in the American South. What do you get? A masterpiece which is something quite different than the sexual violence it sells, because it has reversed racism?

Lakshmi Chaudhry summarizes what is wrong with movies like this one:

The movie's misogyny is hardly surprising from a director known for promoting the dubious proposition, in Hustle & Flow, that "it's hard out here for a pimp." But what passed for mere indifference to women in that movie is revealed to be an unmistakable lack of compassion in Black Snake Moan. Rae is a victim of childhood abuse who channels her pain through a raging appetite for sex with strangers, which finally gets her beaten, raped and left for dead on the side of the road. In Brewer's world, however, it is Rae who needs to be "cured" and not the men who heedlessly use her for sex, with or without her consent. So along comes Lazarus to help her "collar that dawg," which is her libido.

But that would spoil the whole purpose of the movie which is to ogle at the almost-nekked woman chained to the radiator while pretending that it isn't sadism.

|

A Stern Editor Or How Government And Science Interact 



The joke about us all now living in a faith-based world may be growing stale, but it's a very apt description of happenings like this one:

Democratic lawmakers released documents today that showed hundreds of instances in which a White House official who was previously an oil industry lobbyist edited government climate reports to play up uncertainty or to play down evidence of a human role in global warming.

In a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the official, Philip A. Cooney, who left government in 2005, defended the changes he made in government reports over several years, saying the editing was part of the normal White House review process and reflected findings in a climate report written for President Bush by the National Academy of Sciences in 2001.

...

"The documents show that Mr. Cooney and other Council on Environmental Quality officials made at least 181 edits to the Administration's Strategic Plan of the Climate Change Science Program to exaggerate or emphasize scientific uncertainties," the memo said. "They also made at least 113 edits to the plan to deemphasize or diminish the importance of the human role in global warming."

It tastes like those old stories about the Soviet stranglehold on its scientists. There may be something about all empires which makes them grow to look alike whatever the initial ideological base.

See how the faith-based ideology works? What doesn't match is altered, edited out and denied by accusing the opposition of blind partisanship. So much noise is made (of the he-said-she-said kind) that at the end of the day we all want to put a pillow over our heads and never hear a politician speak again. And that is what the system relies on.

The real problem is that we have an administration which equates the needs of the country with the needs of one political party.

|

Picturing Military and Militant Women 



Majikthise points out that an article about military women suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has some odd pictures accompanying it. Like this one:





The reclining position? Would they have shown a man suffering from PTSD that way? Perhaps.

This site, via joltblog, has a large number of pictures relating to women's suffrage. Here is one example (heh):





For touching artistic renditions of the faces of military women who have died in Iraq, visit borntowar.com. Cpl Ramona Valdez, killed by a carbomb in Fallujah at age 20:




|

Monday, March 19, 2007

Choices, Choices 






The conservatives suffer from what used to be called a multiple personality disorder (remember The Three Faces of Eve?) when defending the traditional division of labor between men and women. They can't figure out if women staying at home is something our genes force us to do or if it is something the god of the fundamentalists forces us to do or if it is just a thing women choose to do (la donna è mobile).

The Independent Women's Forum (a gals' subsidiary to the extreme right) mostly argues that women choose to focus on their children and therefore choose to have lower earnings and less retirement income one day. Here "choice" is used very much in the way I would use it in deciding whether to have chocolate or vanilla ice cream on my cone on a nice spring day. These women have no societal norms, no disapproving in-laws, no uncooperative bosses, and certainly no regrets. The wider society doesn't matter in these choices at all. Not even the children's father matters, as you can see from the usual graphics accompanying stories about family-work balance: A woman holding a baby and perhaps a telephone.

That's one of Eve's many faces in the conservatives' multiple personality disorder. Then there is the fundamentalist wing which argues that God has intended women to stay at home to be helpmeets to the men who are the real family leaders and priests. No choice here, at all, just the unavoidable divine judgment, although the Bible never says that women should stay at home. But consistency must be a hobgoblin of only small fundamentalist minds.

The third face of Eve on the right is the Evolutionary Psychology one. The capital letters are to distinguish this popularized version of various prejudices from real evolutionary psychology. The capital letter version believes that women were once primitive cavewives, cooking the mammoth the valiant hubby caught with his bare teeth, and so it will be, forevermore. In this view of the past women never did any hunting or gathering or small-game hunting or anything much outside the cave.

The problem with all these multiple personalities the conservatives offer as an explanation for traditional sex roles is that if one is shot down another one takes its place. But the most common of them is still the choice-based argument, and what is interesting about it is how well the conservatives have managed to sell it as the general explanation to the mainstream media. E.J. Graff has written an excellent article on the so-called opt-out phenomenon among professional women and on its treatment as "choice" along the vanilla-chocolate dimension of ice-cream flavors. She points out the ahistorical aspect of all this writing and its reappearance decade after decade, with the same framing focusing on nothing but the one woman in isolation from the wider society or even her own partner.

A postscript: This tendency of viewing women in isolation from everything else is not a solely American phenomenon. Broadsheet reports on the German movement to lure women back into hausfrauery. One of its proponents argues that "the survival of the country is at stake -- Germans will 'die out' if women don't change their behavior."

Note how it is women alone who are to change their behavior, even though the incentives for them to do so will not be altered? This in a country where school is over very early in the day and where children are expected to go home for lunch, both factors which obviously affect the costs of having many children. And note, once again, how men are not asked to change anything on the surface, though of course they would have to work much harder to support larger families as the sole breadwinners, ultimately.

|

E.J. Graff On The Opt-Out Phenomenon 



E.J. Graff has written a very good piece on the astroturf-trend of women in high positions opting out of the labor force. An excellent piece, in fact, and you should read it all, right now, because I can't do it justice by slicing it up and offering you just a few snippets to savor.

|

Spaghetti Straps and Lasagna 



An op-ed in the Friday New York Times by Judith Warner is all about the sexualization of young girls and its negative effects:

Bling-Bling Barbies and pouty-lipped Bratz. Thongs for tweens, and makeover parties for 5-year-olds. The past couple of shopping seasons have brought a constant stream of media stories — and books and school lectures and anguished mom conversations — all decrying the increasingly tarted-up world of young girls and preteens. Now the American Psychological Association has weighed in as well, with a 67-page report on the dangers of the "sexualization" of girls.

The report takes aim at the music lyrics, Internet content, video games and clothing that are now being marketed to younger and younger kids, and correlates their smutty content with a number of risks to girls' well-being. It finds that sexualization — turning someone into "eye candy" — is linked to eating disorders, low self-esteem and depression in girls and women. Adopting an early identity as a "Hot Tot" also has, the researchers wrote, "negative consequences on girls' ability to develop healthy sexuality."

This isn't surprising, or even new. But what did surprise me, reading through the A.P.A.'s many pages of recommendations for fighting back (like beefed-up athletics, extracurriculars, religion, spirituality, "media literacy" and meditation), was the degree to which the experts — who in an earlier section of the report acknowledge the toxicity of mother-daughter "fat talk" — let moms themselves off the hook as agents of destruction requiring change.

Then Ms. Warner goes on to put the blame squarely on the mothers' shoulders, because those shoulders are wearing spaghetti straps in the vain attempt to look more like hotties than mommies. Mommies should be more lasagna-like: layers of secrets, all looking admirably put-together and sturdy. That way daddy could just tuck in without having to worry about the strings.

Where did that last sentence come from? Probably from the total absence, once again, of anything having to do with dads in these opinion pieces. It's regarded as risque and novel and fascinating to point out that women try to look younger and sexier than they deserve to be and that their tiny daughters might be trying to emulate this. It's not at all interesting to look at the rest of the family or the society or the corporations to see what they think of all this sexiness chase.

The sexualization of very young girls is commercial. It is driven by the popular culture, the television and the corporations which sell stuff. It even has links to the suddenly much more acceptable view of women as the service stations for blowjobs and the presence of porn (focusing on women's bodies only) everywhere. And it has links to the idea that plastic breasts are necessary if yours don't stick out like sore thumbs or balloons. Young people grow up thinking that this is where the value of girls will be and the sooner they learn to be good at it the better.

Making mothers dress differently is not going to do anything to stop this wave of changed thinking. Go to the stores and look at the clothes that are being offered for sale in the pre-teen girls market. Check out some of those websites for the new sex dolls sold as Barbie replacements. Spend some time on the threads of blogs to find out what the general views are on women's bodies and how they should be employed in sex. Listen to some popular music the kids listen to. Then you will begin to get an inkling of the enormity of the task any parent resisting this trend is facing.

And no, this is not the fault of feminists, although you will hear that claim soon enough from some wingnut writer. Feminists want women to be full human beings, not sex dolls.

|

Monday Morning Fun 





|

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Koan For Lent 

Posted by olvlzl.
What does it mean that the new, blue peeps look unnatural?

That is, as opposed to the old, yellow ones.
|

More From Andy Schlafly’s Braintrust 

Posted by olvlzl.
Earth
Contents

1. Secular Earth Information

2. Young Earth Information
Some Young Earth Creationists, because they are biblical literalists also dispute the shape of the earth, and the idea that the Earth Rotates around the Sun.

2.1 Shape of the Earth
"Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory." (Matthew 4:8)
Such mountains, such a tree or such a view of Jesus could only be possible on a flat earth could only be possible on a flat earth.

2.2 Position of the Earth
In the view of the Bible the Earth is fixed, and the sun revolves around it. This can be found in several passages:

3. Christianity and the Earth...

Given the lack of citations in Conservapedia let me ask you, have you ever heard of “Fixed Earth”?
|

More On Toensing 

Here’s more on the Toensing act of last Friday. From Phoenix Woman at Mercury Rising Blog


It was fun watching Toensing blanch when Waxman told her that her testimony would be fact-checked. Waxman made it perfectly clear that he had no time for her nonsense, then gave her a final, elegant stab to let her evade being brought up on perjury charges – if she was willing to “correct” her lies. Now she’s caught between two fires: Admit she lied, or face perjury charges.

It’s fascinating that something that was nearly as big news as the hearing itself would be all but ignored by the mainstream press. Yet the accounts I’ve seen barely mention Toensing’s presence, much less her lying under oath.
|
The first night of Spring

Oh, no. Not Another One

BOOM ....
Look at! BOOM.... Me!
|

An Obscure Maine Poet On A Day Of Melting Snow 

The Stone-Wall

Obliterated faces
Look up from the stones
When noon inks in the shadows.
Life is in these drones.
Nothing else created
Has such secret eyes;
Dim mouths set as these are
Make no cries.

Dwellers underground
Dragged up to the air
Lie out and plot together
Against alien glare,
Back to darkness sinking
At a pace too slow
For man's eyes to mark, less
Swift than shells grow.
Inhabitants of darkness,
Dragged up to the light,
Bend their graven faces
Back to night.

Nothing from without
Can break their calm.
--The warm snout of a rock
Nuzzles my palm.

Abbie Huston Evans
|

Not On My Life 

Posted by olvlzl.
One of their cliche bound segment producers might say that it’s like a can of mixed nuts bought at the Wal-Mart, a few cashews and pecans but mostly low grade peanuts. That’s how one of the show’s segments might describe “This American Life”. I’m not a regular listener, finding it is mostly an irritating mix of superficial cliche’s, superficial nihilism and juvenile whining. But some of it has been superb, and on at least one occasion great journalism. The piece about the first real survey to try to estimate how many people died in the invasion and of Iraq and the aftermath was one of the best things I’ve heard on the radio in the past ten years. The piece that began with an obscure children’s photo-story book of the 50s and which unfolded into the horrific, puppet- person life of the photographer and author (she was also a fashion model) was great.

That said, too many of the segments are superficial and facilely ironic, too many of them are a presentation of an attitude that is just lazily and cooly cynical as edgy and smart. Too often the segments are about nothing much presented as if that was cool. Too often, also, the show’s producers exploit private people who are still alive, some of whom are really stupid to expose their unattractive lives to a national audience. It’s Jerry Springer for the middle-brow set.

Like Joanna Weiss in her critique in today’s Boston Globe I don’t dislike Ira Glass. I rather like his voice, which is a nice change from better radio voices. I don’t generally like people who imitate his low key delivery, many of whom find their way into segments. They are usually flat, lacking the frequent note of amusement that Glass has. But Ira Glass did do one thing for which I won’t forgive him, he promoted David Sedaris. I can’t stand his cutely cynical, superficial bitchiness and am offended when he’s assumed to be a typical gay man. Like the idiots who mistook Clare Booth's “The Women” for a feminist document, I don’t find anything attractive in the Sedaris presentation of being gay. I've found that Sedaris is much more popular among straight people than he is among gay people. Though he does have some gay fans.

You might want to read the other side in the Globe given by Matthew Gilbert.
|

Saturday, March 17, 2007

Alito, Scalia, Roberts, Sentelle.... 

Which one do you want puzzling over the MRIs and setting precedents?
Posted by olvlzl.
Jeffrey Rosen's piece in the New York Times Magazine last Sunday is too good an example of what I’ve been warning about to pass up. Regular readers of this blog will know what I've been writing about the overstated claims made by increasing numbers of cognitive and behavioral scientists and concerns about people in authority who might act on those claims. Though Rosen introduces the use of it into arguments against the fixation on punishment by the legal system, that is incredibly naive. The assertion that people who are not legally insane behave as a result of their brain chemistry and physiology instead of free choice is more likely to lead to the conclusion of Peter Lorre’s gangster jury in the movie “M”, that people who can’t keep themselves from committing crimes should be exterminated. Who can look at the judicial system and political climate we have and not see that as the likely outcome?

Rosen begins badly with the assertion that “since all behavior is caused by our brains, wouldn’t this mean all behavior could potentially be excused”? The statement that all behavior is caused by our brains isn’t science, it’s philosophy. The attempts to find answers to questions of this kind go back at least to the dawn of the Samkhya school in India c. 200 CE. The impossibility of coming up with even the first answer, whether there is a self there in the first place, it’s doubtful the question can be answered. For similar reasons it’s doubtful that the more overblown claims of the researchers are on much higher ground. Those stem from assertions that what they can see is all that there is, that is also philosophy. Any conclusions as to what imaging and chemical analysis mean would be based on an analysis of data drawn from a number of individuals, it would start with that philosophical stand. The results would also be an interpretation of a statistical analysis of the group as a whole. What that evidence and the analysis means doesn’t reach the question of where the behavior of any individual starts. Even tested individuals could well be excluded from the analysis as outliers.

Rosen’s article goes into the work of “Owen Jones, a professor of law and biology at Vanderbilt. Jones (who happens to have been one of my law-school classmates*)” who is “turning Vanderbilt into a kind of Los Alamos for neurolaw. The university has just opened a $27 million neuroimaging center and has poached leading neuroscientists from around the world; soon, Jones hopes to enroll students in the nation’s first program in law and neuroscience.” “It”s breathlessly exciting,” he says. “This is the new frontier in law and science we’re peering into the black box to see how the brain is actually working, that hidden place in the dark quiet, where we have our private thoughts and private reactions and the law will inevitably have to decide how to deal with this new technology.”

With that amount of funding and the investment in professional and personal credibility and pride how much do you want to bet that they don’t come up with anything less than firm assertions? With the judicial system being what it is, you don’t have to guess that somewhere, some judge dazzled with their images and pedigree will accept them at their word and start building precedent and a legal framework that will become imbedded. It could be someone with ties to Vanderbuilt. Once it has been, that precedent will affect what our legal system does to people. And given the preference for the judicial system to “to substitute words for reality and then argue about the words,**" you can guess that the legal effect might well have a longer shelf life than the “science”.

How much of a reach is it to speculate once it becomes part of case law that it has an effect on legislation? With the number of lawyers in the Congress and state legislatures it’s a sure bet.

A good question to ask at the start is why this “science” is a sounder basis for law enforcement than an effort to generate better and more honest crime scene evidence. The physical aspects of evidence are certainly more easily analyzed than the product of cognitive science. Unlike the assertions of the science, most of those can be seen. Shouldn’t those who want to insert these speculations into the judicial system have to show results at least as good as real forensic science?

There are much better ways to argue against punishment as the method of dealing with those convicted of crimes than to go down this road. As pointed out in the beginning asserting that people don’t exercise free will is an invitation to disaster. It also endangers civil liberties and freedom. There is no getting around that, when the possibility of free will is denied the logical conclusion is that democracy is an illusion. We don’t need the speculations of self-interested scientists to tell us what has happens when that is assumed, we’ve got the horrible and bloody history of the 20th century to look at. That is all too real.

Punishment as law enforcement has a track record of failure and it’s expensive. Those two arguments are more likely to wash politically than “neurolaw”. I would also argue that punishment is not only useless but a fixation on it is no different from a desire for revenge. Revenge, far from being the virtue that it is presented as in entertainment, debases those who long for it and those who achieve it. That, however, isn’t an argument that will work in today’s political atmosphere which has been polluted by crime shows and sensational cabloid swill. That atmosphere is the one into which Jones and Rosen propose launching their new science. The results won’t be what they intend.

More generally, for our politics. Since the question of free will is impossible to answer, what should be done about it? I think that it should be assumed to exist because that assumption is useful in avoiding dictatorship and other awful things. It’s sort of like the complex number system using what are called the “imaginary numbers”. Those exist largely because they are useful. Their invention was based in utility and the theoretical framework expanded to include them. Politics and law are a lot more flexible than the exigent requirements of math. They can be informed by science but they don’t need to only rely on it. Holmes, who made unfortunate decisions based on unwise faith in biological determinism, said that the life of the law was based in experience, not logic. From his example, who can doubt that experience tempered by humility is probably a better guide when dealing with questions of free will.

* That fact alone should be a red flag. I’d feel a lot better about Rosen’s account of the lab if he had no connection to Jones. I think Rosen’s article is far too credulous about the science. It feels like there’s just too much awestruck wonder there.

** I’ve used this quote by Edwin Armstrong before.
|

A Glycemic Nightmare for St. Patrick’s Day 

or, You don’t have to eat it all at once.
Posted by olvlzl.

Boxty
4 medium potatoes
1 c. flour
1t. salt
1c. milk (soy milk works) or yogurt
2 eggs beaten

Grate two of the potatoes and squeeze the water from them by hand.
Boil the other two potatoes and mash them.

Mix all of the ingredients together until combined and bake in a greased casserole dish at 350 for about forty minutes or until done.

You can add onions.

Colcannon
Combine diced, boiled potatoes and lightly blanched, diced cabbage in whatever proportions you like. I like more cabbage and I always end up throwing in some onions. Fry in a tablespoon or so of oil until tender.

Soda Bread
4 c. flour
3 T sugar
1 t salt
1 t soda
1 t baking powder
4 T cold butter cut into pieces
1 egg
2 C buttermilk
Optional, 3 T. Caraway seeds

Mix dry ingredients together. Add butter and cut in. Add raisins and caraway.
Add the egg and butter milk and quickly and lightly knead till just incorporated
Bake at 425 degrees F. 40-45 minutes.

Tea Loaf
1 1/2 cups hot tea
2 c raisins
2 c currents
1 egg
1 t mixed spice
2 t baking powder
1 c soft brown sugar
3 1/2 c flour.

Soak fruit in hot tea till cold. Preheat oven to 325 degrees F. Mix egg, spice, baking powder, sugar , flour and the dry fruit. Pour into cake pan. Bake 1 1/2 hours or until a skewer comes out clean. Or steam. Turn out after five minutes of cooling.
|

My People Aren’t The Green Beer Type 

Posted by olvlzl.
My mother’s uncle Jimmy was a hopeless alcoholic after being discharged from the army in World War One. As a result both my grandparents and parents were tea-totalers. Coffee, actually. So I never grew up with the stereotype Irish drinking culture that has become the unfortunate celebration of St. Patrick’s Day in the United States. I never understood how you could dye stout green, anyway.

There are some good Irish resources on the web.

Irish language: My people coming from Cork I’d rather be able to give you a Munster dialect resource but these Ulster Irish lessons from the BBC in Northern Ireland are pretty good. You might enjoy watching these cartoons too, though I doubt you’re going to learn much language from them. I’ve watched the Welsh and Scots versions and think the voice actors in the Irish ones are funnier.
|

The Republicans Have Got Nothing 

Posted by olvlzl.
Several things are clear from the hearings before Henry Waxman’s committee yesterday. First is that Valerie Plame Wilson is by far more credible than any of the professional liars that the Republicans and their media have put forward. And why shouldn’t she be? While they’ve been in the U.S. building their careers as flacks, hacks and wacks she was maintaining cover as a spy, trying to discover the truth in service to her country. The Toensings of America enjoy the massive media establishment PR machine to pretend that they’re credible. Plame Wilson was pretty much on her own maintaining cover in what must have been pretty dangerous conditions. What is pretended to be Toensing’s cred hangs on her having been a hack staffer decades ago and a constant mouthpiece of Republican talking points with memorable hair ever since. Does her law degree make her any more credible than the C list hack, Morton Kondracke? It shouldn’t after yesterday’s assertions that Plame Wilson wasn’t a covert agent. That was, to put it entirely plainly, a lie told under oath. It was a lie with the cowardly assertions and conditional statements that are the hallmark of legal casuistry.

Another thing that is clear, Toensing is the best that the Republicans in Congress and the Bush Junta have to offer by way of defense. Her lies will be spread all over the cabloids and right-wing hate talk radio but, for people who are interested in reality instead of lies, they will be confirmation that the Bush regime has turned the United States Government into a lawless, irresponsible and vengeful rogue state. For them even winning isn’t the only thing. Getting their hands on the U.S. government and stealing everything they can is. That is the key to understanding the Republican rule of the last six years.
|

"Erin Go Braless, 

that's what I say".
Bette Midler
|

Friday, March 16, 2007

A Nonpolitical Friday Garden Story 






Because it is snowing outside:

Why I Garden

My secret real reason for gardening is that I am scared of my hairdresser. And of my dentist and other people's elected political representatives. All these people tend to find me faulty, and insist on wagging their forefinger at me while giving sermons on how to improve my hair, teeth or lifestyle. However hard I try, I fail to make them scared of me, their true employer.

Plants don't wag anything at me, don't preach, don't condemn. They may not be scared of me, either, but at least they know their proper place. They never ask me if I knew what I was doing when I trimmed my own bangs. They never talk at all.

Gardens are quiet, healing places, where no-one is interested in the gardeners' bank balances, school grades or family values. We can wear anything that is comfortable, however awful the resulting visual combinations, and not a single plant shudders. We can make the most elementary horticultural mistakes, and the insects simply go on flying, crawling and chewing without even one snide remark or sidelong sneer. And no-one in the garden tries to sell us anything.

Even the most extroverted gardener needs such a respite from the human community. Gardens charge our mental and physical batteries and restore our sense of proportion. And spotting new examples of nature's beauty or bounty makes us wish to share these with others. Our pleasure in the company of people is, paradoxically, renewed by their very absence from the garden.

Some days I go to weed and water in the garden prepared to resign from the human race. Then the garden takes over, the passing time goes unnoticed, and suddenly, it seems, night is falling. As I stow away my tools, tired and hungry, the company of other people is once again welcome. I enter the brightly lit house, ready for dinner, for good conversation and perhaps even for finding a new hairdresser.


|

Women And Op-Ed Pieces 



Patricia Cohen has written an interesting article on the scarcity of women op-ed writers and on one woman, Catherine Orenstein, who plans to fix that scarcity problem. Cohen begins by summarizing the problem and Orenstein's solution to it:

Whatever other reasons may explain the lack of women's voices on the nation's op-ed pages, the lack of women asking to be there is clearly part of the problem. Many opinion page editors at major newspapers across the country say that 65 or 75 percent of unsolicited manuscripts, or more, come from men.

The obvious solution, at least to Catherine Orenstein, an author, activist and occasional op-ed page contributor herself, was to get more women to submit essays. To that end Ms. Orenstein has been training women at universities, foundations and corporations to write essays and get them published.

Uproars over the sparse numbers of women in newspapers, or on news programs, in magazines, and on best-seller lists regularly erupt every couple of years. A doozy occurred in 2005, after the liberal commentator Susan Estrich and Michael Kinsley, then editor of The Los Angeles Times's opinion pages, got into a nasty scuffle over the lack of female columnists. That dustup is what motivated Ms. Orenstein to take her op-ed show on the road, which she has done with support from the Woodhull Institute, an ethics and leadership group for women.

Orenstein teaches the basic rules of op-ed writing in her courses, and that is a good thing, of course. But I'm not sure that the reason for fewer female op-ed writers is that obvious. Do men know those rules so much better? I doubt it.

Do you know what would be fun? A study which looks at all those submissions, the ones which are predominantly male. Such a study could analyze the submissions for how well they are written, for the rules that Orenstein refers to, and for the topic of the submission. This would be fun and also informative, because some of Cohen's arguments in the NYT article suggest that women are more careful about what they might send in, and if this is true then it just could be that the average quality of the female-penned op-ed submissions is better than the average of the male-penned pieces. Or it could be that women really don't know the rules and that therefore the average female-written submission is of lower quality. Or the average qualities could be identical. My point is that we don't really know that they are.

My guess is that women, on average, write about somewhat different political and social topics and that there may be a biased filter at the other end, a filter which traps more of those submissions as uninteresting, because they have been traditionally underrepresented in the media.

I have written about these questions before, usually around the time when there is one of those waves of asking where all the women bloggers are and why they are no good, but a short way of explaining my opinion is that this might be one of those questions in which we need to apply both prongs of my feminist definition fork:

We need to make sure that women have an equal opportunity to participate in the public debate AND we need to value the traditionally female fields of activity as much as the traditionally male fields of activity. The latter means that the definition of politics and the view of What Is Really Important may have to change, to allow for equal treatment of the so-called "women's issues" on op-ed pages.

|

A Threat To National Security 



This is what protesting feminists have been called in Iran:

- Prominent Iranian women's rights leaders Shadi Sadr and Mahboubeh Abbasgholizadeh remain in jail after being arrested for peacefully protesting on March 4. The women, who were arrested with some 30 feminist activists for protesting the detainment of four other Iranian feminists, have been charged with being a "threat to national security," the Campaign to Free Women's Rights Defenders in Iran reports. According to independent news source Huliq.com, they have been ordered to serve a month-long detainment.

The Iranian theocrats take the feminist threat seriously. I wonder if any of these arrests had to do with trying to prevent demonstrations on the International Women's Day?

|

Climate Crisis Action Day: March 20, 2007 



A big event is being planned for March 20, in Washington, D.C. Click here for more information.

|

Hillary-Bashing in the Media 



It's boring for me, because it's very early days in this game and I can't quite see what cards the Hillary-bashers might be holding up their sleeves. Maybe the idea is to get us so used to the misogyny and the Bill-hating that we would never, ever push the button for her.

Note carefully that what I'm talking about here is not Hillary Clinton's political views or plans. Those are fair game for attacking, analyzing and discussing. I'm talking about this stuff:

On the March 15 edition of NBC's Today, co-host Meredith Vieira asked Democratic presidential candidate and Sen. Barack Obama (IL) about "the marriage factor" in the 2008 election, saying that former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) "all married multiple times." She added, "Plus, [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] has had her marriage troubles as well."

Vieira's reference to Clinton in the same question as Giuliani, McCain, and Gingrich (here and here) suggests that Clinton's "marriage factor" issues are comparable to those of the Republican presidential candidates, overlooking the obvious difference: Giuliani, McCain, and Gingrich themselves have histories of extramarital relationships, while in Clinton's case, it is the conduct of her spouse to which Vieira was presumably referring.

Or this stuff:

From the March 15 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:

BECK: I don't want to sound like the old ball-and-chain guy, but Hillary Clinton cannot be elected president because -- am I wrong in feeling, am I the only one in America that feels this way? -- that there's something about her vocal range. There's something about her voice that just drives me -- it's not what she says, it's how she says it. She is like the stereotypical -- excuse the expression, but this is the way to -- she's the stereotypical bitch, you know what I mean? She's that stereotypical, nagging, [unintelligible], you know what I mean? And she doesn't have to be saying -- she could be saying happy things, but after four years, don't you think every man in America will go insane? Is it just me? I mean, I know this is horrible to say, but I mean it not -- I would say this if she were Condi Rice and she sounded like that. Condi Rice doesn't have that grate to her voice. You know what I need to do? I need to talk to a vocal expert, because there is a range in women's voices that experts say is just the chalk, I mean, the fingernails on the blackboard. And I don't know if she's using that range or what it is, but I've heard her in speeches where I can't take it.

Wouldn't it be a fascinating experiment to take these two quotes and then to apply them to president Bush? We would dig up events from Laura's history and we would use them against George, as if George had carried them out himself. Then we would point out that George is cross-eyed and has a voice which makes some of us run screaming from the room when the television has been accidentally left on when he speaks. And then we would point out that we have had six years of this already.

|

Thursday, March 15, 2007

On Alberto Gonzales and Related Syndromes 



My brain works in mysterious ways today. I wrote a full post about fall guys, scapegoats and strawwomen without really getting to the reason for that post, the reason being the recent Walter Reed scandal and the still-widening Gonzales Gate*, and how these two are producing lots of new fall guys and gals, some scapegoats and even a few strawfigures. As an example, consider the firing of the eight federal prosecutors (which I call the Gonzales Gate) and the most recent chapter in the saga:

New unreleased e-mails from top administration officials show that the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys was raised by White House adviser Karl Rove in early January 2005, indicating Rove was more involved in the plan than the White House previously acknowledged.

The e-mails also show that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales discussed the idea of firing the attorneys en masse weeks before he was confirmed as attorney general.

The e-mails directly contradict White House assertions that the notion originated with recently departed White House counsel Harriet Miers, and was her idea alone.

The eight fired prosecutors look like scapegoats. D. Kyle Sampson, Gonzales's former Chief of Staff was most likely a fall guy. Harriet Miers, according to the above quote, may have been intended for a fall gal. And the strawmen? That would depend on your political views, I guess, but certainly the conservatives attempt to argue that the whole scandal is a strawman created by the Democrats.

Now cast your mind back a bit, to the Walter Reed scandal. Many heads fell in that one, and I think that at least one head might not have belonged to a fall guy or a mastermind but a scapegoat. That would be the head of George W. Weightman, the last commander of the Walter Reed complex. He wasn't the commander for long enough to have been responsible for the state of affairs at Walter Reed and there is some evidence that he was trying to improve matters. But he had to be made to resign. Symbolism seems to demand it.

----
*A good place to follow the events of the Gonzales Gate is Josh Marshall's place, but a quick summary of the issue is that it is all about lying or not lying to the Congress.

|

The Fall Guy, The Scapegoat And The Strawwoman 



Sounds like the company Judy Garland had on her travels in the Wizard of Oz, but these are really creatures in the political games. I made the last a strawwoman in the interest of feminism, by the way.

All three creatures wear funny clothing and sing catchy tunes in an old movie in my mind, but underneath all that surface gaiety is something menacing or at least mean-spirited. If you place the three side by side in the order of my title, then the first one on the left, the fall guy, is at least partially guilty of something but not the mastermind of the crime or other deplorable deed. A fall guy/gal might be someone like Private Lynndie England , sentenced for torturing people at the Abu Ghraib prison. She obviously did it, but it is very unclear whether she just got the brilliant idea of having some fun that way or whether she was following orders. If the latter, then she is the fall gal, one to take on the guilt of all others. Like Scooter Libby, perhaps. Fall guys and fall gals are always less powerful than the masterminds who get off scot-free.

The scapegoat is the person in the middle of my title. A scapegoat is innocent and that is how he or she differs from the fall guy/gal. Traditionally a scapegoat was burdened with the crimes and sins of all residents of an area and then brutally killed or driven out of town. This was believed to appease the blood-thirsty divinities (though we divines prefer chocolate). We don't go quite as far today in most cases. It's usually enough to destroy the reputation of the scapegoat.

Political games are often about whether a person is a fall guy or a scapegoat or the incredibly powerful mastermind of some heinous deed. Poor women on welfare were the scapegoats of a lot of societal anger in the 1990s, laden with every accusation that could be thought and driven to the outer margins of acceptable society. A way of cleansing our own consciences. Disgusting, too.

The last person in my title, the one on the very right edge, is the strawman or strawwoman, something made out for the very purpose of being accused. There is a link to the scapegoat here, because strawmen have in the past also been burned in symbolic killings of some idea or cause, but strawmen are not living creatures at all.

The political game regards it morally legitimate to try to turn other players or their ideas into fall guys, scapegoats or strawwomen. So now you know.

|

Khalid Sheikh Muhammad Confesses 




Read the list of crimes that he masterminded here. Perhaps he indeed is the mastermind of every single terrorist act in the last twenty years. Perhaps. Or he has cracked and is confessing to everything anybody suggests to him. I wonder if they tried asking him about the Lindbergh baby kidnapping.

|

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Meanwhile, in Texas 



Governor (Goodhair) Perry's recent order requiring the vaccination of sixth-grade girls against the human papillomavirus is facing stern and abstinent opposition:

Texas lawmakers are fighting to block the governor's order requiring that sixth-grade girls be vaccinated against the virus that causes cervical cancer, with the House giving final approval to a bill to make the shots strictly voluntary.

Gov. Rick Perry's executive order has inflamed conservatives who say it contradicts Texas' abstinence-only sexual education policies and intrudes into family lives. Some critics also have questioned whether the vaccine has been proven safe.

The House voted 118-23 on Wednesday to approve a bill that would keep the vaccine off the list of required shots for school attendance. The measure now heads to the state Senate, where more than half the members are co-sponsoring an identical bill.

The 118 votes for the bill Wednesday would be more than enough to override a veto by the governor.

...

The governor's office has estimated that only 25 percent of young women in Texas would get the vaccine if it is not mandatory.

This means that 75% of young women in Texas would not be vaccinated. Does the legislature really think that three fourths of all young women in Texas will stay abstinent until marriage and that they will all marry young men who have never had sex and therefore can't be carriers of the virus? Or is it just that premarital sex is worse than dying of cancer?

|

A Chocolate Cake Post 



burp



(I always wanted to do this.)
|

Give, Give, Give 




The very excellent Majikthise is having a fund drive week. She needs your contributions to continue blogging, so if you have some extra pennies under the sofa cushions send them to her.

Or to me, if you have even more spare change. A friend suggested that I should do a fund drive aimed at the people who hate my writing. I could offer to quit once I reach a hundred thousand dollars! Of course I wouldn't really quit but I'd just change mah style and name.

|

What Is A Bigot? 



This question occurred to me when I read a recent Media Matters piece about the bigots of the left who will oppose Mitt Romney's presidential candidacy because he is a Mormon:

Summary: On Hannity & Colmes, Hugh Hewitt claimed that Mitt Romney is "not going to have a problem with pro-lifers" in seeking the presidency in 2008, but rather "[h]e's going to have problem with anti-Mormon bigots on the left, especially." However, recent polls indicate that more liberals than conservatives would be willing to vote for a Mormon.

I realized that my inner emotional word dictionary equates "bigot" with "someone with strongly racist beliefs" mostly, though I also interpret bigotry as an ingrained fanatic belief in the inferiority of some other group. So I looked up some actual dictionary definitions of the word:

n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions
differing from his own

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Bigot \Big"ot\, a.
Bigoted. [Obs.]

In a country more bigot than ours. --Dryden.

Bigot \Big"ot\, n. [F. bigot a bigot or hypocrite, a name once
given to the Normans in France. Of unknown origin; possibly
akin to Sp. bigote a whisker; hombre de bigote a man of
spirit and vigor; cf. It. s-bigottire to terrify, to appall.
Wedgwood and others maintain that bigot is from the same
source as Beguine, Beghard.]
1. A hypocrite; esp., a superstitious hypocrite. [Obs.]

2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of
religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or
opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable
or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is
intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in
politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to
his own church, party, belief, or opinion.

To doubt, where bigots had been content to wonder
and believe. --Macaulay.


Or, in shorter terms:

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Very wide, these definitions are. Wouldn't they make Hugh Hewitt, the person described in the Media Matters quote a bigot himself, just because he accuses others of bigotry without evidence?

|

No Child Left Behind 



Kevin Drum and Matthew Yglesias disagree about the meaning of the 100% goals in the No Child Left Behind legislation, this one:

No Child Left Behind, the landmark federal education law, sets a lofty standard: that all students tested in reading and math will reach grade level by 2014. Even when the law was enacted five years ago, almost no one believed that standard was realistic.

But now, as Congress begins to debate renewing the law, lawmakers and education officials are confronting the reality of the approaching deadline and the difficult political choice between sticking with the vision of universal proficiency or backing away from it.

"There is a zero percent chance that we will ever reach a 100 percent target," said Robert L. Linn, co-director of the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing at UCLA. "But because the title of the law is so rhetorically brilliant, politicians are afraid to change this completely unrealistic standard. They don't want to be accused of leaving some children behind."

Drum suspects that this is a plot by the conservatives to have almost all public schools fail. Yglesias finds this paranoid and points out that states can define what a 100% proficiency means, to make it such a low level that all children can pass.

Of course the program is then nothing but political mouthwash. Come to think of it, it's political mouthwash even if that is not true.

|

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Anniversary -- Escaping institutionalization 

This is a guest post by Blue Lily, or Kay Olson, of The Gimp Parade. Echidne has kindly given me access to post here on weekends, and while I'm technically breaking this little part of our agreement I DID originally post this at my site last Sunday. I trust the Goddess will let me know if I'm abusing my privileges, but I wanted to share before I forgot, which could totally happen between now and the weekend. Thanks all.


This past Tuesday, March 6, was the one-year anniversary of my returning home from my four-month hospital stay. What makes the date so important is that my insurance company tried very hard to have me sent to a nursing home after I'd been at the rehab hospital for two months. I was progressing with occupational and physical rehab, I was attempting to wean off the vent, and I was learning how to speak with the trach and ventilator. I was gaining weight -- up to 92 pounds from my low of 75 when I entered the ICU in November 2005.

Had the insurance company gotten it's way, I would have gone to the one nursing home in the entire Twin Cities they considered "in network" and accepting of vent-dependent clients. And I firmly believe that would have led to my death -- quite possibly in this past year.

From the beginning of my medical crisis, my parents and I had talked about how we would try our best to adapt to my changing needs -- the increased need for skilled assistance, the steep learning curve for the vent, trach and feeding tube, the medical bills threatening their financial security as well as mine. The insurance company assigned me a case worker. The hospital social workers helped us begin to navigate the system for state and federal aid. I signed over the title of my van to my folks, an act that terrified me because of how necessary and tenuous being asset-less appeared to my survival. (It's back in my name now, but at the time it was suggested as necessary.)

While I was busy at the rehab center with the minutiae of movement and breath, my parents were working to secure a home health agency and nursing care with state funding approval. Then, one morning, my Mom got a call from that insurance company case worker.

"I've got good news!" she said. "We're moving Kay to a nursing home that's closer to you so you won't have to drive so far to see her! The home is sending someone to assess Kay today!"

This is a person who knew we were working hard to get nursing coverage for me at home. And I don't know how long the insurance company had been planning to drop this bomb, but because I didn't have a telephone in my room (or, really, the ability to speak into it), she was basically telling my Mom the bomb was about to be dropped on me. My parents say they raced to the hospital -- a 90-minute drive -- to keep it from looking like they had decided to ambush and abandon me.

When I was in ICU at first, I was intubated with the breathing tube in my mouth and down my throat. For various reasons, including the Thanksgiving holiday and some scheduling around it, I was intubated for about three weeks and conscious for all but the first couple days before surgery to install the trach at my neck. Intubation by mouth is very painful on the jaw and tender throat. And frightening. During that time -- November 2005 -- I shifted emotionally from wishing I could die and stop the misery, being overwhelmed by the small kindnesses of people and the company of friends and family, and compulsively wondering if this was leading to the end. I was sure it was not, despite my on-and-off despair. I've had pneumonias that felt very deadly and like I might be rattling my way toward death, but this felt like a living transition that I would survive.

And yet, three months later, after the hardest-working, most character-building time of my life, when my parents rushed to my room at the rehab hospital to tell me the insurance company was planning on sending me to a nursing home, my absolute first private thought was, "So this is going to kill me after all."

That's not just drama. I've made a study of how institutionalization leads to the abuse and death of disabled (and elderly) folks -- especially those using ventilators. Like we feminists follow the state of reproductive choice, I have followed the freedoms and lack of them for disabled people in institutions. Abuse and death in institutions has been a theme, along with the basic immorality of warehousing people, in small activist publications like Mouth and Ragged Edge for decades.

As details about this particular facility I was slated to enter became known, it became clear to everyone I talked to at the rehab hospital that being there would likely endanger my health and most definitely halt and reverse specifics of the work I'd done in physical therapy.

As it happened, the one person at that nursing home responsible for assessing incoming inmates was away on a holiday in the tropics and did not visit me that day the insurance company woman said he would. My parents were able to break the news to me, and there would be a weekend reprieve. We learned more about the home in that time -- this home that none of the doctors, nurses, therapists, or RTs that I quizzed at the rehab hospital had any familiarity with. They couldn't recall sending any other patient there, though that was possibly due to a name change, I don't know.

Here are some things I learned about this nursing home I narrowly escaped being sent to, from my parents' on-site tour and my doctors' communication with the facility:
There was a vent wing with about a dozen people there using ventilators to breathe. When my parents visited in mid-afternoon, all these people that they saw through open doors were stuck in their beds.

I was slated for the last room at the end of the hall, as far as you can get from supervision and assistance.

There was no internet access anywhere available to inmates. And no TVs in the rooms. Patients were expected to provide their own if they wanted something to do while immobile in their beds. I suppose this is true of most nursing homes? I don't know.

There was a dining room, but when my Mom asked the home rep if I would be eating in it, she was told it was doubtful. Because of the vent, the woman said, unless I had someone of my own to assist me, I would be staying in my room for meals, and likely for everything else.

Much of the population was warehoused homeless people, probably mentally ill as well as formerly indigent, whom no other place would accept. My parents deduced that a young woman (okay, middle-aged) who cannot walk and is stuck in bed on a ventilator at the end of a long hallway without the power of speech might be vulnerable to physical attacks from mobile, minimally-supervised people with mental issues of their own.

There were RTs (respiratory therapists) on staff but all of them were off-duty every day from 3 p.m. until the next morning. (With my body adjusting to the trach and vent at that time, I was experiencing frequent "mucus plugs" that completely blocked off my airway and required immediate suction relief -- all of these events occurred for me at rehab during evening and night times. More than a dozen times I experienced these plugs, which often hit without notice. Once, I blacked out completely while the RT worked to clear my airway -- and this occurred with a night-duty RT who came immediately to my vent alarm from a desk just a few yards from my bed.*)

The ventilator I would be required to use would not allow for any weaning and would not be portable on my scooter.

I might not be allowed to use my own scooter, which in any case, would be of limited utility without a portable vent.

There was no physical therapy available to help me maintain or increase my strength, which I'd been working on daily to rebuild.
This was the only "in network" option my insurance company was giving me. Without home nursing assistance yet in place, the rehab hospital would not allow me to go home, but the insurance company expected this place would be suitable. My parents were so afraid for my safety and health that they were planning to take turns sleeping in the nursing home room with me, fighting whatever policies might prevent even that. The home care agency we were working with was racing to hire nurses, but expected it would take three weeks to a month.

It did take a month to get the nurses for home care -- and even then, only partial coverage. In the meantime my respiratory health took a little dip, likely because I was crying quite a bit from all this. Concerned, the rehab hospital doctors would not release me to the nursing home, the assessment dude never showed up, and one day, quite suddenly, the insurance company called the social worker and completely relented with the institutionalization plan. I'm sure this is because I had people: my parents to speak for me when I literally could not and wouldn't have had the energy or heart anyway, doctors and RTs who I was awake and conscious enough to build a relationship with so that they perhaps fought a little harder for me in a battle they faced with insurance companies daily. I had resources to keep me from that nursing home I believe would have caused my death. Other people do not.

This one-year anniversary reminds me of how very afraid I was to leave the hospital and the trained professionals behind for my parents' newly-learned suctioning skills and nurses we newbies would have to train. I'm home and happy, though unemployed and baffled as to how anyone who has to manage full-time assistance does anything else useful with their time. I'm hoping to figure that out in the coming year. This is a bittersweet anniversary to celebrate when I understand how very very lucky I am, and how the story is much different for other people who do end up in nursing homes and other institutions.

__________________________________________________

* Because of medication, adjustment to the vent, and a lowered cuff that prevents sudden total blockage, plugs are not an emergency I have had for about ten months now. This is the result of a lot of hard work and vigilance on my part. Conscious, alert, and in charge of my own health care here at home, I can weigh all the factors and adjust medication that prevents plugs, refuse meds if I don't need or want them, ask for suction, request more or less water in my cuff -- all without being institutionally "noncompliant" or having something decided without my input or consent. Until I was able to verbally express these wishes, my written communication was respected and "heard" by people who my family and I were able to assure cared about my preferences.

Cross-posted at my blog, The Gimp Parade
|

The Post That Died (File Under Trivial) 



A lovely spring day here. I was walking the dog in the woods and just enjoying breathing in the promise of better days to come when a great political post idea struck me. One of those which is obvious when you finally look at it in the face but which is hard to spot, initially. One of those that would guarantee my immortality as a blogger. Get it?

By the time I got back I had forgotten it. How can I forget the post that was supposed to make my fame immortal? Universe loves coyote-the-trickster humor, methinks. As a punishment I'm not going to do the vacuuming today. Take that, universe!

A few weeks ago I was typing a post for the TAPPED blog, laughing at the wonderful funniness of it. Then I pressed the SAVE button. Or so I thought, but my fingers decided that the DELETE button would be even funnier to press. And no, I had not saved the post, because the muse came upon me suddenly and with the full intoxicated seductive charm only he has.

Somewhere there is a wonderful world of all those lost ideas and deleted posts.

|

The Gonzales-Gate 



I have not written anything on the firings of the federal prosecutors, but I have followed the case with great interest. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is going to make a statement this afternoon. The case against him is well summarized here:

Here are some of the falsehoods we've been told that are now unraveling.

First, we were told that the seven of the eight U.S. attorneys were fired for performance reasons.

It now turns out this was a falsehood, as the glowing performance evaluations attest.

Second, we were told by the attorney general that he would, quote, "never, ever make a change for political reasons."

It now turns out that this was a falsehood, as all the evidence makes clear that this purge was based purely on politics, to punish prosecutors who were perceived to be too light on Democrats or too tough on Republicans.

Third, we were told by the attorney general that this was just an overblown personnel matter.

It now turns out that far from being a low-level personnel matter, this was a longstanding plan to exact political vendettas or to make political pay-offs.

Fourth, we were told that the White House was not really involved in the plan to fire U.S. attorneys. This, too, turns out to be false.

Harriet Miers was one of the masterminds of this plan, as demonstrated by numerous e-mails made public today. She communicated extensively with Kyle Sampson about the firings of the U.S. attorneys. In fact, she originally wanted to fire and replace the top prosecutors in all 93 districts across the country.

Fifth, we were told that Karl Rove had no involvement in getting his protege appointed U.S. attorney in Arkansas.

In fact, here is a letter from the Department of Justice. Quote: "The department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin."

It now turns out that this was a falsehood, as demonstrated by Mr. Sampson's own e-mail. Quote: "Getting him, Griffin, appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, et cetera.

Sixth, we were told to change the Patriot Act was an innocent attempt to fix a legal loophole, not a cynical strategy to bypass the Senate's role in serving as a check and balance.


|

Rush Limbaugh on Abortion 



You probably can predict the kind of stuff he might say, but here it is:

I would only have one small nitpick with former Senator Zeller [sic] over this: How many of these 45 million children who have been aborted would be Democrats, would be the offspring of Democrats? And as such, how many of them would have jobs? As such, how many of them would even think of joining the military? I know they're some Republican liberal babes in there that [have] gone out and had abortions, too, but the vast majority of them are liberals. This way if you look at the demographics of the future, you could say liberals are aborting themselves out of the majority if current trends hold. Everybody knows that's who's having the majority of these things.

Interesting, by the way, that Rush himself has not provided us with a single known offspring. And yes, I can point that out, because he himself crossed the line first.

But then to the interesting part of the quote, the last sentence: "Everybody knows that's who's having the majority of these things." Well, I don't know that, for one example, and I can't quite see how to make a study that would come to Rush's conclusions. Whenever someone says "everybody knows" my ears perk up and my research teeth sharpen themselves and roll out from their sockets, because there are very few things that everybody truly knows. So let's see why Rush might be mistaken.

His fallacy (phallacy?) appears to be the common one of thinking that if being pro-choice is a liberal stance then most abortions will be performed on liberal women. This ignores the old saw about there being three cases where most everybody agrees that abortion should be legal: in the case of rape or incest, when the mother's life is threatened, and when it's my abortion or my wife's or girlfriend's abortion we are talking about. Add to that the possibility that liberal women might be more likely to use birth control in the first place, not being religiously constrained to aim for abstinence, and it might well be the case that liberal women have less need for abortions . Then there is the obvious fact that a woman might be for abortion rights in general without wanting to use that option herself.

I suspect that most women who have abortions are apolitical rather than politically conservative or liberal, and when that isn't the case I find it hard to imagine how to do research on the political views of the women. Would someone answer questions about voting patterns at the abortion clinic? The substitute measures for this, such as calculating abortion rates by the majority political views of the state they take place in fail to measure the number of women who come from other states with fewer abortion clinics. Interstate traffic.

Then note something very interesting. None of this tells us anything about the political stances of the men whose sperm was involved in these aborted pregnancies. It could well be that all those men were wingnut pro-lifers, and if that's the case perhaps it is the conservatives who are being made extinct. We don't know, do we?

|

The Immorality Of It All 



General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff thinks that homosexuality is immoral:

"I do not believe that the armed forces of the United States are well served by saying, through our policies, that it's okay to be immoral in any way, not just with regards homosexuality. So from that standpoint, saying that gays should serve openly in the military to me says that we, by policy, would be condoning what I believe is immoral activity. And therefore, as an individual, I would not want that to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with someone else's wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not — we prosecute that kind of immoral behavior between members of the armed forces."

And what about people having affairs with each other who are not married? Does the military prosecute those, too? Because that might be what most homosexual relationships would look like if the partners in them are unmarried.

General Pace will not apologize for his comments.

Let's look at one part of his statement in a little bit more detail:

I do not believe that the armed forces of the United States are well served by saying, through our policies, that it's okay to be immoral in any way

What if a war in itself is immoral?

What if a war that in itself might be immoral causes the U.S. military to take psychopaths to Iraq (or makes some people into psychopaths) and what if these psychopaths then rape and murder a fourteen-year old girl and slaughter her whole family?

Is it immoral to force wounded soldiers back to Iraq even if their disabilities make them useless over there? Is it immoral to ignore the crisis in the medical care the returning veterans get until one is caught?

The conservative concept of morality is almost always a narrow one, having to do with sexuality. But even if we limit ourselves to looking at sexual violence in the military I see much greater problems of immorality among heterosexuals.

|

Monday, March 12, 2007

We Need Fire-Breathing Dragons 



Media Matters for America has come up with another analysis of the guests invited to the Sunday political talk shows. They are still largely conservative, more conservative and most conservative. Wingnuts, in short. Which reminds me of a cartoon I saw somewhere, about two guests invited to be on Fox News. First the liberal was introduced and he muttered something one could hardly read. Then the conservative was introduced and a big flame of fire erupted out of his mouth. Every cell of the cartoon had the same thing happen, which was very funny, because that's how Fox News are.

Back to the need for fire-breathing dragons of the left. It's not just that these programs don't have enough liberal/progressive guests. It's that they don't have any fire-breathing lefties. These people are needed, because the presence of the fire-breathing righties pulls the apparent center towards the right. We need to pull back.

I could learn to breathe fire, I think.

|

How to Get Boys To Read 



As heard by me a few moments ago on the local public radio station. Listen to what the "expert" says at the end of the interview.

It is perfectly natural to regard anything girls and women do as yucky, because even adult men do so. Well, this particular adult man does. And he quotes Michael Gurian as an unbiased source.

The point of this post is to pay attention. Pay attention to the muttered and whispered things which go for neutrality in these kinds of discussions.

|

The Sheep And The Goats 



That title is just because. The post is about how the Americans answer questions about their political affiliation. Here is a recent set of polling answers (click on the picture to make it larger):





As Kevin Drum notes, these numbers have stayed fairly constant for about twenty years.

Now why is this interesting? It is! The reason is that this self-identification does not match the same Americans' views on various public policy issues. Many so-called liberal policies have majority support. The interesting question is why people support liberal policies but reject the liberal label, and one answer is that this is a consequence of the successful demonization project of the Wingnuttia Inc. during the last two decades.

Another answer is something that might strike a person born in Europe more than someone who has always lived in a two-party system. There aren't very many subtle gradations in those questions. How would a rabid communist answer that questionnaire? There is no place for distinguishing true extreme-left views from views of people like Hillary Clinton, really. And note the "moderate" category. Doesn't its presence suggest that "liberal" is not "moderate"?

I wonder what would happen if we replaced the "liberal" label with "progressive"?

|

God Is An Anti-Feminist 



The fundamentalist Christianist God, anyway. And the radical Islamist God. In fact, most monotheistic religions happen to have guy gods who don't think much of women's independence. So what's a preacher or an imam to do? Can't go against God's will.

Of course, the same texts that are so carefully being nitpicked for anything, anything at all, that could be used against women's rights are also rife with statements which appear to regard slavery perfectly acceptable. But we threw those bits out. And practically nobody follows large chunks of the rules in the Old Testament, for example.

But the rules about gender relationships are still quite popular. - Imagine trying to argue with someone on women's rights issues, when that person believes that he or she is on God's side. Imagine Don Quixote and the windmills. Or imagine me banging my head against the garage door. Or carrying water with a sieve. It is pointless.

What provoked this wallowing in bitterness? A post by Ruth Rosen where she tells a tale about politics:

"Say professor," he said, "could I ask you a question?" I looked at his serious face. His eyes were deep brown, his skin even darker. His smile was warm and appealing. "Sure," I answered, knowing that I was early for a two-hour library class to teach my students how to do electronic research.

"Do you think this country is ready for a black or a woman?" He asked as if he really cared, so I took his question seriously. "I don't really know," I answered honestly, "because Americans tend to lie to pollsters in public and vote differently in private."

"Wouldn't it be wonderful if a black man could overcome all the terrible stereotypes about men in prison, violence men, and urban gangs? "

"It sure would," I said. "And I have been very impressed by Obama so far. It's remarkable to see a white woman and a black man compete—thirty or more years after we struggled for basic civic rights.

"Yea," he said. "But you know what?" I don't think a woman should ever be president." Looking down at the book he was reading, he told me how the bible insisted that a man should head his household. "So a man should rule the country."

Memories of working in the civil rights movement flooded me. "So I believe in racial equality," I said, "but you don't believe in gender equality?"

He hesitated and said, "Look I think it's okay for women to do important things but men must rule the home and the country. They each have important but different things to do in this world. That's what I learned from the bible."

Ouch. Ouch and ouch. So many ouches here. Note how the setup is to have black men against women in general? There are only so many slots for upwards mobility, after all, and if the competition could be stifled, well, that would be good. Who is the most deserving?

That was the first "ouch", because the question is quite wrong and the whole setup is quite wrong. But I suspect we are going to hear a lot more about this idea of a few slots and too many applicants. And about "women" vs. "black men", which somehow manages to redirect the attention away from the groups where the power actually resides.

The second "ouch" was with this man's solution to the problem. Just decide that men must be the rulers of the country and the home. Now that will cut back the competition by a very large number of people, and in a way which cannot really be argued, given that guy god thing. A good solution, if you are a man.

My third "ouch" came from reading the comments to Rosen's post. It seems that she punched a lot of buttons.
---
For a less upset discussion of some of these issues, USAToday has a story about "diversity" among the candidates, including age diversity.

|

Sunday, March 11, 2007

Do You Think I Meant Country Matters? 

Better fix this right away.
Posted by olvlzl.
Pedia-failure? Ah, I see what you ..... No, it doesn’t refer to that. Maybe you suspect that I was calling attention to the fact that Andy Schlafly has spared no expense in putting together a crack team of home-schoolers to produce his encyclopedia, a pedipedia, as it were. Maybe you thought that this could be an indication that an ideologically based encyclopedia produced by a bunch of home-schooled moppets might just flop? Ok. Well, that wasn’t my intention, though it’s not bad, now that I think of it. But I can’t claim that was my intention.

Your mistake is, perhaps, a result of shoddy research, of folk etymology or, as we call it sometimes, jumping to a lazy-assed conclusion.

If you looked up “encyclopedia” in a real reference work, you would see that “-pedia” is a corruption of the Greek “paideia” or education. An encyclopedia is an attempt to provide material that would be useful in producing a well-rounded education. What knowledgeable persons call a “liberal education”. Looking at the Conservapedia, that doesn’t seem to be something being risked. Noting the “articles” I linked to, one on as vital a right-wing subject as “capitalism”, I think that a fair evaluation would be that it’s a collection of badly written stubs, as they are called elsewhere. I was calling attention to the fact that the thing might appear to be useless for learning anything.

It began in an attempt to make a pun on the name of Andy’s dam, though that wasn’t a success either.
|

Pedia-failure? 

Posted by olvlzl.
This afternoon, in a wide ranging discussion of the FOX alternative to The Daily Show, complete with canned laughter (they can’t trust conservatives to even get right wing jokes apparently), and other conservative topics, my younger brother, who has a much stronger stomach for monitoring right wing loons than I do, told me about Conservapedia. Sensing a post, I rushed home and went to check the thing out. Well, Wiki must be shaking in its boots because Conservapedia:

has over 4,100 educational, clean and concise entries on historical, scientific, legal, and economic topics, including more than 350 lectures and term lists. There have been over 2,800,000 page views and over 24,300 page edits. Already Conservapedia has become one of the largest user-controlled free encyclopedias on the internet. This site is growing rapidly.

Conservapedia jumps to Number One!

Today Wikipedia lists 1,680,974 articles in English.

I’d talk about the other languages it’s available in but in the Conservapedia’s list of “Commandments” is the requirement that everything be spelled in “American spelling” so it looks like there’s no danger of a French edition.

Commandment #1 is, Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Yeah, right. Looking at just the article on evolution gives a pretty good idea of just how that one works out. Well, being fair, it doesn't mention complete. And going over to the two line treatment of gravity including this line

Gravity is considered by scientists and evolutionists to be one of the fundamental forces of the universe.

it looks like science and math aren’t going to be their strong point. And you radical physicists, watch it.

But maybe they do fill a need for people who find Wikipedia too liberal. Go to this brilliant article and see why conservatives who want to be in the know are flocking to Conservapedia.

Conservapedia, look at it and decide for yourself.

Oh, and did I mention that its founder is Andy Schlafly, son of Phyllis? For more read this article in the Toronto Star.
|

Zell Miller Wants You 

To produce cannon fodder.
Posted by olvlzl.
Someone get the net before it's too late. You've read, no doubt, that Zell Miller’s gone off the beam again. His pronouncement the other day, that legal abortion is the reason that they don’t have enough excess population to spare for the multiple Bush Wars has got to count as one of the looniest things a washed up pol has said in the past year. The country has the better part of a hundred million more people now than it did when Roe vs. Wade was decided, so just on the most basic tether to reality Zell is in the ozone. It’s too late to bring him back to earth but someone might ask him why, with tens of millions more Americans, Bush is unable to sustain his wars like Johnson and Nixon were able to sustain theirs. Could the real reason be that there was a draft in effect? Even with the deferments for the children of privilege the much smaller population could keep sending people to get killed. That’s the real difference between then and now. Of course, the plebs might not be so willing to let rich kids be deferred like they were back then or we’d probably already have a draft.

What is Zell’s solution? Breeding programs? Someone, pop Zell’s balloon before he starts interfering with satellite transmissions.
|

Men Will Be Boys, Sometimes At Least 

Posted by olvlzl.
Writing about an unread book based on a review probably counts as a bad habit. I wouldn’t have been tempted except that I wrote a piece about the subject of bad behavior by American men last year. Reading it again after reading the review of Us Guys: The true and twisted mind of the American Man by Charlie LeDuff in the paper this morning it seems to still hold. Reading Dan Cryer’s review, though, it’s interesting to notice two things about the title. Us Men. Notice that LeDuff uses the first person plural objective pronoun. The objective case more than implies that Us Men are being acted on by the subject, they are at the receiving end of something. And then in the subtitle the author says that he’s presenting a true mind of “the American man”. Why the use of the singular all of a sudden? And there is the use of “the”, as if there is only one “American Man”.

The book, if the review is accurate, seems to be a series of drive by glances at groups of men engaged in group macho activities. The reviewer didn’t think much of LeDuff’s views, which are presented as being pretty superficial. And, apropos my piece, that none of them seemed to be engaged in particularly useful or responsible activities. Did these men go home to responsible lives, unseen by the author and the other men in their group?

But who was it who was acting on “Us Men”? I suspect that if pressed they might name any number of people doing them wrong. It could be people with actual control of their lives, bosses, politicians or others. But in conservative, "Guy-merica" I suspect that in most of cases the answer might be women or illegal immigrants or minority groups. It’s my experience that macho men, even in groups, are generally too cowardly to attribute their oppression to those who actually have power and prefer to nourish their resentments against people who are less powerful. Macho men are cowards.

But there are adult men who are responsible and who aren’t afraid to face who has power and who doesn’t. They tend to function heroically in daily life by just being responsible. Gregory Peck as opposed to the young Clint Eastwood. The role models are there in popular culture. Some men function quite fully as men in real life refusing to be a part of a boy pack. Why don’t these guys make better decisions? Maybe one of those acting on them is “Us Men”. Maybe they’re afraid of the group and it’s opinions, maybe it’s easier and less scary to go along with what they think is expected of them. Laziness and cowardice should never be discounted as a motive for group think. Maybe Us Guys are entirely familiar with their enemy and the enemy is “Us”.
|

Saturday, March 10, 2007

The Answer Is, Apparently Not. 

The Question? Is there any depth to which the American Enterprise Institute can sink before the DC-NYC-Atlanta media won’t give them a platform?
Posted by olvlzl.

Ben Stewart of Greenpeace
said: "The AEI is more than just a thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a suitcase full of cash."


Try this experiment. Go to any PBS or NPR*, click on the search feature, type in “American Enterprise Institute” and see how much these allegedly independent news sources depend on the foetid guess pool.

You can go to this site to get some background on the ubiquitous source of corporate and right wing spin. Especially notice the section on its promoting the next disastrous Bush war in Iran. Then you can read the guardian story linked to in the beginning of this piece and see just what kind of thinking those in the tank are doing. And yet, more than a month after the story of them pimping anti-global warming “science” the Diane Rehm show thinks they’re an A list source for talking heads.

For the Congress, they should ask themselves before giving any more support to PBS, NPR or the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, why are you funding organizations that act as if the AEI is a legitimate source of information? You should write fairness, equal time, and other requirements into any funding or authorization bills for any public broadcasters. If you don’t they’ll just use their old Rolodex and get the same old whores they’ve been calling on for decades now. The American Public deserves a real media, not what we’re getting now.

* Or just about any other media outlet.
|

Journalists Calling For A Law That Would Prevent Reporting 

Posted by olvlzl.
The Scooter Libby trial and conviction has left the media calling for shield laws, the necessity of protecting confidential sources is the rationale. Looking at the entire picture, I’m inclined to believe that confidential sources for journalism do need protection but, as you can imagine, I’m not buying that Judith Miller and Robert Novak’s cronies are the ones who are at issue.

Joe Wilson’s piece that set off the frenzy of law breaking that culminated in Scooter Libby’s conviction was certainly the most important actual reporting on the case for invading Iraq in the corporate media in 2003. Those weren't exactly numerous back then. He went to Niger, found that part of the “case” to be untrue and reported it in the media. The New York Times, home of Judith Miller’s neo-con stenography printed it, probably the only actual media story in the whole thing. Miller reported neo-con press releases, Wilson reported what he had found out.

Scooter Libby’s role as a “source”, as claimed by Miller and other corporate shills, was far overshadowed by his potential role as a felon or a shield for other felons. Miller wasn’t covering up for a “source” she was covering up law breaking. Reporters, even real ones, don’t have a right to cover up crimes. Miller, as the world should certainly know by now, isn’t a real reporter, much, much less Robert Novak.

Lost in this whining by the media is the plain fact that Cheney’s office was involved in a conspiracy to keep the public from finding out that the case made to invade Iraq was a gauzy veil of lies. They were the ones who were trying to subvert “the People’s right to know”. Robert Novak was not acting as a journalist in going with their spin, he was an active part in trying to punish Joe Wilson for doing real journalism. And that shouldn’t ever be forgotten. While the media stars were covering up the truth for the Bush regime*, Joe Wilson was the one who was guilty of telling the People the truth.

I used to be a supporter of shield laws, knowing that unless people know the truth they will be helpless in the face of public relations on behalf of oligarchy. This affair has made me change my mind. Novak, Miller and the rest of the Bush Regime’s Friends List don’t deserve protection. They don’t practice journalism. A shield law isn’t a right for the corporate media, it would be a considerable privilege, not a personal but a professional privilege. Privileges like that should be given only if there is a compelling public service requirement, a service paid by the recipient of the privilege to the People. Our media, the ones who will never risk ending up on another Republican president’s Enemies List, giving them a shield law would only result in another Scooter Libby being able to suppress the truth without having to worry about someone testifying about it. It would end up protecting criminals. What is most revealing about this is that, these “journalists” are calling for a law that would enable another president or vice president to punish people for practicing journalism.

* Last night on the “News” Hour, David Brooks was continuing that effort.
|

Friday, March 09, 2007

My Friday Dump 



Friday is the day when bad news are traditionally released, because the smallest possible number of people will hear about them on that day of the week, what with the eager anticipation of the weekend. Today's Friday dump by our government contains that reassuring piece of news that the FBI is busily spying on all of us. Greenwald has a very good post on it (at the Salon, so you need to sit through an ad if you don't subscribe):

Multiple media outlets are focusing on the unsurprising story that the FBI seems to have been abusing its powers under the Patriot Act to issue so-called "national security letters" (NSLs), whereby the FBI is empowered to obtain a whole array of privacy-infringing records without any sort of judicial oversight or subpoena process. In particular, the FBI has failed to comply with the legal obligations imposed by Congress, when it re-authorized the Patriot Act in early 2006, which required the FBI to report to Congress on the use of these letters.

That the FBI is abusing its NSL power is entirely unsurprising (more on that below), but the real story here -- and it is quite significant -- has not even been mentioned by any of these news reports. The only person (that I've seen) to have noted the most significant aspect of these revelations is Silent Patriot at Crooks & Liars, who very astutely recalls that the NSL reporting requirements imposed by Congress were precisely the provisions which President Bush expressly proclaimed he could ignore when he issued a "signing statement" as part of the enactment of the Patriot Act's renewal into law. Put another way, the law which the FBI has now been found to be violating is the very law which George Bush publicly declared he has the power to ignore.

The whole post is worth having to watch the ad. Really.

What else should I dump on you today? Perhaps a cute story about how the biologists and other officials in the Alaskan division of the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service must NOT talk about polar bears:

Over the past week, biologists and wildlife officials received a cover note and two sample memorandums to be used as a guide in preparing travel requests. Under the heading "Foreign Travel — New Requirement — Please Review and Comply, Importance: High," the cover note said:

"Please be advised that all foreign travel requests (SF 1175 requests) and any future travel requests involving or potentially involving climate change, sea ice and/or polar bears will also require a memorandum from the regional director to the director indicating who'll be the official spokesman on the trip and the one responding to questions on these issues, particularly polar bears."

This reminds me of the old Soviet Union.

Then there is this bit of encouraging news (if you are into madrassa-type education for all):

Georgia is poised to introduce two literature classes on the Bible in public schools next year, a move analysts say would make the state the first to take an explicit stance endorsing -- and funding -- biblical teachings.

The Bible already is incorporated into some classes in Georgia and other states, but some critics say the board's move, which makes the Bible the classes' main text, treads into dangerous turf.

On a list of classes approved Thursday by the Georgia Board of Education are Literature and History of the Old Testament Era, and Literature and History of the New Testament Era. The classes, approved last year by the Legislature, will not be required, and the state's 180 school systems can decide for themselves whether to offer them.

This is one of those proposals which sound very good on paper. But I fear that in practice the people who teach these courses will use them for preaching. And why do I fear that? Well, just think of what would happen if a teacher actually taught this material critically. A furor would erupt. So the material will be taught uncritically.

|

A Nonpolitical Garden Post: Ants 

The Diligence of Ants

Ants were the major role models for diligence in my childhood story books. These compared ants favorably to other insects such as crickets, never to gardeners. If gardeners had had their say the moral of the stories might have been different.

Although it is unclear just what this moral might be. The diligence of ants doesn't endear them to gardeners, because much of it is directed against the garden: Ants keep aphids which weaken plants and spread disease, they dig tunnels under plant roots which often kills the affected plant, and they build anthills, usually in the focal point of the garden.

All ants are an annoyance in the garden and some, such as fire and carpenter ants, are clearly more than that. But excluding the dangerous types, should gardeners declare war on ants? I don't think so. Life is too short for such a fight. And even if it weren't, what would we use for weapons? The only advice I have found on this that is acceptable in its effects on nature and other animal life is to pour boiling water on the anthills. I couldn't do this, not because I am squeamish but because I detest all kitchen chores.

In any case, the diligence of ants may benefit us in ways unrelated to gardening. Ellen Sandbeck notes in her book Slug Bread & Beheaded Thistles that ants in the yard keep termites away. If this turns out to be true, multiple anthills in the garden will become a status symbol and a cause for rising property values.

Status symbols or not, multiple anthills are what I navigate around in my daily gardening, and I have reached an uneasy peace with them. After all, things could be much worse: my garden might teem with diligent deer.

|

Friday Cat And Dog Blogging 




This great picture is of Barry's Magoo cat. She is a cat to take very seriously.


This not-great picture is of Henrietta the Hound, my dog.





She is doing much better with her idiopathic vestibular syndrome, and is now safe on level surface, but I have to put gates on the staircase to keep her away from the stairs. She ate normally today for the first time (no hand-feeding required).

|

Thursday, March 08, 2007

A Reminder 



I advertised my three-part series on the gender gap in wages today on the TAPPED blog, and should do the same here. It is better than the Wikipedia page on the same, because the latter is being changed by wingnuts all the time to make the explanation biased. Mine is pure as fresh-fallen snow. Well, in comparison, anyway and assuming that the wingnuts just went and changed the Wikipedia page again. Though the original work was quite good. I'm not gonna check if it has been changed again as I don't want to get angry.

Talking about angry and about bias, the beautifully insane site Conservapedia, is launching a course on economics, given by a noneconomist religious conservative. I've read the first lesson and have no hair left after the pulling and head-banging it caused. To understand the meaning of that lesson: If it had been a lesson in how to cook a hamburger, the result in your frying pan would have looked up at you with one blood-red eyeball and would then have gobbled you up in one second flat. Sigh.

|

Jessica Valenti on the International Women's Day 



This video was done by Jessica and Evan Derkacz of the Alternet. I find the silence on my local public radio station fascinatingly informative. No program about the women in Iraq being kidnapped or raped, for example. Or the women who suffer tremendously in the warfare in Congo. Nothing on any positive change. Nothing at all, actually. So I raise my glass of nectar to remember all those women who suffer and die in war zones and I also raise it to honor all those who work to make this world a better place for women.




|

How Slate Celebrates the International Women's Day 



Elsewhere the attention is aimed at reducing wartime violence against women and girls who are not participants in the wars. But on Slate we get an article on what Hillary Clinton and Katie Couric could learn from each other to somehow become more acceptable to those who don't like powerful women:

No one has ever accused Hillary Clinton of being too perky or showing too much leg. Even so, the presidential candidate could learn a lot from Katie Couric. The bright-eyed former morning-show host made her debut as the anchor of the third-place CBS Evening News on Sept. 5, when she took over for Bob Schieffer, and Dan Rather before him, and Walter Cronkite before them. Her tenure has been a bumpy one and in that, a useful test of the public's willingness to accept a woman as a figure of national and international prominence.

Television news anchor and president of the United States aren't such different jobs, after all, and not just because until now they've been the exclusive province of old white men. These are the people who tell us what's happening in the world, what it means, and what we're going to do about it. They must be calm, personable, and handsome under lights. Diplomacy, intelligence, and genuine leadership abilities a plus.

It's not simply that both jobs are traditionally male. It's that both demand a certain stage presence—an intangible sense of authority, divorced from direct, measurable accomplishment. Ideally, an anchor serves as a kind of chief executive of his or her broadcast, prioritizing news stories on-air and leading a corps of reporters and producers behind the scenes. He or she is also the public face of a network, acting as an ambassador to advertisers, viewers, and affiliates. These people—like voters—have an instinct about who should be telling them the news of the day: what that person should look like and how his or her (which is to say, his) voice should sound. Couric's rocky start can illuminate two questions for Clinton: how we'll handle a woman with such authority and how a woman who wants such authority should handle herself.

Of course, the two women come at these jobs with very different liabilities: Katie seems too soft, Hillary too brittle. But they've both staked claims in the same middle ground, taking pains to appear strong but not mannish, ballsy yet maternal. Both are bottle blondes (perhaps in an effort to mute their tough streaks). Both have gone on "listening tours" around the country, have undergone ambitious style makeovers, have opened their private lives to public scrutiny. And Couric and Clinton also share the occasional counsel of Matthew Hiltzik, a major New York City publicist who specializes in managing the public images of powerful and difficult women. (Despite these efforts, Couric and Clinton still ruffle feathers: Both are subjects of unauthorized biographies by Ed Klein, neither our era's greatest feminist nor our greatest historian, but a man with good taste in material.)

I thought I was joking when I told someone that the next two years will be all about Hillary Clinton's wardrobe choices and why she is too little or too much a woman. But I wasn't joking. And the proper response to a country which doesn't like women in power is to try another color of lipstick or a different feminine emotion. Ok.
---
Link from Evan Derkacz.

|

The Point of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage... 



Is to blurt out the unsayable so that it is said and the regular conservative politicians don't have to say it. That way all the deep-hitting racist, sexist and xenophobic themes are out there and can be referred to in some simple euphemisms. These people are invaluable worker ants for the wingnut hive, invaluable.

Because what they do is bring in the dead worms from the frightening hinterlands of extremism (as Orcinus has pointed out), and they make the worms look delicious for the rest of us.

An example: Ann Coulter calls John Edwards a faggot, a pejorative term for homosexuals, a term that may have initial associations to being burned on the stake. She denies that the term is insulting at all. Then we have Thomas Friedman, a so-called liberal columnist at the New York Times say this:

"What I've been trying to do is to rename green patriotic," Friedman said. He calls it "geogreen," a more robust term than "green," which he feels has connotations of "liberal, tree-hugging, girly man, sissy, unpatriotic and vaguely French."

Geogreen, by comparison, is more "muscular" and acknowledges the linkages between global warming, the economy and terrorism, Friedman said.

See the mainstreaming of sissiness as a sign of weakness? Though Arnold Schwartzenegger first used the term "girly man" the connections are pretty easy to see.

We've advanced so far in this that my original post about "girly man" and its anti-woman implications reads totally outdated today. We are well past the point where anyone even notices that these slurs totally disempower women as political actors (not muscular enough, too sissy). All that is left is the fight over whether any liberal man can be viewed as a heterosexual man.
---
A postscript: Many of you, my dear and intelligent readers, don't think that I should pay any attention to the worker ants of wingnuttia, and I understand the arguments that have led you to that conclusion. After a lot of thought about it I still veer slightly towards the view that it is too late not to talk about this, and that it is more important to be aware of the reasons for the whole operation. But I will try very hard not to write about any of these things for a while...

|

Some Comfort for the "Comfort Women" 



You may have been following the decision of Japan's Prime Minister not to admit any military forcing of women who were taken into sexual slavery during WWII:

The long festering issue of Japan's war-era sex slaves gained new prominence last week when Prime Minister Shinzo Abe denied the military's role in coercing the women into servitude. The denial by Mr. Abe, Japan's first prime minister born after the war, drew official protests from China, Taiwan, South Korea and the Philippines, some of the countries from which the sex slaves were taken.

The furor highlighted yet again Japan's unresolved history in a region where it has been ceding influence to China. The controversy has also drawn in the United States, which has strongly resisted entering the history disputes that have roiled East Asia in recent years.

His rationalization is that it may have been the subcontractors who forced the women but never the military itself. Some of the surviving "comfort women" (what a hideous title) disagree:

Ms. Wu told her story on Wednesday outside the Japanese Consulate here, where she and two others who had been sex slaves, known euphemistically as comfort women, were protesting Tokyo's refusal to admit responsibility for the abuse that historians say they and as many as 200,000 other women suffered.

All three — Ms. Wu, who is now 90; a 78-year-old South Korean from Seoul; and an 84-year-old Dutch-Australian from Adelaide — were participating in an international conference for Japan's former sex slaves here. Now, just days after Mr. Abe's remarks, the three were united in their fury.

"I was taken away by force by Japanese officers, and a Japanese military doctor forced me to undress to examine me before I was taken away," said Ms. Wu, who landed here in Sydney on Tuesday night after a daylong flight from Taipei. "How can Abe lie to the world like that?"

...

Ms. Ruff was living with her family in Java, in what was then the Dutch East Indies, when Japan invaded in 1942. She spent the first two years in a prison camp, she said, but Japanese officers arrived one day in 1944. They forced single girls and women to line up and eventually picked 10 of them, including Ms. Ruff, who was 21.

"On the first night, it was a high-ranking officer," Ms. Ruff said. "It was so well organized. A military doctor came to our house regularly to examine us against venereal diseases, and I tell you, before I was examined the doctor raped me first. That's how well organized it was."

I read several news stories on this topic and my eyes teared up when I heard about the health consequences for the women, the sexually transmitted diseases, the infertility and the social ostracization. There are just too many witnesses to disprove Abe's argument

This is a story that might read very differently if you have no empathy and just consider the political logic or if you actually have empathy towards other human beings. It seems to me that the latter is the only meaningful way to read the story.

|

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Some Of Your Future Lawyers In Action 



Jill on feministe writes an important post having to do with this article about a new way for sexists to have fun with women's bodies and reputations:

She graduated Phi Beta Kappa, has published in top legal journals and completed internships at leading institutions in her field. So when the Yale law student interviewed with 16 firms for a job this summer, she was concerned that she had only four call-backs. She was stunned when she had zero offers.

Though it is difficult to prove a direct link, the woman thinks she is a victim of a new form of reputation-maligning: online postings with offensive content and personal attacks that can be stored forever and are easily accessible through a Google search.

The woman and two others interviewed by The Washington Post learned from friends that they were the subject of derogatory chats on a widely read message board on AutoAdmit, run by a third-year law student at the University of Pennsylvania and a 23-year-old insurance agent. The women spoke on the condition of anonymity because they feared retribution online.

The law-school board, one of several message boards on AutoAdmit, bills itself as "the most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world." It contains many useful insights on schools and firms. But there are also hundreds of chats posted by anonymous users that feature derisive statements about women, gays, blacks, Asians and Jews. In scores of messages, the users disparage individuals by name or other personally identifying information. Some of the messages included false claims about sexual activity and diseases. To the targets' dismay, the comments bubble up through the Internet into the public domain via Google's powerful search engine.

...

The chats sometimes include photos taken from women's Facebook pages, and in the Yale student's case, one person threatened to sexually violate her. Another participant claimed to be the student, making it appear that she was taking part in the discussion.

"I didn't understand what I'd done to deserve it," said the student. "I also felt kind of scared because it was someone in my community who was threatening physical and sexual violence and I didn't know who."

The woman e-mailed the site's administrators and asked them to remove the material. She said she received no response. Then she tried contacting Google, which simply cited its policy that the Web site's administrator must remove the material to clear out the search results.

I cannot say anything as useful as Jill's post so you should go and read it now. Then come back for the rest of my thoughts.

They are not many, but I see this perhaps the first new form of sexism that has been created or at least a much extended and more visible form of sexism. It is now possible to take an actual named but private person and to give her a misogynistic mental rape session, and there will be a record of that, too! Yah! Or at least she and her reputation can be dissected and cooked for an all-misogynist dinner. - Note how all this is about what rights a woman has over how her likeness is used, and the answer of this website is that she has no rights at all if she ever has published any pictures of herself on the net for any reason whatsoever.

This is like "The Ivy League Women of Playboy", but with one important difference: The women are FORCED to participate. And the assumption is that if there are any pictures of you anywhere on the net these guys own you.

Now, there are worse sites than the one described in this post. Much worse. But they operate on the same premise: That anonymous men have the right to view and comment on physical representations of named women whether those women are willing participants in this game or not.

My final thought has to do with Ann Althouse's comment on the Washington Post article I linked above. Althouse (a conservative blogger who also regards herself as a feminist as long as feminism can be outsourced to the little people to perform) says:

Too beautiful to appear in public? Too hot to be hired? Come on! What rational employer would deny you a job because idiots chatted about you on line in a way that made if obvious that the only thing you did was look good?

(I am sympathetic to the woman who had someone impersonate her by name in a chat. There is a popular blog where that is done to me in the comments and openly encouraged. As I noted here, the blogger in question flatly refused to do anything about it.)

The mind boggles. "...because idiots chatted about you on line in a way that made if obvious that the only thing you did was look good?" Ann, this is HOW they chat about your beauty online:

What is exploitative is to use someone else’s pictures in a contest that they haven’t consented to, which can have negative consequences on their careers. I emailed the contest site owners (who are anonymous, naturally) and asked to be taken out of the contest. They didn’t even bother to respond — except by posting a clarification on the contest site that they would not be taking down any pictures until after the contest was over. I emailed them again, reiterating my request, and letting them know that I have rights to the pictures they posted, and would be taking further action if they didn’t take me out of the running. Again, no response — except that they copied my email onto their message board, where commenters roundly attacked me for being a bitch and a whore, and began speculating as to how many abortions I’ve had. At that point I started browsing their other threads, and found similar comments about all the women who had asked to have their pictures removed. Another NYU contest nominee, who is a very sweet and smart woman and whom I know fairly well, took the “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” tactic, and emailed the contest creators offering to send on better pictures of herself (they took some of the pictures of her from my Flickr account, and posted one of the two of us). They posted her email on the message board as well, and a long debate ensued over whether she was cool and laid-back, or a stupid slut who employers shouldn’t hire since she is immature and insecure enough to voluntarily participate in this contest.

You can’t win.

Several other women requested to be taken out of the contest, and they were all attacked on the message board. Commenters regularly used the term “bitches” in place of “women” (i.e., not as an individual insult like “she’s a bitch,” but as a collective term, as in “post more pictures of hot law school bitches”). They speculated as to how promiscuous the contestants are, called us whores, talked about masturbating to our pictures, and discussed the sexual acts they would perform on us. At least one commenter made it clear that he goes to NYU Law, and that he had seen the other NYU contestant in person. So not only were random internet creeps posting this stuff, but my own classmates were.

My bolds.

Althouse needs to get out more.

|

The Liberal Media Strikes Again 



In the form of a Washington Post editorial on the Libby verdict. A taste of it:

The fall of this skilled and long-respected public servant is particularly sobering because it arose from a Washington scandal remarkable for its lack of substance. It was propelled not by actual wrongdoing but by inflated and frequently false claims, and by the aggressive and occasionally reckless response of senior Bush administration officials -- culminating in Mr. Libby's perjury.

So many adjectives! And none of them easily quantified or converted into evidence.

|

Today's Divine Product 



Holy drinking water, link courtesy of JR on Eschaton threads. Note the warning for sinners:

"Warning to sinners: If you are a sinner or evil in nature, this product may cause burning, intense heat, sweating, skin irritations, rashes, itchiness, vomiting, bloodshot and watery eyes, pale skin color, and oral irritations."


I should start selling Echidne-blessed chocolate, guaranteed to turn you into a raving feminazi and a Very Nice Person with exquisite taste in one second flat. Even if you start off as a sinner.

|

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

What I've Learned On The Internet 



And haven't mentioned here yet, is the astonishing number of really misogynistic comments on sites that I would not expect to have them. For instance, a site on the housing industry had a story about single women buying houses and apartments, and the comments were full of truly hateful stuff about women: How dare the bitches buy houses on their own! Well, they are too stupid to understand money so they will go under and then we will invite them to suck our cocks!

As bad as the stuff on the MRA sites. I couldn't figure out if it was just one or two people with sock puppets (different names attached to the comment), although I sensed certain similarities in the writing styles. But the effect of all this was to silence the other side of the arguments, and to even silence all sane discussion. - A little frightening.

Then there is the way most posts on women turn into something very similar (though more polite) on the Alternet blog, and there it is not a few right-wing commenters who do it. It is our own lefty/liberal brothers who get the taste of bile in their mouths about our issues. Mmm.

|

Why Men Rule/ Women Drool 



Denise sent me a link to this article about men being the preferred bosses at work:

Hillary Clinton might want to sit up and pay attention to results of our exclusive survey on attitudes in the workplace.

While Clinton hopes to smash through the ultimate glass ceiling to become the nation's first female president, the Work & Power Survey conducted by Elle and MSNBC.com suggests that stereotypes about sex and leadership are alive and well.

While more than half our 60,000 respondents said a person's sex makes no difference to leadership abilities, most who expressed a preference said men are more likely to be effective leaders.

Of male respondents, 41 percent said men are more likely to be good leaders, and 33 percent of women agreed. And three out of four women who expressed a preference said they would rather work for a man than a woman.

The survey, conducted early this year, found a bonanza of stereotypes among those polled, with many using the optional comment section to label women "moody," "bitchy," "gossipy" and "emotional." The most popular term for woman, used 347 times, was "catty."

Of course the real news is that the majority of people in the survey didn't care what the sex of their boss was, but that is not how the story was written. Or how the comments-section took it, either. And boy, but are the comments delicious reading for a feminist! I expected the usual Men's Rights Activists and wasn't disappointed. I also expected references to the poor oppressed ex-president-of-Harvard Summers and wasn't disappointed. But I was fairly astonished with the strength of anti-women comments and the argument that women indeed are overemotional bitches and therefore should stay at home, in total charge of minor children.

You know, I never got that. The people who really believe that women are incapable of leading or logic or of anything but backstabbing and gossiping and bursting into tears want these same people in SOLE RESPONSIBILITY of vulnerable minors! Imagine that.

In reading those comments, remember that the internet comments sections are not a fair sample of all opinions in the society. They are quite likely to vastly overrepresent trolls and the views of those who feel strongly on the topic. So I expected to find a lot of misogyny in this thread. But I wasn't quite as prepared for these types of comments:

The problem with this "stereotype" is that it isn't a stereotype at all! As a woman, I can tell you that of the numerous women bosses I have worked for, only one has been a true professional without the emotionalism, the bitchiness, and gossipy behavior that often characterizes women bosses. I have sworn time and again that I would never work for another woman yet I am currently working for one in a very high level position. Yes, she fits the "stereotype," but not to an extreme extent so working for her is not the nightmare experience I have had with some women. As a woman who has managed a division within an organization, I can tell you that what I have learned from my previous women bosses is what not to do and how not to act in the workplace. Hilary, based on past behavior, fits all the negative stereotypes. I pity the White House staff if she is elected.
---
I can't wait for the day that my boss is a man. I've had female bosses my entire career over several different companies and I'm tired. Yes, they fit the bill: bitchy, two-faced, emotional, gossipy and love to have "pet faves" in the office. Guys don't get into a whole lot of meaningless nonsense. Frankly, they don't have time for it. And for the record, I'm female. Smile
---
I am glad that the numbers are higher for men bosses than for females. There are tooooo many female bosses out there that I have noticed and I don't think that should be. There should be more men bosses than females because the Bible says that men are Rulers not females. If females were made to rule so much then that would make men look weak in my eyes. I am a female who feels this way very strongly and I am very Religious.

Now these commenters could well be men. There is no way of knowing on the Internet.
But if the writers indeed are women, note the "they" language in the first two posts. A woman writing about women calling them "they" sees herself as not part of "them". A woman deciding that women are bitchy, two-faced, emotional and gossipy, and this woman still thinks that someone would want to read HER opinions on anything?

It is a very sad example of the alienation the society manages to perform on some women.

What about the topic of the article itself? As I said earlier, the major message of it is that the gender of the boss does not matter for the majority of the respondents. But because more people prefer a male boss to a female boss the article then veers into the question of what might be wrong with female bosses. Note that we don't really get a discussion anywhere on what might be wrong with male bosses (or what might be good with female bosses), and so the comments begin with the assumption (unstated) that male bosses are good, and that all one needs to do is to point out the worst possible characteristics of female bosses to compare them to the good male boss. Although some comments later diverge from this, the topic is not set up as a neutral one, and it is not surprising that we don't get a balanced discussion.

How does one go about deciding that female bosses are worse or better than male bosses anyway? Most of us don't have a very large number of bosses of both genders during our working lives, so almost all these opinions are based on a very small number of people. How can one then assume that a bad boss was bad because of his or her gender and not because of some personal quirk? Surely prior prejudices feed into this.

I found the focus on women's presumed overemotionality fascinating. How do we decide that women are too emotional? Clearly, we base this on how men are being viewed, as just correctly emotional. But there is no objective measure of just-the-right-emotionality anywhere in the world, and one might as well argue that men are underemotional. Not that I'm arguing so; just pointing out the hidden premise in this story. Once again, I find it horrifying that the solution to these overemotional and illogical women messing up the career ladders is to send them home to rule over vulnerable children.

|

On Tai Ji/Tai Chi 




I spotted another article advocating tai chi for the elderly as a way of improving balance in general. It is good for that, but I wonder how many in the U.S. understand that tai chi is a fairly difficult form of qigong and that easier results might be available by studying qigong first or certainly with tai chi.

My tai chi practice started over ten years ago. Over time I branched into much more giqong, then added bagua. I differ from the average tai chi practitioner in this country in that I'm very interested in the self-defense aspects of martial arts, and that interest colors what I focus in my training. But the health benefits of my practise are very evident, too. For exampe, my spine feels very elastic and I can do splits with great easiness and elegance, too. Now don't ask how a snake tail splits. That would be rude.

The health benefits from tai chi or qigong in general are not instantaneous or a replacement for getting medical treatments. That makes it hard to sell the art to people who want a pill to take for some discomfort and also explains why many of the examples I know of the healing effects of tai chi or qigong have to do with people who were offered no more working solutions by the Western medical system. They were very motivated and willing to stick to the exercises for a few months at least. But learning tai chi initially can be very hard and a simpler qigong program could make the benefits more easily available.

That, and more knowledgeable teachers. I once heard about someone watching a video course of tai chi and then starting to teach tai chi to the elderly. I could never have done that. A teacher is absolutely necessary in the early stages of learning, because what is being taught is mostly internal and not visible to an untrained eye watching a video.

The article I mentioned at the beginning of the post talks about the improvements in balance the elderly received from their practice. The next level of benefits comes from the much increased body awareness in general, the ability to listen to what is going on internally and the ability to adjust the movement to those feelings. In many ways this increased body awareness has been the greatest benefit to me, as I used to mostly ignore my body if it wasn't screaming with pain. It can be a very interesting trip to visit your body, once in a while, and to make it an equal partner with your mind in this adventure we call living.
---
The picture is about an applique piece I did on the yin-yang circle, with a little frivolity thrown in. It will be a pillow cover one day, perhaps.

|

On Barbie Dolls 



I have not found if it is legal to post a part of a poem here, but as it is for the purposes of discussion I'm going to do it and then delete it if it turns out to be illegal. The poem is by Margaret Atwood and titled "The Female Body" (from the collection Good Bones and Simple Murders), and this is the excerpt I want to quote:

He said, I won't have one of those things in the house. It gives a young girl a false notion of beauty, not to mention anatomy. If a real woman was built like that she'd fall on her face.

She said, If we don't let her have one like all the other girls she'll feel singled out. It'll become an issue. She'll long for one and she'll long to turn into one. Repression breeds sublimation. You know that.

He said, It's not just the pointy plastic tits, it's the wardrobes. The wardrobes and that stupid male doll, what's his name, the one with the underwear glued on.

She said, Better to get it over with when she's young. he said, All right but don't let me see it.

She came whizzing down the stairs. thrown like a dart. She was stark naked. Her hair had been chopped off, her head was turned back to front, she was missing some toes and she'd been tattooed all over her body with purple ink, in a scroll-work design. She hit the potted azalea, trembled there for moment like a botched angle, and fell.

He said, I guess we're safe.


|

Scooter Guilty And Other Political Snippets With Nary A Link In Sight 



Your best source for the Scooter Libby trial results is Firedoglake, but they are asking no direct links due to the number of people interested in reading what they have to say. In short, Scooter was found guilty on four counts. He might, of course, get pardoned later on by president Bush.

The Libby trial is a good example of those blogging tasks which require specialization. Other similar ones are the current federal prosecutor firing bout, though I plan to write a little about it later on. But mostly these kinds of cases must be closely followed by someone with legal expertise for the blog posts to be worthwhile.

Other areas have no such requirements. For instance, the recent mini-interest in Hillary Clinton's accent. Is she pretending to be a southerner when it benefits her? Candy Crowley thinks so:

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: I think what this does do is feed to that image that Hillary Clinton is very, very studied, that she does everything with a purpose, and that she makes her message so that it points toward a particular audience. So, that's where the harm is in this.

Yup. It would have been fun to have a similar mini-interest session in the accent of our president and his brother. How come are they so different? How does one acquire a false Texan accent in Connecticut? And how harmful is this? But we didn't get that session, for some reason.

Then there is the Walter Reed scandal. Is it just extra evidence that somehow perfectly good people turn bad the minute the government enters into the picture, as right-wingers would like us to believe? And if so, how can we reconcile this with a lot of evidence showing that the Veterans' Administration health care provision has on the whole worked very well for not very much money? Or with the recent privatization of many of the parts of Walter Reed which now malfunction? I'm going to write more on this one, too.

|

Monday, March 05, 2007

The Tightrope Walker 






Feministe has a good take on a new Los Angeles Times article on Loretta Sanchez, an article which describes Sanchez in these glowing terms:

Pacing next to the desk and U.S. flag in her district office in Garden Grove, the paradox that is Rep. Loretta Sanchez was on full display.

The congresswoman ticked off a meaty legislative to-do list: immigration reform, port safety, stopping sex trafficking, revamping "terrible management" at the Department of Homeland Security. She was articulate and sharp, even magnetic.

At the same time, she was shedding a red St. John Knits suit and shimmying into an ao dai, a traditional Vietnamese tunic and pants, for her next event. Meaning that she was telling a female reporter about her chairmanship of the House Subcommittee on Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism while wearing only pants and a black bra.

Was this a glimpse of Loretta Sanchez, siren, a politician known for her strenuous workout regimen and fondness for come-hither heels? Or was this Loretta Sanchez, harried congresswoman, too wrapped up in important national issues to take a break in the name of modesty?

Mmm, modesty. The characteristic which is so common among all male politicians. Oops. I forgot, male politicians don't have to worry about modesty.

But female politicians do. They also have to worry about sexiness and femininity and competence, all aspects which must somehow be fitted into one package. As feministe points out:

If the feminine mold you squeeze into is the one that many younger women are presented with — the hyper-sexualized Girls Gone Wild ideal — then you cannot be taken seriously. If the feminine mold you squeeze into is the one that many female politicians are presented with — the male-impersonating-but-slightly-softer ideal — then you cannot be attractive, and can just barely be a "woman."

It's a tightrope walking exercise, this being a woman and a politician, and falling off is very easy to do.

A little helpful push can do it. For instance, an article might cast worries about the ability of a sexy politician to be competent:

In the coming months, Sanchez will be tested on whether her reputation will be more coquette or congresswoman. Entrenched in the House majority for the first time, she is allied with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and sits on two of the most prominent committees: Armed Services and Homeland Security, being the second-ranking Democrat on the latter.

What would be the male equivalent for "coquette or congresswoman"? A horndog or a congressman? And when were the two seen as mutually exclusive in this country?

|

This Blogging Bidness 



I woke up quite early this morning to the sounds of a pile driver. A brand new McMansion is rising a few houses from me. It dwarfs everything around it, looking like some monstrous zit on a fairly average face. Now I will live in the shadow of the zit.

What does this all mean? It means that I'm grumpy and looking for angry material to write on. Such fragile creatures we humans are!

It also means that I really, truly hate the visuals of my blog and want one those new-fangled clean and artistic blogs with lots of other bloggers posting funny videos and snappy surveys of other blogs. And lots of faithful readers who all gather here to talk to each other. Sniff. I'm not going to get any of those things, because that is not what I'm good at.

I'm good at grumpiness.

|

The Empty Halls of a Megachurch 



Remember the Ted Haggard scandal? It has had its impact on his church:

The megachurch founded by the Rev. Ted Haggard, who was fired over drug and sex allegations, has laid off 44 people amid falling income following the scandal.

The cuts announced during services Sunday amount to about 12 percent of the church's work force, associate pastor Rob Brendle said.

Brendle estimated that church income has fallen 10 percent since the scandal last fall, forcing layoffs including pastoral staff, support staff and nursery workers.

Am I right in thinking that many of these megachurches are quite dependent on the charisma of one pastor? I recall reading about the relatively short life of those churches which lose their star preachers.

I'm also wondering if these megachurches are one of those things which future history regards as a passing quirk in religion, or if they are here to stay and if the latter, if they are always going to be homes of wingnuttery.

|

Sunday, March 04, 2007

I'm Back, It's Been A Long Weekend 

Posted by olvlzl.
Thank you for your kind wishes. Things are all right. I expect to post several pieces in draft but which aren't ready next week.
|

A Response Too Long For HaloScan 

Posted by olvlzl.
The major point of the post is that history provides a sounder academic field with which to guide political decisions and policies than behavioral or cognitive science. I didn’t say that there isn’t something to either behavioral or cognitive science, though I’d certainly argue that many researchers in both fields tend to go way beyond what their research supports. The amazingly baroque structures that they tend to build on rather shaky pilings are impressive until you look at what they’re built on.

The recent dustup begun by Steven Pinker in the New Republic, George Lakoff’s defense of his work (Pinker seems to have quite opportunistically distorted what Lakoff said, I didn’t read the book so I will have to depend on Lakoff’s rebuttal. Lakoff should know what he wrote, afterall.) and Geoffrey Nunberg’s analysis of it is a good window into just what the field can get like. If any of the various viewpoints will stand even a couple of decades is anyones’ guess at this point. This part of Nunberg’s analysis is germain to the point of what I wrote:

Why does any of this matter? Pinker suggests that the danger is that Democratic politicians might actually take Lakoff at his word and build their strategies around his ideas. But as best I can tell, Lakoff's direct influence on the language of the Democrats has been negligible. He may have had the ear of some prominent Democrats, but you couldn't tell it by what comes out of their mouths. And no wonder--as Pinker and a number of other people have observed, Lakoff's own framing suggestions are pretty lame. Democratic politicians don't need to know anything about cognitive science to realize that referring to taxes as "membership fees" or to trial lawyers as "public protection attorneys" would make them easy targets of Republican ridicule. And as for his proposal that Democrats should reframe "activist judges" as "freedom judges," a Google search turns up no instances of the phrase apart from remarks that make fun of the suggestion.

True, linguists coin slogans about as well as physicists ride bicycles. And the fact that Lakoff has a tin ear for political phrasing doesn't negate his indirect influence in drawing Democrats' attention to the importance of framing. That's all to the good. It's easy to say that what matters is ideas, not language. But while people often exaggerate the effect of Republican slogans and bumper stickers, there's no question that a well-turned catchphrase can do a lot of work in shaping public opinion--think of "cut and run." As Walter Lippmann pointed out in Public Opinion, American political life is saturated with verbal symbols that "assemble emotions after they have been detached from their ideas." However compelling the ideas that Democrats come up with are, they'll have a hard time packaging them unless they can do a better job confecting the wrapping paper. (My own sense is that liberal Democrats would do better revisiting the populist language that brought them to the ball in the first place than invoking the labored moral frames that Lakoff proposes. But that's for another conversation.)

I’ll admitt that Lakoff’s politics are a lot closer to mine than Pinker’s and I’ll renew the charge that Pinker isn’t above some rather dirty politics (see Lakoff’s rebuttal) and, if it’s not obvious, Pinker is not apolitical. However, though I might agree with Lakoff’s politics, I don’t believe his scientific work is as good a guide to politics as history is. Any agreement between us is on other grounds.

To deny the logical outcomes of biological determinism, both as clearly demonstrated in history and in the adoption of Pinker’s work, in particular, by right wingers, is just to deny what’s plainly there to be seen. If it doesn't go past Brooks and Hoff-Sommers it can't be a very difficult point. It’s a clear danger to progressive politics, I say it’s a danger to democracy itself. The enormous gulf that separates the scientific speculations of these determinists, based on their interpretation of rather skimpy data, and what actual life shows us as revealed by the far larger record of history that resulted from the actions of people, basing politics on Pinker and the rest is an act of faith that is enormously risky. I’m not willing to take that risk on sciences that have a track record of changing fashions quite as often as these do. Even if they didn’t, their assertions, untested in history, are far less impressive than what is learned from looking at ideological and “scientifically” based politics in the 20th century.


Oops, Left This Off
Also from Nunberg’s analysis:

True, many liberals have always been prone to this tone of argument. But Lakoff's writings seem to give a scientific imprimatur to the idea that liberalism and conservatism are distinct mentalities--that we're the ones who are "for nurturance and care," for example. And while liberals may find that picture flattering, it also plays into the rhetorical hands of conservatives, who are happy to reframe ideological divisions as warring personalities and lifestyles and to obscure the economic roots of political divisions. In fact the most damning thing you can say about Lakoff is that he too often takes the right at its word.

Now, here I can agree and disagree with Nunberg. I do think that there is a political danger from the Republican media in this kind of framing, though I do it myself. The reason is that after the going on seven years of the Bush II regime, the years of Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, Lott, Frist, Bush I, Ronald Reagan, Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist.... not to mention the conservatives who hold enormous influence without holding office, anyone who can remain a conservative after the disasters and most criminal governments under them has failed both the tests of morality and history. To not point out their criminality and moral depravity is to distort the truth. You can't talk about them honestly without mentioning it.
|

Faggoting 



It's an embroidery stitch and therefore most suitable as a womanly post title. Even if the post is about Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a faggot:

Democratic presidential contender John Edwards hopes to make some quick campaign cash off a conservative columnist's slur at a convention of Republican activists.

"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I — so kind of an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards," Ann Coulter told Republicans attending the annual Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday.

Democrats were quick to condemn her remark.

So were most conservative politicians. But what was astonishing about the whole debacle was the mainstream media's initial reluctance to address it at all. John Aravosis put it like this:

Apparently it's no longer news to the Associated Press and Reuters that a lead conservative voice at THE lead conservative conference, a conference attended by all the GOP presidential candidates (save John McCain) and even the vice president himself, publicly called a lead Democratic presidential candidate a "faggot." And it's not news that the lead gay and lesbian civil rights group in America, and the head of the Democratic party, have called on the GOP candidatees, and the veep, to condemn her hateful comments. No, no story there. But I do hear that Anna Nicole Smith is still dead and Britney shaved her head. Oooh, how exciting.

I don't even need to make the comparisons to whether the Associated Press, Reuters and the rest of the mainstream media would find it newsworthy if Michael Moore or Barbra Streisand, attending the lead Democratic political conference, called a leading Republican presidential candidate the n-word, or a slur for Jews, or Latinos, or any other minority. Hell, the mainstream media was all over the story that Barbra Streisand told some heckler to go shove it - yes, that was apparently news - but a top conservative voice publicly calling a top Democrat a "faggot" at the most important annual meeting of the GOP base, in a month that the word faggot and anti-gay bias has been in the news repeatedly, no, that ain't news.

Because it is a joke! Don't you get it? That's what Ann Coulter said when asked about the comment by Adam Nagourney.

I learned two things from all this. First, the mainstream media is frightened of the wingnuts and prefers to cluck and tut over the nasty and vulgar lefty blogs instead. Second, we should all make it quite clear that our nasty and vulgar language is just a joke and that some people are too stupid to get it.

|

Do You Want To Buy Me? 



All people are sometimes treated as commodities. But women are treated that way often. Just watch the uterus wars and the "they-are-breeding-us-out" wars and all the discussions about how women should act so as not to let the civilization collapse. The civilization is on our shoulders, a little like the tabletop is on the shoulders of the table legs.

Why so gloomy, Echidne? I have been reading about the disappearing Indian girls and the ghost brides of China. From No Capital:

Yang Donghai, a 35-year-old farmer in western China's Shaanxi province, confessed to killing a woman bought from a poor family for 12,000 yuan ($1,545) last year.

She thought she was being sold into an arranged marriage, but Yang killed her in a gully and sold her corpse for 16,000 yuan, the Legal Daily reported Thursday. He and two accomplices then killed a prostitute and sold her for 8,000 yuan before police caught them.

"I did it for the money; it was a quick buck," Yang said, according to the paper. "If I hadn't slipped up early, I planned to do a few more."

The women were victims of an old belief, still alive in the yellow-earth highlands of western China, that young men who die unmarried should go to their graves accompanied by deceased women who will be their wives in the afterlife. Often these women die natural deaths.

Sometimes a dead woman is worth more than a living one. And sometimes a living girl is worth so very little that it's better to abandon her:

Bhavia is sleeping swaddled in a woolly peach cardigan amid the wailing and flailing limbs of 20 other babies. Nurses in lilac saris and face masks scoop the bundles from rockers and jig them under the wintry Delhi sun. Two days ago, the baby girl became the newest arrival at Palna, an orphanage in the capital's Civil Lines district. But Bhavia is not an orphan. She is what used to be known as "a foundling", abandoned by her mother in a local hospital.

When Bhavia came to Palna she was nameless, with no date of birth. What is certain, from a cursory glance at the line of babies, is that an orphanage is one of the few places in India where males are outnumbered. For every boy lying in the sunny courtyard, there are four girls. Some have been dumped outside police stations, some in railway toilets, crowded fairgrounds, or the dark corners of bus stations. Others were left outside the orphanage in a wicker cradle, in a specially built alcove by a busy road. The weight of a child here will set off an alarm, alerting Palna's staff to a new arrival.

Almost always, it is girls who are left in the cradle. Healthy boys are only deserted in India if born to single mothers; boys left by a married couple are the disabled ones. Not all abandoned girls come from families too poor to feed them, however. Some have been found with a neatly packed bag containing a change of clothes, milk formula and disposable nappies.

This is an improvement over what usually happens to the unwanted girls:

The latest estimate of India's sex ratio at birth (SRB) can be gleamed from a sample registration system that covers 1.3m households. For the two years up to 2004, India had just 882 girls per 1,000 boys. Only China is worse. Beijing's harsh, yet effective, family-planning policy limited urban couples to a single child -which was usually a boy. China's sex ratio stands at just 832:1,000. Sabu George, a Delhi-based researcher who has worked for two decades on female foeticide, describes the first few months in the womb as "the riskiest part of a woman's life cycle in India". The sex ratios in the country, he says, are getting worse "day by day". India, he says, now has 930,000 missing girls every year. "What we are talking about is a massive, hidden number of deaths."

And what is it that makes girls and women so unwanted? The system of marrying into the man's family and the expectation that it is the sons who will take care of their parents in old age. A daughter will leave, just when she would be old enough to contribute to the family, and not only will she leave, but she is expected to take a dowry with her. And it is the sons who will take care of the parents later on, or perhaps the daughters-in-law those sons marry, strangers, too. The daughters themselves will take care of the parents of their future husbands, you see.

A trade in women, and a daughter a burden! Who invented this system? Was it based on the greater muscular strength of the sons?

Think how hard it is to be a burden to your parents, to be traded off like that, to have to cut the emotional web you have built over the years, to start from the beginning, under the domination of strangers.

Commodities, to be traded and bought, or to be exchanged for family connections. I used to think that a traditional marriage was like a labor contract for the woman, a contract which specified her duties to her husband's family. But sometimes I think it resembles slavery more than anything else, and I say this fully understanding that many traditional marriages are quite good and that a certain amount of bad luck is required to see just how very bad the situation can be for women.

And what about the psychological effects of being labeled as a nuisance, a drain on the family resources? Someone once told me a joke about women in India or China or some similar place; that having daughters was like watering the neighbor's flower garden. What would the daughters themselves think about that joke? How hard must one inhale the spirit of patriarchy to cheerfully agree with its message? And I have seen that happen.

But of course how commodities feel doesn't matter when it comes to their prices.

Do you know what I find truly ironic about the disappeared girls in China and India? That the concerns usually begin only when someone realizes that --gasp-- men will not find wives now! The market in wives has excess demand! Do something! The price will go up, up, up! And there will be an illegal market of kidnapped brides! The rising price of women does not make them any less commodities, sadly.

I want to bang my head against the garage door, here. But if you think this way of thinking about women is only a problem in far-away places such as China or India, think again. In the offices of Washington Times, the following was recorded:

The day before, there was a brief discussion on the foreign desk about a pending series by religion writer Julia Duin on the abortion of girls in India....In the discussion with colleagues on The Washington Times foreign desk, [foreign desk editor David Jones] said: "The reason we are running this story is that Coombs thinks all the aborted girls means that Indian men will be immigrating to the United States to marry our girls." That is an exact quote, what Jones told his colleagues on the foreign desk.

Now we can't have that, can we? It would mess with the wife-market over here.

|

Saturday, March 03, 2007

An Old Story For Your Enjoyment 



On Feminism

Would you like to do something crazy and reckless with your life? Do you have the strength to throw away job security, pension benefits, even the approval of your dearest and nearest ones? Are you quite content if you'll never set a foot in a TV or radio studio, never get invited to another Republican fundraiser, never have another "Letter to the Editor" published?

If your answer to all of these is a resounding yes and if you have always felt kind of curious about life in leprosy colonies, you might possess the stuff that makes a woman stand up and declare herself a feminist. You can then spend your life fighting for a worthy cause, viz. the conviction that women, just like men, are fully adult full members of the species homo sapiens and should be treated so rather than as domestic gadgets or sexual aids. You will be joined in this fight by a handful of equally nutty and courageous women and men. Your opposition will span millions of men and women and millions of millions of dollars. They will fight you with everything they've got: the old boy network, the old religious network and the big media networks.

You will be accused of everything that ever has gone wrong in this country: crime, abandoned children, divorce, unemployment, promiscuity, even weakened national defense. Wow! This is heady stuff and might make you feel powerful beyond your wildest dreams. Hard to believe that feminists have been able to wreck so much of Western civilization without media access, money or military backing. Well, if it sounds too good to be true....

This doesn't mean that you wouldn't need to be strong to be a feminist. But it is even more important that you can laugh at yourself. Others certainly will. In fact, ridicule and prurient interest in your life, loves and looks will follow you throughout your feminist career.

People will say "No wonder she is a feminist; with a face/clothes/hair like that what other options did she have?" or "All she really needs is to get laid" or even "She is just one of those male-haters; after all, she views women as their equals". If these statements get you down consider an easier career, say, early Christian martyrdom in the Roman style.

If you are still game, get working. We all need you to, us nonfeminists, who will ultimately reap the rewards of your labors without having lifted a finger. Oh, you'll get your reward, too. When you have been safely dead for a century or so we'll erect a few monuments in your honor and insert a sanitized paragraph or two about your life in the history books. We'll even encourage others to choose the feminist career path.


|

Sorry to leave in a hurry. 

Posted by olvlzl.
A family problem has come up and I'm going to be away until tomorrow night. I will post as soon as possible.
|

Don’t Say That, It Drives Me Absolutely Wild. 

Pet Peeve of the Day From Real Life*
Posted by olvlzl.
When a father is taking care of his children it is not “BABY SITTING”. And it isn’t him doing something extraordinarily saintly, it’s him taking basic responsibility for having produced children.
How come they never call it “baby sitting” when a mother does it? Besides, that guy, he's only doing it because he doesn't have a choice today. I know him, he's a jerk.

*Overheard about ten minutes ago.
|

Go North East Young Mormon 

Posted by olvlzl.
In the developing narrative pushed by Howie Kurtz and other moutpieces of Republican media, that liberal, anti-religious bigots are discriminating against Mitt Romney on the basis of his being a Mormon, the most obvious fact is being overlooked. It's overlooked because it wouldn't suit the Republican right's lying line.

While Romney has a real problem finding how to sell himself to the religious right who think he's a devil worshiping cultist - and let's be impressed, Romney has sold out so many times that it's nice to see one group that can resist his annoying, Pepsodent charm - he encountered no such bigotry in the most liberal state in the country. It was in relatively Mormonless, same-sex-marrying, Kennedy-Kerry electing, university student ridden Massachusetts that Romney has found electoral success.

Liberals, they don't tend to be bigots like Republican conservatives.
|

Elegy For A Liberal Historian 

The Dangers of a Conservative-Cognitive Cohabitation
Posted by olvlzl.
Unless Echidne does one of her great refutations of David Brook’s bilge, he is pretty near the bottom of my optional reading list. Other than as referenced by the writings of her and some others, I avoid the cherry picker. So I hadn’t read his recent citation of Steven Pinker before taking that modest poke at the guy here last week.

A comment asked what I didn’t like about Pinker. You could say that the reasons start with all of the misgivings posted here about behavioral science. But as Brooks has made the logical use of Pinker to back up the status-quo, the question goes way past those.

Discussing the great historian Arthur Schlesinger on another blog the other day, someone disagreed with me that history was a better way to learn about politics and society than the behavioral sciences. I hold that it’s clear that as systems become more complex that the difficulties of studying them grow and the certainty of the results of the study tend to diminish. Eventually the difficulties preclude those subjects from being science. Some of the methods of science can be useful in studying those very complex fields but the results are not science. While a clear demarcation is probably not possible, the science side of the line should include only aspects of behavior and cognition that are quite simple and well defined, at least that’s what I think. Some people aren’t as stringent about what they’ll place their scientific faith in*. I think that the best history is more rigorous in its adherence to fact than a good deal of what is considered to be science. And its facts are no less facts than the product of the behavioral sciences. Quite often there is more evidence that what historians study acutally happened.

The unwise faith holding sway among our intelligentsia, that accords whatever a big name at a big university calls “science” a position of nearly unquestioned authority, is liable to break down most badly when “science” goes past where a reasonable and disinterested person should draw the line. A lot of those caught up in this kind of reverent awe are not given pause by their ignorance of science. It’s quite common among majors in the humanities or viewers of the Discovery Channel who haven’t mastered highschool algebra. It’s in them that the critique of science as a secular religion is particularly accurate.

Emblematic of the ubiquitous, uncritical acceptance of behavioral science is that the treatment of individuals as individuals, with their own abilities, thoughts and preferences, treatment unprejudiced by classification and assignment of abstract, statistical norms feels like it’s becoming ever rarer in today’s over indoctrinated world. People are not merely members of a category, you cannot tell anything about them by relying on classification. They can’t be pinned to a board like a dead insect and assigned a little, printed card. Pinker's very self-serving support of Summers' should be a red flag both within and outside of his specialty.

II.
History, politics and society in general, with their enormous complexity cannot accommodate the precise specifications necessary for really good science. The vast academic subject, “history” is variable enough, flexible enough and sufficiently lacking in authoritative hierarchy to encompass the enormous and difficult mass of evidence in its ambiguity and contradictions. History, with no right to being called a science yet containing a larger part of the real complexity of actual life, can give a better idea of how to avoid the political mistakes that other people have made in the past than just about any science. It’s surely a better guide for our politics than the religion of near science. Not that science doesn’t also have an extremely important role. Careful and accurate science does have an enormous role to play in setting public policy when it’s useful. The suppression and distortion of science by the Bush regime is a crime against humanity and democracy.

There is bad history just as there is bad science. I believe both are a danger to freedom and the continued existence of life. But history isn’t contained in a single, larger, truth. It contains a large number of different viewpoints. You might find what is useful within one viewpoint or it might spread itself over several opinions. The strength of history comes partly from the number of viewpoints, when those viewpoints are honestly arrived at.

Democratic politics doesn’t depend on a single viewpoint for its authority, it can’t. It depends on the information that The People, as a whole, bring to it. It’s an attempt to average out bad ideas and to cast a wide net to find good ones. But in order for democracy to exist, The People need to hold values that can’t be found by science. Those values are as necessary to freedom and as essential to a decent society as accurate information. Equality, generosity and liberty are foremost among them. The rise in popularity of those values grew out of the knowledge of the history that preceded it and the desire to escape the horrors of the past, it continued with a faith that kind of change was possible.

It’s an uncertain life which we have to approach from our own limitations. Many leftists are too quick to accept the too confident and fashionable explanations of biological determinists on these subjects. The scientific trappings of their pronouncements cow too many people out of making a political and, let’s say it, moral critique of their edicts. There is no reason to believe that their work contains more legitimate ground for making good choices in politics than are found in life unfiltered by them. Brooks and others are beginning to use them like earlier plutocrats used other biological determinists to prop up the status quo. The history of that practice, resting on piles of entirely real bones, stolen lives and stunted spirits, makes suspicion of these neo-determinists entirely legitimate. Alleged science used to support the politics of David Brooks, which Pinker more than clearly implies in his contentions, needs a critical look in political terms. The history of their fields should require more skepticism than uncritical acceptance. The emergent political applications of their writings makes that kind of skepticism wise. **

Back when Sociobiology was young, a relative of mine was majoring in biology. They swallowed the fashionable line, then all the rage in biology departments around the country. During one of our frequent arguments on the subject they asked why I didn’t dispute physics but felt entirely free to dispute sociobiology . Other than the arguments made here about complexity, subjectivity and interpretation, the answer included that no physicist, on the authority of their research, had maintained that we didn’t have free will or had supported grossly sexist social norms.*** The real possibility of determinists impinging on other peoples’ lives confers the right to respond to them very skeptically.

III.
The danger in biological determinism for progressives is that its uncritical adoption will result in the left being hollowing out through an abandonment of our essential values. The view of people as “computers made of meat”, of our actions as the results of genetic fitness with little to be done in the way of mitigation, is a way of reducing people to fixed objects.**** That view of people is the core of conservative practice, no matter what line they might mouth. I don’t see any scientific bar to allowing those with more ability or resources to use such human objects in whatever way what will. Biological imperative is a well known excuse for human subjugation even today, there is every reason to believe it will continue to be. If this kind of biological determinism becomes the majority opinion all the evils of the past will reemerge. Other excuses have served exactly the same purpose, the results will be the same, perhaps worse because people will believe that it’s proven fact that subjugation is the best they can hope for. Steve Biko said "The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." We will relive the past we have been encouraged to ignore.

The contentions of Pinker et al are suspiciously supportive of the status quo elite that they are a part of. Odd, isn’t it, that their work props up the current establishment instead of undermining it. In pointing that out I’m aware that Pinker’s camp has made the same charge against other, competing, scientists, who they claim have allowed their politics to influence their work. So, it’s a form of critique that they can hardly say is illegitimate when applied to them.

But I’m not going to get involved with that highbrow form of uh-huh, nah-uh. I’ll leave that to scientists. I’m interested in what history has shown us can happen in these kinds of situations. I think that the manifestation of such “science” in history, seeing how it played out in real societies, countries and lives, is infinitely more useful than taking the speculative and schematic findings of “science” and applying them the other way round. At least, they are if you aren’t interested in propping up an elite. Life is too complex to leave to the scientists, alone.

* Though this point was disputed on the other blog, behavioral science is clearly the most subjective branch of science. Given its field of study, it begins with interpretation of behaviors and then goes well past the point of simply describing what can be seen, drawing inferences about unseen aspects and assumptions. Its researchers very often lack an objectively observable, measurable, subject. The field can’t escape its origins, a behavioral scientist can’t escape the place they are observing from, their own mind, and the fact that they are putting their own interpretation on what they’ve observed. As I said in that long piece a few weeks back, cognitive science, even with all it’s measurements and imaging, sometimes pretends to have bridged that chasm when it hasn’t. We can’t know if it might achieve that someday. As of today, it hasn’t.

**I’ll avoid the temptation of making specific comparisons between them and others in history who have claimed a similar kind of authority based on the prevailing standards of reasoning. After all, those people also believed their standards were etched in stone for all time. Science isn’t the full measure of reality anymore than history is.

*** Sociobiology hadn’t accommodated itself to the objections of female sociobiologists yet. And just where did “sociobiology” go, anyway? You hardly ever hear the word pronounced these days.

**** I believe the quote was from the respected chemist turned Anglican Priest, John Polkinghorne, though I couldn’t find a link.

Is anyone else struck by the short shrift given by social and behavioral scientists to the ability of reasoning and logic to change lives? Haven’t you talked yourself out of something you really wanted to do by analyzing what you wanted with reason and common decency? I’d expect lots of people on the left have. Maybe even some on the right. The ability of people to be better than they are is the heart and soul of liberalism. Without that, the oligarches have it right.
|

Friday, March 02, 2007

Sweeping Out the Cobwebs 



A new British study has provoked some attention on blogs. It looks at the hours of housework that women and men do both before and after they couple up:

A new study has found that employed women living with their employed partner actually spend more time doing housework than single women. The men, on the other hand see the hours they commit to housework decline once they begin living as a couple.

The findings come from analysis by labour economist Helene Couprie of Toulouse University.

Her research, based on data from the British Household Panel Survey looked at working women - single or living with a partner, both with and without children. And by examining information on more than 2,000 people, she concluded that on average, an employed woman does 15 hours a week of housework when she lives with her employed partner, up from 10 hours when single. Meanwhile the men, who do seven hours while living alone, do only five when they co-habit.

The findings are partly, Ms Couprie suggests, due to influences that people have grown up with - where traditionally women have taken on the lion's share of domestic tasks.

She says that as long as children see their parents stick to certain tasks, such trends become hard to change.

Jessica Valenti at feministing.com pointed out the study, Matthew Yglesias did some calculations of the unequal effect and points out that women have higher standards of cleanliness, given that single women did about three hours more work per week than single men. Still, employed women see their chore hours rise and employed men see their chore hours fall as they become couples.

Why is this the case? Scott Lemieux suggests that the expected ideal level of housework should perhaps be reconsidered, given that this expectation was built during a time when married women were full-time housekeepers in middle-class families:

To once again borrow from Jacob Levy the idea that "[t]he only non-sexist equilibrium is for both partners to converge on the preferences that got inculcated in women by societies that had one partner be a full-time housekeeper, sometimes with additional paid help" is plainly erroneous, and assuming such standards on average puts women in an exceptionally weak bargaining position -- in which gross inequalities are inevitable. The underlying differences don't justify the inequality, but they do make clear that trying to equalize at an anachronistically high level of domestic work is a bad feminist strategy.


And Kevin Drum views the study as telling us that men are slobs and raises a banner for the brotherhood of men by arguing that the study in fact shows men working more when overall work hours (paid and unpaid) are considered:

But I was curious about why the total hours of housework goes up so dramatically for couples (two people shouldn't require twice the hours of housework as one person, should they?). Was this due to the presence of children or did they control for that? So I went looking for the paper itself, and eventually found an earlier version of the research here. Unfortunately, it was so crammed with formidable looking equations that I quickly gave up.

However, if you scroll down to Table 2, you'll find something that makes the basic results a little more understandable: men in couples do less housework than women, but they also do way more work outside the house (44 hours vs. 31 hours on average). Women's work outside the home declines when they become part of a couple, and my guess is that men's work outside the home increases (though, oddly, Table 2 doesn't actually provide this data directly). The total amount of leisure time reported within couples is 128 for women vs. 124 for men. The guys aren't quite so lazy after all!

Now, the author warns us to be careful with this data, since time spent with children is sometimes coded as housework and sometimes coded as leisure, and it's not always clear which is which.

The study Kevin dug up is not the final version of the paper. It might not even be an earlier draft of the same data, though I guess it probably is. The "Table 2" Kevin refers to has no information on single men, for example, which makes it tricky to interpret the figures. But the whole manuscript is interesting, because it explains that the "single" and "partnered" people in the study are people who changed their status from one to the other group during the study. So the results are not just comparing a group of single people to a group of partnered people, but in fact look at how the time allocation of the people changes as their partnering status changes.

This also partly explains why the single women in Table 2 are almost as likely to have children (41% of them do) as the partnered women and men (52% of them do): some of them went from being partnered to being single, and suggests that it is not the arrival of children alone which would explain most of the change in time allocations.

Everything clear now? Actually, things are getting messier. The single women have the highest leisure time of the three groups listed in that table, work more for money than the partnered women and do less housework, and now I really want to know if these women were at first partnered and then became single or vice versa.

Doing time-use surveys is very tricky. Imagine how well you would do in estimating how many hours you spend on various chores at home. Then add to that the fact that we often multitask. If you watch television while ironing (remember ironing?), are you enjoying leisure time or doing a chore or both, and if both, what percentage of the time should be allocated to each use? It gets even harder when one tries to measure time spent taking care of children as some respondents will regard that as leisure time and others as household chore time. Or both.

But the manuscript is actually about something rather different: bargaining power in marriage and the way ones salary or wage rate affects ones bargaining position. The authors conclude that it is the unequal wages men and women on average garner that makes the allocation of household chores deviate from some equal sharing arrangement, and that it is the higher wages men can acquire that makes them work more hours for money.

Why would it matter how partners decide to allocate their working time between chores and paid work? It's all for the good of the family, after all. Well, yes. But the two types of work ARE different, because one is paid based on a formal legal contract and one is not paid in that way, but subject to negotiation.

The household chores are like a public good: something that benefits everybody in the family almost immediately but also something that doesn't grow a pension or future promotion possibilities, whereas the person who works for money gets these and often also a bigger legal say in how that money is spent. This is what makes the bargaining position of the partner not working outside the home weaker, other things being equal, and this is also why it matters how much one earns when negotiating household chores.

|

Why We Don't Have National Health Insurance 



A long time ago I read an article which classified the health care funding systems of countries into three types: socialized medicine (with overtones of Stalinism and stinking waiting-rooms and lines which never move), the system initiated by Bismarck in Germany (paternalism, health care insurance clubs, with overtones of an old fat guy in a uniform wearing a very bristly mustache) and the cowboy system (all market-based, money used to decide who gets what, private insurance, with overtones of Marlboro men valiantly riding on forever). What came as a surprise was to find that the cowboy system isn't actually used in the United States: roughly one half of all health care spending is channeled through various levels of government. But Americans think they have the cowboy system.

And this is partly because of the much greater loathing of the government here than in any other similar industrialized society I know of. Many Americans truly do not trust the government at all, and the reason for this may well be in the family stories passed on from generation to generation by the descendants of those who escaped oppressive governments to come here. The sad thing is that there are tasks for which some form of communal activity is needed, and it is beginning to look like health care finance might be one of those fields.

Consider the current U.S. system. Around forty million people without any coverage at all. As many as eight million children without coverage. The average cost of health insurance keeps rising, year after year, and the policies people have cover fewer and fewer treatments. Yet the overall expenditure on health care swallows more and more of our gross national product.

Some sort of change is urgently needed, and here is where the paradoxical views of Americans are the major problem. From a recent poll on health insurance:

A majority of Americans say the federal government should guarantee health insurance to every American, especially children, and are willing to pay higher taxes to do it, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

While the war in Iraq remains the overarching issue in the early stages of the 2008 campaign, access to affordable health care is at the top of the public's domestic agenda, ranked as far more important than immigration, cutting taxes or promoting traditional values. Only 24 percent said they were satisfied with President Bush's handling of the issue, despite his recent initiatives, and 62 percent said the Democrats — not the Republicans — were more likely to improve the health care system.

Americans showed a striking willingness in the poll to make tradeoffs for a better health care system, including paying as much as $500 more in taxes a year and forgoing future tax cuts. But the same divisions that doomed the last attempt at creating universal health insurance, under the Clinton administration, are still apparent. Americans remain divided, largely along party lines, over whether the government should require everyone to participate in a national health care plan, and over whether the government would do a better job than the private insurance industry in providing coverage.
...
One question offered a choice between the current system and a national health insurance program covering everyone, administered by the government and financed by taxpayers. Thirty-eight percent said they preferred the current system, while 47 percent preferred a government-run approach.

Nearly half said they thought it would be unfair to require all Americans to participate in a national health care plan, financed by taxpayers.

See? The problem isn't just the distrust of the government but also the great heterogeneity in the American values. This heterogeneity cuts across many other political questions, too, and in some ways means that Americans don't perhaps have very much fellow-feeling towards each other. The country is too diverse for that. But the fellow-feeling is necessary for those shared public tasks.

The initial solution to the health care insurance problem might be to expand public funding to cover more poor people. That might be palatable to those who don't want a taxpayer funded system for everybody. This solution has its disadvantages. For one, it would mark the programs as something easy to attack as handouts for the poor and so on. For another, it wouldn't do much to reduce the cost pressures on those who would be left to find private insurance, either on their own or through their employers.

|

On Henrietta the Hound 



Today was rough. Henrietta, my dog, suddenly couldn't walk or even stand, and she screamed in an awful way. She is also fifteen years old, so when I struggled to get her in the car for the trip to the vet I was also getting prepared to be calmly cheerful and present at her last moment on earth.

Which is some time in the future, because what she has is the "old dog roll-over" syndrome. Something to do with her sense of balance, like the way you feel after getting off one of those machines at an entertainment park. It's supposed to be self-limiting and Henrietta should be fine in a few days or a week. But right now she is not comfortable at all.

|

The Opinions of Echidne o.t.S 



You can read an interview with me at bloggasm. All my answers were off the top of my head but so is this blog.

|

Thursday, March 01, 2007

Lapland 






Still snow-covered and almost dark all day long in winter (and the reverse in summer). But beautiful.

|

Glenn Beckisms 



Just because I feel like writing about what he says. For example, a few days ago he said this:

There is a double standard in the world today. Treat Christians one way, but heaven help you if you try that with anybody else's religion.

So let me say what, in today's mainstream media, is unsayable: I believe that Jesus is the messiah. He was resurrected, and that he is the son of God.

And then a day or two later he was all into taking racy photographs of a woman:

On the February 28 edition of his CNN Headline News program, Glenn Beck once again made sexually suggestive comments toward a woman when he hosted US Weekly's Dina Sansing to discuss racy photographs of American Idol contestant Antonella Barba. After Beck claimed that "[y]ou can't take stupid photos and expect those to be ... locked away forever," Sansing responded that it was "possibly" true and that "it depends." As the weblog Crooks and Liars noted, Beck then asked: "Dina, I've got some time and a camera. Why don't you stop by?" Sansing did not respond and, after several seconds of silence, Beck stated: "No? OK." As Media Matters for America has noted (here, here, and here), in each of the first three episodes of his CNN Headline News show in May 2006, Beck made sexually suggestive comments to CNN Headline News anchor Erica Hill, who was then giving daily news updates on Beck's show. Hill no longer appears on Beck's program.

Now, maybe consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds only. Or maybe these two quotes tell us what Beck's religious beliefs might cover: worship of sons and fathers and racy photos of the rest of us. Or maybe it's just a question of being outrageous and not thinking much at all about anything. That may be what rises to the surface: not cream but scum.

|

Today's Video To Watch 



This one. Thanks to hmhm for sending it. It is about the planned war between religions and the role of women in it. Or rather, in stopping it from starting.

|

On Dental Care 



An awful story about the importance of dental care for children can be found here. A simple and practical remedy would be to have a dental checkup at school every year. I used to get those, and if there was anything wrong with my teeth I was sent to the dentist's office, as were all the other children who needed work. It was possible to opt out of the checkup by having a note from a family dentist, but I can't remember anyone bothering to do that. The system worked, just as a similar checkup for overall health worked. Besides, imagine the easing of the parents' workload that this all allows: No need to book awkward appointments unless they were really needed.

Dental care is the stepchild in most health care plans, viewed as less important and less expensive. It may be less expensive, but the costs are still outside the reach of many families, and neglected teeth are not a good thing for general health.

|

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com
Progressive Women's Blog Ring
Join | List | Previous | Next | Random | Previous 5 | Next 5 | Skip Previous | Skip Next
  • DONATE: FEED THE GODDESS!