Goddess Praise
- "Dear Echidne, I read your blog all the time! I love it."
- Katha Pollitt, the Nation
- 2005 Koufax Award Winner: Most Deserving of Wider Recognition
- Yes, you read it right. I won.
- DONATE: FEED THE GODDESS!
Links
- A Blog Around the Clock
- Adventus
- Agitprop
- Alas, A Blog
- Alternet
- The American Street
- And Another Thing
- Angry Black Bitch
- Baghdad Burning
- Best of Both Worlds
- Bitch. Ph.D.
- blackfeminism.org
- Blog Sisters
- Blue and White
- Bouphonia
- Broadsheet
- Bush v Choice
- Conservatives for American Values
- Crooks and Liars
- Daddy Dialectic
- Dependable Renegade
- Devil's Dictionary Defiled
- Diary of an Anxious Black Woman
- Donna's Place
- Eschaton
- eteraz.org
- Ezra Klein
- Fact-esque, A Reality-Based Blog
- Faux Real Tho!
- the f-word
- Feminist Blogs
- Feminist Campus
- Feminist Law Professors
- Feministe
- Feministing.com
- First Draft
- Frogblog
- Fuming Mucker
- TheGarance.com
- Girlistic.com
- GOTV
- Graphic Truth
- Hecate
- The Heretik
- Hullabaloo (Digby)
- I Blame The Patriarchy
- Informed Comment
- James Wolcott
- Jesus' General
- Katha Pollitt Dot Com
- Kathryn Cramer
- La Chola
- Laura, 11D
- Lance Mannion
- Lawyers, Guns and Money
- The Left Coaster
- The Liberal Avenger
- Liberal Oasis
- Liberty Street
- Mad Melancholic Feminista
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Maya's Granny
- Multi Medium
- Net Politik
- The Next HurraH
- News From the Front - Fair And Balanced
- No Capital
- Nothing New Under the Sun
- Nyarlathoteps' Miscellany
- Oh No A Woc PhD
- olvlzl
- One Good Thing
- Orcinus
- Our Word
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Paralysis of the Mind
- Pen-Elayne on the Web
- Pensito Review
- pesky'apostrophe
- Pharyngula
- Pinko Feminist Hellcat
- Preemptive Karma
- Prometheus6
- Pseudo-Adrienne's Liberal-Feminist Bias
- Raw Story
- The Reaction
- Rebel Dad
- RH Reality Check
- Rising Hegemon
- Roger Ailes
- Rox Populi
- The Rude Pundit
- Science and Politics
- scribblingwoman
- Shakespeare's Sister
- Shrillblog
- Sivacracy.Net
- skippy the bush kangaroo
- slacktivist
- Sour Duck
- Spiiderweb
- Spocko's Brain
- Steve Bates
- Stone Court
- Suburban Guerrilla
- TalkLeft
- TAPPED
- TBogg
- Think Progress
- Unclaimed Territory - By Glenn Greenwald
- The Vanity Press
- Welcome to the Sideshow (Avedon)
- What She Said
- Where in Washington, D.C...
- Zuky
- DONATE: FEED THE GODDESS!
The Liberal Coalition
Archives
- 11/01/2003 - 12/01/2003
- 12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004
- 01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004
- 02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004
- 03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004
- 04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004
- 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004
- 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004
- 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004
- 08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004
- 09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004
- 10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004
- 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004
- 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005
- 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005
- 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005
- 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005
- 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005
- 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005
- 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005
- 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005
- 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005
- 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005
- 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005
- 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005
- 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006
- 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006
- 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006
- 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006
- 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006
- 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006
- 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006
- 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006
- 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006
- 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006
- 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006
- 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006
- 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007
- 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007
- 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007
- 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007
- 04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007
- 05/01/2007 - 06/01/2007
- 06/01/2007 - 07/01/2007
- 07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007
- 08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007
- 09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007
- 10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007
- 11/01/2007 - 12/01/2007
- 12/01/2007 - 01/01/2008
- 01/01/2008 - 02/01/2008
- 02/01/2008 - 03/01/2008
- 03/01/2008 - 04/01/2008
- 04/01/2008 - 05/01/2008
- 05/01/2008 - 06/01/2008
- 06/01/2008 - 07/01/2008
- 07/01/2008 - 08/01/2008
- 08/01/2008 - 09/01/2008
- 09/01/2008 - 10/01/2008
- 10/01/2008 - 11/01/2008
- 11/01/2008 - 12/01/2008
- 12/01/2008 - 01/01/2009
- 01/01/2009 - 02/01/2009
- 02/01/2009 - 03/01/2009
- 03/01/2009 - 04/01/2009
- 04/01/2009 - 05/01/2009
- 05/01/2009 - 06/01/2009
- 06/01/2009 - 07/01/2009
- 07/01/2009 - 08/01/2009
- 08/01/2009 - 09/01/2009
- 09/01/2009 - 10/01/2009
- 10/01/2009 - 11/01/2009
- 11/01/2009 - 12/01/2009
Powered by
RSSify at WCC
ATOM Feed
OPINIONS OF ECHIDNE OF THE SNAKES, A MINOR GREEK GODDESS. She can be reached at: ECHIDNE-OF-THE-SNAKES.COM
Friday, August 31, 2007
Friday Nature and Cat Blogging
To Kill 3,000 Students
I know criticizing President Bush's language problems is boring and repetitive, but it still has to be done. Here he is answering questions in an interview with an Australian reporter:
It isn't the 3,000 students who were supposedly killed six years ago that is my point, but the way Bush draws a direct line from those events to the need to have Australian troops in Iraq, a country which sent none of the 19 "kids" to massacre people. It isn't Bush's difficulties with words that is the problem here but his difficulties with facts. Not that he is stumbling here at all, in the deeper level. On that level he is pushing our fear buttons and associating that post-traumatic stress syndrome with his essentially unrelated war in Iraq. |
Thursday, August 30, 2007
The Bees Are Back!
|
On Larry Craig
This was not a topic I planned to address. The problems with discussing politicians' private lives are many, and those private lives are largely none of our business. I said "largely" which means that there are some exceptions. The ones I view as valid is when the politicians engage in illegal activities, especially if those activities intertwine with their jobs as politicians, and the cases where a politician's private choices directly clash with his or her stated political ideals or opinions. The latter incongruence is useful to analyze because it gives us more information on how truthfully the stated political beliefs are held, for instance. Now, the Larry Craig case (a conservative, "pro-family", anti-gay Senator apparently caught soliticing for gay sex in a public toilet) does fit those exceptions, assuming that what Craig did was illegal. So does the earlier case of Senator Vitter (Louisiana, married) admitting to using prostitutes, a crime in the jurisdiction he was at the time of the events. Senator Vitter also promoted "pro-life" policies, such as abstinence and marital fidelity, yet his own life choices revealed the difficulty of walking his own talk. Given that the Craig case fits my exceptions rule, why was I not going to write about it? Because it is being used for gay bashing, mostly. But now Republicans are trying to make him go away altogether, to appeal to the homophobic part of their base. Note that his resignation is called for by conservatives who found no need to call for the resignation of Senator Vitter. That the Vitter case was about heterosexual sex (with no dead girls) and the Craig case is about homosexual sex may be one cause for the different treatment. But a more important one is the fact that Craig would be replaced by another Republican Senator, whereas Vitter's state has a Democratic governor who might nominate a Democrat to take his seat. So I got annoyed by the political exploitation and decided finally to jump in and join the fray. Heh. In any case, the focus on the discussions on Craig I've followed have been on predatory behavior in public toilets. This, in turn, is associated with homosexuality. Senator Vitter's case is somehow less serious because he contacted for the "massage services" by phone. Perhaps. But predatory behavior is something many women have experience with and not only in same-sex contexts. Come to think of it, mostly not in same-sex contexts. That's why the toilets are traditionally the place one uses to escape too ardent propositioners. Still, is it really true that openly gay men would regard public restrooms as the place to find sexual partners? I'm not sure, but I suspect that this behavior has much to do with being in the closet and therefore being unable to go to the places where sexual partners are usually found. If I'm correct in this, then what happened to Larry Craig is partly a consequence of the policies that his party pursues, policies which try to keep gays in closets and ashamed of their sexuality. ---- This post has no links because I'm very lazy today and because I have a niggling headache which gets stronger whenever I think of doing some research. |
Talking the Surge
One of my major handicaps in writing about politics is that I get into screaming hair-tearing fits when people go on and on about itty bitty details to discuss whether the surge is working, and not only minor details but details which have pretty much nothing to do with the question whether the surge can ever work or not. Why? Because a) the people in power refuse to give us a practical and precise definition of what "surge is working" would actually mean. The definition flows like melting ice-cream. And because b) we have no way of judging who has the correct information that is needed to answer the question or even if anyone has it. All we have are various bits of propaganda, really. And finally, c) because it is not kosher to discuss the possible motives Bush might have in this case or the motives the poor generals might have to now refuse to take the blame if the surge doesn't work, after all. Kabuki theater. There are probably very good reasons to engage in it but my nerves are wired all wrong for that. |
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Remembering Katrina
Two years later, and we have still not helped those who were hurt by a storm. New Orleans is a travesty of what it once was, and the Bush administration is not blamed for the disappearance of an American landmark, not to mention the deaths and dislocations of so many. Where is the famous conservative patriotism when it is needed? |
An Unborn Child Found In A Sewer
This news story is a very odd one. I have bolded the bits that are attention-worthy:
The story doesn't tell us the actual size of the fetus, only that it was bigger than three-quarters of an inch and therefore stopped by the screens. But note the language of the story. I couldn't stop thinking how in some future dystopia all women must prove monthly that they are not pregnant, and when something of this sort happens there will probably be pelvic examinations for all women who were found pregnant in the previous month. ---- Link via halfdan on Eschaton threads. |
The Paradoxes of Women and Sexuality
It's a very odd thing: On the one hand it is women who are traditionally expected to gate-keep (heterosexual) sex. On the other hand, it is women who are regulated and controlled and managed in the field of sex. It's as if women own sex but someone else owns women and tells them how to deliver it or not to deliver it. Men are argued to have a stronger sexual instinct, an instinct that somehow cannot be controlled or managed by men on their own, an instinct which instead causes large markets to crop up to further incite desire and lust. Women are argued not to be that keen on sex, but still most societies traditionally make rules about how to limit women from having sex and how to ostracize and otherwise punish "loose" women. Women are both devilishly sexual and insatiable, what with all those multiple orgasms, and almost totally without sexual interests. A round-heeled woman is - well - round-heeled. A round-heeled man is a stud, an object of envy. That is the first paradox, though perhaps a paradox only if we start from the assumption of no power imbalance between the sexes. The second paradox concerns the private-public definition of sex. Traditionally the women who have public sex have been separated from the women who have private sex. The former are hookers, whores, sluts, prostitutes or sex-workers, depending on the level of sophistication one wants to assume. The latter are ideally first virgins and then wives. In the private sector, a woman's sex is the property of one man. In the public sector,traditionally, a woman's sex is the property of all men, even if she is also managed by a pimp. In a similar vein, women's naked bodies are viewed as either public or private property, to be revealed indiscriminately or to be hidden completely. Thus we get female newsreaders who are expected to show legs and breasts while reading news and thus we also get countries where nothing of women's bodies except the face can be shown on television. Often the paradoxes of private vs. public sex and the private vs. public ownership of women's bodies get confused with each other, and then we get those cross-cultural cases where some men from the Middle East think that all Western women are whores, say. But note that there is no real confusion about who is supposed to own the women's bodies or their sexuality in either case. At least when viewed traditionally and without feminist understanding. The third paradox is linked to the first paradox I described but slightly different. It is the answer to the question: "Who is responsible for sex?" The traditional answer is almost always: "Women". Even when the woman in question has no real power to influence the events. This may be one reason why the victims of rape often feel so much guilt, wonder so incessantly about what they could have done differently, feel partly to blame even if they are not. The radical clerics of this world want to control sexuality. And the way they want to control it is by forcing "modesty" on women. The way women dress is regarded as responsible for the way men might react. The burden of managing sexuality is put on women's shoulders. Hence it is women who become the guilty parties when sex escapes the role the society has limited it to. The idea that women are responsible for men's sexuality is not just common among many Islamic mullahs but also among American fundamentalists. A recent "Modesty Survey" posted on an American website tells Christian ladies that they shouldn't wear sleeveless tops, fix their bra straps in public, wear bathing suits and so on. All this to "help their brothers in Christ to control lust". The focus on women's modesty is the other side of the coin from the focus on women's immodesty. Both are desirable, actually, but in different places and by different women. This is where the whore vs. Madonna mythology is so handy. Women can be either bad women, available for sexual consumption by all and sundry, or good women, essentially asexual and bent on nothing but motherhood. That way sex is available when men want it but men can also have their own private property for procreation. But note that a "whore" can never say no and a "Madonna" surely is powerful enough to be responsible for all sexuality. It's a win-win for the patriarchy. |
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Machiavellian Thoughts On Rove's Departure
![]() (This is a post I didn't put up when it was current. It's nice to be ornery) Several recent opinion columns about Karl Rove's departure from the Bush administration have compared him to Niccolò Machiavelli, the author of The Prince, a sixteenth century how-to book about ruthless political leadership. These quips most likely play on the assertion that Rove was the architect of Bush's rise to power. They also describe some of the near-mythical qualities some attribute to Rove as a secret master-mind working coldly and quietly behind the scenes. Whatever the truth of that matter might be, it is interesting that the ruthless leader Machiavelli most admired, Cesare Borgia, did not fare well in actual life. He began promisingly enough to be thought of as the model of Machiavelli's Prince:
But the end of his life was nowhere nearly as successful:
Cesare Borgia was all of thirty-one years old at his death in 1507. His was not the long and powerful rule that Machiavelli's writings suggest the imaginary Prince would gain from the strategies his book proposes. There is a lesson to be learned from that. |
SAT Scores Down
The horror! I woke up to the news that the SAT scores this year are the lowest since 1999! What is happening here? The simplest answer is that more students are taking the test. Given its intended objective: to predict college performance in the first few years, those who have traditionally taken the test have been the ones most likely to plan to go to college. When the pool of test-takers increases for various reasons a larger percentage of them will consist of those who have not done that well at school and are likely to score lower. The SAT tests have always been controversial. For instance, they predict college performance better for some ethnic groups than others and the way the questions have been framed or adjusted over time has been argued to favor certain social classes or one of the genders. Given this background, it is interesting that the new writing section in the SAT is called controversial because it increases the length of the test and causes more student fatigue. It also happens to be the one part of the tests which showed a significant difference in favor of female test-takers in 2006, the first year the test was included. ---- Cross-posted at TAPPED. |
Gray Mugging
Is there a gray area in muggings, an area where a mugging isn't really a mugging? Perhaps someone offered to lend you that diamond ring but then withdrew the offer so you took it anyway, using your fists in the process? Or perhaps the victim went out decked with stuff like a Christmas tree. Mugging someone like that is almost understandable. Let's just call it gray mugging. This is all in relation to a recent Cosmopolitan magazine article about something called gray rape. Or rather, in relation to a post about the article. Some snippets from that post:
I feel terrible about discussing this, to be quite honest, because I think the post reveals something quite private. But it is the part about the man "remaining a douchebag" which made me decide to address the "gray rape" issue (also discussed very well by Shakes and by Ann at feministing.com). Because my interpretation of that sentence is that this man has continued raping women ever afterwards. Except that what he does is not seen as rape, as long as the victim is just too drunk to resist. Just douchebaggery. There is no such thing as "gray rape". There are aggravating and extenuating circumstances to crimes, sure, and some rapes are more heinous than others. Some people who are raped are not as damaged by the rape as others are, also true. But rape, by definition, is nonconsensual sex of the penetrating kind. And someone unconscious or asleep cannot consent. It doesn't matter if the rapist is known to you. It doesn't matter that you don't feel harmed by the rape. It's still rape. This whole discussion about "gray rape" sounds to me like an attempt to return to the era where a woman had to be pretty much killed to prove that she had been raped. Judges used to argue that the rapist's body must show violent marks from the raped person's resistance, for example. Otherwise it was just "bad sex". Of course fighting back may not be such a good idea when someone holds a knife on your throat, say. Do we really want to go back to those times? |
Monday, August 27, 2007
Some Reading
![]() I have written a couple of geekier posts for the TAPPED blog. But the real reason I'm adding this post is to remind you to read Phila's Friday Hope Blogging regularly. It's an important antidote to the teeth-gritting, misery and moaning which is the style of so much political blogging. Our psychological health requires balance, so a dose of Phila at least once a week and some time with children, lovers, animals and nature is absolutely necessary. And real books, of course. I'm not sure if I would still be alive without books. You can tell us what you are reading and which books have saved your life in the comments below. Also, which books are really funny, because laughter is one of those things we need, too. My humor reading has recently consisted of Terry Pratchett's Discworld series, but things always change in that field. |
What Are Political Blogs For?
Atrios has some ideas about this today:
I agree that people who don't read blogs on a regular basis often have very weird ideas about what blogs are. This even includes some people in the traditional media, and many of the discussions on blogs I read there reveal more about the fear of blogs as a competitor for the financially troubled newspapers than about what blogs actually can do and can't do. Blogs don't do actual reporting, or only in very few cases. Blogs can't replace a news office, or only in the very unlikely case that a blogger has independent sources of wealth. Blogs will not make newspapers obsolete, though the newspapers of the future will be on the Internet and most likely somewhat changed from their current form. So what are political blogs for? To provide a conscience for mainstream journalists, sure. To be a whipping boy or girl when politicians need one, sure. To provide a way of creating mass movements or of nurturing them, sure. But to me the most important job of blogs is to turn silence into sound, to give those who are not listened to in the corridors of power some place to say what they want to say, to make the political conversations more inclusive and more thorough. I only wish they had come up with some better name for these things than "blogs". It sounds like a hot potato in the back of your throat. |
Good Night And Good Luck
I finally saw that movie, but I'm using the headline to refer to Alberto Gonzales's departure from the Department of Justice. I hope we now have better luck. President Bush's reaction to the news shows very clearly that those who believe he simply hires friends are correct. George sees his pal Bertie as a totally innocent guy who was dragged to mud for political reasons. |
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Today's Deep Thoughts Picture
Ladies, Start Your Vacuum Cleaners
![]() (The picture doesn't really go but it was too funny not to include.) This is the beginning of one popularization article about a health study. The study, which followed a large group of European women for six years, was about the effect of exercise on the prevention of endometrial cancer. It tried to include all forms of physical activity, not just what is usually regarded as exercise, but also activity at work and at home. This is how the results were summarized:
Three to four hours of household activity each day, achievable by many in the at-risk population????? Does Dr. Friedenreich plan to do that now herself? And what will she clean after the third day or so? I assume her children are all grown up, based on the picture of her I've seen. The study itself may be perfectly fine. Or not. I have not read it, but the point it makes is a valid one: exercise and moving the body in general may prevent certain types of cancer. It suffers from the usual problem of these studies, which is that someone might do less exercise because of already suffering from early parts of the ailment or general ill health, and that the correlation one finds could be because of that and not because exercise has prevention benefits. But the popularizations I have seen latch on to the household chores part of the study and never really let go. They also don't mention, on the whole, that post-menopausal women had no benefits from exercise at all. So you could pack your vacuum cleaner away when your periods stop, with no ill effects. Why is any of this worth writing about, except for the discussion of the general benefits of exercise? Because Dr. Friedenreich's results are candy for the anti-feminists who think that women have a gene for vacuum-cleaning which men miss even though most machine genes are lodged inside the bulldog-shaped male heads (see post below). Now they can tell long-suffering women saddled with all household work on top of a paying job that it's for their own good. The real difficulty is this: Any follow-up study of men and exercise will NOT find a beneficial effect from household chores simply because men don't do them to the tune of three or four hours of day. It's quite possible that this would benefit men, healthwise, but we will not establish it from a study looking at actual time use data. In that sense all these studies are deeply reactionary or at least non-feminist. I found a column pointing out this, too. The writer notes:
Mmm. Perhaps the writer doesn't have a husband around to protect from prostate cancer. But I have recently noticed these kinds of discussions once again avoiding any mention of the adult male partner in the household, as if women are afraid to make the point that actually needs to be made, which is that the household work is not hers alone by some divine obligation. |
Saturday, August 25, 2007
On Bulldog Snouts As Chick Magnets
Here's another absolutely hair-raisingly interesting popularization of yet another study, courtesy of Fox News:
Well, no. They did not FIND that women selected for males with relatively short upper faces. They just speculated that it might be so. If men indeed have relatively short upper faces now it may have a completely different explanation. Something to do with health, say. Nobody now living was around to watch how those prehistoric chicks "selected for" men, assuming that they were allowed to make those choices themselves. I'm really sick of this crap. Really sick. The most vomit-inducing sentence:
I'm trying to imagine all those prehistoric men with gigantic canines and loooong faces who never got any, while all those bulldog-faced teeny-teethed men had a long waiting line on their dance cards. |
I'm Ba-a-ack!
Don't ask me how my vacation was, unless you'd like to order one just like that for your worst enemy. Thank you, olvlzl, for serving the drinks and for sweeping the floors while I was doing whatever I was doing instead of having fun. Plans for this weekend: See the post right below this one. More in a similar red vein will be forthcoming. A good knot of anger would be a terrible thing to waste. |
Why Women See Red
![]() Well, why this one does, after reading all the silly popularizations of a study which looked at the color preferences of men and women. This headline is fairly typical of the popularizations: Girls prefer pink, or at least a redder shade of blue I saw not a single headline based on another of the study's findings: that both sexes preferred blue over other colors, on average. Note that the "girls prefer pink" argument is usually brought to us in tandem with the "boys prefer blue" argument. But evidently that bit is not needed, just as long as we can say that women indeed prefer pink. Now, who cares what colors people prefer? I don't actually, but I do care about the explanations for the findings:
So we introduce a small group of Chinese volunteers (37 of them, all of whom are immigrants to Britain, by the way) into the study. If these Chinese volunteers also show a similar gender difference then it must be due to biology, right? Well, as long as we won't bother checking what the cultural color biases in China might be, naturally. Then we get a graph like this one (from the actual study): ![]() Notice the high points of the mountain shapes? That's where the average differences by gender are measured. Notice also how far away from each other the British men and women are and how close together the Chinese are. But then the Chinese have lived in Britain only between six months and three years. And here comes the bit which made me not only see red but caused my jaw to freeze in the "cut-their-throats-position". It is this part: "Evolution may have driven females to prefer reddish colors--reddish fruits, healthy, reddish faces," Hurlbert said. "Culture may exploit and compound this natural female preference." Now, this is pure speculation. We don't actually know if prehistoric women specialized in gathering fruit and vegetables, we just speculate so. Neither do we necessarily know what colors the edibles were that these hypothetical gatherers looked for. Then there is the idea that only women would be attracted to reddish faces. What happened to all those theories about men looking for some young, healthy breeder-women with natural blush on their cheeks? Now they suddenly appear not to care about that but prefer sorta greenish shades in general. Or reverse the explanation. If we use evolutionary stuff to explain women's color preferences, why not also use it to explain why men aren't that fond of reddish hues? What possible advantage would men gain from that? I'm sure that something could be invented here. For instance, men would not mind blood so much and wouldn't linger, after killing, to admire it, but would move faster to their next kill. Or ask yourselves why men might prefer greenish shades. Perhaps the ones who hid in the jungle because they liked it didn't get killed by those saber tooth tigers and so their sperm was passed on. And finally there is the explanation offered for the universal preference for blue:
Glad to see the word "speculate" used finally. But even this is quite silly. Why not use present-day explanations for the preference? People living today like clear blue because it's a way of knowing that the day will have good weather ahead. What makes me angry about study popularizations like these is the extremely low standards the theories are held to. Some guesswork about some prehistoric times is quite adequate, thankyouverymuch. There's nothing in the popularizations about whether cultural explanations have in fact been eliminated in the results and nothing about alternative theories of why color preferences might have a biological basis (if they do). And the authors actually use Simon Baron-Cohen's term "the female brain", which is based on Simon Baron-Cohen's biased quiz or test, a test which uses leading questions to elicit the desired answers. By the way, I have an evolutionary theory about why women clench their jaws more (never mind if they do): It's because asshat research has been poured down their gullets for so long that clenching is the only alternative not to go bonkers before one has had time to breed. --- Thanks to Judith for the original link and to jinny for the pdf file. |
Friday, August 24, 2007
How Our Media Really Honors "The Troops", They Ignore Them Unless They Toe The LIEne Posted by olvlzl.
| Here is a good look at how the corporate media really supports the troops. This piece by Steve Benson contrasts the media reception of the recent NYT op-ed by seven actual troops with the plaudits and exposure given to the two pro-war from the get go, Brookings shills from several weeks earlier. Surely, given the vast coverage of the O’Hanlon/Pollack piece, the powerful perspective of these heroes would be immediately picked up everywhere, right? Wrong. Greg Sargent explained yesterday, that the op-ed “has been met with near-total silence.” TPM intern Benjy Sarlin and I did an exhaustive hunt for coverage of this by the big news orgs. We only found one mention: CBS’ Bob Scheiffer brought it up in passing in an interview with John McCain yesterday. The only other news-org mentions came in Editor and Publisher, on MSNBC’s First Read blog, and on Time’s Swampland blog. That’s all we could find. Nothing on CNN or any of the networks, no AP story, nothing on Reuters, nothing in any of the major papers. (If we missed anything, let us know at talk@talkingpointsmemo.com.) This is really staggering, particularly when you consider that this story has intense drama, too — one of the authors, the piece says, was “shot in the head” during preparation of the article and is being flown to a military hospital in the U.S. How the heck is this not newsworthy? Notice this part too. O’Hanlon and Pollack become media darlings, including benefiting from false assertions that they’re war “critics,” but seven members of the 82nd Airborne Division are derided — when they’re not ignored altogether O'Hanlon and Pollack haven't been critics of the Iraq war, they've been supporters of it. For more on that read this post by Glenn Greenwald . With the corporate press, the lies chase the lies and the original lies are what are used to confirm themselves. To read the experience of seven actual troops who saw what was happening in Iraq, here is the NYT op-ed. |
Democracy Dies On a Diet of Lies Posted by olvlzl.
| And So Do A Lot of Iraqis And American Soldiers The TV stations in Maine are saturated with the pro-war propaganda commercials just now. Its in an effort to sway the votes of the “moderate” Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe as well as John Sununu who is not “moderate” but who has to run in the changed New Hampshire which is. The most shameful of these ads selling a lemon of a war is the one that uses the double amputee who says unless a lot more people get killed to prop up the mythological Iraqi “government” then his sacrifice will have been in vain. How bad is this piece of propaganda? It directly sells the old Bush lie about Iraq being tied to the September eleventh attacks. It doesn’t take much of an imagination to make a real connection between this all out, Republican propaganda effort with the scheduled Petraeus fraud in a few weeks. It’s all the same old kind of packaging, to extend the disastrous Bush war with temporary lies and Madison Avenue’s patented heart string tugs. Will it be answered? Not effectively. The effect of court rulings granting corporations “speech rights”, making money equal to speech and the Reagan era destruction of the principle of fairness in broadcasting makes it certain that the corporate interests who support the Republicans in anything they do. No matter how much it damages the interests of the American People and hundreds of millions around the world can sell any lie to accomplish its purposes. Real speech in the world as it is means broadcast speech, something that is effectively non-existent for the anti-war side. Until the legal fiction of corporate personhood is destroyed, until the media is forced to serve the interest of the truth instead of its own profits, until the American People stop buying slick, cheap emotional appeals instead of the truth, there is no use in pretending that we are a free people living in a democracy. For those who are still chanting the "more speech" mantra, you are idiots and dupes pretending that we live in the print era. Will it work? There is every reason to believe that it will give those Republicans in the house and Senate who could make the difference between sustaining Bush’s vetoes and beginning to end the most idiotic, mendacious, and criminal foreign adventure in the history of corrupt, inept administrations of the United States, the excuse and cover they need to keep his war going. |
A Request
Anyone here have free access to a pdf of this article? I want to review it but don't want to pay thirty dollars for doing so. |
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Late August Revelation Posted by olvlzl.
| Is there something about the end of August that motivates the decision to try new experiences? The implication of mortality or at least the end of youth? Or something as mundane as the old habit of optimism ingrained by the beginning of the school year? This August brings partial fulfillment of many years of intending to look into Paul Dukas’ Sonata for Piano. This month I’ve spent some time listening* while reading through the score. The Sonata, the only one of Dukas’ which survives, is well known as one of the monuments of the piano literature, often mentioned, seldom performed or recorded. I’ve also reread Debussy’s "Monsieur Croche" essay** about it, full of sharp, clarifying insight of the kind only a great composer can bring to the analysis of a great piece by another composer. I’m not going to compete with that example of critical genius. In hopes of motivating you to listen to this challenging music I’m posting his short critique of it complete, below. As Debussy said, this is music that doesn’t give up its mysteries and profound insights on first hearing. Or the twentieth, I’ll add. It’s hard to see it ever being a crowd pleaser, though the third movement as a separate piece might be exciting. But it’s impossible for me to not recommend it as a great piece of music. I’ve been listening to the Naxos recording with Chantal Stigliani which quite affordable. She is excellent, though I would suggest you not try listening to the entire disc at one time. The very long sonata, it’s been called the French "Hammerklavier", is challenge enough for one sitting. The other long piece, the Variations, though less of a challenge than the Sonata are also worth listening to alone. There are only two short pieces in addition, including Dukas’ "Lament, from afar, of the Faun", which I seem to recall was written in memory of Debussy. I also recommend the disc performed by Marc Andre Hamelin. Hamelin, the great intellectual virtuoso, is unable to give a bad performance. No matter how difficult the piece, how subtle the points of genius or obscure the unknown composer, he finds them and presents them in a fully convincing performance. Dukas is famous for writing the Sorcerer’s Apprentice* and somewhat less famous for having destroyed most of his music fairly late in his life. He, like a small number of other composers who knowing they will not having a major career as a composer was unwilling to leave anything that was less than the best. It’s a brave decision, if one that carries regrets for future generations. I’m glad this music stood up to Dukas’ test. * Dukas Complete Piano Music played by Chantal Stigliani Naxos: 8.557053 Also: Marc Andre Hamelin piano Hyperion: 67513 The score is available online, in the public domain. It’s a very long score so you might want to consider before printing it out. ** Reprinted in Three Classics In The Aesthetic of Music, Dover ISBN 0-486-20320-4 *** The subtle, even undemonstrative piano music is very different from that showpiece. |
The Paul Dukas Sonata
| By Claude Debussy, Posted by olvlzl. Music, nowadays, tends to become more and more an accompaniment for sentimental or tragic incidents, and plays the ambiguous part of the showman at the door of a booth behind which is displayed the sinister form of “Mr. Nobody.” True lovers of music seldom frequent fairs; though they merely have a piano and feverishly play a few pages over and over again; as sure a means of intoxication as “just, subtle and mighty opium,” and the least enervating way of spending happy hours. Paul Dukas seems to have such people in mind when writing his sonata. It breathes a kind of mystic emotion and presents a rigidly connected sequence of ideas which seem to compel a close and careful study. This compelling quality gives a peculiar stamp to nearly all the work of Paul Dukas, even when it is merely episodic. It is the result of the patient intensity with which he adjusts the several parts of his harmonic scheme. It is to be feared that such a work may prove difficult to follow on a concert platform. No reflection is thereby cast on either the beauty or the vision of the sonata. Although the mind conceiving this work unites a constructive purpose with an imaginative idea, there is no need to assume a desire for complexity; nothing could be more deliberately absurd. Paul Dukas knows the potentialities of music; it is not merely a matter of brilliant tone playing upon the listener to the point of enervation, an easy thing to understand where several kinds of music which seem to be antagonistic are united without difficulty. For him music is an inexhaustible store of forms, of pregnant memories which allow him to mold his ideas to the limits of his imaginative world. He is the master of his emotion and knows how to keep it from noisy futility. That is why he never indulges in those parasitic developments which so often disfigure the most beautiful effects. When we consider the third movement of his sonata, we discover under the picturesque surface an energy that guides the rhythmic fantasy with the silent precision of steel mechanism. The same energy prevails in the last part, where the art of distributing emotion appears in its highest form; one might even call this emotion constructive, since it displays a beauty akin to perfect lines in architecture, lines that dissolve into and are keyed to the spatial color of air and sky, the whole being wedded in a complete and final harmony. Claude Debussy, trans. B. N. Laughton Davies, 1928 |
We Stand To Lose More Than The Right To Choose Posted by olvlzl.
| It is as close to a 100% certain prediction that a year from November the person elected President will be either a Democrat or a Republican and that the same will be true for control of the Senate and House. That choice, no matter what anyone thinks of it, is the choice we get in the political reality of the United States. Despite the often repeated mantra that it’s no choice at all that’s clearly not true. It’s true that our foreign policy establishment, and in few areas of life is the word “establishment” more fitting, will homogenize the administration that takes office. Though the last seven years have shown us again that the Republican Party is quite able to turn the government into a fleet of pirate ships, shamefully plundering for the country and the world for the profits of private corporations. If history is ever written truthfully, that will be noted as having been Rumsfeld’s and Cheney’s intention from the beginning of their various “reforms”. The foreign policy and military specialists being what they are, mostly hacks and shills, the chances are that those "reforms" won't be overturned soon by either party, though it's an even safer bet the Republicans won't ever reform the "reforms". But it’s in personal life that the differences between the two parties are most clear. This year it’s pretty apparent. Mitt Romney, who will say anything and tell any lie to win an election, is appealing to those who would like to bring contraception back to the time when it was illegal. But for those trained to hear the subtleties, Mr. Romney was acknowledging something more. He implied an opposition to the birth control pill and a willingness to join in their efforts to scale back access to contraception. There are code phrases to listen for - and for those keeping score, Mr. Romney nailed each one. One code phrase is: "I fought to define life as beginning at conception rather than at the time of implantation." The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists defines pregnancy as starting at implantation, the first moment a pregnancy can be known. Anti-abortion advocates want pregnancy to start at the unknown moment sperm and egg meet: fertilization. They'd also like you to believe, despite evidence to the contrary, that the birth control pill prevents that fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. A man who has gone from lying about his mother’s position on abortion in an attempt to win a senate seat in Massachusetts as pro-choice, to pandering to the anti-contraception wing of the Republican Party will not be appointing any Souters to the Supreme Court. There is literally no lie too shameful that Mitt Romney won't tell it. And it’s not just Romney, Fred Thompson, the none-of-the-above candidate is also back peddling on his past on the issue. It would be difficult to remember a Democratic candidate for president who was a clear danger to the right to avoid pregnancy. The Republicans, who have played politics with the most regressive and reactionary bigots and body snatchers in the country now find they need them to have a hope of winning the nomination. They have shown that they will pay those supporters off at the cost of our personal freedoms, the Roberts and Alito appointments were all about that. And if you think this is a minor danger, look at this story from Colorado where the right to prevent pregnancy is under direct attack with the collusion of the national press. So, as we are frustrated that the Democrats in the Congress can’t get a veto proof majority to end the war, as Trent Lott crows about their tactic of obstruction in both houses while their kept media slams Democrats for not being able to break the Republican lockstep, overlooking that there is Republican obstruction, remind yourself what the real choice is next year. |
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
A Reposting: An Environmental Lament. Or: A New Cappuccino Bar
Cafe latte. Hold the caffeine. Wait in line. Sit at a postmodern table, take out your high-tech substitute of a newspaper and bury your nose in it. Time flies. Time is money. Money flies. The cups clink, the machines hiss, money changes hands. Nothing here has a simple name. Tall means small, grande a little bigger. The fire in the fireplace is a simulation. The clientele is also a simulation, all young, all affluent, all postmodern, with sharp edges and fuzzy middles. The bathrooms are clean and contain no reminders about the need to wash afterwards. This place used to be an abandoned lot. Not a beautiful meadow, but a rough patch of ground where weeds battled for survival. In late summer it looked like a dead field. Every day an old man would come with an even older dog and slowly, majestically, the pair would part the reedy stems of the brown grasses to enter the field. Then she, the dowager queen of all dogs, would lower herself, arthritically, majestically, to rain over the parched soil; a goddess of grass being worshipped in an ancient ritual in her honor. Every day. Now the rituals are different. The lot is sealed with asphalt, the space decorated with yellow lines, arrows and mystical signs worshipping a different god, a god of computers, sunglasses, cash registers and ears pierced seven times. The awkward weeds are gone. In their place stand rows of boxwoods, all perfect spheres. It is possible to come here without seeing a single weed, a single poor face, a single wrinkled face. The whole world is available here if the world is sanitized, straightened out, converted into electronic impulses. It is possible, here, to pretend that death never comes, that food is born pristine, that life is clear and good. The whole lot is paved with asphalt, anything and everything can be removed from the cappuccino grande and it still remains cappuccino grande. The god of this place is the god of logic and cool goodness, god of clean bathrooms and everlasting life. The old man is probably dead by now. The old dog certainly is. She has gone away to where old dogs go. The weeds are dead under the asphalt. The new rituals are winning: The lot is full of shining cars, their metal wings momentarily at rest. The tables under the plastic umbrellas are crowded with people who have good skin, expensive watches, silver-colored toenails. No-one uses the door marked "Exit" to enter. The new god is strong. But at night doubts arise. The moon casts a different light. The parking lot is empty, the outside tables deserted. In the shadows the yellow lines seem to waver, the paving seems to crack, as if pushed from below. And, sometimes, fleetingly, one can see a furry paw, a phosphorescent eye, a glimpse of a slow, majestic movement of something sinking, lowering. Does the new god turn his head when he hears the night rain fall? |
A Reposting: The Armpit Wars
![]() A wingnut cartoon adventure story (read: incitement towards civil war) has the picture on the left about the horrible enemies of all right-thinking wingnuts: animal rights activists and I guess the animals they protect. They're coming to get you and your Bible! But look at the stubble on the woman's legs. That is a signifier that she is a feminist, a feminazi, a woman who will probably eat her children. She's having leg hairs! Eek. She probably has hairy armpits, too. Pardon me while I vomit. The history of the armpit wars is an interesting one. To understand why feminists focused on the womanly body hair requires first understanding how absolutely necessary it was deemed for a woman not to have hair except on her head and in her genital region. All other body hair was deemed as masculine and unnatural. Which is really weird, because women in fact grow hair on their legs and arms and in their armpits. Now that I re-read the above paragraph I realize that the armpit wars are not at all over. Indeed, they have intensified, because now the only place where women can legitimately have hair is on their heads. The genital area is supposed to be waxed to look like that of a little girl or a porno star. It is all very weird, because women do naturally grow hair on their legs and arms and in their armpits. The body does this, even in a good wingnut woman, and usually it is the wingnuts who argue that women are ___________ (insert some negative female characteristic here) naturally, biologically and unavoidably, and that the Bible decrees it so, too. But when it comes to the perfectly natural and possibly god-given body hair on women, these wingnuts and many other Americans go bonkers. Shave, you slut!, they screech. Because those who don't shave are Evil. From a thinking angle the armpit wars are part of the war on accentuating sex differences. Women must somehow look more like women should look if women had been designed properly in the first place: bigger breasts and more torpedo-like breasts, more bare, smooth and hairless skin. And men are supposed to go to the other extreme with body-building work. There are even studies which show that women tend to use a higher voice in societies where femininity is prescribed, and of course we all know how a real man will not wear pink (in this culture and time period) or lace (in this culture and time period) or skirts (in this culture and time period). Hence what is "feminine" has been socially decreed to include hairless legs and arms and empty armpits, even if Mother Nature disagrees. These things happen. But it is very fascinating that the societal decree is so often interpreted as the real truth, that somehow women indeed are hairless like little Easter eggs and that it is only the evil feminazis who manage to sprout hair everywhere. Is this enough background to explain why the armpit hair became an issue in Serious Feminist Circles? Because women do naturally grow hair in the armpits and the society states that this should not happen, even though it does happen, and quite innocently, too? And that this is the reason why all woman are expected to spend money and creams and razors on themselves on a regular basis. To refuse to do any of that shaving was a statement that women are just fine as they come, that women don't need to be shaped into totally alien life forms to be acceptable, that even after all that reshaping and plastic surgery and shaving, shaving, shaving, women were still not acceptable in most places. Besides, making the nonshaving statement cost something to the maker. Unpleasant attention, at a minimum. And this was a way of trying to change the society and to make a sacrifice. Then of course many women just liked the idea of cutting back on all that shaving. I seem to be telling this story both in the past sense and in the present sense, and perhaps that is the correct way to tell the story. Here comes the twist to the story: The reactions to the armpit hair revolution were swift and of the expected type. The hairy armpit wearers were condemned as ugly (why not talk to Mother Nature about that?), as manly (ditto) and as unable to attract men and therefore giving up on the fight. But the hairy armpit wearers were also labeled as focused on a trivial matter, on something that has to do with body grooming, on something that was so silly as to endanger the whole feminist movement. You may have read the sort of thing I'm thinking about here: Someone writes about the horrible plight of women in some other country and then points out that all American feminists do is to stare into their armpits, and besides, armpit hairs are yucky. And so this became one of my pet peeves: Because the gesture did not make the point it was supposed to make. Because women are still expected to reshape their bodies to be closer to some fictional (and extreme) ideal of womanliness. And because very few people point out how the whole concept of women's bodies as so faulty is the really ridiculous one and the one that we should discard. After that discarding has taken place, who cares if some women would still shave or not? I would love to stop discussing the "to shave or not" topic in feminist circles and to start focusing more on what the ridiculing opposition is really saying. Just think about it for a few seconds. Their message is that it is not nature that defines what a woman is, but they, the namers and deciders. And they have decided that a woman in this culture should be without body hair but with very large and perky breasts and basically no hips. It is not some historical or theological concept of womanliness but a purely cultural one, and it is based on the accentuation of gender differences, with a few cultural quirks thrown in. I see an analogical case in the discussion about cognitive differences between men and women. The anti-feminist point is always to try to make women and men into two quite different species, two "opposite sexes" as the saying goes, whereas the evidence I've studied and my life experiences all suggest that men and women are like two overlapping Venn diagrams in almost everything. Partly different and partly the same. This messiness, like armpit hairs on women, is unacceptable to the patriarchal mind. |
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Sadism As Commerce Posted By olvlzl.
| By chance a few minutes ago, I was reading the story of the football player who pleaded guilty to being involved in dog fighting just as the BBC’s World Update was talking about Spanish National TV’s decision to drop the live broadcast of bull fighting. It being that particular BBC program, geared to what they imagine an American audience will accept, the only person I heard interviewed was the wife of a former star of the “sport” who had written seven books on the subject. Want to guess what her opinion was? Oddly, what is done to the bulls in the prolonged and particularly sadistic slaughter of them is barely mentioned in the general media. I haven’t checked anti-cruelty sources to see what they say. While I agree that the damage done to young children and adults, one might add, by watching premeditated, organized and commercial sadism the horrible suffering of the animals is certainly the central point. I’ve heard fox hunting, dog fighting, cock fighting and a myriad of other forms of recreational cruelty explained as important “cultural practices” as is bull fighting in Spain. It is one of the worst features of human cultures that the infliction and viewing of suffering on sentient creatures is common. But no anthropological romanticism, which is a particularly pernicious form of condescension, should be allowed to mask what is really commercialized evil. In its worst form, as in fox hunting and bull fighting, the organized cruelty is sufficiently popular to be used as a political tool. Traditionalists disagreed. "It is obvious that watching bullfights on the television does not traumatise children," protested Juan Manuel Albendea, of the conservative People's party. The National Association of Bullfight Organisers has accused Luís Rodriguez Zapatero's government of using state television to perpetrate "a shameless, unjust attack on culture". I'm sure that some people will agree with the matador's wife interviewed on the BBC that the solution for those who opposed carnage as entertainment is "to change the channel". Of course that doesn't mean your children won't have to deal with potential monsters who imbibed a lust for cruelty in their homes. I fully believe that people who are brought up enjoying the suffering of animals are more likely to enjoy the suffering of people and more likely to inflict such suffering. And while it might allow people to ignore what is being done, it does nothing to actually stop the suffering of animals by people who make money by inflicting it. I've considered The Badger to be one of the most disturbing poems in the English language for quite a while. The Badger When midnight comes a host of dogs and men Go out and track the badger to his den, And put a sack within the hole and lie Till the old grunting badger passes by. He comes and hears - they let the strongest loose. The old fox hears the noise and drops the goose. The poacher shoots and hurries from the cry, And the old hare half wounded buzzes by. They get a forkéd stick to bear him down And clap the dogs and take him to the town, And bait him all the day with many dogs, And laugh and shout and fright the scampering hogs. He runs along and bites at all he meets: They shout and hollo down the noisy streets. He turns about to face the loud uproar And drives the rebels to their very door. The frequent stone is hurled where'er they go; When badgers fight, then everyone's a foe. The dogs are clapped and urged to join the fray; The badger turns and drives them all away. Though scarcely half as big, demure and small, He fights with dogs for hours and beats them all. The heavy mastiff, savage in the fray, Lies down and licks his feet and turns away. The bulldog knows his match and waxes cold The badger grins and never leaves his hold. He drives the crowd and follows at their heels And bites them through - the drunkard swears and reels. The frighted women take the boys away, The blackguard laughs and hurries on the fray. He tries to reach the woods, an awkward race, But sticks and cudgels quickly stop the chase. He turns again and drives the noisy crowd And beats the many dogs in noises loud. He drives away and beats them every one, And then they loose them all and set them on. He falls as dead and kicked by boys and men, Then starts and grins and drives the crowd again; Till kicked and torn and beaten out he lies And leaves his hold and cackles, groans and dies. John Clare 1798 to 1864 |
Monday, August 20, 2007
The Rope To Hang Ourselves With Posted by olvlzl.
| Note: This was posted at my blog last summer but I just found out that there is platform talk in the air already. Maybe there’s still time to head them off before they do too much damage this time. Two of our local delegates to this weekend's Maine Democratic Convention gave independent confirmation of their frustration over the same issue. The platform presentation was over long, divisive and futile. Granted they've both heard me lather on about party platforms but it was interesting that was the first nonsense they reported back to us about. The only use I've ever seen a platform put to was for our opponents to smash us over the head with planks they'd pulled out of it. If a candidate tries to stand on a platform they fall off. Most of ours aren't that stupid anymore but they always have to deal in some way with the useless thing. I challenge anyone to come up with instances where platform planks have made a bit of difference in legislation adopted or lives improved. A direct link from the adopted plank to the signing by the executive to its being made real by implementation. In best platform form, include a footnote giving the length of the fight, the bad blood spilled over the struggle for every last splinter and the problems it created for the candidate. No group has ever lost a thing in real life if they weren't mentioned in the entirely unreadable resulting document. Platform committees too often become the tiny, little piece of turf of people who have little to say, who say it at great length and who do little else. They fight like mad over that turf using the weapon of competitive scruples, a weapon whose only use is to commit political hari keri. Anyone showing these tendencies should be diverted into something else. They should be put in charge of refreshments or some other innocuous detail that could benefit from their fussy gifts. Not entertainment or continuity, however. They've already shown a talent for wasting time, they don't need any more chances to practice on the innocent. I suppose we must have a platform since if it is entirely absent the Republicans will make that into a campaign issue. It should be as short as possible. It should be something our candidates can run with and not run into. And to avoid future time wasted on platforms that could be better used in actually winning the election, it should be something that will be the real focus of all our efforts until it is really implemented. How about this. Democrats believe that all People have rights just because they are people. They have their rights no matter what race, gender, ethnic group, etc. People have a right to nutrition, shelter, clothing, healthcare and education. They have a right to an environment that will sustain life. They have a right to just pay for their work and an opportunity to have a good job. We believe that government's only legitimate purpose is to help People enjoy their rights. The Democratic Party is dedicated to finding ways to provide this opportunity to everyone, to making those ways into law and to the full implementation of those laws to make peoples' lives better. We believe so completely in democracy that we will peacefully promote its expansion to the entire human race so everyone can enjoy the blessings of freedom. When we have fulfilled these planks we can discuss secondary issues. If anyone can find anything that the Republicans can use to defeat our candidates in that, please remove it immediately. |
Oh, Another “Debate”. Posted by olvlzl.
| Any Democrats who are organizing one of these spectacles called "debates" should really ask themselves some hard questions. I’ll leave the purpose they’ll be put to aside, other than to point out that until now they have served as a means for the corporate media to chip away at the strongest candidates in preparation for their coronation of whatever Republican is nominated. But, George Stephanopoulos “moderating”? A man who was mentored and made a someone by Democratic politicians only to go into the corporate media and use his position to drive a shiv into the same people? Another like Russert and Matthews, two others ill chosen as “moderators” by clueless Democrats of the past There is no one, not a single person, in the commercial media who should be trusted to “moderate” a Democratic event of any kind. And that includes Lehrer. How many betrayals does it take for the kinds of Democrats who organize these things to learn that they are Republican shills? Anyone who has organized them into such a good position to damage our candidates should also be shunted aside for people who have a clue as to what our media is really all about. The star struck and their insider pals should have nothing to do with that part of a presidential campaign. I haven’t chosen a candidate to support but if one of them refused to participate in one of these dog shows, answering questions from a known traitor to the Democratic Party, they’d have my full attention. |
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Poem of Opportunity
The Lessons of Katrina Drowned Out By Corporate Media Propaganda Posted by olvlzl.
| The Boston Globe has been doing some great work on environmental issues lately, which is certainly not “balanced” by it’s also publishing the predictable, pro-pollution, propaganda of its in-house conservative Jeff Jacoby. Unfortunately, as print on paper and without the backing of corporate mega-money, it won’t have much of an impact. Yesterday’s op-ed by Derrick Z. Jackson about the impact of continued corporate propaganda should be read. Coming in the middle of Jacoby’s distortion of the reports in Newsweek about the conspiracy to keep America stupid on global warming, it’s a good place to start. The most important measure of the onslaught is American ambivalence. Even though 600 scientists from 40 countries concluded this year that global warming is "unequivocal," Newsweek pollsters found that still less than half of Americans -- 46 percent -- say climate change is being felt today. Less than half of Americans support requiring much more fuel and energy efficient vehicles and appliances. In the best dreams of the pooh-pooh lobby, 42 percent of Americans say "there is a lot of disagreement that human activities are a major cause of global warming." In today’s paper is a piece by Beth Daley about how those old, dirty, sources of green house gasses aren’t being scrapped but are being given a second chance to destroy the biosphere in the third world. From 4-ton trucks to 40-ton boilers, US vehicles and equipment are finding a second life in developing countries -- postponing meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by inefficiently using energy or directly emitting carbon dioxide. A 1950s-era paper-making machine from the Curtis Paper mill in Adams is operating in Egypt. A 1992 school bus from Vermont's tiny North Hero Island is chugging along the roads of Costa Rica. A rock-crushing machine used to make talcum powder in West Windsor, Vt., has been dismantled and reassembled in Colombia. "This clearly isn't what we want to happen," said Armond Cohen, executive director of the Boston-based Clean Air Task Force, a national advocacy group. "It's troubling that we'd be handing down the remnants of our industrial-era technology rather than helping these places with cleaner options." This is recycling of the worst kind. It kind of also makes you wonder where the lead painted toys being recalled are ending up. And also today in the Ideas section is a disturbing investigation by Drake Bennett into what the petroleum industry and - the governments it buys - have in mind when “alternative energy” comes from their lips. The answer is even dirtier forms of fossil fuels, extracted and used at even higher environmental cost, with government subsidies. Environmentalists see this as a growing disaster. The oil in oil sands is not easily separated out, and the immense amounts of heat required are usually generated with natural gas, giving the oil-sands industry a greenhouse gas footprint much larger than the traditional oil business -- estimates range from 40 percent more to five times the emissions. The process also uses enormous amounts of water: a study by the Pembina Insitute, a Canadian environmental watchdog organization, found that, depending on the method of extraction, every barrel of oil produced requires 2.5 to 4 barrels of water, all of which is then rendered too polluted to return to the water supply. And most oil-sands operations are mines, not steam wells like the MacKay project, making them very disruptive to surrounding ecosystems. The problem, though, starts with the ignorance of people here and around the world. Ignorant people can’t govern themselves, there is no getting around that most basic truth of life. Ignorant people are at the mercy of any self-interested lie that is put in front of them in an attractive format. Freedom of the press, as has said here before, is a right given for a purpose higher than the ability of the press to make money. Information is the life blood of democracy and democracy is the only certain means of people to not become the serfs of those with more power. The electronic media, the media that really matters now, is in collusion with corporate interests to sell lies. In many cases, the corporate interests are the media. The electronic, and much print media profits by selling lies on behalf of corporations. Despite the absurd, soporific “more speech” slogans, the willful blindness of the legal system which puts the “rights” of corporations over the right of the people to govern themselves, the inertia of old and disproved habits of thought, the real lesson of the American media is that the clearest truth can’t compete with a well financed lie. Derrick Jackson points out: On global warming, which is predicted to pound our coasts with a higher percentage of Katrina-like storms, ExxonMobil pumped $19 million into conservative causes dedicated to pooh-poohing the science. Those causes paid tens of thousands of dollars to those who doubt climate change. In 2003, Republican Party consultant Frank Luntz wrote a memo saying, "You need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue." If Katrina can’t teach the lesson and really wake up Americans, nothing will except to stop the lies and that really means, to keep the media from lying for profit. The alternative is to watch democracy die and the entire biosphere as well. |
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Even More Problems With Psychology Posted by olvlzl.
| Many years ago, at a land grant university in New England, a callow young Freshman (not me, a friend) got into quite a bit of hot water by asking his Introductory Psych. teacher, in class, how a “study” which consisted of Yale students, back then all males in their late teens and early twenties, presumably unrepresentatively rich and white and weighted to those brought up in an upper class culture, could give us any relevant information about the population at large, as was implied by the supplemental reading. It immediately became clear that the student was not going to be getting an A in that class. Most of the “studies” in the class material used the men of the elite, single-sex universities of the time as subjects. From the frontiers of the brave new psychology comes news of another “study” that correlates hand conformation with a lot more than what kind of winter gloves to buy. In the August issue of British Journal of Psychology, a team of researchers led by psychologist Mark Brosnan of the University of Bath, England, have published findings that suggest women who are good at science and math have longer ring fingers than index fingers, which indicates a relatively high level of prenatal exposure to the male hormone testosterone. Conversely, longer index fingers indicate higher levels of the female hormone estrogen, according to the study, and a corresponding aptitude for verbal communication. As Jody Kolodzey points out this is in keeping with an earlier study by another psychologist in California named Marc Breedlove correlating hands to sexual orientation. Breedlove looked at relative finger length because it is influenced by androgen levels in the womb and thus is an approximate measure of fetal androgen levels. "... this suggests that at least some lesbians were exposed to greater levels of fetal androgen than heterosexual women," Breedlove and his colleagues wrote. And what were the rigorous methods that they used in these studies? The study used standardized test scores of 75 British seven-year-old boys and girls and compared them to photocopies of the youngsters’ hands. A gloriously generous sample of 75 photo copies of seven-year-olds' hands correlated with, perhaps, the first standardized test of its kind that they ever took. I wonder if they might have considered that if a few of the children out of the 75 had their performance inhibited by test anxiety their reliance on this test as an indication of life-long achievement could be, well, useless. It would also be interesting to know how good their teachers were and how many these seven-year-olds had benefited from. Did they all have the same teacher? My first grade math instruction was abysmal. I’d imagine we’d all have graded quite low on a standardized test given at age 7, even those of us who did well later in school. Just on the sample size, the age of those whose well-ripened academic achievement is being correlated to photocopies of their hands and the possibility that an effective percentage of the children could have been sufficiently uncomfortable taking the standardized test in the first place, how many of you would take this seriously? As science? Which, I will guarantee you, will be taught in psychology classes as “science”. It’s clear that the media, including FOX was delighted to report this “science” breakthrough. The earlier California study had a larger sample but, well, judge the data collection for yourself. The Berkeley researchers based their conclusions on the hands of 720 volunteers they recruited at street fairs in San Francisco, volunteers who agreed to have their fingers measured and to answer a questionnaire about their birth order and sexual preferences, in exchange for a $1 lottery ticket. Science, at a San Francisco street fair, with volunteers who were willing to trade their time for a lottery ticket. Just for starts, I wonder if a percentage of fair goers might have lied on the questionnaire for a lark. It was a carnival atmosphere, after all. Would you take science done under those conditions seriously? Just to come totally clean, I’ve got a real problem with self-reporting by volunteer subjects in science, just to start with. How long will these be taken as seriously as the studies of Yalies mentioned in the beginning of this post? You can be certain that they will be taught as if they were science. That earlier study did figure in the reference material for at least one advanced psychology course as I discovered quite by accident last night. Just by chance, while researching this post, I browsed the Breedlove effort online and found it used in the supplementary course materials for Psychology 463 as taught by Kevin MacDonald Department of Psychology CSU-Long Beach Long Beach. As it happens, I’m familiar with MacDonald through reading about the infamous David Irving trial.* You might want to think of the conclusions that might be reached about seeing the world through the lense of the Men of Yale or the neo-palmistry of seven-year-olds and consider the legs that this kind of “science” has in the media and in Psych. Courses around the world. Consider how it might be used. For it will be put to use. Either they should tighten their standards and throw out the junk or they should lose the prestige that comes with the title of "science". It has real life consequences. * MacDonald was the major witness Irving (who, I should remind you conducted his own case) called on his behalf in the action he so infamously brought against Deborah Lipstadt. MacDonald tried to explain his motive in testifying for the Holocaust denier on the tired old saw of freedom to publish. Considering Irving’s ill-advised action clearly would have had the effect of suppressing Lipstadt’s book, "Denying the Holocaust", it’s hollow. In wondering about some other possible motives he might have been thought useful to Irving, you might want to think about MacDonald’s publications about the Jewish People which are widely regarded as anti-Semitic, his association with far-right racist groups. You might want to read about the rather bizarre, even hysterical attempt to belatedly throw him out of the world of evolutionary psychology - including blaming him on just about every prominent opponent of that ideology - though MacDonald seems to be well entrenched in those circles. He's certainly published enough in the field. You can find him well represented on Wikipedia and on the web. I chose not to link to him |
Friday, August 17, 2007
What I Did During My Summer Vacation, by Echidne
I have no idea for the rest of the essay yet, as my summer vacation begins approximately now. I will be back on Friday evening, in a week's time. In the meantime, you will be taken care of by olvlzl and perhaps some other guest bloggers. I might also put up some "Best of Echidne" reruns, the kinds that make you run screaming out of the room. We'll see. In any case, I hope that you have a vacation, too, this year. Vacations are very important. Mwah. |
How Green Was My Valley
The bad news from the Utah mine collapse continue. The owner of the mine, Bob Murray, has been the public face of much of the commentary, but no more:
It is not for me to say what caused the mine collapse and the later blast which killed three rescue workers. But I doubt that Bob Murray is a neutral voice in these matters. He has an interest in the outcome of any investigation, for one thing. It is odd that he has been allowed to introduce union-bashing into the conversation and even odder that his earthquake theories are not subjected to greater scrutiny. I understand that the kind of mining that was carried on in this mine is very dangerous, because it removes the support structures as the miners retreat. Surely this is relevant, even if an earthquake was the original cause of the first collapse. |
Friday Nature Blogging
|
On Wall Street
So the Fed cut the rate and the markets are rallying. One of the first rules of government welfare and such is that when it helps the well-off it's not a problem. We shall see how all this affects the people whose mortgages are defaulting. The embroidery is my view of Wall Street. Or of human follies. You can click on it to see the pencil markings and scruffy stitches. |
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Not Writing About Iraq
A funny thing happened to me today. I Googled the word "Iraq" looking for an old post of mine and found that I have that word in 523 posts on this blog. Yet quite a few of them mention that I don't write about Iraq very much because it's a horrible, horrible mess. What would writing about it a little more have looked like? The other funny thing is that I seem to have had better predictive abilities when it comes to Iraq than the powers that be in the American government. Either that, or they wanted the actual outcome while pretending to aim at something quite different. Note that the word "funny" here is not used in the funny-ha-ha sense. I feel terrible about the suffering of the Iraqi people and also terrible about the new Iraq the women are likely to have to live in from now on. It's going to be an Islamic theocracy, at least outside the Kurdish areas. The third funny thing I realized is that I used to have really good post titles. Interesting and silly and full of eccentric literary allusions. All gone now. Must spend more attention on the headlines. |
Meanwhile, in Iraq
The emergency political summit president Jalal Talabani called has failed. The Sunnis are still outside the government. As Kevin Drum points out:
I wrote pretty much the same in my salad days as a blogger in 2004 when we were told how good the invasion was for the rights of Iraqi women. Even Dick Cheney in the 1990s knew that invading Iraq would lead to its destruction as a secular state: Is the surge in Iraq succeeding? This discussion sometimes sounds like listening to a bad radio which picks up two stations at the same time. Mostly we hear the experts pontificating on the tactics and the definitions of words such as "surge", but in the background, faintly, we hear another program asking what the ultimate point of the exercise might be. What would a successful Iraq look like? Does it look like a theocracy? Or an American client-state with civil war somehow kept under wraps? And what is the price to be paid for such a success if it somehow could be achieved? ----- Cross-posted on TAPPED. |
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Garden of Hate
|
Children and Careers
The test I link to in the post below contains a question about whether women should put children ahead of their careers. The question is intended to find out whether you, my dear reader, are a social conservative. But it's a loaded question, naturally, because there is no follow-up question about whether men should put children ahead of their careers. That question is never asked. Then there is the loading caused by the word "career" which refers to the uppity educated women who shouldn't really have jobs. These questions never ask whether people in general should have both jobs and families. Or even both careers and children! Some time ago the Washington Post had an article about Congresswomen with small children. The fetching headline was: "Mom's in the House, With Kids at Home", and the article discussed the many ways in which "balancing" mothering with being a Congresswoman is hard. The only reference to Congressmen with young children was this:
The article tells us that there are ten women in Congress with children under 13. The article does not tell us how many men in Congress have children under 13, because it doesn't matter. Those men are not assumed to be in charge of the children, and mostly an absent father is not viewed as a major problem. But surely not seeing your father for several days a week can be as much of a problem as not seeing your mother? The treatment of fathers in these stories is paradoxical. In one sense they get all the benefits of having children with none of the problems. In another sense they are deemed as totally unnecessary for their children except as providers of money to the family. They can be sent to Iraq to die and mostly that is not a cause for some great outrage. They can also go and pursue a career whole-heartedly, and that is not a cause for concern, either. Mothers, on the other hand... I know that articles like the one I linked to must address the world as it is and not the way some feminazi goddess might like it to be. I also know that many of the readers are struggling with the same issues and want to read about the costs and benefits to these women. But the issue is always framed as having to do with mothers alone. Not the society, not the fathers, not the way we structure work. Just mothers are to bear the total burden on their shoulders. Even if it means that there will be no women of child-bearing age in Congress. |
Political Compass
I've posted about this test before on the blog, but that was some years ago. You can click on the Political Compass site, answer some questions and find where you stand politically in comparison to such famous people as Hitler or Gandhi. Sinfonian provides a link to an exercise where the current U.S. presidential candidates are also rated using the same coordinate system. This means that you can find out where you stand in comparison to them, too. I always find myself next to Gandhi in these tests, but then I lie a lot. Or Gandhi did. |
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Blogger arrested near UCLA child care center
NTodd noticed that headline in a CNN news story:
It's hard to interpret the headline as not indicating that bloggers are somehow an unsavory bunch of people on the whole. |
Today's Bad Poetry
Or "kids, get off my lawn" poems: Summer Days June gallops past in light green shoes, the days hardly born when they turn to the blues. Where are the first brave berries? All I can find are plastic cherries. July will enter, humid and ripe. The days linger on like stains I can't wipe. Where is the lettuce I loved as a child? All I can find is an echo too mild. August is hardest, brown and hot. The days are wounded with sweet-smelling rot. Where is the moon with August eyes? All I can find is jetsmoke in skies. Who took the summer and made it so flat? Give me the winter. I can understand that. An Ode for August August is the foulest month of all. He pretends to rest before the coming of the fall. As he totters on his last legs and smells of sweat and rotten eggs. Like a party overlong August has a smell too strong. And the men who are wild at fifty glance around with eyes too shifty. Heh. I don't like the summer weather very much. |
The Hack Gap
This is Matthew Yglesias' term for something which the civility-supporters in political debate rarely address: The pundits of the right and the right blogosphere are much more eager and willing to grab on to any scandal on the other side and to milk it for months afterwards. No, even for years afterwards. I still get e-mails about the Clinton scandals of the early 1990s and the anger in them is as fresh as newly-spilled blood. The pundits of the left (the few that exist) and the left blogosphere are, however, the ones who are mostly accused of incivility and of using bad language. But the left tends not to focus on the scandal-mongering. Remember the Republican married senator who admitted to using escort services while at the same time advocating abstinence outside the marriage? Fascinating rumors were floating around about the requests he made to the escorts he hired, but mostly liberal and progressive blogs did not write about that stuff. Neither have we milked dry Rush Limbaugh's addiction problems or the Congressional peers scandal. Or the many, many, many financial scandals infecting the Republican party. Yet, as pointed by Mark Kleiman, something that Kos said a few years ago is still discussed in the wingnut blogs. Kleiman mentioned this in the context of the very limited attention given to a recent right-wing column by Stu Bykofsky which advocated a new 9/11 massacre as a way of getting Americans temporarily united again. As a way to stop the bickering, and most likely as a way to make Americans line up behind George Bush in our march towards the chasm again. Of course, Bykofsky did not volunteer to be one of the victims of this new massacre. It's always someone else's pile of dead bodies that we need for unity. Where are all the lefty hacks to bring this up, again and again? Where are all the lefty hacks to imply that all wingnuts think like Bykofsky? I can't do all that work alone. More seriously, it's interesting to place this whole idea into the generally accepted conclusion that only conservative Americans have Values and Principles. Liberals have dildoes, I guess. Nah. It's just that liberal values are almost completely ignored because our public debate takes place within the conservative frame where only conservative values are seen as values. |
At The Truckstop
![]() David Brooks' most recent column is about the "other America", the place where the honest, dignified and hard-working people live in. Brooks views this place as Republicana, which you must remember when reading his observations. The story he tells this time is about stopping at a truckstop and about a conversation he had there with a trucker. Some excerpts:
My condensed version of the column lets you home straight into its inner core. This is all about a masculine mystique, as applied by Brooks to a blue collar worker. The story is deceptive because of phrases such as "people in other classes", but Brooks writes about men only. Women enter as past divorces or as something that exists outside of the occupation of trucking, to be fed and protected. The message one is supposed to take home from the column is that the Democratic Party doesn't fit these manly truckers, because the truckers don't care about money or income inequality or any of that fluffy crap. They care about something else, some sort of a masculine mystique, I guess. |
Monday, August 13, 2007
The Morale Dilemma
Is the morale among U.S. military in Iraq low or high? Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack argued for the latter case in their July New York Times op-ed piece: Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference. So does Rep. Phil Gingrey, a Republican from Georgia, who recently wrote about his Iraq trip:
I'm glad to hear that the soldiers feel so confident and cheerful. But the U.K. Observer has a very different story to tell about the morale among the American military in Iraq:
Perhaps the military is at the same time bone-weary and in good spirits, both eager to stay and eager to come home? That's unlikely. But what is the truth about troop morale? ---- Cross-posted at TAPPED. |
Conservative Free Markets Explained
Via Daily Kos, we get this statement about lead in toys and cheap prices from Erin Burnett of CNBC:
You know what? She is right, in a very perverted manner. When the price wars in the international "free" markets rage the only way someone can underbid is by substituting, say, a dangerous substance for a safe substance if it cuts the production costs by a quarter of a cent per million objects. That would of course only be the case in the kinds of markets where there are no rules at all. It's like a poker game with no rules. If you start losing you will cheat or pull your gun out and shoot all the other players. A properly organized market has ground rules. They include stuff like not selling people toothpaste more cheaply by using an ingredient that kills. They include stuff like not using slaves to make the products. Rules. Just like in a poker game. But the Chinese system right now doesn't have the same rules as the American system. But of course what Burnett said was outrageous as an ethical statement. That this probably is the summary of the ethical views of many who support "free" trade is the really outrageous bit. |
How To Build A Career
Imagine yourself in Erin Burnett's shoes. (Burnett anchors CNBC's Squawk on the Street and Street Signs.) You are discussing the financial markets with Chris Matthews, giving thoughtful comments and information on television. You are a professional, someone who has worked hard to get where you are now (I assume she has worked hard), and this is what happens on teebee:
Now isn't that the sweetest putdown in all history? How cleverly her feet were swept off from under her! How instantly she becomes nothing but yet another pretty face! Well done, Tweety! Where's Sylvester when you need him? P.S. And yes, I know that Burnett says very stupid things, as described in the post above this. But Tweety was playing the cute-little-thing-and-it-talks! card against her and some of us goddesses have had the same card played against us. It stinks. |
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Dick Cheney on Iraq, Then
from "MoreJust So Stories"
| Posted by olvlzl. Gina Kolata of the New York Times New Service began a recent piece in the usual way, with an explanation steeped in the current fashion for explaining everything as being an expression of an ancient and adaptive genetic heritage: Everyone knows men are promiscuous by nature. It's part of the genetic strategy that evolved to help men spread their genes far and wide. The strategy is different for a woman, who must go through so much just to have a baby and then nurture it. She is genetically programmed to want just one man who will stick with her and help raise their children. Surveys bear this out. In study after study and in country after country, men report more, often many more, sexual partners than women. Which is an odd way to start when you go on to read the rest of the article which is about the surveys which show that heterosexual men, on average have had about three to four more sexual partners than heterosexual women. You might have seen similar “scientifically conducted” polls bandied about on the blogs, on TV and perhaps even mentioned as yet another prop for biological determinism of gender roles. However, there is a huge mystery about all this. Who are the extra women these men are having sex with and why are they apparently keeping silent about it. Otherwise, it just couldn’t figure. - It's about time for mathematicians to set the record straight, said Dr. David Gale, an emeritus professor of mathematics at the University of California, Berkeley. "Surveys and studies to the contrary notwithstanding, the conclusion that men have substantially more sex partners than women is not and cannot be true, for purely logical reasons," Gale said. Dr. Gale goes on to give a simple demonstration with equation anyone with fourth grade math could master. But not most of those in the media and even on some "Scienceblogs". Despite all the confident assertions that the reported disparities are “proof” of a genetically programmed difference between mens’ and women’s brains apparently the original reporters of those illogical numbers know that what they’re reporting is bogus. "I have heard this question before," said Cheryl D. Fryar, a health statistician at the National Center for Health Statistics and a lead author of the new federal report "Drug Use and Sexual Behaviors Reported by Adults: United States, 1999-2002," which found that men had a median of seven partners and women four. But when it comes to an explanation, she added, "I have no idea." "This is what is reported," Fryar said. "The reason why they report it I do not know." While they’re noticing these seldom mentioned lacunae in today's common received wisdom perhaps they might want to notice something else. Despite the reservations I’ve expressed here about polling and, even more so, the reporting of polls and surveys I do know one thing with absolute certainty. The methods of polling today are much, much more reliable than those of the Pleistocene period, the period about which the stories like the one at the top of this piece, are told with such confidence by biological determinists. We have no idea at all if our early ancestors were swingers, none. If men today, most of whom seem to be able to count, at least on their hands, are unsure about how many women they have had sex with, why would men at the dawn of humanity be more credible? Maybe cavemen were liars and it is the propensity to lie about such things to people like pollsters (and other interviewers) which is the actual heritage we have from them. At least we know with some confidence that the lie is real. In the end of Ms. Kolata’s article is this: Ronald Graham, a professor of mathematics and computer science at the University of California, San Diego, agreed with Gale. After all, on average, men would have to have three more partners than women, raising the question of where all those extra partners might be. "Some might be imaginary," Graham said. "Maybe two are in the man's mind and one really exists." Maybe the stories of evolutionary psychology need to be subjected to similar levels of scrutiny. |
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Men Banned From Homemaking Classes
This is our brethren at the Southern Baptist seminary. They have gotten rid of the last female professor who - gasp! - taught men. Now they are introducing classes on homemaking at the seminary. But only women can take them:
The article presents two very fascinating rationales for these classes. There is Terry Stoval, the dean of women's programs, trying to make something else than a sow's ear out of the sow's ear she has been given. Then there is the seminary president, Paige Patterson, who is telling us the real reasons for these new programs:
Wow! I need a long drink after reading that last paragraph. I also need to go out to breathe a little. The nation itself will be destroyed if women don't stay at home studying clothing patterns and planning unusual treatments for the dining-room walls. Of course Patterson has always been of the opinion that this nation has been built on the backs of the women and if the women get off that crouching position, well, the nation will tip. That's why he has worked for the proper subjugation of women for many years:
I feel as if my chest is being squeezed when I read stories like these where the plot is how to make women behave in the properly submissive way. In this particular case, my concern is not with the idea that homemaking is taught, but with the idea that it is taught only to women and in the context of a college-level degree. Someone must be paying money for those courses. Yet when reality strikes and the women who took these courses need to find a job they are not qualified for the better jobs. Patterson is trying to ensure that women go home and that they have to stay there because they have no real alternatives. How godly is this behavior? How godly is it in general to argue that the fate of a denomination or a country depends on the brainwashing and subjugation of half of humanity? Note that when Patterson refers to his fear that the nation will be destroyed if women don't follow his behavioral rules he must have in mind a wider group of women than just the Southern Baptists. There are not enough of them to save the country by proper wifely behavior. No, Mr. Patterson wants all American women back to the kitchens full time. Let's be honest. He wants male dominance in the society. And he wants all women to stay at home and work for bread and board. |
Saturday Hope Blogging
Friday, August 10, 2007
I've Arrived!
The first time I've been called a political hack! Yeah! Have some chocolate to celebrate. You can tell your grandchildren that you were present at this crucial point. And yes, I know that I should write about the liquidity crisis in the financial markets and the bursting of the bubble that was based on subprime mortgage lending. But us hacks don't. |
Friday Family Photo Blogging
|
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Wherein Tweety Extols the Fine Neoconservative Mind of George Bush
You can watch for yourself at Think Progress. But this is the gist:
I wonder what color the sky is in Tweety's world. |
Electoral Politics Made Simple
By Chris Matthews, as usual. Tweety does hear a different drummer from the rest of us. He thinks that the value of politicians can be measured by how big or beefy they are:
Wouldn't it be great if it was that easy? We could just go to the store and by three pounds of ground Evangelical fundamentalist or a nice rack of Liberal ribs. Pun intended. |
Baseball and Barry Bonds
Baseball is not one of the guy sports I watch much, but I roughly know the rules and can follow a game and even admire certain stunts. On the other hand, baseball fascinates me as a parable about the American culture (including its male focus). There is Babe Ruth and the curse he supposedly put on Red Sox and the 1920s betting scandal and its later repeats. There is the whole interesting history of racial integration as it was reflected in the integration in professional baseball, including the advantages and disadvantages of it for black players, white players and the owners in general. Then there is baseball's many equivalents of the American desire to have lone heroes, combined with the frank admission that lone heroes are nothing without the team, though even then the team is usually mythologized into one manager or a small number of players. Professional baseball used to practice something which is quite illegal in ordinary jobs: players could be indentured and could not leave the team if they wanted to do so. The "free agent" aspect is a diluted form of this indenture. On the other hand, the owners of the teams can in some ways act as the sole seller of a product (televised games) and also as the sole buyer of the best players' services (though they still face competition from each other). This gives them some monopoly and some monopsony power. The combination of the two means that the players might at the same time look oppressed by the owners' power and also earn very large salaries. These economic aspects are also part of the American baseball mythology. But most fans prefer the other mythological stories, the ones about individual heroes, team spirit, modesty and great achievements against all odds. And the ones about records and racial fairness and baseball as the unifying thread which weaves all Americans into one patriotic community. Or even the more scandalous stories about Ted Williams' mean temper or the larger-than-life egos of many team owners. What I find fascinating about this all is not just the stories which are often quite good but the way baseball serves as a mirror which shows Americans as either better than they might be or sometimes much more horrible, but in either case somewhat caricaturized. Even the players' wives are caricaturized in the media, often in an almost "Stepford Wives" way. They become nothing but supportive wives, waiting. Those long ramblings (why on earth am I writing about baseball???) are to explain how I react to Barry Bonds' recent breaking of the old home run record and to the discussions about his possible drug use, his race and the whole question whether records from different eras are comparable in any meaningful sense. I see these stories as reactions to various baseball myths, perhaps also as attempts to tug the myths to certain new directions. But baseball may no longer be the American myth of the younger generation. Of course it never was the most applicable myth for many, many Americans. |
On Breast Implants and Suicide
The correlation between the two has been in the news recently:
Correlation is a neat little statistical measure, which reflects the extent to which two phenomena appear to move in some connected ways. We call the correlation positive if the phenomena move in the same direction. For example, when one goes up, so does the other, on average. Negative correlation means that when one phenomenon goes up the other one tends to go down. Now, correlation doesn't necessarily mean that one phenomenon causes the other. This could be the case, but many other explanations are possible. This study is a good example of the kind of study where the correlation is unlikely to be the same as causation. Unless we find something in the implant materials that makes people more suicidal, the best guess for this correlation is that there are some women who elect to have breast surgery for psychological reasons and that these same reasons may also later contribute to suicides. Depression and low self-esteem are examples that crop to mind as such underlying psychological reasons. The article I link to makes this point clearly, and that is good. But it's always useful to remind readers that correlation doesn't always mean causality. |
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Types of Writing
I'm tired of writing nutritionally balanced posts which taste like bran and untreated tofu; where the particles dangle like iron pills mixed into the food in the dog's bowl. I want to write deliriously delicious posts, silver spoonfuls of angel-food cake but with wicked drops of dark chocolate hidden in the fluffy cloud. I want to write a post which makes you fat and happy and post-orgasmically satiated. Alas, it's not to be, right now. Have a celery stick. |
On Autistic Girls
The New York Times has an interesting article by Emily Bazelon on that topic. I have a few reservations about it, though. First, whenever someone has a plan to write a piece on how the sexes differ, well, the piece tends to focus on that and not on how the sexes are the same. In most cases, we are not given any information about the relative magnitudes of the differences vis-a-vis the similarities. Because nobody ever writes articles on how the sexes don't differ, we mostly go away with the idea that the differences are humongous. Second, a very common aspect of much of the writing on sex roles and so on is the implicit assumption that the sex roles in the American society are the natural sex roles. It isn't just the Americans who do this, but because American writing in this area is predominant, a lot of the psychological and sociological research in this area has to do with American college students (because so many studies use college students as cheap subjects). I sensed this bias in the autism piece in the sense that what was assumed to be "natural" for girls is what the American culture regards as natural. Third, the article mentions Simon Baron-Cohen as an expert on gender and autism, but fails to mention that much of his work is controversial. I have written about the problems with his test for systematizing vs. empathizing behavior earlier on this blog, and I have also written about the fairly obvious gender bias in his book The Essential Difference . But mostly I have trouble with the basic argument of the piece which is that girls suffer more than boys from autism because social interaction is more important for girls than boys, and because autism makes social interaction so difficult. Yet, at the same time the article quotes one expert as saying that perhaps we see fewer high-functioning autistic girls because girls are better at social interaction and that this serves to hide them from the autistic label. The article tries to explain how both of these arguments could be true at the same time:
I'm not convinced. It's as if we are saying that autism hurts girls because they can't satisfy the cultural expectations of being good at social interactions, but on the other hand girls are good at social interactions which hides their autism. I guess it could be true, but shouldn't we then find the average level of autism in the girls who are diagnosed to be much, much higher than the average level in boys? |
Meanwhile, in the U.S. Air Force
When you hear a story where a woman reports that she was raped and then subsequently has to go to court accused of "indecent acts", what country comes to your mind? Some place with the shariah law, probably, given that there are countries which interpret that law in the context of rape in a very narrow way: If you can't prove that you were raped then you were guilty of indecent acts and need to be punished. I always felt that the real purpose of all this was to keep women from reporting rapes. After all, if the punishment for an unproven rape is that the victim herself will be flogged or stoned or hanged, well, that tends to have an inhibitive effect on rape reporting. But the country I have in mind this time is not Saudi Arabia or Iran; it's the good ol' U.S. of A.. The Air Force, to be more exact. A female airman reported that she was raped but later refused to testify. Then things got surreal: She is going to be court-martialed for underage drinking and "indecent acts":
It sounds very odd that the men received only nonjudicial punishments. Were they not participants in at least the "indecent acts" if not a rape? Why is she going to be court-martialed, while they are given immunity? Immunity from what? Rape charges? This will certainly make rape reporting rarer in the military. I hope that wasn't the intention, all along. But it may well be. |
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Mad Or Sad?
![]() A recent study by Victoria Brescoll suggests that women in management might do better if they don't show anger. This is what she did in the study:
The people in the job interview were either male or female but followed the same script. Each of them expressed either anger or sadness over losing an account due to a colleague being late for a meeting. ![]() According to Brescoll, anger gave the men higher status and higher salary estimates. The reverse was true for women. It seems that it's better to be a sad CEO than a mad CEO if you are of the girly persuasion. The usual popularized take on this study seems to be that anger helps men get ahead but keeps women back. Strictly speaking, this is not quite what the study found, as the study compared anger not to, say, general pleasantness, but to sadness as a possible reaction to one particular type of event (the loss of an account). I couldn't get hold of the actual study which limits my ability to judge how reliable the findings are. As an example of the kind of data I'd love to see is the number of subjects who were asked to rate the videos. But supposing, for the time being, that there are no hidden bugs in the study, what do the results mean? Brescoll herself says that angry women are seen as "out of control". This is fascinating, because the proper antonym for that in this context might not be "in control" but "under control". If anger is viewed as a legitimate reaction by someone who is entitled to dominate others (as the article from which I quote suggests), then those who are not seen as entitled to dominate others would indeed be "out of control" when expressing anger. This doesn't apply only to women who have traditionally not been allowed to show much anger, but to almost anyone in a subordinate position. That sadness works better for women than anger fits into that framework pretty well. Besides, sadness is not directed to anyone outside the person. It is non-threatening. On the other hand, women are not supposed to be sad in public if they have power, because crying is seen as a sign of weakness. A Catch-22 indeed. I was astonished by the salaries men and women were assigned in this study. Men were awarded much higher salaries than women (remember, the applicants were objectively identical), and the resulting differences are much larger than the actual average differences in full-time pay by gender. Both male and female reviewers assigned women lower earnings, and I have seen similar results from other studies. One interpretation would be that the study subjects are trying to guess what a person with particular characteristics would earn in the real world, and assign sums accordingly, thus taking into account their knowledge that women, on average, earn less. Another one is that people in general are a lot more sexist than we perhaps have thought and rate and rank women lower than men on that basis. |
On the Utah Mining Accident
May the six trapped miners be found soon and healthy or at least alive. An earlier post I wrote after the Sago accident touches on some of the safety concerns which have cropped up in this case, too. Mining safety is too crucial to be left to the vagaries of the marketplace. |
Blogging Advice
Jane Hamsher includes some in a recent post:
I thought about this a lot last night while brushing my fangs the required five minutes. Then I thought about it some more. The advice she gives is quite good, but I have not taken it. So I went through all those rounds in the spiral of thinking, from feeling annoyed at myself for not doing all those things that well, to feeling annoyed that such marketing acts (as I see them) are required to sell certain topics (often feminist ones) to a wider audience (consisting of what type of people?), then veering back into asking what all this means for the definition of blogging as an enterprise (a commercial one?) as compared to simple acts of writing or communication, and finally deciding that I will never arrive at some ice-clear conclusion on any of this. Better just write it all down. So I did. |
Monday, August 06, 2007
The Liberal Washington Post
Has hired Ramesh Ponnuru:
Where's my Discussion Group, by the way? Doesn't that reference to "the state's role in enforcing morality" remind you of something? Like those Taliban police officers who checked that women's shoes didn't make a noise. Brothers under the skin and all that. |
Where the White Boys Are
That's pretty much the summary of this Washington Post article by Jose Antonio Vargas, about the lack of diversity at the Yearly Kos conference which has just ended in Chicago. I wasn't able to make the conference this year, but the absence of one snake goddess is not what Vargas bemoans:
Sigh. Diversity. You know, I have never really liked that term. It was snuck in at some time in the eighties or nineties to make fairness more palatable to those who don't think there is anything unfair in the good-ole-boy networks. "Diversity" sounds like face paint to me, even though I know that it's not intended that way. And somehow it's a lot easier to ignore demands for diversity than it is to point out that white guys don't always bring up exactly the same issues as black guys or brown guys or gals of all colors or that a grass-root movement of nothing but white guys isn't exactly grass-root. That would be green guys, I guess. That's not the only reason I'm sighing here. Some of you may have read me long enough to know that the "where are the women?" topic crops up all the time in the blogosphere and I'm tired of writing the same observations each time. So instead of doing that, let me just summarize: Those who see no problems argue that nobody on the Internet knows if you are a dog (just don't call yourself Spotty), that the system is gender-blind and color-blind and the result therefore either optimal or at least not amenable to any easy change. Those who see problems argue that "birds of a feather fly together", that guy bloggers link to guy bloggers, that certain topics are viewed as important and others as "identity politics" and divisive, and that institutional support is most likely to accrue to those whose views are seen as not being all about "identity politics." Yet for most practical purposes the lives of women and minorities might evolve around the very topics which are labeled as divisive. Sigh, one more time. What is the solution, then, for increasing diversity at conferences such as the Yearly Kos? Note that the diversity of bloggers themselves is much greater, it seems to me, and even if it is not a real rainbow of views and individuals it is slowly turning towards that direction. The real question the article poses for me is how to get the money and support for all the different types of bloggers to attend these conferences and how to get them on the panels, too. Once there, the bloggers can speak for themselves. This problem seems quite amenable to a financial solution and some logical outreach efforts, don't you think? |
Today's Deep Thought
From a piece by Robert Dallek in the Washington Post:
|
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Some Suggested Voices To Use When Reading Harry Potter Aloud.
| Posted by olvlzl Well, it’s done. I’ve read the entire series to by nieces, some of the books more than twice. If you should ever be in a position to have to read them aloud, and are living in North America without the right accents, here are a few ideas for voices that I’ve used. Draco Malfoy: Byron York Lucius Malfoy: Wm. F.Buckley Snape: the late Jeanne Kirkpatrick Prof. Lockheart: Steven Pinker Hagrid: Onslow, you know, Hyacinth’s brother in law. Prof. Umbridge: James Sensenbrenner Uncle Vernon: who else, Rush Limbaugh. Though Tim Russert might do. Petunia: Phyllis Schalfly Dudley: Chris Matthews Belatrix: Ann Coulter Voldermort: George Gilder through a helium balloon. What voices do you hear when you read them? |
Diversity As A Disaster? This is something we need to start working on now.
| Posted by olvlzl In the Boston Globe’s Idea section today is an article about some seemingly disturbing and discouraging findings from extensive studies of cities with diverse and less diverse populations. The upshot is that the study done by Robert Putnam (author of “Bowling Alone”) shows that cities with greater diversity have less community involvement by individuals, more suspicion of their neighbors and even lower voting rates. You just know that this study, done by a pretty solid liberal, is sweet to the ears of conservatives, from the near right to David Duke. Duke is already featuring the study on his website, to Putnam's distress. Before long it will be making its way into the writings of pop-social science writers and from there the call for , in effect, segregation will become mainstream in what passes as the liberal media from the NYT to The News Hour. Some conservatives are snorting and huffing because Putnam thinks this is something that we should be looking at in terms of cause and remedy "You're just supposed to tell your peers what you found," says John Leo, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. "I don't expect academics to fret about these matters." Conservatives apparently value civic well-being less than they do having the political issue of ethnic resentment and division. Are they are looking at how to use this study to promote the closed boarder policy that seems their great white hope in the coming election? I suspect that so. This is the "Southern strategy" with kid gloves. Since we are a diverse country and every indication seems to show that we are going to become more so, a reputable study showing that: "People living in ethnically diverse settings appear to 'hunker down' -- that is, to pull in like a turtle," (Putnam) ... is pretty alarming. Anyone interested in having a civil civic life should be looking for ways to promote social and community life across ethnic barriers. Odd, in the article, that the role of TV as a possible factor in this situation isn’t mentioned. Considering Putnam’s most famous work to date, that seems doubly odd. The role of TV in setting the national attitudes about ethnicity, risk from diversity, the climate of danger and similar vectors that would certainly impinge on the habit of fearful cocooning is, I believe, more pervasive than education or personal experience. The image of non-whites on TV has certainly been studied and been found to promote negative stereotypes. The amount of time Americans watch and absorb the messages of TV has to make it one of the most influential teaching methods today. To ignore the role played by it, and, perhaps, to some extent, radio, in an article like this is a fatal flaw to understanding the full range of explanations. TV is mentioned once but as the end of the problem, not a source of it: "distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television." People more interested in livable cities than promoting racial strife for political gain had better take the role of the mass media into account. Perhaps it would be good to have some replication of Putnam’s study, though in a sample of the size he took it’s likely to be a long time coming. Until it is, possibly, discounted I’m afraid that the “disaster of diversity” is likely to be the predominant line in any discussion. The conservative-Republican bias of the media almost assures us it will remain in currency for many years to come. But anyone who is more interested in civic peace than in radio-talk show division will have to take seriously the need to pressure the electronic media to stop promoting racism through fear. |
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Irresponsible Corporate Media Makes Responsible Government Impossible
| Posted by olvlzl Note: I was going to write a followup to this piece in light of this weeks bridge disaster and the soon to be laid aside interest in bridge inspection and repair. However, that wasn't possible. The reason the matter, clearly a matter of saving lives this week, will be laid aside is due to the collusion of conservative politicians and the media which supports them. It is the "tax and spend" chanters who have brought us to this. While it is profitable for their campaign supporters to build an enormous and complex infrastructure, it costs money to do do it right in the first place and to maintain and eventually replace a superannuated structure. That's when the howls of the right wing begin and responsible voices are silenced. The Boston Globe had a column by David Luberoff last year which clearly explains the origins of the emerging Big Dig disaster. He points out that the project, originally funded through the federal highway system, lost a lot of its federal support half-way through. Instead of facing that reality, the politicians in Massachusetts didn't make up the difference with state and local taxes and tolls. One of the truest things in life is that while you often don't get what you pay for, you never get what you don't pay for. You know that's true when you are dealing with a large corporation like Bechtel with armies of bean counters making sure that they get maximum profits from their projects. What went wrong in the face of warnings by people who knew what they were talking about - Massachusetts has probably the highest percentage of those on the continent- is just beginning to be studied. While they are looking at that I hope someone will look into the more general political atmosphere that led to the bad decisions. I don't only mean the steady stream of Republican governors during most of the Big Dig. Given their refusal to monitor themselves for accuracy and responsibility, we won't get the media's role in promoting gross irresponsibility in politicians. At least not from them. But it really does largely fall on the media. Through call-in shows, wise-guy on-air personalities, connected owners and those who have created today's media sewer, anyone who steps up and tells the truth, "You want this done, you are going to have to pay for it," gets their head handed to them. They make lying and dereliction of duty requirements for retaining a political office or civil service job. Reporting with enough time or column space to really explain an issue costs more while the truths uncovered are insufficiently entertaining to maximize profits. And some of those truths might be most unwelcome at the club. The Republican Party, who used to pride themselves on responsibility, now specialize in this kind of winning through lying. With the media fully in support they tell lies designed to win elections. Most people have a weakness for believing what they want to hear. The busy public, without the technical knowledge or time to look at the details buys the lies until reality strikes and they can't ignore it any longer. How else do you think Bush I lost to Bill Clinton despite the insane press adulation following Bush War I and the war they waged against Clinton as soon as it was clear he had a chance to win? But if you want good government, safe and effective civil engineering projects, the rest of the benefits that only government can deliver, then we can't wait for the disaster to deliver the real news. The cost in lives, time and remedial action are multiplied many times by the lies and propaganda spread by the media. The often repeated line, "Good, fast or cheap. Pick two." sums up the current political climate that this irresponsibility has produced. But as the Big Dig is beginning to prove, good is the only way to get faster and cheaper. Maybe the same applies to news media getting it right. But getting it right isn't what today's profit-driven and cynically self-interested media is all about. The Globe had an article in which Michael Dukakis defends his administration's role in the Big Dig. Having read about the project from its beginning, he makes a good case. But Dukakis is just a boring detail guy the press rejected two decades ago. |
Friday, August 03, 2007
On the Duggars
I happened to come across a piece which celebrates the birth of the seventeenth child into the Duggars family. Now, the number of children this family wants to have may be their own business (though that could be debated from an environmental angle, say, and also if they cannot afford to feed all of those children), but the announcement made me think how differently the choice to have lots of children is viewed from the choice to have a few children and work outside the home. The latter choice is viewed as wrong by a sizeable number of Americans, though naturally only in the case of mothers who are employed. Fathers are quite free to be employed, never mind how many children they have. But mothers who have jobs outside the home are suspected of child neglect or even worse. Yet having seventeen children is not treated in a similar manner. But think about it: How could Michelle Duggars possibly spend the amount of attention on each and every one of them that many of those motherhood experts specify? (Jim Bob, the father is obviously not expected to spend time with the children.) My guess is that it is the older siblings who pretty much bring up the younger ones. This may not be bad, but surely it would be regarded as horrible if it was a consequence of the mother having a job and therefore delegating child-minding to someone else. Or think about how this case is viewed in comparison, say, to all those stories about welfare queens who have more children supposedly only because it gives them more money. The Duggars are not criticized for having more children than they can afford to support properly. What is the difference in these kinds of comparisons? The Duggars tell a story which both shocks us (seventeen children!) and also supports very old patriarchal norms about what a good mother is. She stays at home and has lots of children, basically. That this might not be good for the children is ignored, because the other myth is more powerful. |
Friday Cat Blogging
![]() This is fourlegs' Maddie. Fourlegs takes great kitten pictures. What is the point of sudden photographs of animals on political blogs? I think they are an important change of pace and a reminder to be in touch with all things which fundamentally matter: the trees, the animals the rocks, the rain, the sun. We are animals ourselves, whatever the wingnuts wish for, and we need to stay grounded. Besides, the pictures are calming and cheering and often funny. And a way to signal that the weekend is coming. Speaking about the weekend, this weekend I'm going to post a couple of things sent in by some of you lovely and talented readers. If there is interest in doing more of these kinds of posts we may continue doing it during the times when I need to participate in such divine acts as sleep. |
The Yearly Kos
I'm not in attendance at that conference, myself, and if you are not there, either, you can follow several of the events electronically (though right now they are off the air). I've heard that there are even events in the Second Life game. Or you can read what bloggers such as Atrios or the people at TAPPED say about the conference speeches and events. Or of course go to the Daily Kos and follow links from there. |
Thursday, August 02, 2007
On Minimum Wage and Kama Sutra Chocolates
I have written a longer piece on how the recent federal raise was passed. I meant to write a piece on the theories behind the minimum wage but my dog got sick and making economic theory into luscious tidbits of sheer funniness took more than I had to give. If you are not too keen on that topic, how about chocolates shaped like acts of love? Trish Wilson shows you a picture of one. I think these could turn out to be very popular. |
Preventing Disasters
The Minnesota bridge collapse may have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this post but it made me think again about the particular problems the political system creates in attempts to prevent similar disasters. For example, consider an elected politician who notices that the area's infrastructure is in poor shape and who works to repair it. These repairs require higher taxes, let's say. Suppose that the roads and bridges are then all fixed and new elections come around. What do you think this politician's competition will run on? Probably on how the government has been spending too much and taxing too high, and how it is time for a lean-and-mean new government (which, of course, doesn't need to fix the infrastructure now, either). And these arguments might very well win the day. Now suppose the initial politician in my story had instead neglected the infrastructure problems until some major accident occurred in which people died. Suppose that only then would this person rise up and start fixing bridges and roads everywhere, while also turning up at every patriotic rally. All this patching up could cost more than a thorough maintenance program might have cost. But the politician is now a hero, and in a much better position to get re-elected. When is a leader a good leader? The first type appears preferable on logical grounds, but the second one is more likely to be viewed as a good leader. Yet people had to die for change to come about. Well, in my story at least. --- Cross-posted on TAPPED. |
Off Tune
President Bush was not the great communicator today when addressing the Minnesota bridge collapse:
The first two paragraphs were tagged on and the transition is very bumpy. --- Via Best of Both Worlds. |
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Just Say No
President Bush is planning to do lots of vetoing in the near future. He has threatened to veto the long-awaited legislation to shore up hurricane protection along the Gulf coast. And he has threatened to veto the Lilly Ledbetter legislation which would extend the time frame for employees to sue a firm on the basis of wage discrimination. And he has also threatened to veto legislation to broaden the State Children's Health Insurance Program so that it would cover the health insurance needs of more children. So it goes. ---- Cross-posted on Eschaton |
Some YouTube Fun
It's not really the Republican presidential candidates talking about their stance on abortion but it could be. |
Meanwhile, in Ohio
The patriarchs of the far right have proposed a bill which would make it compulsory for the "father of the fetus" (should be embryo) to give permission for a woman's abortion. If he doesn't give permission she can't have an abortion. The only cases where a woman is left in complete authority over her own body are when the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest, as documented by the police (or by DNA test in the case of incest) and when the woman's health or life is at risk. What is the point of this proposed bill? It is obviously an anti-abortion bill and perhaps a fathers' right bill, too. But it doesn't work for many fathers' rights people who actually would like to see the reverse put into a bill, i.e., a requirement that a woman can't give birth without the prospective father's approval. That has to do with child maintenance payments. I got the link through feministing.com and the discussion there has veered to a debate over the rights of men not to become fathers. This bill is all about the right of men to become fathers even if it means that the woman is forced into motherhood. A different thing altogether. I have written about this dilemma earlier, and in general I think neither men nor women have the "right" to become parents (because such a "right" would ultimately imply forcing someone else to be the other parent), but that both women and men should have the right not to become parents. What complicates that argument in a way which makes full equality tricky is that pregnancy takes place in the woman's body. If we had fetal incubators I'd be happy to argue that both the woman who gave her egg and the man who gave his sperm should have equal rights to decide on the pregnancy. But as long as the pregnancy takes place in the woman's body it is she who should have the final say on whether to continue it or not. This does mean that a man doesn't have the same rights to decide on the termination or the continuance of a pregnancy as a woman does. Until those fetal incubators step out of the science-fiction novels we need better contraceptives for men and better education for boys so that they understand the inherent risks in every act of intercourse. Girls are taught that fairly well in many families, though not all. |




















