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

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Busy... 





|

OK, maybe I will post on Miley Cyrus (by Suzie) 



     Thanks to the Rev. Bob for the link to this photo, which he left in the comments. This illustrates one of my points: Males and females often are posed differently in photographs, with the latter made to look vulnerable. That's one reason we laugh at this photo.
      What does it say about our culture that attractiveness and sexiness are often linked to vulnerability in females, more often than in men? 
      In the original photo, Miley is posed as if she has been caught unaware and holds a sheet to her body in modesty. Why is that sexy? Because we like girls to be modest, yet available? Because sneaking a peak of a naked girl is more exciting if she doesn't want to be seen? 
 
     Ms. Magazine's spring issue has a review of Gigi Durham's book "The Lolita Effect: The Media Sexualization of Young Girls and What We Can Do About It." The book suggests ways adults can teach kids to deconstruct stuff like Miley's photo shoot.

|

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Some Feminist Snapshots 



I should write a whole script on them, to make them move and tell the stories, but, alas, time refuses to sit still long enough in this weird Internet world where the only things worth discussing is the one that others are discussing at this very moment. Except that moment just passed, so now we discuss something else. Except that moment passed, too.

Gah. Anyway, did you know that the way to test a Linux program is by using your girlfriend? If she can be trained then everybody can, right?

Actually, what people are talking about is the sexied-up pictures of Miley Cyrus. For an example of a headline:

'Hannah Montana', What Were You Thinking?

She is fifteen years old, you know. She cannot legally enter into contracts. I find the treatment of this an interesting comparison to the way the media writes about the pregnancies of the teenaged girls in the Texas polygamy case.

Speaking about the latter, notice how the men have been disappeared from the discussion? The sect gives men almost all the power. Yet the stories I read are almost as if there were no men at all.

Of course, there is a more concrete sense in which the boys have been disappeared:

Of the 463 children, 250 are girls and 213 are boys. Children 13 and younger are about evenly split — 197 girls and 196 boys — but there are only 17 boys aged 14 to 17 compared with the 53 girls in that age range.

So.

|

Today's Fluff Post 



I looked at the notes I have scribbled on my inspiration sheet to see what I might want to write about. The list starts: quantities (damn quantities), buy essential gluten, information vs. French Fries. It took me quite a while to figure that the gluten wasn't part of the inspiration list but something I need to buy to make wholewheat bread.

Wholewheat bread turns into bricks without it (unless one adds white flour which has more gluten), and I have made some very interesting bricks in the past. If you have a fantastic recipe for bread, by the way, post it in the comments. I yearn for the smell of freshly-baked bread right now, bread to be torn apart with hands and eaten just as it is.

The final note in my list of topics is "cock holster". This was a term I read somewhere. Guess what a cock holster might be. Supposedly it is a woman's mouth. And they say misogyny only lives in the minds of hairy feminazis. Not sure why that was included in the inspiration list, unless I thought there might be a way to turn its inventor into essential gluten.

|

On Quantities 



This is a post trying to spell out some baby ideas I have about a problem I have noticed in political debates. They are very hesitant ideas and don't speak yet, but I'm going to let them babble to you.

The problem is this: We use quantities, numbers, percentages, fractions and probabilities very poorly on the whole. For instance:

Is the country severely divided on some issue if 20% think strongly one way and 80% think strongly the other way? I would have thought that the country is fairly agreed on whatever that 80% think. But many disagree with me and address the beliefs of those 20% as if they have the same weight.

Now, perhaps it is the right thing to do, to treat each idea as an equally important issue. But to argue that the same number of people fall into each camp really is incorrect, and this is what I see happening in many ways.

It's just another example of the way we run many public debates: Find representatives for each extreme position and let them fight it out. The idea is that somehow one of the extremes might be right, and that the audience should be able to judge from the debate which it is. Of course this leaves out all the other standpoints but the two extremes. It also gives extreme attention to two positions that actually only a small fraction of the general population believe in. More importantly, the opinions of people in the middle are totally ignored in this setup.

A slightly different example of the quantity problem cropped up on the Eschaton comments threads one night, where people argued that killing just one person is as bad as being a mass-murderer of millions. Something that would be a fair philosophical argument turned into a very different argument, one implying that it doesn't matter how many people one murders. That the amount of suffering, pain and grieving is increased by each new victim was somehow ignored. I think that quantities do matter, and something odd is happening here, something quite frightening.

Here's a feminist example of the same trend: You discuss something that happens to women a lot (say, sexual harassment at work), and someone points out that it happens to men, too. That it happens to men, yes, but that it happens to men much, much less often is ignored. Quantities do matter.

Another example of this, but now with a very different twist: A study on gender differences shows that men do something (say, read news on the net) 60% of the time while women do that same thing 40% of the time. A difference, yes, but not a difference of 100% to 0%. But that's how it becomes, over a couple of rounds of interpretations ("Men read news on the net! Women socialize!"). It even turns into that dualistic position of the initial percentages are 63% vs. 56%.

Or think about the examples from studies about health care. If rates of breast cancer are higher among the women who have used estrogen therapies by some fairly small number the message that most people seem to take home is that estrogen therapies KILL YOU, and that somehow not getting them will save you from breast cancer.

Health care studies almost always have results which mean that there are small differences between two treatment patterns or small differences between disease prevalences in two populations and so on. But the interpretations are never like that. They are practically always dualistic: Live or Die!

This is how far my baby thoughts have gotten. I suspect that what I'm talking about is the tendency to ignore nuances altogether, combined with the tendency to go for either-or solutions which may well be part of the way humans think (Is it safe to eat? Will it kill you?). But there's also a tendency to shift the discussion from a sphere where numbers don't matter to spheres where they do matter, without us noticing that this is what just took place.

|

Monday, April 28, 2008

Fatal Attraction 



That's another way to describe Hillary Clinton: She is like the character Glenn Close played in Fatal Attraction:

NPR's Rudin: "Hillary Clinton is Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction. She's going to keep coming back and they're not going to stop her"

Summary: During a discussion on CNN about the Democratic presidential primary race, NPR's Ken Rudin stated: "[L]et's be honest here, Hillary Clinton is Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction. She's going to keep coming back, and they're not going to stop her."

On the April 27 edition of CNN's Sunday Morning, National Public Radio political editor Ken Rudin, during a discussion about the Democratic presidential primary race, stated: "[L]et's be honest here, [Sen.] Hillary Clinton is Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction. She's going to keep coming back, and they're not going to stop her." In response, co-host T.J. Holmes said: "What, Ken?" Rudin replied: "Well, we'll figure that out, there's a lot of ways to imagine that." Rudin returned to the analogy later, stating of Clinton, "[T]here may be a lot of pressure on her from the party bigwigs, whoever they are, to say, look, it's time to go, but she'll say, look, I'm in it until the end. I expect her to be in until the end, as Glenn Close was."

At the conclusion of the interview, Holmes stated to Rudin, "We know you were at the correspondents' dinner last night in D.C., where the president was, and hear you all had a pretty good time. But you look good this morning for partying all night." Rudin replied: "I'm faking it." Co-host Betty Nguyen added: "Maybe that explains the Glenn Close analogy, who knows?" Holmes then stated: "Fatal Attraction, we don't get that reference on this show a lot."

In the 1987 film, Close plays a woman who begins stalking her co-worker, played by Michael Douglas, and his family following a one-night stand with him. In the film's climax, Douglas' character seemingly drowns Close's character in the tub, until she suddenly springs from the water wielding a knife. She is finally shot dead by the wife of Douglas' character.

There are at least two ways of interpreting Rudin's message here. The kinder one (yes, this is the kinder one) is that Hillary Clinton can't be stopped by anything less than being killed by Michelle Obama, that she is an almost unkillable monster.

The less kind interpretation has to do with what that particular movie was all about. It was a parable about bad women: working women, uppity, independent, demanding; and about good women: mothers who stay at home and support their husbands through thin and thick. It was a movie about the loathing, fear and hatred of women who don't follow the "good woman" code of behavior, and what happens to those women at the end.

It could always be the case that Rudin is unaware of that interpretation. And pigs also fly almost every day.

|

Family.....(Might Trigger) 



I have been reading about the Austrian case of a woman being held a prisoner for over twenty years underground, of being repeatedly raped by her own father, of being forced to give birth to seven children by him. And I'm struck by the euphemisms the newspaper stories use:

The news that a man may have imprisoned his daughter in a cellar for 24 years and fathered her seven children has been described as one of the worst cases in Austria's criminal history.

....

But allegedly he had a second, secret family with his daughter Elisabeth, whom police say he lured into a cellar, aged 18, in 1984 and repeatedly abused. She is believed to have born him seven children, three of whom he and Rosemarie adopted or fostered.

A second, secret family? I guess so, in the purely biological sense, though of course he was both the father and the grandfather of those children, some of whom have never seen daylight! And his daughter was both that and the mother of his children as well as the object of an unending round of torture. But sure, a family.

Here's another use of the same euphemism:

"He led a double life," Mr. Polzer continued, "with one family of seven children, with his wife, and a second family of seven children, with his daughter."

Imagine that. A second family, all buried alive.

|

The Supreme Court To Poor And Minority Voters : Go To Hell by Anthony McCarthy 

We have to save the right of a citizen to cast a vote from the Supreme Court. It’s clear now, the Republicans intend to overturn the Voting Rights Act and all other protections for the right of The People to cast a vote. The photo ID law will drive down the vote in states that adopt it, it will be the easiest thing for them to do to make it an insurmountable burden to obtain an ID in a timely manner to vote, legal remedies will take longer than the presidential campaign.

Both of the Democratic candidates for president, all of our leadership should issue a joint statement condemning this atrocity and begin a plan to legislatively overturn the usurpation of the Court on behalf of Republican state legislatures to rig the vote through making it harder for poor and minority citizens to vote. They want to send us back to the 1950s and eventually back to the 1800s.

This is a war to save democracy from an aristocratic anti-democratic court acting on behalf of the party of the oligarches.
|

Sunday, April 27, 2008

Turning It Upside Down 



I have been reading and listening about sex-selection among the Asian immigrant populations in the United States: More boys are being born to that group than statistics would predict. It looks like the desire for sons isn't eradicated by just the simple act of moving away from a society where sons are necessary for old-age security. Something similar is happening in Britain among the immigrant population.

The reactions to these news among the anti-abortion groups are of the expected kind: Ban abortions! They hurt girls!

Of course what really hurts girls is that women are regarded as icky, full of cooties, too emotional, too weak, burdens on their families, something that will be traded to some other family for breeding purposes, something that will cost dowries, something with a trade value based on virginity which must be guarded. Or in other societies, what really hurts girls is that women are regarded as icky, full of cooties, too emotional, too weak, too stupid to do mathematics, too talkative, not pretty enough, not masculine enough.

What really hurts girls is that much of this world doesn't like girls very much because they will one day grow to be women. We spend a lot of time and effort trying to figure out why women stink so badly (is it god who made them that way or evolutionary psychology?) and how we could make them do what we want them to do, and then we wonder why people think that women stink so badly and why girls are not welcomed by open arms. And the solution is to control women even more! Don't let them abort a fetus for any reason whatsoever. Control them!

Ok, that was a rant. But some topics deserve rants, and this is one of those. Because ultimately what all the anti-feminism on this earth is about is this: The desperate desire to control women's behavior. Here is an extreme example of such control, at least partly approved by the society in which it is practiced.

|
Julie London : Cry Me A River

posted by Anthony McCarthy
|
Ella Fitzgerald gives “just the facts, ma’am” to Joe Friday. 1955

Unexpected complications, sorry, no more time for writing today. Anthony McCarthy
|

Gender Bending c. 1953 

posted by Anthony McCarthy

Fun, fun, fun.

Read the notes in the side bar and the words.

UPDATE:

Don’t get it? Maybe this will help.

Even more fun with Wally Cox. Short guys got to get each other’s back.
|

My Life As A Blog by Anthony McCarthy 

For Suzie

Well, having begun to rebel against the coercive bullying coursing out of the ScienceBlogs, maybe it would be a good time to follow up on that comment posted on Suzie’s piece Friday about near-Monty football.

We can disapprove of anything we happen to. Pornography, commercial exploitation of workers - including those who work at Hooters or it’s junk sports equivalent - whatever the trashy, commercial culture and corporate oppressors present us with. We can condemn the activities, we can condemn those who exploit the people who work for them, we can even condemn the workers if that seems fair to do in any individual case. We can point out that they are dragging down the gender, race, ethnic group, gender preference minority, etc. and costing us in the process. We can pressure them to stop bringing us down.

We, my friends, are not the federal, state or local governments, we are not bound by the restrictions of legal impartiality (yeah, right), we do not have to be even handed, we don’t even have to be fair. Who the hell feels they have to be fair to us? Scott Simon? Who ever gets called on lying about us or giving us the shaft?

The left is pressured into disarming itself at every turn, we are coerced into silence or acquiescence. Well, when it is an issue of justice, and so of morality, we don’t have any right to be silent, certainly not if we would rather not be silent. We have a duty to speak out and a right to exercise our full blown disapproval of a practice that degrades or injures or hurts humans, animals, plants eco-systems or just the quality of life.

I posted my first blog piece one Saturday morning in full blood rage over a Weekend Edition piece in which one of the most aggravating and disabling parts of the Code of Liberal Ethics was paraded with no one happening to notice it was not applied to the right. That is the assumption that we are never, ever allowed to get it less than 150% right. You can read that piece here, if you would like to. It was followed up by one of my best posts posted elsewhere as I Won’t Be Fair To Fascists, I won’t Be Nice To Nazis, words I still live by. Call this one

Hey, I’m Not The Jamping Government, I Don’t Have To Be Impartial.

By the way, that movie. I couldn’t stand those brats. That mother should have given their hides a tanning.
|

Saturday, April 26, 2008

Debussy: Sonate En Sol Mineur 

Mvt. 1

Mvt. 2-3

Frida Bauer - piano
David Oistrakh - violin
|

Response To A Rude E-mail Received Just Now. posted by Anthony McCarthy 

I am trying to think of how many pieces I’ve posted here on the subject this month and am counting one. How many have PZ and Orac and the other big name ScienceBloggers posted about this topic this month? How many news stories have you read or heard about Ben Stein’s movie this week?

Everyone has the right to comment on a topical subject, I’m not giving up that right because some people don’t like what I say about it. You think everyone likes what your hero, PZ, says about things? You don’t hear me telling him to “shut the fuck up,” do you?
|

Excuse My Jaw Down There On the Floor posted by Anthony McCarthy 

Never heard of Lazare Levy before happening by this last night and I still can’t believe it. This might be the best Debussy playing I’ve ever heard in my life.

Masques.

The recording was made in 1937 and has a very high noise to signal ratio but the playing is astonishing and he just about certainly heard the style from Debussy or those close to him first hand.
|

It’s A Dirty Political Brawl. Adapt or Die. by Anthony McCarthy 

With a note about the ScienceBlogs.

I don’t remember when it was that someone broke the news to me that Ben Stein was going to be in an anti-evolution movie to be released this election year. “Oh, jickit”, I said, “Not the damned Darwin wars again, already”. I’m afraid I really did say “jickit”.

But in following up on other blogs and reading things about the current go round on the issue, I think I’ve figured out something that has puzzled me for a long time. How can the side for evolutionary science, the side with all the scientific facts, so consistently lose the political argument. I think it is because they so consistently mistake this for a scientific fight when it is, in fact, a political fight. You can’t fight a political fight expecting the same rules as you use in science, or even in a criminal court. If you try to win the evolution argument using those tools, arrogantly refusing to face the nature of the fight, you will lose and lose badly.

It’s one of the great disabilities found on the left that so many of us take refuge in the comforting myth that our opponents are stupid. Well, unfortunately, they aren’t. They’re dishonest crooks and like all successful crooks they’re smart and they’re crafty. They knew that they could possibly rally an effective part of the religious right during an election year by waving a paper mache head of Darwin on a pike with little cost to themselves. That was the smart part. And they knew that when they dissed Darwin that they could count on a knee jerk reaction from a side they could pin on Democrats and that reaction might, as well, encourage the Republican right to come out and vote. That was the crafty part.

How many times does it take for them to play this kind of trick before the left catches on that they’re not playing by the standard rules printed up, so nice and fair, in Hoyle?

Well, they’ve released the movie and they’ve gotten many knees to twitch in sync. While, I gather, there are other things in the movie, it’s the reputation of Darwin I’ve heard most talked about. The slights against the sacred name of Darwin can always get some of our side going and once they’re started there’s no reasoning with them. It’s a sort of St. Vitus dance of political death. If it was an important issue you might stomach it better. But it’s always something vastly unimportant, like the mythic Darwin, or something unattainable. You can name your pick of those hard fought for futilities.

Knowing from experience that an inoculation attempt* won’t stop the disease from spreading I’m not going into it here again. I’m going to only talk about the politics of it because that is all this is, a matter of politics.

Read the creationists’ websites, the more literate ones, and you’ll see they’ve got scads of material, much of it taken directly from Charles Darwin himself as well as his closest associates. Look up their citations if you think they made it up. You will probably find some are inventions but probably no more than you will find in any blog community dedicated to polemics. They’ve read their Darwin, all of him, not pretending that he stopped writing in 1859 like so many of his most devoted fans seem to believe. And, like everyone, they take what they need and they leave the rest.** The assumption, that in the past 90 years, the side which uses Charles Darwin as the major figure in their war against evolution wouldn’t have gotten around to reading and taking detailed notes on his complete works - as well as on everyone associated with him - only allows you to deceive yourself into complacency. And its surprisingly unobservant of the self-defined, “science side” of things.

One thing you have to understand is that they don’t care about evolution, not at all. They don’t care about your arguments for it and they don’t mind lying about the subject. They certainly don’t intend to observe scientific methods any more than they do basic rules of honesty about the written record. That doesn’t mean that they’ve got nothing they can use when they fight dirty on this issue. Most people either can’t or won’t master the science, but they can understand the historical record quite separately from that. Not knowing what that consists of is a big mistake.

In the arguments I got into on the subject at Orac’s blog this week I got the feeling that many of the staunch defenders of Darwin re eugenics were unaware that Francis Galton, the inventor of the word “eugenics”, who is customarily presented by the Darwin fan club as an evil distorter*** of the great man, was actually a life long colleague, friend, confidant and the cousin of Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin, far from discouraging the path to eugenics, encouraged his cousin’s work at its inception and and cited and lauded it in his own published work. When Darwin died, Galton and Thomas Huxley were the ones who planned his grandiose funeral*. Francis Galton was the first president of the British Eugenics Society and the author of some pretty awful and bigoted junk but he wasn’t the figure from outside the Darwin circle that he’s generally presented to be in modern myth. Galton was a Darwin circle insider as he was building his eugenics and after he first used the word. Galton names Darwin as his great inspiration.

I was encouraged by the new views (Darwin’s) to pursue many inquiries which had long interested me, and which clustered round the central topics of Heredity and the possible improvement of the Human Race.

How are you going to say Galton was wrong about who inspired him? Read Chapter XX in his memoir (found at this site), it’s mandatory reading for those wanting to understand the political issue. Especially notice Darwin’s glowing letter to Galton about "Hereditary Genius" and then look at "The Descent of Man" to see that Darwin didn’t change his mind about it.

To complicate things for the effort to beat the eugenics rap, when Galton stepped down from the presidency of the British Eugenics Society his place was taken by Leonard Darwin, Charles’ son. How can you beat the charge that Leonard Darwin followed his father’s legacy in his eugenics? I mean how can you beat it so as to be politically effective, not how to take the twists, gyrations and turns necessary to support the incredible claim that he didn’t understand his own father as well as you, who have never met or talked with him. You would need contemporary condemnations from people closer to Darwin for eugenics to counter the political weight that this unpleasant fact has.

There are letters and documents from and to Leonard Darwin that make some very disturbing reading including communications with the infamous Charles Davenport, but I am not going to go into those here. Believe me, the creationists already know about them.

A lot of people who believe themselves to be on the left who are taking umbrage over Ben Stein’s lies, distort history as much in defense of what they mistakenly believe to be the truth. Well, surprise, Ben Stein is a big liar, a Dick Morris who can fake gravitas, and so is annoying. But hearing people distort and deny the historical record in a refutation attempt can be kind of grating too. Most aggravating of all, though, is to see them falling for the bait yet another time and risk getting us hooked into a transparent election year set-up job.

It would be nice if this was not a potentially effective political tool for the Republican right because I’d really rather deal with things that were important, like global warming, nutrition programs, universal health care and the neo-imperialist wars the Republicans are waging and planning to wage. But enough leftists might fall for the bait for this to be a political issue for us during a crucial election. All the Republicans need to successfully use this distraction is to get out a small number of religious-right voters who would have stayed home to come out and vote. They don’t need to covert the entire population to creationism. We are not their intended marks.

Charles Darwin has been dead for well over a hundred years. His importance in evolutionary science now is dwarfed by the scientific work that has happened in those years, he is only a brand name today. As a brand name he is used by those who sell fish pins and the such but he is also a trademark of the anti-evolution industry. And he’s worked a lot better for them than for the Darwin fish peddlers. The effort to protect his reputation has failed politically.

Claiming that they haven’t got a smoking gun won’t help. The evidence doesn’t support the defense on a standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Insisting on that hasn’t worked for most of a century, it’s not going to work in the future. Even lesser standards of evidence in the trial of the mythic Charles Darwin won’t help because the creationists have pretty well demolished that for a majority of the population. Getting all arrogant and condescending about The People being stupid and ignorant isn’t going to do much but help the creationists increase their majority in the opinion polls.

You would think that looking at the political environment that the ultra-Darwinists would be the first to understand that their choice is to adapt to the real, political environment they work in or face extinction. If they want to save the teaching of evolution in the public schools and the funding of the science, they are going to have to give up the “one great man of evolution” story that the public promotion of evolution has relied so heavily on up till now. The mythic Darwin that PR campaign depends on has been a political failure, it was always condescending. The public relations of evolution should have relied on the hard science of evolution and not on myths of the melding of evolution with the muck of the social sciences. That’s just Social Darwinism in modern dress.

The promotion of evolution should have moved on with the science and left Charles Darwin as increasingly less common footnotes in little read books. The real Charles Darwin, as seen in his writing and the writings of those around him, was always going to be a public relations problem. And the record was there to be seen as the social and political climate changed and the more appalling parts of those dealing with gender, ethnicity and class stood out. That record will always be there to cause problems, it hasn’t decisively won the case for evolution after a hundred years of effort, it has been a millstone around the neck of science. Evolution in 2008 doesn’t need the Charles Darwin of myth, it’s going to have to deal with the Charles Darwin of fact. That is if promoting evolution was their real priority.

Note: I’ve decided to stop laying out the fact of my accepting evolution in posts about these subjects from now on. It’s demeaning to have to keep doing it and it will be ignored by those who don’t like what is said, anyway. Anyone who is interested can read the archive at Echidne’s or my blog to see what I believe on the subject.

* You will remember the inoculation attempt earlier this year.

** Call it “quote mining” if that makes you feel any better about it, though the charge won’t keep them from doing it and it will not prevent those quotations from being politically effective. It’s certainly worked for them, so far.

I’m kind of tired of hearing “quote mining” in this debate. Show me someone on any side who doesn’t choose those quotes that are most useful to their arguments and to de-emphasize those they don’t care for. No side in the Darwin dialectic is innocent of it, neither side is honest about it.

*** Herbert Spenser too. Unfortunately, Charles Darwin called him “Our great philosopher, Herbert Spencer” as he cited him favorably in his work in The Descent of Man. Clearly the distance between Darwin and Spenser is a lot less than today’s myth presents. Please understand, there was a time not too long ago when both eugenics and “Social Darwinism” were respectable and people didn’t automatically assume that these connections didn’t exist.

**** A rather grandiose one for Darwin, who the romantics think was some kind of shunned radical figure in Victorian times. Odd, for a radical instigating a “spirit of rebellion against all ancient authorities “ (as Galton said) overturning the very firmament of the establishment. How many geographic features, towns, etc. got named after him?

It’s just as odd how quickly eugenics took off, became an established part of university curricula, organizations, public policy and even Supreme Court law. Only it’s not odd since eugenics complimented the most powerful elites, especially the Anglo-Saxon elite, and that its costs were borne entirely by the underclass and powerless ethnic groups. Eugenics “science”, flowing from the Darwin circle, was tailor made for popularity with a self-interested elite. Also not odd was that it was born and nurtured within that privileged elite which just about all of its figures were part of.

I’ve been looking for the contemporary fans of Darwin who tried to distance him from eugenics in the period before the Second World War became inevitable and am not having much success. If anyone knows of Darwinists, from the period when eugenics was still reputable science, without the quotes around science, who successfully made the case that the eugenics movement, including Darwin’s own son, were distorting his work, I’d love to have citations.

This is politically important only because the other side has already got the goods eugenicswise. I’m afraid that to be politically effective, you’ll have to present citations from associates as intimate as Francis Galton and Leonard Darwin, who, unlike anyone alive today, had access to the private, certainly more candid, Charles Darwin. Otherwise, I’m afraid that they are going to be accepted as more reliable authorities in the matter of his inspiration for their own eugenics. You going to prove they didn’t know who they relied on, themselves?

Post Script: There are bloggers who post at the ScienceBlogs who I like, though I seldom go over there. I don’t like the coercive Sci-jocks who infest the comment threads, enforcing a rigid set of orthodox boundaries beyond which no one is allowed to speak. I resent it when they bleed over into the generally better informed and more realistic leftist political blogs and try to enforce their thought code on us.

It was especially infuriating this week to see one of the more realistic Science Bloggers, Chris Mooney, the author of one of our most important books about the Republican suppression of science, viciously attacked for just pointing out that Stein’s movie wasn’t doing a bad business at the box office. It was, pardon the expression, ScienceBlog McCarthyism at its worst.

As I mentioned indirectly here last week, I had one of the readers of the ScienceBlogs tell me that even though I’d made a strong argument, with citations, in this area that I shouldn’t talk about it because it would be “bad for the promotion of the institution of science”. Science that relies on the suppression of evidence. If you thought you’d heard it all before.

I never agreed to follow the Sci-jock’s Index of Prohibited Thoughts and if they don’t like that they can go get jamped.
|

Friday, April 25, 2008

Friday Joy Posting 



FeraLiberal's Pippin contemplating the world:





And a story to make you feel good.

As always, check out Phila's Friday Hope Blogging, too. This is from last week but there's usually a new one every Friday.

Added: Here is today's Hope Blogging.

|

Lingerie football comes to my town (by Suzie) 



       In 2003, Echidne wrote about the Lingerie Football League, whose motto is “true fantasy football.” 
       Christopher Martin, its business affairs director, says Tampa will get a team next month. A newspaper article says, "He rejects the notion that women bashing against each other while wearing a bra and panties is in any way degrading." No, of course not, they are empowered.
        If it's not degrading, why don't men play sports in their underwear? If it's not degrading, would all male viewers be happy if their mother, wife, sister, daughter played in such a league? In addition to mixing sex and violence, part of the ick factor is knowing that some men get a sexual charge from watching women do things that the men find degrading.

|

Feminism & film (by Suzie) 



      After many years of promiscuous movie-going, I now avoid ones that don’t have at least one significant female character. I prefer ones that revolve around women, written and/or directed by women. I’m voting with my dollars.
      This baffles some friends, who don’t see gender when they look at a movie like “No Country for Old Men,” but accept the idea that men won’t – or shouldn’t – like a “chick flick.” (I hate, hate, hate that term and “chick lit,” which mark stories by and about women as trifles that could not possibly interest men. Ugh, now I have to wipe the foam from my mouth.)
      A few years ago, a feminist friend was trying to get me to see “The Perfect Storm.” I argued, “But it’s all about men.” She replied cheerfully, “But in the end, they all die!” The movie is an interesting commentary on the construction of masculinity, but then again, there’s no shortage of movies about men who die while doing something dangerous, adventurous or heroic.
       To find movies by and about women, I like Melissa Silverstein’s Women & Hollywood blog. This week on DVD, I saw Julie Taymor’s “Across the Universe” and Amy Heckerling’s “I Could Never Be Your Woman.” About Taymor, Silverstein asks what it takes to be an “auteur.” (A penis seems to help.)
        In another post, Silverstein explains why “I Could Never Be Your Woman” was released last month, direct to DVD. In the movie, the character played by Michelle Pfeiffer worries about getting too old to be competitive in Hollywood. You might think: “She’s Michelle Pfeiffer, for the Goddess’ sake!” But Heckerling told Entertainment Weekly: ''There was some concern about doing a movie with an older female protagonist — not anybody's favorite demographic.''
         In an interview with the AV Club, Heckerling talks about women trying to look young to keep their careers alive.
It's been that way from Sunset Boulevard on. Hollywood is the dream factory, and no one dreams about older women. It's a youth-and-beauty-obsessed place that sells a certain image. Of course I have sympathy. If you look at all the pictures of women in magazines, everybody's got a forehead that looks like a billboard. Completely blank. When I was 20, I had these furrowed lines between my brows, because I was always angry. And I was 20. I don't think that was a mark of age; it was just my personality. Yet these people think that when you have a completely blank head, you can put advertising on it. That's not youthful. What is that? Some of these young girls that I find and put in films, I see them in a magazine a year later, and they've got big fat lips and stick figures. And you go, "Why? Why are you buying into this?"
|

Gyn cancer, with an analogy to feminist politics (by Suzie) 



      I missed the first National Gynecologic Cancer Awareness Symposium and Gala last Friday, and so, apparently, did the media.* Congress has mandated a public awareness campaign about gyn cancers, but the media will not be bossed.
     “You cannot make us write about women and cancer unless we can illustrate the story with a young, thin, naked, pretty white woman coyly covering her naughty bits while looking anywhere but into the camera,” the media yells from the ramparts.
     “Give me a celebrity or give me death … or better yet, a dead celebrity!” the media shouts. “Or, at least, an inspiring individual whose story we can tell without doing any real research.”
      I don’t mean to sound righteous. I didn’t care much about this topic until I got diagnosed with gyn sarcoma. When I went to Web sites on “women’s cancer” or “gyn cancer,” I found few included sarcoma.
      I know oodles of women with gyn sarcoma. We allegedly represent only a teeny-tiny fraction of gyn cancer, but some sarcoma doctors think sarcomas are undercounted. (For those interested in statistics: A lot of health-care professionals will use the diagnostic code for "uterine cancer," for example, when a woman has endometrial stromal sarcoma, carcinosarcoma or uterine leiomyosarcoma. Later, statisticians may translate "uterine carcer" into endometrial carcinoma, the most prevalent kind of uterine cancer.) 
       Last year, Bush signed Johanna’s Law: The Gynecologic Cancer Education and Awareness Act, which mandates a federal campaign to educate the public. In response, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention launched Inside Knowledge: Get the Facts About Gynecologic Cancer. There’s no mention of sarcoma.
       More examples: On my behalf, friends donated to a program that funds research for "gynecologic cancer." But I found out nothing went to sarcoma research. At least the coordinators let me switch my friends' donations to sarcoma. The American Cancer Society focuses on major cancers, and has given little or no money to sarcoma research. The ACS doesn't mention that, of course, when seeking donations from sarcoma patients.
        I get angry at these exclusions and want to yell, “Ain’t I a Woman?” How can people address gyn cancer without mentioning women like me? Official information that excludes sarcoma makes it that much harder for women with sarcoma to get the proper medical treatment or find support. Women with other types of cancer don’t have to fight my battles, but if they speak about "women's cancers" or "gyn cancer," I wish they would acknowledge my existence.
        On the other hand, I realize there may be women with even rarer forms of cancer that I’m failing to acknowledge in my work. We can never speak for everyone.
         Even when advocates fail to mention sarcoma, their work may benefit sarcoma patients. For example, women with ovarian carcinoma have made it more acceptable to discuss gyn cancers in general. Techniques for genetic analysis of ovarian carcinoma are now being used to analyze sarcoma. Aromatase inhibitors given to breast-cancer patients now are given to some women with sarcoma, notably endometrial stromal sarcoma.
          Last month, I wrote about plans to attend the annual meeting of the Society of Gyn Oncologists. I stalked doctors with chocolate in one hand and brochures in the other. I was thrilled that some doctors sought information on sarcoma advocacy, including the director of Gynecologic Surgical Services for the National Cancer Institute, who invited the Sarcoma Alliance to attend the national awareness day. I hope to go next year.
          In the meantime, I’ll look for a thrift-store cocktail dress and figure out ways to work with other women.
------------
*If you saw an article, please let me know. I could find nothing on the Internet.

|

Sign petition, raise money (by Suzie) 



The U.N. Foundation will contribute a dollar for every signature on this UNIFEM petition calling for an end to violence against women.

|

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Social Engineering, Republican Style 



Once upon a time "social engineering" was a nasty term the conservatives applied to almost any liberal proposal that looked like increasing civil rights or human rights. It wasn't the place of the government to dictate such matters, the story went.

It may come as a surprise that now it is the conservatives who practice social engineering, and with a vengeance. The government has programs which promote marriage and programs which promote abstinence as the only solution to that hormone-driven dilemma of teenage years: what to do about sex.

You would think that something as noble and pure as abstinence would be cheap and easily promoted. The reverse turns out to be the case:

Proponents of abstinence education argued that society should set high standards for teenage sexual behavior. They would prefer, they said, that programs focus on the emotional, physical and societal repercussions of sex outside of marriage.

But several witnesses emphasized that despite 11 years of federally funded abstinence programs, at a cost of more than $1.3 billion, teens are still having sex and becoming infected with sexually transmitted diseases. Those who support comprehensive plans said teens should get the information they need to protect themselves.

A study released in December by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed a rise in the teenage pregnancy rate in 2006, the first such increase in 15 years. Between 1991 and 2005, the rate dropped 34%.

Astonishing. Someone is making quite a good income out of abstinence education, but as far as I can figure out the message boils to a Nancy Reaganesque "Just Say No." How can delivering that cost so much?

Just kidding, of course. The money spent is really a handout to one part of the conservative base, and the fact that best studies show no real effect from the abstinence policies is a mere irrelevancy. The program works in the way it was planned to work.

|

John McCain Loves Women. Really, He Does. 



Here he tells us about the many ways he loves us:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who skipped a Senate vote seeking equal pay for women last night in order to campaign for president, said he opposed the measure because it would prompt a flood of lawsuits.

Senate Republicans defeated the bill yesterday on a vote of 56 to 42, by blocking a full debate and vote on the bill. Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) both returned to Washington in order to support the measure, which is aimed at responding to a recent Supreme Court decision that sets a deadline on how quickly workers must sue over pay discrimination. The presumptive GOP nominee is visiting poor communities throughout the nation, including towns in Alabama and Appalachia; today he toured New Orleans' Ninth Ward.

"I am all in favor of pay equity for women, but this kind of legislation, as is typical of what's being proposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle, opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems," McCain told reporters yesterday. "This is government playing a much, much greater role in the business of a private enterprise system."

"Opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems." How would McCain achieve pay equity for women without any lawsuits? Perhaps if women ask very prettily?

|

Stage One: Begin Poking at a Study 



Some of you may have seen the reports of a new study which finds that the diet of a woman at conception affects the likelihood that the resulting child is either a girl or a boy:

The report, from researchers at Oxford and the University of Exeter in England, is said to be the first evidence that a child's sex is associated with a mother's diet. Although sex is genetically determined by whether sperm from the father supplies an X or Y chromosome, it appears that a mother's body can favor the successful development of a male or female embryo.

The study, published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, shows a link between higher energy intake around the time of conception and the birth of sons. The difference is not huge, but it may be enough to help explain the falling birthrate of boys in industrialized countries, including the United States and Britain.

The reason food intake may influence the development of one sex of infant rather than another isn't fully understood. However, in vitro fertilization studies show that high levels of glucose encourage the growth of male embryos while inhibiting female embryos.

Note how some of this cannot be understood without seeing the actual study, and most people don't have access to it. What does it mean that the sex is determined by the mother's diet? That bit "it appears that a mother's body can favor the successful development of a male or female embryo"? How does it favor this?

Most confusing. Because to me that would read as implying that the woman would miscarry more of either types of embryos, depending on her diet. I don't think the study included women who had conceived but who then miscarried. So how is it that the woman's diet has these effects?

What about the man's diet at the time of conception? Did they look at what he was eating in, say, the month before? I think lots of married couples, for instance, might eat very similar foods, as they tend to have meals together. To me it might make more sense that any effect found here would come from the one who makes the sperm, given that the sperm is made regularly and might be affected by the man's nutrition.

So I'm throwing out the thought that what might really affect the sex of the future child is what the guy eats, and that what the gal eats correlates in the study with the child's sex because the parents tend to eat similar diets.

Perhaps the study did look at the diets of the future fathers, too, and found that they had no impact. Perhaps. But I doubt that, very much, because studies of these types always focus on the women. It's most likely that we have no idea if the man's diet affects the sex of the future child or not.

The practical implications of a mistake like that (the one I'm speculating about here) might be serious, by the way. You'd be barking at the wrong tree if you tried to tell women to eat certain things to get a boy, if all the time it was what the man ate that made a difference. Then in the more traditional societies the woman would be blamed for not birthing more boys, even after all that extra good food was wasted on her.

This study sounds like those studies which try to find a sex-ratio change in human populations at birth as a response to environmental effects such as famine or war. Some other animal species give birth to more daughters when times are bad.

It would seem to me that if this is the hypothesis the researchers had in mind it would be much more relevant to look at the sex ratios at birth in a country which is suffering from famine, say, or to analyze the birth statistics from the era around WWII in the U.K.., compared to an era when war didn't make good food scarce.

I have just thought aloud here, asking the questions reading the study creates and wondering about the alternative ways results like the ones in the study might come about. To look at the study itself and the methods it used would be the next stage at the poking.

|

Now Returning to Your Regularly Scheduled Programming 



Thank you very much for your most generous contributions. You are quite wonderful.

|

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

A Fund Drive 



I have never had one for this blog, so I thought it might be time, given that I need to get a new computer. Also because I'm out of money right now.

This fund drive will not be like the ones that the PBS does, the ones where all the programming is changed to something intended to catch certain donor groups and where you just see a person asking for money the rest of the time. Nope. I'm just asking once, while nervously poking a rock with my red tennis shoe. Or with the snake tail, if you like.

Of course as always, only give if you can.

|

A Musical Break 



Cleo Brown




|

Things For You To Read 



Michael Pollan writes about the reasons to try to do something about climate change, on an individual level. It's called "Why Bother?"

Darfur is deteriorating if that is even possible. Following the events there has been a good refresher course on power and on greed and other very unsavory characteristics, but that we are even trying to do something about all the killing also reminds me that this helping aspect is part of us humans, too. We just have to work on it much harder and we have to start pointing out the power-hungriness and greed as deplorable and ridiculous things.

I first wrote on Darfur in 2004.

If all this is too depressing for you how about reading me going on about the new capitalists at the Nation magazine? I especially recommend the comments there. Heh.

|

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Mood: Angry 



It's always interesting (to me, natch) to figure out what makes me really angry in that personal and trivial way. I'm not talking about the righteous anger which burns beautifully on the permanent altar inside me, because that anger is just another form of good energy (and lots cheaper than heating oil, these days).

I'm talking about the red-hot kind of anger which makes me want to stick knitting needles in my eyes so that they get some rest from reading teh stupid. I should probably want to stick them in someone else's eyes, and perhaps restraining from saying so is the real reason why the anger sometimes flares up. You know, all that stuff about trying to be polite and calm and nice to everyone so that we get a good conversation going on all the issues. Sort of like trying to be Eliza, that computer therapist.

Anyway. Today's reason for that red-hot anger is a frequently repeating one, the one about how everybody can be an instant expert on feminism by, say, reading an article or two and then jawing it over with the guys at bar one Saturday night. Next step is to write a thoughtful piece on what is wrong with feminism. Because surely thinking and reading on these issues for, say, two decades, leaves lots of gaps which can be filled by an astute thinker over a beer or two. Yup.

A similar thing happens to me all the time on economics. Someone comes along and tells me that women earn less because they aren't out there working but at home taking care of their babies. Duh. If I only had thought about that simple explanation I wouldn't have had to write a three-part series on the reasons for the gender gap in wages at all.

More generally, my anger has something to do with the difficulty of being heard when one is polite. It's like whispering into rush-hour traffic. Pretty pointless, but the work is still the same. From now on I'm going to start writing extreme pieces with lots of fuck-yous.

Of course the real reason for my anger is that I'm still not the Empress of the Universe.

|

The Mother-Daughter Fights of Feminism 



First there were the mummy wars. Now we have daughters fighting mothers and back again, at least according to what I read.

I have very little patience left for any of this, because the real fighting is going in quite different places. Or so I think. And the only ones who benefit from this in-fighting are the ones whose ass we should be kicking.

But there are two points I'd like to make about this generational war:

First, whoever you are, read the major books of "the other generation", to find out the relevant history, the beliefs and the facts that existed at a certain point in time. Then read about feminist strategies and tactics, which ones were followed by which "wave" and how successfully. Getting the information clears up a lot of the confusion, surprisingly. For example, the strategy of supporting women who were the first to enter some male-dominated occupation wasn't just so that uppity rich women could get a leg up on the white-boy hierarchy, at the expense of all the other women. It was also a way to change the stereotypes the society held about what women could and could not achieve, a way to widen those stereotypes, to turn them a little more positive, and therefore something that was ultimately of benefit to all women.

But of course the only women who really got a leg up were the rich ones who were prepared for that next rung of the ladder, and much remained to be done for the class "women" in general.

Second, think carefully what the operative definition of feminism might be for those who participate in these weird wars. For example, Courtney Martin writes at the end of her article on the mother-daughter wars:

My mom and I have agreed: No matter the outcome of the primaries, we'll be celebrating it, then setting our sights on the general election. We believe that the real feminist battles at hand are not mother versus daughter, but injustice versus justice, militarization versus diplomacy, corruption versus democracy. Now that is something worth fighting for.

How does she define feminism to get at those kinds of issues: injustice versus justice, militarization versus diplomacy, corruption versus democracy? Those are all admirable goals but in what sense are they the goals of feminist activity? That stretches the concept of feminism very wide indeed; so wide that it would not have much time for addressing issues specifically about women's rights.

Ok. I come across as all preachy and bitter there, probably because I do feel preachy and bitter. But I'm not your mother and I'm not your daughter (unless you are actually my mom HI MOM!), and I want nothing to do with these arguments.

I'm probably that crazy auntie in your attic.

|

Imagine This 



Imagine that there is a political show on which a radical feminist is an invited guest, repeatedly, while saying stuff like this:

"You know, you started talking about male happiness before, would men be happier and why our women are depressed. Women are depressed, and it's their own fault, because women have allowed men to take over the world. You know, male happiness is an oxymoron."
***
"The man is not called a rotting prick because he's assertive and aggressive; he's called a rotting prick because he acts like one."
***
If the man is complaining that he isn't getting enough in the bedroom, it's his fault. And there are two reasons for it: Either, A, he said 'I do' at the altar and 'I don't' when it came to housework, or he married a frigid woman thinking she would become Ms. Fuckidaire."


We don't have such a political show. But we do have its reverse, where one Mark Rudov can spout on his wide theories about why women suck. Or rather, why they don't when they should. And what are his qualifications for all this? Here:

Rudov is the author of The Man's No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth (MHR Enterprises, 2004) and Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables (MHR Enterprises, 2007). The "about the author" description that accompanies The Man's No-Nonsense Guide to Women at Amazon.com reads: "Marc Rudov is an investment banker and business consultant residing in Silicon Valley (Bay Area), California. Although formally educated in engineering and business, he possesses a vast informal education in relationships with women."



So.

|

Monday, April 21, 2008

Today's Action Alert 



From the National Women's Law Center:

Please call your Senators today at (202) 224-3121 and ask them to vote "YES!" on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. To find your Senators' names and direct contact information, please search our database.

When you call, the Capitol operator will connect you to your Senators. Please tell the person who answers the phone in your Senators' offices the following:

1. I am a constituent. My name is ________.
2. I am urging the Senator to vote yes on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
3. This bill is important because it will help to ensure justice for women who have been subject to pay discrimination.

Thank you for taking action, and for everything you do to support the rights of women and families.

You can find your Senator here.

The Feminist Majority Foundation gives a different (toll-free) phone number:

Call your senators immediately to urge them to vote yes on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act! The vote is expected Wednesday, April 23. There is not a moment left to lose! This toll free number, 866-338-1015, will be available Monday through Wednesday. Call now!

The House has already passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to correct the recent Supreme Court decision that guts the ability of women workers to sue for wage discrimination. Celebrate Equal Pay Day by calling your senators toll-free at 866-338-1015 today!

Lilly Ledbetter worked at Goodyear for nearly 20 years before she discovered that men in the same job were paid more. The Supreme Court ruled that wage discrimination complaints must be filed within 180 days of the initial discriminatory salary decision, even if the victim is unaware of the discrimination until much later. This 5-4 decision by the Bush Supreme Court reversed decades of precedent on wage discrimination cases decided under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

It is imperative that the Senate pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Call your senators toll-free at 866-338-1015 today! Tell them to reverse the Supreme Court's assault on women's right to sue by voting for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act


|

Extraordinary Circumstances. A Book Review 






Cynthia Cooper was one of the three whistleblowers Time named as the Persons of the Year in 2002. Now she has written a book: Extraordinary Circumstances on her time in WorldCom (where she ran the internal audits department) and what went on in the firm before the revelations you may still remember about the shoddy accounts and outright fraud the firm had employed.

The book provides a fascinating glimpse at the utter emptiness of what was behind the WorldCom success story, up to the minute of its final collapse, and it's worth reading for that. I suspect you need some familiarity with business or economics to get the most out of the tale, but even someone quite unfamiliar with those might notice that all Bernie Ebbers really did was to buy firms like someone suffering from an unsatiable hunger, and that the reason the firm grew so very rapidly was that simple fact. There was very little evidence of any of the purchased firms providing good business opportunities, over and above the kinds of opportunities that a new industry always initially offers. Yet almost everyone seemed to be blind to this fact, most certainly including the banks and financial companies which both funded these adventures and which also seemed to help the firm along. Of course, any expansion caused by such a buying spree must stop at some point. And that's when the difficulties started.

I found the odd interplay of Christianity and ruthlessness fascinating. Almost everyone in the book goes to church all the time and gets advice from a minister. Yet some of them commit pretty serious crimes, and the dissonance appears invisible even to the author. Perhaps this is a cultural difference and not something that other readers might notice. But the combination of faith and murky business thinking came across as rather nauseating to me.

Those who seek information about being a woman in a male-dominated industry don't get a lot from the book, at least from the point of view of someone who has read in feminism. Cooper includes a few anecdotes of the gentle kind of sexual harassment and a few meditations on the difficulty of being a working mother, but these are not central to the book. Neither is there any analysis of the wider labor market or corporate culture and how those affect the treatment of individual woman workers. Still, it's possible to read a little bit more between the lines than Cooper perhaps intended.

I'd imagine that this book would be useful for someone who wants to delve deeper into that whole business ethics scandal of the early 2000's. Isn't it funny how we have already forgotten most of it?

|

Who Would Joe Sixpack Vote For? 



Read me at the Passing Through blog of the Nation magazine. It's even a feminist piece.

|

Overheard on Saturday 



While getting my groceries checked out at a store. It was latish and the workers were chatting with each other. The young woman adding up my bill said to the young woman who was packing the groceries:
"I hate to be a girl. Guys have all the fun, and my dad says that men aren't supposed to do dishes."

The packer:
"Yes, if I could just decide to wake up as a boy tomorrow I would."

Imagine that. Based on the name tags I'd guess that one woman's family came from Russia and the other woman's from India. Is this why they were so bitter? Or could a conversation like this take place between two women from a non-immigrant background?

And I'm glad that you asked: Of course I stuck my foot in. I mentioned that being a woman is just fine; it's the way that women are sometimes treated which is not fine. A little bit of feminist infiltration work there. Go me.

|

Sunday, April 20, 2008

Franz Schubert : Ständchen 

Zögernd leise

Juliane Banse, Soprano
Vienna Vocalists

Posted by Anthony McCarthy
|

The Double Standard In Action by Anthony McCarthy 

So, after just about every Catholic Democrat who ran for office having the possible denial of communion over their stand on abortion endlessly regurgitated in the media, Rudy Giuliani , not only pro-choice but serially divorced and remarried, is given communion by The Pope on national TV with little comment?

Every one of the American bishops who carried water for the Republican Party using the sacrament as a political weapon should be grilled about this.

If a single Catholic Democrat is asked about this again by the Republican-mouthpiece media, they have their answer. The Pope gave Giuliani communion against the rules, overlooking the issue of abortion and the Church's own laws about giving communion to those who remarry after they divorce.

Pardon me while I'm given scandal.
|

Turn About by Anthony McCarthy 

What do you think needs to be said on leftist blogs, either in posts or on comment threads?
|

An Uncool Look At Coolitude by Anthony McCarthy 

With A Long Footnote On A Difficult Subject

One of the comments made on a leftist blog thread that has bothered me quite a lot was the assertion that Nietzsche’s inverted morality was cool. Considering that his inverted morality not only overturns the agenda of civil rights including the equality of women, the rule of supermen over masses of helots, the assertion that his supermen will be above any restraint on their selfishness, etc. the assertion of his coolness was pretty much an endorsement of the entire far-right agenda. The comment might have been made in ignorance of what is mistaken for a philosophy. I’ve always thought that whatever cool the psychotic predecessor of Naziism obtained was because callow English speakers thought his name was fun to say. Though his encouragement to those who mistake themselves as potential supermen to act like spoiled brats could also figure into it. But there were those on the same segment of thread who definitely knew Nietzsche’s work, one a university level philosophy teacher, but the statement that a racist, sexist, proto-fascist, psycho was cool was apparently all right with them.*

How much of a price does the agenda of the left pay for the posture of coolness? How does it weaken our efforts and work against us? And what does cool mean, anyway?

Having thought more than is useful about the phenomenon of coolness all I can come up with is that it’s anything that will gain the incipient coolster the approval of a group of people on the basis of something independent of its usefulness or morality. Some things that are deemed cool are innocuous and silly, some are dangerous. I’m shocked to find that 25 years into the AIDS era anal sex** is the new cool among heterosexuals. How a practice that has brought a major epidemic to gay men and their sex partners can be cool is enough to make the concept worth serious reconsideration.

The social pressure that the pursuit of the cool places on people has an inhibiting effect on what gets discussed and followed up on. The declaration that an idea is not cool is enough, at times, to shut down consideration of issues and aspects of issues that are important. The coercive and controlling aspects of declarations of the coolness of something or someone is one of the things that makes adolescent life unbearable and anxious. I’ve always thought that those who did without thinking about cool seemed to be happier than the nervous, competitive elites who didn’t seem to really like anyone. As I recall some of them seemed to avoid the competitive transactions of the cool market and they seemed to be all the better for it.

* As you can guess, I didn’t remain silent and was pressured to remain silent due to my having demonstrated insufficient coolness.

** I’ve been working on a piece about anal sex. It’s not an easy subject to write about even for a gay man who is quite familiar with it. You might want to read this post by Bill Weintraub, though I will warn you that the photos are graphic, including some pretty unpleasant ones, and Weintraub has some ideas that are bizarre and even offensive. I find some of his ideas to be quite sexist. Which is unfortunate because I agree with him on so much of his central theme. I respect that he is one of the very few gay men online who is dealing with anal sex with such frankness. He is, also, a source for information about the negative aspects of anal sex and its health consequences. If his “warrior” concept keeps people from reading about that, it is tragic.

I agree with him entirely that the promotion of frottage as a healthy and mutually pleasurable form of sex is very important. How did the safest, least exploitative form of sex become less cool than anal sex? I suspect it’s for the same reason that people on leftist blogs can find a psychotic proto-Nazi cool, it’s all about domination, the high potential for infliction of pain and, let’s be honest, physical damage. Anal sex is generally seen as an exercise of the will by a dominant person over a submissive person. If that’s cool, I’d rather have it warm and caring and respectful.

Consider the strange ways that people become aroused and reach orgasm. I’ve got to say that using a search engine has been quite an education in a number of those which I’d rather have not known about. One quite innocent search for information about how to take care of my nieces gerbils while her family was on vacation, turned up a link that involved women in high heals stepping on small rodents. Believe me when I tell you that is all you want to know about it. I wish I’d never let my prurient curiosity get the better of me. If the idea of killing mice in a sick attempt at arousal disgusts and disturbs you, isn’t the potential to damage or hurt a human being at least as disgusting?

Achieving orgasm isn’t a good that mitigates the potential for infecting someone, impregnating someone who doesn’t want to be pregnant, or as a kinky exercise of dominance that a psychically damaged person might welcome. An orgasm doesn’t change the concurrent physical reality and respect or negation of rights that are as much a part of the act.
|

Saturday, April 19, 2008

Bitter As Hell, The Left's Real Problem With Elitists by Anthony McCarthy 

Things I'm tired of reading on the comment threads of leftist blogs:

1. The people are too stupid to govern themselves.
2. The people are superstitious and ignorant because they don't agree with me.
3. We're smart, "they're" stupid.
4. I'm too cool to think there's any hope.
5. This is a new one from just yesterday. We can't tell the people the truth about x because they won't do what we want them to do if they know it.

Now, at personal peril, it's your turn. What do you see way too much of on the comment threads of leftist blogs?
|

Tran Quang Hai posted by Anthony McCarthy 

The first recording of Vietnamese music I’d ever owned was "Landscape of the Highlands”, zither music played by the distinguished professor, Trân Quang Hai. * So it was his name I was looking for when I wanted to post a piece of music played on Dan Tranh. I didn’t find a You Tube of him playing that instrument but he had posted his playing on Jew’s harp and the spoons. He does amazing things with both and manages to make music at the same time.

Two Vietnamese tunes on Yakut Jew's harp


A demonstration of the dan moi or “baby Jew’s harp.


Spoon playing techniques


An improvisation by Prof. Tran Van Khe, Prof. Tran Quang Hai and Mrs. Pham Thuy Hoan and Hai Phuong


An improvisation on the Nam Xuan Mode by Prof. Tran Van Khe (drum), Prof. Tran Quang Hai(spoons), Hai Phuong (zither dan tranh)

The look of these three virtuosos as they really get into it will be entirely familiar to any musician. It is a revelation to find out about whole worlds of music around us, complete with a fully developed musical culture, that are routinely ignored by those outside of them. This is very good music that should be widely known.

If you’re interested, check out his amazing demonstrations of more spoon playing and his remarkable singing techniques he has posted on You Tube.

* “Landscape of the Highlands - Trân Quang Hai", edited by Music of the World, Chapell Hill, USA, 1997
|

Tracy Sharpley-Whiting on Basic Black by Anthony McCarthy 

This conversation between Professor Tracy Sharpley-Whiting* and Basic Black host Kim McLarin about Sharpley-Whiting’s book Pimps Up, Ho's Down: Hip-Hop's Hold on Young Black Women is worth listening to, it takes about a half an hour. I hadn’t known about her until seeing the program Thursday night and now her book is going to the top of my “to read” stack.

Many of the points in the interview about the impact of an increasing view of sexual and other human relationships in terms of commodities and consumption are in line with a lot of what I’ve come to conclude is the core of what is wrong with our culture. The impact of the media driven hyper-masculinity of the general culture and in its most blatant form in hip-hop culture are central issues for us. Sharpley-Whiting’s point about Harvey Mansfield’s idea that women are equal to men, but not entirely, makes the connection between his work and that of a rapper named Nelly. Nelly apparently achieved what passes as coolness these days when he swiped his credit card through the buttocks of a black woman in one of his videos.

"I think that's what people really find troubling about many of the relationships in the hip-hop generation in the larger culture that relationships are becoming increasingly transactional," .... "And for most people, that particular moment [in the video] clarified it."

These images and prejudices are being marketed to all of us continually. While a lot of that is selling us other things through sex and self-indulgence, I can’t believe that there isn’t some more basic intention of nudging the culture backwards by a concerted effort. It all looks like part of the same backlash against human rights to me.

She says a lot of things in the interview that just aren’t supposed to be said in progressive circles these days. One is that teenaged girls, from 13-19, are particularly vulnerable to the influence of negative and demeaning depictions of women in the context of sexual allurement. What they see on the screen and what they hear does have a real life influence on their behavior. Just as importantly, their experience is not separate from the behavior towards them from other people who have also been influenced by the same media. That children go through puberty at a time they aren’t intellectually or emotionally able to protect themselves and to avoid exploitation counts as little when there is massive profit to be made by pretending that they are “young adults” who have abilities that they do not yet possess. Passive acceptance of the media selling them a degraded image of themselves through sex and mnemonic hooks is something that is clearly inviting trouble. Women are not the only group being sold on self-debasement, indeed, on self-destruction. Clearly these images are marketed to black people in America. Other minority groups are also sold similar roles for themselves. I’ll be expanding on that idea in a different context soon.

If you watch the video please notice the speed with which ideas are brought up by the two women, the sophistication and complexity of the ideas and the rarity of many of them. This wasn’t just an exchange of pre-digested sound bites. Basic Black is one of the few TV programs where you can hear this kind of adult conversation on TV. Wouldn’t you like to hear more of it?

* From Imus to Industry: The Business of Stereotypes and Degrading Images : Sharpley-Whiting’s statement to the Congressional Subcommittee on Commerce

An edited transcript of an interesting conversation she had with Mark Anthony Neal published in Duke Magazine.
|

Friday, April 18, 2008

Critter and Nature Blogging for Friday: The Desert Spring Edition 









These are by Doug.

For the critters, check out Ntodd's Pack Blogging. It's lovely, with all sorts of "Peacable Kingdom" pictures.

|

Protecting our rights from “marriage amendments” (by Suzie) 



           Last Friday, I took a humorous look at the proposed Marriage Protection Amendment to the Florida constitution. Other states have considered similar amendments, and some people want to pass a federal one.
          Some straight people think the amendment would affect “only” gay people. In a recent debate, however, Nadine Smith pointed out that the religious right isn't all that keen on heterosexuals living in sin, either.
          Nadine Smith is executive director of Equality Florida and co-chair of Fairness for All Families. The Orlando Sentinel reported that she
focused on two things: 1) that gay marriage is already illegal in this state. ("The day before this election, same sex couples can't marry," she said. "The day after this election, same sex couples can't marry.) 2) And the fact that this amendment could actually take away rights from unmarried couples (straight and gay) when it comes to things like healthcare and end-of-life decisions. ("You do not protect your marriage in any way by taking away other people's rights.")

|

When biology is destiny, once again (by Suzie) 



         When people tie biology to the desire to change genders, this affects more than transgender people. It also has repercussions for women who are not trans. After all, biology has been used for millennia to discriminate against women.
         In a recent column, Mercedes Allen said science is “close to isolating the ‘gay gene’ and possibly a biological source of gender identity disorder.” Although the disorder is considered a “mental health issue,” she said, therapists agree that
this is only because a specific biological trigger has not yet been determined (although there is ongoing study of both genetic "brain sex" and Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals which appear to possibly lead to a better understanding of its origin).
          I wonder how scientists will determine "brain sex" in a world that is so highly gendered, without a nongendered control planet.
         What would a Planet Without Gender look like? People would be born with different genitalia and develop differently, in regard to such things as hair, breasts, musculature, etc. But no one would think twice if someone with a vagina had some facial hair or someone with a penis had ample breast tissue. Any child could wear a frilly pink dress or overalls. Anyone could play with a doll or a truck. Anyone could grow up to be president. On this planet, could someone be born with a penis and yet feel alienated from his body and long to have a vagina? Sure.
          On Earth, however, when a young boy wants to cover his breasts, have babies, use his sister’s things, etc. -- as described in a Barbara Walters special – that doesn’t prove anything about biology. Those are cultural artifacts.
          I’m not saying that there is no biological trigger to gender identity disorder. What I’m saying is that cultural stuff, such as a boy wanting to wear a dress, is not proof.
          This sort of talk reinforces stereotypes about what it means to be male or female. I’ve been irritated about this since I read a newspaper article on Susan Stanton, who was fired as a city manager last year when it was revealed that she would transition from Steve to Susan. The newspaper printed my letter to the editor, but snipped a bit of the snark. I’ll reinstate it for this blog. Here are snippets from the article, with my responses:
  • "Steve needed a helmet wig, pancake makeup and foam breasts to be a woman." I lost all my hair during chemotherapy. When I wasn't wearing a wig and makeup, did I stop being a woman or did my breasts save me?
  • Stanton shakes hands and speaks more softly. Does that make someone more of a woman?
  • She says hormones have softened her personality. Does that mean that women who are jerks would be nicer if they got a hormone patch? Is Stanton equating softness with being female? If so, does that make a female soldier or athlete less of a woman? Some cancer survivors take drugs to suppress estrogen. Are these lesser women?
  • Stanton "still" speaks like a city manager. Is this yet another false dichotomy, like "strong but soft"?
  • Stanton folds her "hands in a girly way." Please print a diagram. I missed the lesson on girly hand-folding in my class on How to Be a Woman.
  • "Steve-Susan loved evening gowns. Steve-Susan loved the clothes a man would choose for a woman. Now Susan is learning to dress for herself." Men predominate as fashion designers, and many women dress to please men. I'm glad Susan has broken free of outside influences, except for her handlers who tell her ...
  • That shirts with collars are "mannish." I'm getting dizzy. Does this mean that other women can't wear collars or just women who were once men? Fashion writers tell women how to be attractive, but I don't remember them addressing collars. Earlier, the story disparaged a "pack of lesbian lawyers" for advising Stanton. Apparently, it's wrong to tell her what to say, but it's fine to tell her how to dress.
  • Stanton can't find clothes that fit well. Unlike the rest of us women who can easily find clothes that fit perfectly.
  • Now she understands the need for a bunch of shoes! Women who don't must be downright unwomanly.
  • "Susan flopped on the bed in tears. Steve would have never cried over his hair." I've never cried over my hair, even when it came out in handfuls. Did I miss a lesson on womanhood?
         I oppose discrimination against transgendered people, and I know many do not talk this way. Susan Stanton was conservative as a man, and it doesn’t appear that she took Feminism 101 as part of her transition. I hope the rest of us will be careful when we link biology to cultural practices.

|

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Betty Carter 

Lonely House. So lovely.




|

When Spring Is In The Air... 



"In the spring a young man’s fancy lightly turns to thoughts of love." Even a somewhat older man's fancy, it seems. Just watch this clip of Gordon Brown declaring his eternal love to George Bush. Gah.

These guys are SO emotional.

|

My Feminist Pet Peeves: Condescension 



This is one of those topics an old-time feminazi might have taken up at a CR session, while absent-mindedly scratching her hairy armpits: The experience of being the object of benign condescension from certain types of men. Not all men practice this art of sermon-giving to women, but some do, and the experiences always tend to be memorable.

Rebecca Solnit, an author with many books under her belt, tells about one encounter with such a condescender at tomdispatch.com:

I still don't know why Sallie and I bothered to go to that party in the forest slope above Aspen. The people were all older than us and dull in a distinguished way, old enough that we, at forty-ish, passed as the occasion's young ladies. The house was great -- if you like Ralph Lauren-style chalets -- a rugged luxury cabin at 9,000 feet complete with elk antlers, lots of kilims, and a wood-burning stove. We were preparing to leave, when our host said, "No, stay a little longer so I can talk to you." He was an imposing man who'd made a lot of money.

He kept us waiting while the other guests drifted out into the summer night, and then sat us down at his authentically grainy wood table and said to me, "So? I hear you've written a couple of books."

I replied, "Several, actually."

He said, in the way you encourage your friend's seven-year-old to describe flute practice, "And what are they about?"

They were actually about quite a few different things, the six or seven out by then, but I began to speak only of the most recent on that summer day in 2003, River of Shadows: Eadweard Muybridge and the Technological Wild West, my book on the annihilation of time and space and the industrialization of everyday life.

He cut me off soon after I mentioned Muybridge. "And have you heard about the very important Muybridge book that came out this year?"

So caught up was I in my assigned role as ingénue that I was perfectly willing to entertain the possibility that another book on the same subject had come out simultaneously and I'd somehow missed it. He was already telling me about the very important book -- with that smug look I know so well in a man holding forth, eyes fixed on the fuzzy far horizon of his own authority.

Here, let me just say that my life is well-sprinkled with lovely men, with a long succession of editors who have, since I was young, listened and encouraged and published me, with my infinitely generous younger brother, with splendid friends of whom it could be said -- like the Clerk in The Canterbury Tales I still remember from Mr. Pelen's class on Chaucer -- "gladly would he learn and gladly teach." Still, there are these other men, too. So, Mr. Very Important was going on smugly about this book I should have known when Sallie interrupted him to say, "That's her book." Or tried to interrupt him anyway.

But he just continued on his way. She had to say, "That's her book" three or four times before he finally took it in. And then, as if in a nineteenth-century novel, he went ashen. That I was indeed the author of the very important book it turned out he hadn't read, just read about in the New York Times Book Review a few months earlier, so confused the neat categories into which his world was sorted that he was stunned speechless -- for a moment, before he began holding forth again. Being women, we were politely out of earshot before we started laughing, and we've never really stopped.

It's hilarious, of course. It could also be the case that this particular man always holds forth, always condescends, both to men and women. It could well be. But I've never had a woman condescend this way to me yet. Only some men have done it, and the condescension seems to have a cultural dimension to it so that I can almost predict that men from certain countries will do that while being charming and polite, exactly in the way one would talk to precocious children. Also, it is more likely that an older man will assume this particular attitude.

So I think the attitude has to do with expectations. Expectations about women being rather silly and charming creatures who really don't know very much about anything important. But well, we have to live with them and to be nice to them because of that damn sexual reproduction thing.

What really rung the bell in that quote from Solnit's article was the associated deafness of the pontificator, his inability to hear what Solnit's friend was saying. Because what she was saying was not a simple correction of information. It was something that tipped over his whole thought edifice. Or tried to tip it over.

I've had many, many experiences with this selective sort of deafness myself, ranging from trying to make contractors hear what I want to be done with the house to telling someone that yes, indeed, I'm familiar with the theories in an introductory economics course, given that I have a terminal degree in the field. But the deafness is an obstacle here and yelling very hard or kicking the person in the groin would make me look worse than the idiot I'm dealing with. Sigh.

|

McCain: No More Corporate Welfare? 



I bet you don't want to hear about taxes right now, but that's the topic of this post. Or more precisely, I want to write about John McCain's plans to give extra help to corporations should he become the president of the United States:

In yesterday's speech, McCain played to his maverick image, taking corporate chieftains to task for their "extravagant salaries and severance deals." He even called out by name Angelo R. Mozilo, the chief executive of imploding mortgage giant Countrywide, and James E. Cayne, former chief executive of Bear Stearns, which was bailed out by an emergency line of credit from the Federal Reserve Board.

"In my administration, there will be no more subsidies for special pleaders, no more corporate welfare," McCain said.

But much of what he detailed was a corporate special pleader's dream: a cut in the corporate income tax rate, from 35 percent to 25 percent, a proposal to allow businesses to write off the cost of new equipment and technology from their taxes, a ban on Internet and new cellphone taxes, and a permanent tax credit for research and development.

He promised to remove the "myriad corporate tax loopholes that are costly, unfair and inconsistent with a free-market economy," but he offered no specifics.

Note the last two paragraphs, because they are important to remember simultaneously. Conservatives tend to argue that American firms cannot compete abroad because of the high corporate tax rate in this country. What conservatives forget to mention are those loopholes. They are so big and comfortable that the taxes American firms ultimately pay are the fourth lowest as a percentage of the GDP of all OECD countries. It's hard to see how that tax burden would keep U.S. firms from being competitive.

Perhaps McCain really intends to close all those loopholes while also intending to cut the tax rate. Who knows. But adding new corporate write-off rules doesn't look like getting tough with corporations.

International competitiveness is not the only argument conservatives propose to justify giving firms "tax relief." They also point out that firms with lower taxes will have more money left over to invest, to expand and to employ more workers. Thus, ultimately the workers will benefit from this help to someone else.

Except for two tiny snags: First, the firms don't have any obligation whatsoever to spend their tax savings on employing more people. Second, even if they do use the savings in that manner the employment effect might take place in Pakistan, India or China, given the ease with which jobs are outsourced these days.

There are better and more effective ways to give American workers some relief. But McCain's proposal is a pretty good one for continuing a policy of corporate welfare.
-----
Cross-posted at the Nation magazine's Passing Through blog.

|

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

The Night Hell Iced Over 



Even two conservative bloggers noticed how very conservative the bias in our so-called liberal media actually is while following tonight's debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Here is what Andrew Sullivan says:

9.32 pm. No questions on the environment, none on terror, none on interrogation, none on torture, none on education, none on spending, none on healthcare, none on Iran ... but four separate questions in the first hour about a lapel-pin, Bitter-gate, Wright-gate and Ayers. I'm all for keeping candidates on their toes. But this was ridiculous.

And here is Jonah Goldberg at the conservative Corner:

I'm no leftwing blogger, but I can only imagine how furious they must be with the debate so far. Nothing on any issues. Just a lot of box-checking on how the candidates will respond to various Republican talking points come the fall. Now I think a lot of those Republican talking points are valid and legitimate. But if I were a "fighting Dem" who thinks all of these topics are despicable distractions from the "real issues," I would find this debate to be nothing but Republican water-carrying.

It really was a travesty of a debate. Atrios suggests that we complain about it. A lot.

|

Benign Sexism 



Now I've heard it all. There is something called "benign sexism", and supposedly Chris Matthews is only guilty of that type of sexism. What the fuck is it? Is it like a benign tumor which might hurt or inconvenience you but which is a lot better than having a cancerous growth?

No. It seems that ogling and leering at women is benign and so is treating them like not the experts they are on your show but as eye-candy brought there for the purpose of giving you a stiffie. This is benign, because the women should be flattered by the nice things Matthews tells them. Of course the nice things he tells them are totally inappropriate on a political talk show. It's as if he interviewed Henry Kissinger and spent the whole time admiring Kissinger's weird eyeglasses and pontificating on them as the windows of some weird conservative world, while Kissinger desperately tried to get a word in edgewise.

Here's the quote which annoyed me:

Yes, the Times profile acknowledged the fact that critics, including Media Matters for America, have accused Matthews of sexist behavior. But the Times quickly cordoned off that discussion to mostly mean that Matthews leers at women.

In a typical passage from the Times profile, Matthews tries to flirt with actress and Obama supporter Kerry Washington, whom MSNBC head Phil Griffin invites on Hardball at an event. "He wants you on because you're beautiful," Matthews said. "And because you're black." Matthews handed Washington a business card and told her to call anytime "if you ever want to hang out with Chris Matthews."

New York Magazine's Daily Intelligencer blog, in an item praising Matthews, picked up on that passage and suggested:

Places like Media Matters will doubtless point out this interaction as further evidence of Matthews's demeaning attitude toward women, but they'd be missing the point. Matthews is a sexist in the same benign way your grandfather is, but at least he tells the truth.

First off, "benign" sexism? That's an interesting notion. Is that sort of like "benign" racism? (Just asking.) Secondly, New York Magazine completely misses the point, because it adopts the same premise The New York Times does: this idea that Matthews is sexist because he ogles women both on and off the air.

Yes, that sort of behavior is problematic and inappropriate for the host of a political news program. (Am I not stating the obvious here?) But what the media conveniently ignore is the hateful, gender-based language Matthews uses to describe prominent (Democratic) women. It's behavior commonly referred to as misogyny.

Boehlert's whole take on how misogyny has paid off for Matthews is worth a read. Perhaps he will actually be listened to. Us wimminfolk are not.

|

What Molly Said 



Molly at Whiskeyfire reads Maureen Dowd so that you don't have to.

|

The Fourth Wave?* 



The New York Magazine has an article on a possible feminist revival, caused by the sexist treatment of Hillary Clinton in these elections (note that I'm not saying that all the criticism Clinton gets is sexist or undeserved, but I am saying that she has gotten a lot of misogynistic and sexist criticisms). A taste of the article:

Not so long ago, it was possible for women, particularly young women, to share in the popular illusion that we were living in a postfeminist moment. There were encouraging statistics to point to: More women than men are enrolled at universities, where they typically earn higher grades; once they graduate, those who live in big cities might even receive higher salaries—at least in the early years of employment. The Speaker of the House is female, as are eight governors and 16 percent of Congress (never mind that this is 11 percent fewer than Afghanistan's parliament). Many women believed we had access to the same opportunities and experiences as men—that was the goal of the feminist movement, wasn't it?—should we choose to take advantage of them (and, increasingly, we just might not). There was, of course, the occasional gender-based slight to contend with, a comment on physical appearance, the casual office badminton played with words like bitch and whore and slut, but to get worked up over these things seemed pointlessly symbolic, humorless, the purview of women's-studies types. Then Hillary Clinton declared her candidacy, and the sexism in America, long lying dormant, like some feral, tranquilized animal, yawned and revealed itself. Even those of us who didn't usually concern ourselves with gender-centric matters began to realize that when it comes to women, we are not post-anything.

This reads like a letter from some foreign country to me, you know, because I spend my days watching that supposedly tranquilized feral animal, sexism. The reason so many women don't see it is that a) it's a domesticated pet in too many households and b) they have learned to not see it, because seeing it is painful and life is short. Then of course there were all those articles about the death of feminism, the new post-feminist era of complete equality (with one female Supreme Court Justice in the U.S. for instance and zero female Popes ever), the era when feminism was icky and old-fashioned and real women didn't want it anyway, because something else was the new fad of the day.

But I do get the deeper point, of course, and I'm being unfair to the author, because the article is on the whole excellent in describing the psychological consequences of the sexist treatment of Hillary Clinton by the media and of the attempts to discuss it around the waterfountains and at the kitchen tables. It also asks why sexism is not taken seriously in the public discussion (it is not, on the whole), and notes that the learning experience the recent events have offered is an eye-opening one for many younger women.

And here is the really interesting question in the article:

The past few months have been like an extended consciousness-raising session, to use a retro phrase that would have once made most of us cringe. We've parsed the gender politics of the campaign with other women in the office, at parties, over e-mail, and now we're starting to parse the gender politics of our lives. This is, admittedly, depressing: How can we be confronting the same issues, all these years later? But it's also exciting. It feels as if a window has been opened in a stuffy, long-sealed room. There is a thrill at the collective realization. Now the question is, what next?

Why would the concept of a consciousness-raising session be something to make young women cringe? There it comes again, the idea that feminism of the 1970's was something rather icky, something outdated, something perhaps even dangerous. How very well the Rush Limbaughs of this world have done the job of painting feminism in unacceptable colors.

But I digress again. What I really wanted to say is that the article suggests a possible new feminist awakening. The alarm clocks of the media pundits have rung in too many American living-rooms, it seems.

Perhaps. But note that the vast majority of Americans, women and men, don't follow this political bickering at all. The vast majority of American women are not upper-class educated women who could compare their own career problems with those of Hillary Clinton. It could be that the next wave begins with incidents like this one. But something more is needed for feminism to spread into all parts of the society.
-----
*On the title of this post: I doubt that history would count a new feminist reawakening at this point the fourth wave, but I'm going to use that term because it is currently the one people would choose.



|

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Pope Posting 



Holden Caulfield pointed out the red shoes the Pope wears in this picture. What are they all about? Part of the uniform? And why red shoes with a white dress? Though I do like them.

Kathryn Lopez at the Corner of the very conservative National Review has the oddest post about the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal and Ratzo's visit:

The Church has been through a great humiliation, yes. What was done to children is inexcusable and a grave sin and shame. The pope knows this, acknowledges this, prays for forgiveness and renewal, and leads the way toward forgiveness, renewal, and a renaissance of orthodoxy. The pope genuflecting to CNN and the Boston Globe isn't going to do anyone any good, however. As officials with a worldwide view of the Church note, the Catholic Church in the United States is, in the big picture, a story of some great successes — in education, health care, etc. The Church has to continue to do what it does best — serve, teach, preach, love. And Benedict's top priority while being here is shepherding. And that's what we'll be seeing more than anything these next few days of his visit — with his rod and his staff ....

Is she really trying to crack a very iffy joke here? That's how it reads to me. Perhaps I'm just very very naughty today.

|

Six Moon Dance And Friends 



While cleaning my study yesterday (yeae me for cleaning, finally!), I noticed that I own quite a few fantasy and science fiction books which ask questions about gender relations. Some of those I've written about before, but the topic is of endless interest to me. (Probably not to you, but I suffer from blogging fatigue, so this is what you are getting today.)

The tricks a writer can use to discuss gender in the without-initial-rules world of alternative reality are not that many. A book could discuss gender the way it is perceived by our current societies, or it could side-step that by having gender be something different altogether (either nonexistent, temporary or officially accepted as multitudinous). This side-stepping was most famously done by Ursula le Guin in the Left Hand of Darkness, but many other applications of that principle apply.

Another way to address the topic is by reversals or by assigning the traditional female roles to men and vice versa. Melanie Rawns tried that in her trilogy Exiles (which still lacks the third book), but I found the reversal unconvincing, perhaps, because the society otherwise looked too much like something from our own history books (with the exception of the magic, naturally). I kept asking how it was that women had so successfully turned men into househusbands in that world.

Sheri S. Tepper's Six Moon Dance is a more believable attempt at a reversal, because Tepper lets us learn, as the book advances, why and how the power balance of gender changed on her imaginary planet, and also because the resulting balance still favors men in many, if not most things. To give you a flavor of the book, here is the opening:

"It's all right," Mouche's mother said. "Next time we'll have a girl."

Mouche knew of this because his father told him. "She said it was all right. She said next time..."

But there had been no next time. Why the inscrutable Hagions decided such things was unknown. Some persons profited in life, producing daughter after daughter; some lost in life, producing son after son; some hung in the balance as Eline and Darhos did, having one son at the Temple, and then a daughter born dead at the Temple, and then no other child.

The reason daughters are so valuable for farmers like Mouche's parents is that there are fewer women than men on this agricultural low-technology planet. Brides cost a lot of money to acquire but are necessary for the continuation of the family line. Farmers who have daughters get lots of money for them, money, which can be invested in the farm and which can be used to buy brides for the family's sons. Thus, daughters equal wealth in this society, even though the family line is centered on the sons.

Poor Mouche. His family has no daughters, the farm is going under, and he is a pretty boy. His parents need money. What to do? They are going to sell him to a Hunk School.

You will have to read the book to find out what a Hunk School might be. Then you will also learn why married men wear face veils on that planet and in what sense the arrangement benefits or does not benefit women or men. It's all quite interesting, providing weird distorted echoes of our society and perhaps letting us see the latter with greater clarity.

A third way of examining the power balance between the sexes might be the one which Barbara Hambly used in her Sisters of the Raven and its sequel Circle of the Moon. The gender rules in her book are initially fairly easy to recognize as what one might call the traditional Mediterranean ones, with covered women and strong male dominance in the public sphere, though she also adds borrowings from other cultures into the mix.

These rules are not changed in the book. What does change is one of the sources for the male power: magic. In the past, Hambly tells us, magic was a purely male ability. Not all men had it, but no women did. It was the men with magic who called in the annual rains, the rains on which the survival of the desert society depicted in the books depended. Then, suddenly, male magic dies and the whole society faces possible death.

At the same time, a few women here and there realize that they now have magical skills. These skills don't appear to obey the old rules, however, and they come into existence at the same time as the death of men's magic.

This setting looks to me like an interesting opening for studying gender power relations, even if it unfortunately sets that power up as a zero-sum game. Hambly doesn't really take that topic very far, perhaps, because she is more interested in the other topics of the books. But I'm hoping that she one day writes a third book on that imaginary society and tells us how it all went.

Here is my last cleaning thought on this topic: I think the best way to discuss gender in speculative fiction would be to take the existing sexual power relationships and their justifications and to apply that whole network to two groups of creatures which are clearly not men and women but still somehow linked in the sense of mutual survival. Doing that could throw some real light on the questions.

|

Monday, April 14, 2008

Define "Elite" 



You could look up a dictionary definition. But the oddest thing about the way American politics uses the world "elite" is that it attacks those who would like to change the current elitist system, even if very subtly. Thus, Barack Obama is now labeled as a snob by the wingnuts and even by some Democrats who are working for Hillary Clinton.

Why isn't George Bush an elitist? He was born into money, after all, and he has always had it. He went to a boarding school and Ivy League universities. But somehow that is not being a member of the elites in this country. The definition has been carefully modified so that being wealthy does not, in itself, give you elite membership.

Even a very poor person can be an elitist, from this point of view, as long as that person is not voting for the Republicans. Anyone drinking lattes is risking being called an elitist. But having eight houses does not make you an elitist, unless you are a Democrat. Actually belonging to the ruling elite does not make you an elitist, either.

This is bizarre.

|

The Silence of Tax Preparation Time 



You can smell it on the Internet. Suddenly it's very quiet, except for the far-distant clicking of keyboards, the muffled swearwords and the sound of papers being shuffled.

Tax prep time. This is the time when the wheat is separated from the chaff: Those who did their taxes weeks ago from those who are pulling off most of their body hair in an attempt to somehow make sense of those numbers. This is the time when partnerships fall into severe bickering, when the seeds of divorce sprout, when the horrible numbers come back to us in our fevered dreams, when they whisper into our ears in traffic, when all files and drawers and cupboards are turned inside out by the last-minute people among us.

And all this is the lot of the mostly lucky ones, the ones who have enough income to necessitate all the accounting.

Added later: I figured out my hourly pay for writing on politics (not on this blog but elsewhere). Then I sobbed.

|

On the Size of American Vacations 



I have a post on that topic at the Passing Through blog of the Nation magazine.

|

Just Had To Get This In: Late Addition by Anthony McCarthy 

Listening to Cokie and Diane Rehm, just now, wondering about why Bill Clinton is tripping over himself on behalf of Hillary Clinton, have you heard anyone suggest it could be because he doesn’t like hearing people dumping on the woman who stood by him through some of his worst mistakes and ordeals?

What does it say about the American media that they can’t understand that Bill Clinton might be doing what Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, John McCain... etc. so unmentionably , but obviously didn’t do? Stand by his wife? Maybe it’s his, you know, deep feelings of love for her that are making him other than cagey about this.
|

Sunday, April 13, 2008

Nina Simone 

Love Me Or Leave Me

Pirate Jenny

Posted by Anthony McCarthy
|

One Big Plutocracy by Anthony McCarthy 

Part Three of Three

Finally, there are the concerns about foreign economic influence. The 2006 brouhaha over a Dubai company attempting to buy a group of American ports focused the public’s attention on the larger issue of state-owned companies and investment funds buying up large segments of the American economy. Today, these sovereign wealth funds hold $2.5 trillion in assets, and Morgan Stanley estimates they could hold $17 trillion within a decade. Many fear that these state-controlled entities, which often operate in secret, could use such assets as a political weapon.

Unlike the typical investor concerned only with the bottom line, foreign governments have agendas beyond making a buck. They could easily push companies to behave in ways that are politically advantageous to the owner country. That nationalist concern has led to congressional hearings, and according to Financial Week, some Democratic legislators appear poised to introduce a bill to strengthen the weak regulatory regime that currently oversees these international economic transactions. Redefining “tax and spend”

N
ational corporations actually owned and operated by the official rulers or the government of a country are a reality. Contrary to the Chicago School’s doctrinal fantasies, the religion exclusively presented by American media, they can be wildly successful at making money and concentrating power. That’s no surprise, considering the success with which the corporate state here has hijacked the government from The People. Where The People aren’t said to own the government to start with the distinction between public and private doesn’t exist.

The internationalists, representing the interests of the American corporate state in the world, don’t have much of a problem dealing with these state-corporate entities, they’ll do business with anyone if it means they can profit from it. It might even be refreshing for them to stop having to pretend that there is any democratic context in which they do business.

While there will be frictions between the American-corporate elite and these state-corporate entities, those will almost never involve the welfare of The People or the environment. Other than as consumers and lowest possible cost workers, we don’t matter in these things unless we have the power to make them matter.

That the issue mentioned here also tapped into the anti-Arab bigotry common in the United States is unfortunate but not surprising. It could be any of a host of ‘others’. In order to shield themselves from notice, elites are always presenting other, sometimes entirely imaginary enemies.“Easterners”, “New Englanders” and a host of other internal ‘others’ serve the same purpose in ‘other’ regions of the United States. Imagine if The People understood how they are really shafted in these deals between foreign despots and those who have stolen our government imagine how upset they would be about that.

Foot Note: Despite third party and independent pipe-dreams, our only real tool to fight against this are the Democrats. If there are not more Democrats in the House, the Senate and in the White House next year the prospects of fighting these issues are gone for the foreseeable future. Republicans will continue the rubber stamp approach with the help of conservative Democrats. But even conservative Democrats are susceptible to our pressure on this issue. The xenophobic Lou Dobbs aside, Republicans are not going to even listen to us about anything. They’ll just steal more of our money by building another Bushlin Wall.

Threatening to withhold our support has a track record of just about complete failure. As said here last week, we don’t have the power to make those threats. It’s our support that will get us anything, though not everything, not holding our breaths until things turn blue.

The forces we are fighting in these issues have unbelievable power to get what they want. We don’t have time waiting for the millennium that has been on hold for longer than any of us has been alive. The man on a horse isn’t coming to our rescue. Not even the horse is on its way. The choice is between standing there whining and waiting for what’s never going to come, or to use the donkey that’s right in front of us to move ahead as history certainly will.

For an idea of where multi-party systems can lead, read the depressing news from Italy where the fractured, multi-party left finds having a plutocratic criminal, along with actual, unreconstructed fascists, regain power is more desirable than uniting to keep them from power.

The issue of third parties takes up an extraordinary amount of the left’s limited time and other resources, considering that there has been exactly one successful third party in our 230-year history, the Republicans of the 1850s. It is an irrational obsession. With the examples from Europe and elsewhere with multi-party systems it looks like not much more of a guarantee of progress than what we’ve got here. Maybe if more of us on the left would give up these futile ideas and concentrated on strengthening and pressuring the Democratic Party we’d get somewhere.
|

“You Ain’t Said Nothing, ‘till You’ve Played The Blues” 

Sombat Simlah, Laotian Khene

Laotian mouth organ is about the bluesiest folk music outside of the blues.

Posted by Anthony McCarthy
|

Holding Out For The Results We Need, Not Acquiescing To The Process They Want by Anthony McCarthy 

Part Two of Three
Second, for pacts that do pass, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) is developing a proposal that would give nonprofit groups and individuals the same enforcement powers that corporations currently enjoy. Ellison floated a truncated version of this concept during the 2007 debate over the Peru Free Trade Agreement, arguing that if a trade deal gives a corporation the right to sue in international courts for enforcement of investor rights (copyrights, patents, intellectual property, etc.), then individuals and advocacy organizations should also have the same right to sue for enforcement of other rights (labor, environmental, etc.). A Democratic administration could incorporate this forward thinking into the core text of any future trade pact.

This sounds like a good idea provided the parties, nonprofit groups and individuals aren’t run over by the resources of those who benefit from despoiling the environment and subjugating labor. Unfortunately, in this world, you make a heck of a lot more money by destroying the environment and scouring the world for slaves than you do by asking for $35 annual contributions. It’s essential to stop pretending that any court, even those indirectly subject to democratic constraints, is an equal and impartial judge when the resources are just about entirely on one side. That’s a general problem with the law, it favors those with resources normal circumstances. But when it comes to these international treaties adjudicated by courts with little to no connection to restraints by The People and rushed through without real legislative consideration, the law isn’t an ass, it’s an arrogant advocate for hire to whoever can pay the best. And that isn’t us.

Note: But even with that, those who would bring and argue these cases have to change their thinking, from upholding the process to actually getting the results. Let me repeat that, GETTING THE RESULTS. That is the actual legal practice of the rich and powerful going back to before the robber barons into time immemorial. Why shouldn’t the side representing The People and the environment practice ruthlessness, on our side, to match them? No domesticated advocates practicing petty legal scruples are going to get us what we need, never mind what we want. We need attack dogs, not lap dogs who would be welcome to have their heads petted at a DC area cotillion. Or at NPR, as if there’s a difference.
|

Nguyen Thanh Thuy 

Nguyen Thanh Thuy
plays the Dan Tranh after a short interview.

posted by Anthony McCarthy
|

First Stop Pretending Treaties Aren’t Treaties And Go On From There by Anthony McCarthy 

Part One of Three

The “three pronged approach” to changing trade policy in this article by David Sirota is better than what we’ve got now but it needs a few changes in light of experience with this kind of “reform” and how the elites make super-highways out of tiny holes. I’m taking them one at a time.

First, a proposal by Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) would make new trade agreements harder to pass “unless they are accompanied by a more thorough financial analysis,” as the Washington Post reported. Their bill would end the practice of flying blindly into the free trade abyss by forcing the government to provide estimates of potential job losses with any trade pact. (That’s right Congress currently makes trade policy without even asking what the consequences are.)

Whoa! Who, looking at the ease with which those assigned to come up with these kinds of estimates lie or, at best, skew their numbers to find what those doing the appointing want them to find, would trust the estimates of potential job losses? I’d simply drop that “unless” loophole and just make these treaties harder to pass, period. You know, as if they were real laws because they are. Since the courts and other super-legal structures set up by these treaties have the proven ability to annul laws in the individual countries they should be called treaties and adopted only by the consent of those with the legitimate power to represent The People, those who we have elected. Putting the ability to bypass legislative consideration in the hands of “analysts” , whatever that can be made to mean, is dangerous and irresponsible.

No undebated, unexamined, treaty, not even if you call them “pacts”, “agreements” or any of the other terms invented to ram these deals through with minimal democratic input should be allowed in a democracy. These treaties have the power, through what amount to Super-Supreme Courts, beholden only to the elites who appoint them, to override laws made with the just consent of those governed by them. At least keep that level of democratic control, that we can vote out those who shaft us.
|

Saturday, April 12, 2008

Bela Bartok: Selections From 27 Choruses For Women’s or Children's Voices posted by Anthony McCarthy 

Don’t know what the young womens’ chorus is named or where they are from but they are very good. See also.
|

Anyone Know The Plural For This Word? by Anthony McCarthy 

Nyckelharpa


Two Nyckelharpor

Thanks for the information, Echidne, Doug.
|

Mistakes in newspapers (by Suzie) 



       In the 1990s, a lot of newspaper journalists talked about improving policies on correcting mistakes, to boost the credibility of the profession. They encouraged readers to report errors,  and they ran corrections where readers could find them easily. The New York Times still has such a policy, for example.
       At other newspapers, the enthusiasm for correcting mistakes has waned, along with job security.
       Newspapers contribute to the historical record, and a lot of people assume what’s printed is true. Errors were bad enough in the days before home computers, when researchers had to sort through yellowed clippings or microfiche to read past articles. Now that many articles are online, research is much easier, but it's also easier to spread errors.
        As an example, I’ll use the St. Petersburg Times, a large and respected newspaper in Florida. Wednesday, I posted a link to an excellent article the Times ran on Zora Neale Hurston. The newspaper had run a column a few weeks ago that said Hurston “always considered herself a ‘Womanist.’” I called to correct that. Alice Walker coined the term, first using it in print in 1983. Hurston died in 1960.
        If the Times corrected the column, I can’t tell it from its Web site. The column isn’t changed, nor is there a correction appended. If editors thought I was mistaken, they could have called or emailed to tell me so. 
     Last year, I cited a few examples of this problem in a local “alternative” newspaper. A story on Hooters, a restaurant chain known for buxom servers, implied that the corporation didn't feel comfortable contributing to the fight against breast cancer until one of its beloved employees got publicity for her battle with the disease in 2006. I posted a comment noting that Hooters financed the "Owl's Den," a conference room near the old breast-cancer clinic at the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa before 2006. This questions the premise of the story, but only those who read after me saw my post.
         Also last year, the Times wrote about a principal who was retiring because she had metastatic leiomyosarcoma. She had the same diagnosis that I have, and we both went to Moffitt. There was a good chance we had the same doctor; Moffitt had only one medical oncologist who focused on leiomyosarcoma. The story included the phrase: "Doctors later explained that her form of cancer does not respond to chemotherapy ..." Actually, Moffitt gives chemotherapy to leiomyosarcoma patients all the time. I got complete (albeit temporary) remission from chemotherapy. I passed along an email from my doctor – an expert in the treatment of sarcoma with chemotherapy – explaining why the Times was wrong. The Times chose not to run even a clarification.
        I’m more familiar with errors in the St. Petersburg Times because I used to read it daily. This is not just a problem at the Times, however. It’s an issue at my former newspaper, which competes with the Times, as it is at many other newspapers.
        Letting readers correct stories in the comment section isn't sufficient. People who don't read online won't see the comment, and even those who do may miss it. At the Times, many stories and their comments can be found by searching its site. But if you search its archives, the comments are not saved. Other newspapers have different policies on how they save or display stories and comments.
       Telling readers to write a letter to the editor is a lazy way of correcting errors. First of all, the reader doesn't know if the letter will get printed. A letter also implies that the error is a matter of opinion, not something journalists can verify.
        Everyone makes mistakes. The issue is how we handle corrections. As a blogger, I’ll do my best to correct mine.
 
|

Women's Bodies And Lives As Means Of Outsourced Production by Anthony McCarthy 

Children as Products

Ellen Goodman’s column about the outsourcing of industrial pregnancy - by fact of biology to a 100% female workforce - gives a microcosm of much that is wrong with our legal system and culture.

As one woman put it, "We give them a baby and they give us much-needed money. It's good for them and for us." A surrogate in Anand used the money to buy a heart operation for her son. Another raised a dowry for her daughter.

Nevertheless, there is - and there should be - something uncomfortable about a free-market approach to baby-making. It's easier to accept surrogacy when it's a gift from one woman to another. But we rarely see a rich woman become a surrogate for a poor family. Indeed, in Third World countries, some women sign these contracts with a fingerprint because they are illiterate.

For that matter, we have not yet had stories about the contract workers for whom pregnancy was a dangerous occupation, but we will. What obligation does a family that simply contracted for a child have to its birth mother? What control do - should - contractors have over their "employee's" lives while incubating "their" children? What will we tell the offspring of this international trade?

Looking closely at this trade in human beings, the contracting of the use of womens’ bodies and lives as temporary incubators of a product, a human child, has the potential to help understand what happens, more generally, when people become objects in commerce.

In this case there are two distinct people who are transformed into commodities, the women who become pregnant and the children after they are born. No matter how well intentioned the contractors, the fact is that both become items of commerce, they become subject to the worst obscenities of contract law in all its pretended impartiality.

The anger and discomfort of people who may have relatively pure motives in initiating the transaction at having this pointed out doesn’t change that fact. Even if they, themselves, might never press the issues stemming from these contracts to their worst ends, more than just reminiscent of the worst of legalized slavery, it is just about certain that others will and that with the crop of judges we’ve got now, things will just about certainly go to the bottom fast.

Contracts seem to have replaced the concept of inalienable rights in modern morality and, so, law. Doesn’t the idea that “consent” in an actual or ‘implied’ contract is the only relevant issue in human interactions negate the idea that human rights are inherent and inalienable? How can someone’s inalienable rights be rendered non-existent even by signing a contract with a signature, never mind with a fingerprint as Goodman describes? How can an individual lose their most basic rights by legal agreement? What dangers does allowing people to trade away their rights pose for the rest of humanity?

How can anyone pretend that a, powerless, illiterate person, motivated by the most horrible poverty and need, perhaps in a country with even worse laws than here, is an equal party in a contract, when her consent is to an agreement formed by people with resources, sophistication and with the knowledge of a legal system that will willingly be gamed to suit their ends? *

None of that contractual agreement with the woman whose body is rented** addresses the child who is the product being produced and their own, inherent, inalienable rights. Neither the woman who is compelled by poverty to produce the child nor those who see it as a product would seem to be dependable guardians of their rights, though in some cases either one side or both may have only the child’s rights and well-being in mind. You have to wonder if the buyers weren’t satisfied with the product how many of them might have their best intentions turn bad. And isn't the law supposed to address the worst cases?

All of this is profoundly troubling. It makes apparent and compelling the consequences and complex range of problems that come from the law treating people and their lives as objects of trade. Our society is increasingly urged to give up any legal protection in favor of throwing us all up to be winnowed by the winds of commerce. We are increasingly led to consider the lives, as well as the rights and well-being of those blown away as mere chaff.

I don’t know what left anyone else belongs to but my left is unalterably opposed to allowing that.

* I suspect that those judges who consider the lives of the people put at risk as more or even just equally important to the sacred contract are an endangered species. And trade groups and lobbyists are always at the ready with an ad campaign to get unprofitable laws changed when those kinds of decisions are made.

** I think it was Katha Pollit who pointed out that it's illegal for women to rent out their Vaginas for a half hour but legal for them to rent out their entire bodies for nine months.
|

A Fun Toy To Try: My First Therapy Session With Eliza by Anthony McCarthy 

In an idle few minutes I tried the Eliza* program found here. I wonder how steeped in the faith of psychobabble you have to be to mistake it as a thinking entity and what this might indicate about the reliability of the fabled Turing Test, the nerd equivalent of an imaginary friend. If “nerd” is still used.

Unmarked lines are Eliza, the ones with >> are my responses.

>> Hello.
How do you do. Please state your problem.
>> I'm a coward.
Is it because you are a coward that you came to me ?
>> No, I just thought of a problem I had in response to your question.
Are you saying no just to be negative?
>> No, because it is the answer to your question.
You are being a bit negative.
>> I don't think so, your question required a yes, no answer. It contained the possibility that you had misunderstood my motives in coming here.
Don't you really think so ?
>> Maybe the problem is that you want to explore motivations that aren't germane to the answer you asked for.
You don't seem quite certain.
>> Well, how could I be, it was your assumption that I could be being negative when I was merely answering your question.
Why do you ask ?
>> I didn't ask anything just then, you don't seem to be very good at understanding the difference between a question and a presentation of possibilities.
You say you didn't ask anything just then ?
>> Well, I didn't ask anything just then.
Can you elaborate on that ?
>> That's what I've been trying to do. How did people mistake you for a thinking entity?
Does that question interest you ?
>> Mildly, though what it tells about the gullibility of allegedly educated people isn't news.
What is it you really want to know ?
>> I was just satisfying my curiosity about what I'd read about you.
Were you really ?
>> Well, although I'm not entirely satisfied, it is becoming amusing.
How long have you been not entirely satisfied ?
>> I think the problem began when they shined that bright light in my eyes in the delivery room.
Your eyes in the delivery room ?
>> Well, yes.
You seem to be quite positive.
>> Well, aren't I the best judge of the answer to a question about how long I haven't been satisfied?
Do you say aren't you the best judge of the answer to a question about how long you haven't been satisfied for some special reason ?
>> No, I was asking you if it wasn't apparent that I would have to be the best judge of that.
Why not ?
>> Exactly, why not.
Are such questions much on your mind ?
>> No, but I'm not helpless when someone else wants to go on a wild goose chase like that one.
Why 'no' ?
>> Becuase it happens to be the answer to your question.
Why are you concerned over my question ?
>> No, but I think you might have fallen for some psychological clap trap leads further into a labyrinth of no return.
Are you saying no just to be negative?
>> I'm positive.
Do you believe it is normal to be positive ?
>> About things like this it's possible to be positive.
But your eyes in the delivery room .
>> But me no buts, they were there.
You are being a bit negative.
>> I was positive my eyes were in the delivery room, they happen to have been attached and working.
Why do you tell me you were positive your eyes was in the delivery room now ?
>> I think it might be a lack of experience on your part that makes that question come up. Maybe that's the problem with most shrinks.
That's quite interesting.
>> Yeah, and this way I don't have to pay three figures an hour.
Why don't you have to pay three figures an hour ?
>> If you send me a bill for this tripe I am positive that it's not going to be paid and you have no standing to sue for it.
Do you think its likely that I send you a bill for this tripe you are positive that it's not going to be paid and I have no standing to sue for it ?
>> Only if you're as stupid as you seem.
Do you wish that I are as stupid as I seem ?
>> I'm indifferent as to that question.
Do you enjoy being indifferent as to that question ?
>> Yes, as a matter of fact I do.
You are sure.
>> Oh, yes, I'm sure
I see.
>> Finally.
I'm not sure I understand you fully.
>> And you never will.
We were discussing you -- not me.
>> I think you're being a bit defensive.
What makes you think I am being a bit defensive ?
>> Human experience.
Please go on.
>> No, I need to do my chores.
Why not ?

It was a bit of fun, if you think of it as a toy, a more complex 8-Ball oracle. I’d rate Eliza as more fun than most on-line tests with results given. Come to think of it, it was a pretty good simulation of quite a few of the blog brawls I’ve been in.

* Here is what they say about Eliza.

Eliza (Weizenbaum 1966) is the first chatterbot -- a computer program that mimics human conversation. In only about 200 lines of computer code, Eliza models the behavior of a psychiatrist (or, more specifically, the "active listening" strategies of a touchy-feely 1960s Rogerian therapist).
|

Friday, April 11, 2008

Friday Critter Blogging 



All these pictures are by the Vermont Way Back blogger. The first was taken on the Galapagos Island, the other two are swimming pictures from Vermont.










|

Just in time for Mother’s Day (by Suzie) 



        A PR firm sent out this news release: “Plastic surgery has become extremely common among mothers with young children. In 2007 more than 400,000 women with young children underwent elective cosmetic surgery in the U.S. alone. As any parent will tell you - children are very perceptive. It is nearly impossible to hide a plastic surgery transformation from your children. Board-certified plastic surgeon Dr. Michael Salzhauer takes this contentious topic head on with a new children’s book, “My Beautiful Mommy,” to be released nationwide this Mother’s Day on May 11th – there is no book like this out there. This book is designed to celebrate beauty and to explain to your child what to expect when a parent undergoes plastic surgery - from the initial consultation to the final result. For children ages 4 to 7.
         "Synopsis: Throughout the plastic surgery process young children can become confused. During the initial consultation they may ask themselves questions such as: “Why is Mommy going to the doctor? Is Mommy sick?” If these questions are not addressed the child will often imagine fantastical scenarios to fill in the gaps of information they are lacking. This phenomenon becomes more pronounced after the surgery. Once mommy is home and the child sees that mommy is bandaged and bruised, they can become even more worried and inquisitive. Finally, when the bandages come off and mommy looks somewhat different, their confusion may lead to responses that adults may find inappropriate or hard to understand."
          Publisher: Big Tent Books. $24.95
          I don't need to comment, do I?

|

Reform vs. revolution (by Suzie) 




         A sign lit up the darkness: “Revolution is here.” I thought, “Finally.” Then I realized it was just a veterinarian advertising a flea killer. Although disappointed in the scope of this revolution, I do favor the killing of fleas.
         Like many feminists, I feel the tension between reform and revolution. I would prefer radical change, but I’ll take what I can get.
         This reminds me of a quote from Naomi Wolf’s “Fire With Fire”: “Even given all of capitalism’s injustices, pending ‘the revolution,’ women are better off with the means of production in their own hands.”
         Debate if you want.
  (This message was approved by Ginger the Chihuahua, who monitors my computer monitor, which took this photo.)

|

In defense of marriage (by Suzie) 



      This fall, Floridians will vote on the Marriage Protection Amendment to the state constitution.
      When I was married, I didn’t realize other people’s rights could jeopardize my marriage. To me, the greatest threat came from my husband displaying his collection of baseball cards in our bedroom.*
      I’m not a Bible-fearing woman. In fact, I fear people who fear the Bible. They’re the ones pushing this amendment to make sure that same-sex marriage becomes even more illegal that it already is.
     If they want to protect marriage, why stop there? Why not outlaw adultery, for example? Unlike same-sex marriage, the Bible has plenty to say against adultery. Even one of the commandments forbids it.
     Let's urge politicians to take a stand on the issue - before they’re caught. Are they pro-adultery or anti-adultery? If my state can issue a “Choose Life” license plate, why not one that says, "Faithful," with the proceeds going to programs on fidelity. If we can give poor people incentives to marry, why can't we give people a tax credit if they can avoid cheating for a year?
     I understand temptation. But I went to a reorientation camp where I learned to change my desires. Once I learn a gorgeous hunk of man flesh is married, I no longer feel any interest in him whatsoever. I have been cured of this sin.
      Perhaps you think I'm being absurd. But I think we should ask politicians and pastors why they want to outlaw some sins and not others.
---------------
*My good-natured ex-husband approved this joke.

|

Thursday, April 10, 2008

A Fluff Post: On My Muse 



He is called Erato, to be distinguished from the other Erato. He wears leather and big zippers, always left half undone. He's green-skinned, has fangs and is covered with tattoos of snakes and swearwords, but his eyes are the bluest of the blue and angelic. When he's home he is very, very good, but when he's out carousing he is horrid. And mostly he carouses, these days.

Traditionally the muses of writing are seen as female, but I have a male muse. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, if it's still allowed anywhere on earth.

Anyway, the idea of a muse is just a summary way to explain the inner water-hose which fuels my writing. Most days it's just trickling. Some days it's off completely. A few blessed, euphoric and totally exhausting days it blows water at full speed, so fast that I don't have time to take it all down. Those days I end up shivering and breathing very hard, wondering what it was that just happened.

Usually nothing very much happened, but that's how it felt. What comes out of the water hose may be just mud or tadpoles, but the experience is exhilarating.

I suspect that all this make-believe is just another way of writing about "the zone", the kind of state we all enter when something totally takes our concentration, when the game seems to play itself, when every dart we throw hits the bull's eye. It's in the zone that hours disappear, when work is play and play is a strange silent place of utter joy.

Or it might be just Erato writing, when he bothers.

|

So Very Funny 



I came across an interesting study in the Times of India:

According to the study's lead author Thomas E Ford of Western Carolina University, "Sexist humour is not simply benign amusement. It acts as a 'releaser' of prejudice.

"Our research demonstrates that exposure to sexist humour can create conditions that allow men — especially those who have antagonistic attitudes towards women — to express those attitudes in their behaviour."

The researchers came to the conclusion after analysing two experiments. In the first one, they asked a group of male participants to imagine that they were members of a work group in an organisation. In that context, they either read sexist jokes, comparable non-humorous sexist statements, or neutral jokes.

They were then asked to report how much money they would be willing to donate to help a women's organisation.
"We found that men with a high level of sexism were less likely to donate to the women's organisation after reading sexist jokes, but not after reading either sexist statements or neutral jokes," Ford said.

In the second experiment, the researchers showed a selection of video clips of sexist or non-sexist comedy skits to another group of male participants. In the sexist humour setting, four of the clips contained humour depicting women in stereotypical or demeaning roles, while the fifth was neutral.

The men were then asked to participate in a project designed to determine how funding cuts should be allocated among select student organisations. Ford said: "We found that, upon exposure to sexist humour, men higher in sexism discriminated against women by allocating larger funding cuts to a women's organisation than they did to other organisations."

I haven't read the original study so I can't comment on the research itself. But when I Googled for it using the hints this article gave me I noticed something very funny: The study has been out for a few months already, in the sense that it had been accepted for publication in December of 2007 and the press information had been sent. Yet none of the major U.S. or U.K. newspapers had anything on it, as far as I could tell.

This is not how they act in all cases concerning studies about women and men. For instance, when one Richard Lynn, well known for really wacky theories about intelligence, told that he had a piece accepted for publication about women being less intelligent than men I heard that on the BBC. On the BBC! And this at a time when it was not possible to read the piece yet to argue back against the message!

It's all very funny, in a sad-clown way.

|

More Personal Promotion 



If you are interested in the economics of executive pay, check out my post at the Nation's Passing Through blog.

|

The Hillary Clinton Video 



You may have seen this on other blogs (I got it from Shakes Village). I wasn't sure about posting it at first, because the last four minutes are a campaign commercial, and in a way the whole nine minutes are, too. But the first five minutes are well worth watching, because they give a quick and visual summary about the way Hillary Clinton has been treated in the media. If you watch carefully enough you can spot the bits which are pure misogyny and which therefore could be applied to almost any woman running in politics.

Would something of similar viciousness be applied to a male candidate? I'm not sure. But it would not be about him being a man.




|

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

The Stature Gap 



What do you think that is, eh? Like how short a presidential candidate might be? Not in this case. It's all about how McCain looks most like a commander-in-chief:

From the April 8 edition of Fox News' America's Election HQ:

KELLY: All right, let me ask you quickly: Just observing the dynamics, Hillary Clinton cross-examining, John McCain, Barack Obama -- your thoughts?

FLEISCHER: Well, I think there's a stature gap when you look at the three senators. I think that Senator McCain by far looked like he was the best prepared to be commander in chief, and that he had the best intuitive understanding of the issues. I think Senator Obama here was kind of at a -- groping for words. He was nowhere near the normal eloquent Obama he usually is.

KELLY: And a lot of Republicans think that if we go forward into a general election with McCain on one side and Obama on the other, we'll see more of that, because their feeling is he's better on the stump than he is in a debate forum.

Remember this video which shows McCain's intuitive understanding of the issues?





Who pays these guys for their opinions, I wonder?

|

Zora Neale Hurston on TV tonight 



   You may want to catch a documentary on her tonight on PBS. Here's an excellent article on Hurston and the filmmaker.

|

On Cleaning Your Room And Sex 



Two articles on marriage and who does the housework pretty much show the old pattern that women do a lot more hours of housework than men do, even if both have outside jobs, but also show the newer pattern that men are now doing more than their fathers did at home.

Of course that newer pattern is linked with the other newer pattern that women work in the marketplace for more hours than their mothers did.

I have written about the economics of housework before, so I will spare you this time around (or I'm too lazy to talk about it again). But it's interesting to note that one of the articles links housework by men to sex:

Husbands who pitch in around the house get more sex than those who won't help clean up, researchers say in a study that could turn lazy guys into Ty-D-Bol Men.

The mop-and-glow report by the Council on Contemporary Families suggests men who wash the sheets have a better chance of turning their wives on under them.

"If a guy does housework, it looks to the woman like he really cares about her - he's not treating her like a servant," said psychologist Joshua Coleman, who is affiliated with the Council.

Coleman cautioned that the flip side could be worse than scrubbing the toilet.

"If a women feels stressed-out because the house is a mess and the guy's sitting on the couch while she's vacuuming, that's not going to put her in the mood," said Coleman, author of "The Lazy Husband: How to Get Men to Do More Parenting and Housework."

I'm not sure what this quote is suggesting. Perhaps that housework is payment for sex? But the next part of it explains the fatigue aspect of excess housework and how it might make a person feel less interested in lovemaking.

What the quote doesn't suggest is that when two adults share a household and both work outside it an equal sharing of housework might make ethical sense. You know, fairness and all that.

But I do admit that a guy carefully wiping wiping windows on a hot day can look very delicious.

|

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

Music For The End Of The Day 



Betty Carter





Fritz Kreisler




|

Deep Thought For The Day 



Being a feminist blogger is an excellent way to learn humility and also a way to convert one's skin into a turtle shell or to die in the process. It's not an excellent way to earn loads of money or to become the Queen Of All She Surveys.


Only feminist bloggers would have trouble with this fantastic ad for a Honda motorbike, for example. Only feminist bloggers would dare to wonder if woman=bike isn't just a really fun and sexy way to sell transportation. Too bad that feminist bloggers are such party-spoiling prudes, even if they admit that such an ad might not be too bad in a world where in other ads a handsome naked young man turns into a toaster, say.




|

Beauty And The Eye of the Beholder 



That's where beauty is supposed to be: in the eye of its beholder. On the whole women don't see themselves as beautiful, even when the outside society might deem them so. Is that true about men, too? Do men dislike their bodies as intensely as many women seem to dislike theirs? That would be a good research project to do, to find out what men of all ages and races and physical conditions think about the physical attractiveness of their bodies. Or do they think about it much at all?

And if they don't, how much time and energy and bad emotion do women spend on musing over what is wrong with their bodies? What could be done with all that released energy if we could all make peace with our hard-working bodies?

A new book on how women feel about their bodies (not good) has just come out. But the book negates those feelings by showing photographs of bodies which truly are beautiful, in different ways and in different idioms of beauty. A quote from the review:

The self-criticisms by the women photographed in the nude have a universal quality in these days of constant media assault by perfect female bodies (often digitally enhanced). But the surprise of a powerful first book by Seattle photographer Rosanne Olson is: Many of the harsh self-criticisms come from women who might seem to have little reason to complain.

Consider Jessica, 23, with long blond hair and a lithe young body, attributes that many other women could surely covet. Jessica wishes she could change her smallish breasts and her imperfect stomach, but concedes, "We women think we're either too fat or too skinny -- that we aren't what we wish we were."

Olson's "This Is Who I Am: Our Beauty in All Shapes and Sizes" (Artisan, 116 pages, $25.95) is a slim little volume with the lofty goal of helping to change that, one mind at a time.

Its revealing photographs and startling interviews provide a devastating look at women's dissatisfaction with their own bodies, often born during young womanhood and lasting decades afterward. But this remarkable book also offers a persuasive argument for greater acceptance and compassion for one's own body, as well as those of other women with other shapes.

Mmm. Where does all this dissatisfaction come from? I'm not sure, but the popular culture surely has its role to play by showing so many apparently perfect (though often photographically enhanced) women and by using a particular relatively rare body type (tall, slim but with large breasts) as the only beautiful one.

The body fixing game is one that nobody will ever win. By the game I mean the belief that if only something had been fixed life would then be perfect. If I got smaller/bigger/perkier breasts or a tinier nose or whiter teeth or if I lost ten pounds or managed to grow my legs five inches, then, but only then, life would be wonderful! It won't be. For one thing, something else would immediately look like it needs fixing next. For another thing, we age and then the battle against wrinkles and gravity would start. It's a rigged game, a hopeless game, a game which only benefits the sellers of all those fixing materials.

This is not to say that it would be easy to step out of the game and to refuse to play it. Books showing different ways to see beauty are useful in that, and so is just trying to refuse to play the game. Sure, take care of your body, exercise it and decorate it and honor the fact that it has taken you to this point in time at least. But it will not take you to paradise through the fixing game.

|

Monday, April 07, 2008

From The No Comment Files 






Transcript here.

I don't get whatever the joke is that Hitchens thinks he just made. Wasn't he supposed to be the go-to-guy on humor?

|

Meanwhile, in Texas 



You may have followed the events taking place at the polygamist Mormon retreat in Texas, one built by Warren Jeffs who has been sentenced in Utah for his role in the rape of a fourteen-year old:

Days after authorities removed 219 children and women from the polygamist retreat in Eldorado, Texas, police still were not sure if the teen whose call prompted the raid was among those who were safely removed.

Authorities told the Associated Press the 16-year-old had called and reported physical and sexual abuse on the ranch last week. She claimed to be married to a 50-year-old man.

It is as yet unclear what might have taken place at this religious retreat. But if it is forced marriages for minor girls it is against the law.

While reading about these events I couldn't help thinking that they offer an extreme example of something which happens fairly often: the clashing of religious and human or individual rights. Consider that Jeffs' sect practices polygamy for reasons that they regard as religious. Then consider the consequences of this practice: young girls being forced to marry much older men, young boys thrown away as surplus to the needs of a polygamous society.

Yes, the above example is an extreme one. But milder versions of these clashes of rights happen all the time, and one important role for the government and the court system is to decide how to weigh one group of rights against another group of rights.

An example of a Supreme Court case which favored the religious rights is Wisconsin v. Yoder. That case, in 1972, decided that

Amish children could not be placed under compulsory education past 8th grade, as it violated their fundamental right to freedom of religion.

I doubt that it was the Amish children who pursued this case or that those same children were then free to have as much elective education as they wished once they had finished eight grade. No, the decision was not about the children's rights but about the rights of a religious community to survive.

The Bush administration has chosen to focus on the enforcement of religious rights within the wider program of civil rights enforcement. What does this mean when human rights and religious rights clash and no laws prioritize one over the other? I'm worried.

|

A Lovely Bit of Research 



Or a lovely popularization of a bit of research is this one:

A new brain-scan study may help explain what's going on in the minds of financial titans when they take risky monetary gambles — sex. When young men were shown erotic pictures, they were more likely to make a larger financial gamble than if they were shown a picture of something scary, such a snake, or something neutral, such as a stapler, university researchers reported.

The arousing pictures lit up the same part of the brain that lights up when financial risks are taken.

"You have a need in an evolutionary sense for both money and women. They trigger the same brain area," said Camelia Kuhnen, a Northwestern University finance professor who conducted the study with a Stanford University psychologist.

Their research appears in the current edition of the peer-reviewed journal NeuroReport.

The study only involved 15 heterosexual young men at Stanford University. It focused on the sex and money hub, the V-shaped nucleus accumbens, which sits near the base of the brain and plays a central role in what you experience as pleasure.

When that hub was activated by the erotic images, the men were far more likely to bet high on a random chance game that would earn them either a dollar or a dime. Each man made more than 50 gambles under brain scans.

Stanford psychologist Brian Knutson, a lead author of the study, says it's all about the power of emotion and arousal and our financial decisions. The trigger doesn't have to be sex — it could be chocolate or a winning lottery ticket.

So we learn what financial titans feel from looking at the brain scans of fifteen heterosexual young men at a university? Ok. And then we learn that "You have a need in an evolutionary sense for both money and women. They trigger the same brain area."

What about chocolate, then? The psychologist (as opposed to the finance professor) noted that it's about arousal and not necessarily about sex, but still, the researchers didn't test anything on women. Nada, because they couldn't figure out anything that would arouse women. Not even chocolate!

I find these types of popularizations endlessly fascinating. From the findings we go straight to speculations:

The link between sex and greed goes back hundreds of thousands of years, to men's evolutionary role as provider or resource gatherer to attract women, said Kevin McCabe, professor of economics, law and neuroscience at George Mason University, who wasn't part of the study.

"Risk-taking is a natural way of increasing your relative success, but, of course, there's a downside to it, what we're seeing right now in the economy," McCabe said.

So. Professor McCabe is an economist, by the way. I'm always astonished to find that evolutionary psychologists don't have to have the kind of training I would have expected them to have. You know, something to do with psychology and genetics. Perhaps that is the reason I'm beginning to feel like an expert in that field, too.

To clarify the above criticisms: The study findings do not mean that these speculations have been confirmed. Note, first, that no women were tested at all. Suppose that they had tested women and that those tests would have found a similar relationship to hold for women. Would that then mean that women were the providers and needed to take risks, hm?

If you didn't get my major disgust with this article, read the final quote:

This all makes sense to Harvard economist Terry Burnham, author of the book "Mean Genes." Burnham said it could be all summed up in a famous line from the movie "Scarface."

"In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women."

Yet another economist writing about genes. My, how we do get around. And he's writing about women as something we all get, but only after power and money. That leaves any heterosexual female reader -- where, exactly? As the thing to be gotten, of course.

|

Today's Question 



Provoked by the number of column inches Hillary Clinton's tax record revelations have given us:

When will John McCain release his tax and health records?
We are all eagerly and curiously waiting.

|

Sunday, April 06, 2008

Alwin Nikolais: Electronic Nostalgia Finally Made Flesh by Anthony McCarthy 

Having worked in a primitive electronic music lab in the early 70s, the period of patch cords, reel tape that sometimes stretched unexpectedly and other ancient technology, electronic music of that time can make me feel strangely nostalgic.

That’s probably why I originally bought the album, Alwin Nikolais, Electronic Dance Music. Maybe it was the photo of his extravagantly costumed dancers on the cover. The pieces cover a period from 1966 (Chimera: Dance 1) to 1989. The electronic media used seem to be everything from tape samples, the Moog ( Nikolais not only owned the first one but he is said to have startled Robert Moog with potentials he hadn’t imagined.) and finally the Synclavier. The range of expression includes mysterious, dramatic, serene, slap-happy (the delightful Blank on Blank). There is even impressive satirical use of the most obnoxious musical invention of all time, the back beat. Nikolais was a real composer.

Until the other day still photos of his dances were all I’d seen, then, by chance, this You Tube of Tensile Involvement came up in an unrelated search. The video is kind of jumpy but it gives you the whole piece.

Here are two other excerpts from a different production.

I wish there was more to see and hear but I haven’t found much online except still photos.

Other than Milton Babbitt, the great master of the early synthesizer, Nikolais might have produced some of the most compelling music using electronics in the medium’s short history. Maybe it’s because it was created for the necessities of dancing in mind. Some people say that Nikolais was the founder of multi-media. I don’t know, not being more than a musician. But if he wasn’t the founder, he was a master of the actual practice of it.

There is more information at the Nikolais-Louis Foundation for Dance, Inc.

* You’d think with the number of patch cords hooked up that year, I’d be better at untangling my computer and stereo cables. Proving the limits of education.
|

"With the television coverage has come more interest." by Anthony McCarthy 

or This is X-actly What I Mean

Those X-treme fighting spectacles that are so popular on TV have caught on and are being promoted for children who still have their baby teeth. And those parents, the ones who are supposed to be looking out for their health and safety, they’re a big part of the problem.

FALL RIVER - One fighter kicked and threw a punch. The other grabbed his opponent behind the neck. Tyler Benoit and Justin Pereira were locked up now, a tangle of arms and legs, spinning around and finally falling to the mat with a thud, as the crowd watched, rapt.

"Push away, Tyler!" Derek Benoit shouted at his son. "Push away!"

Tyler is 7 years old, his opponent was 8. And their showdown one night last week at Gillett's Mixed Martial Arts gym in Fall River was just practice, just two children sparring, in padded headgear, in front of their instructors - no strikes to the head allowed.

But plenty of Massachusetts youths are dreaming of becoming real mixed martial arts fighters, where the punches are harder and the fights very real. And in Massachusetts, unlike most other states, including Louisiana and Mississippi, there are no laws or regulations prohibiting minors from entering the fray.

Those of us who aren’t fans of commercial maiming as entertainment have a lot to learn about this cultural phenomenon.

"I have parents who kind of scare me sometimes," said Gillett last week at his Fall River gym.

"They're in there, wrestling on the mats, helping kids out. Moms and dads getting on the mats working on things: triangle chokes, arm bars, knee bars, guillotine chokes. Moms and dads letting their kids choke them just for practice reasons. The days of Dad throwing a ball with little Billy are over. Now, Dad's on the mat letting Billy put him in an arm bar or a choke hold until he taps."

Apparently “taps” are what are known in the S&M world as “safety words”. You wonder what this means in the ever more violent, ultra-macho, ultra-conformist, shame enforced, tough guy culture. Not much, apparently.

"The culture is to accept pain, rather than report it," he said. "The culture is not to quit, not to tap out."

As always, those who point out that children’s lives, bodies and brains are at risk in this nascent profit making pathological-parent fulfilling industry are accused of “not understanding the sport”. In this world, a medical doctor understanding brain injury and other serious health consequences count for less than the wisdom of gym owners and other commercial promoters. Notice that boxing for 8-year olds and football for 5-year-olds are the excuses given for allowing these newer venues for brain damage in children. Two wrongs apparently do make it all right, when there's a profit to be made.

Read the article and consider the consequences of this being promoted on TV. Doesn’t the left have a moral responsibility to the children whose parents willingly hand them to the commercial cult of The American Moloch whose altars sit in just about every living room?
|

Murder and Serial Infanticide Were More Acceptable Than Women Owning Their Bodies by Anthony McCarthy 

Our local paper has a 25-year's ago article about the case of likely serial infanticide and possibly the death of a public health nurse from the 1950s, the topic of this post from two years ago. It contains some more information giving a picture in what this country was really like in the period before Roe and when effective birth control was either illegal or unavailable.

Aside from the picture it gives of the hypocrisy of the time, including the real possibility of political corruption, you might read it with an eye to the consequences in womens lives and their ability to have a job.

Boyle interviewed Osgood in June of 1983. Osgood supervised Thomas from June 11, 1952 to Sept. 11, 1953. Osgood told Boyle he remembered "Shirley (Thomas) being pregnant on two occasions. On the second time, (Osgood) questioned her about it, and she stated she had a water tumor. She would leave work appearing pregnant and would come back in a few days not appearing pregnant."

When Walter Osgood suggested Thomas get a physical, she refused and left G.E.

Osgood's recollections to Boyle were corroborated by statements made by a G.E. nurse that same June. The nurse had worked at G.E. at the time of Thomas' employment.

Another employee named Muriel Gesis told Boyle she recalled Thomas being pregnant at least four times. Gesis said Thomas took few enough days off that she would not have to take a physical before returning to work. Contrary to company policy, she always worked to full term, angering other working women who followed the rules and left after their first trimester

The consequences of women not being able to control their bodies go a lot farther than being able to choose to have an abortion. This story shows the real risks that will come with the overturning of Roe, it tells us the real cost of abortion being dangerous and illegal, of contraception being prohibited. So many aspects of women's ownership of their lives are at stake with the prospect of abortion and birth control being illegal or unavailable.
|

This Is The Sound of Hair Tearing by Anthony McCarthy 

Edited from a blog comment.

The first job of a Democratic presidential candidate is to win the election, it isn't to defend talk show hosts. Defending talk show hosts, that's our job.

Unless Obama asked the guy to say that McCain is a war monger he has no obligation to defend him at the cost of losing the election, that war monger then becoming president. Keeping the war monger from being president is somewhat more important than this issue, surely. He doesn't have the time nor does his campaign have the resources to deal with non-essential issues like this.

If he forfeited the election over things like this he would also be betraying his foremost obligation, his obligation to those he is asking to vote for him. Candidates asking for the nomination of the Democratic Party make a promise that they will try to win the election. A big part of that obligation is keeping things in perspective and for him and his campaign the defense of this talk show host isn't high on the list. A candidate’s first and last obligation is to The People, not the media.

There are dramatic declarations often made on the blog threads that the cost to the candidate of our support is them living up to some arbitrary and absurd standard of purity over non-essential details. When those demands will likely cost them other, and probably more votes, the threat doesn't do anything productive. It risks losing elections and it marginalizes the left. It produces nothing of value. You have to have the power to deliver more votes in order to demand that the candidate will lose others. We don't have a history of delivering that majority.

Winning the election and getting enough power to change laws is the whole point of representative democracy. In order to change anything you have to win. What is so hard to understand about that which the failure of going on four decades of futile leftist puritanism hasn't taught us?
|

Saturday, April 05, 2008

Real Questions From an E-mail Exchange, Please Discuss by Anthony McCarthy 

Imagine there’s no Viagra, ... no Enzyte, too.

Now that you’ve done one impossible thing today, imagine that instead of the male sex drugs that are so uncontroversially advertised on broadcast TV, there were only products available that put women “in the game, in the driver’s seat, hitting homers, with or without the risk of arousal lasting more than four hours”.

Do you think they would be advertised every night during the network news?

Do you think that the virtual silence from the sex cops over the rooster pill ads on TV today would hold if, instead, they were drugs sold to women so they could have more sex into their elder years?

What would happen if a female version of Bob Dole did TV commercials for sex drugs?
|

...... Same old, Same Old, Same Old,..... by Anthony McCarthy 

Just haven’t had the stomach to hear how the cabloids are playing the Clinton’s tax information, though I’m sure it will end up as yet another “scandal”, the Clintons must rank as the all-time champions for creating scandals by following the law and ethics rules. You can bet that even paying more in taxes and giving away more in charitable contributions will be “scandals” on the level of “travel gate” and “file gate”. As we learned from “transition gate” they can be mixed up in scandals that never happened.

Here’s a precis you’ll need to get through the next round of “Clinton scandals”.

The couple earned $357,629 in 2000, Clinton's last year in the White House and Hillary Clinton's first year campaigning for public office herself, and their combined income topped $20.4 million last year, according to the returns filed for 2000 to 2006 and the estimates for 2007.

Over the eight years, the Clintons paid nearly $34 million in federal taxes and gave more than $10 million to charity.

"Wow!" Dean Baker, codirector of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a Washington-based, nonpartisan think tank, said about the figures. The $3 million the couple contributed to charity last year "would be a lifetime of income for most people," who earn an average of $30,000 annually, he said.

Jay Carson, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, said the Clintons have been generous with their new wealth, giving away nearly 10 percent of their income. Further, he said, the Clintons' tax burden was much higher than the typical wealthy taxpayer.

Over the past eight years, the Clintons were hit with a tax bill averaging about 31 percent of their adjusted gross income, compared with the average 21 percent paid by taxpayers earning more than $10 million in 2005, Carson said.

There you have it. That’s what the Republicans and their presstitutes will be working with this weekend. So break out your anti-emetics and watch the lies flies.

I have heard how this is going to "kill off her ‘blue collar’ support". It takes an electronic village of upper class idiots to figure that blue collar workers don’t already know that the politicians they vote for are generally rich. They think we’re too stupid to know that already. Extra points if you already guessed that McCain’s multi-millions along with those which his wife won’t reveal aren’t going to hurt him with the same blue collar voters the media just know won’t vote for Obama because he’s black either.

McCain's money brain, Phil Gramm's, UBS Vice-chairmanship and the other boodle he's raked from the industries he did so much to enrich while he was a Senator won't count either. That'll be "his personal business".
|

Coincidence? No, Just Listening To NPR Again. by Anthony McCarthy 

Another one that has had way more than their share of NPR time is Leon Fleisher, as mentioned here just over a year ago. As I’m sitting here, Susan Stamburg, aka “The woman who can’t open her mouth without a cliche coming out,” returns to that worked out mine and comes up with more of more of more of the same. Just imagine how many working pianists haven’t had their “NPR Free Speech Rights moment” yet while they do their sixtieth story about Fleisher. That’s not to mention trombonists or non-hack people on the political left.
|

At Long Last, Fresh Air On The Pirates Who Plunder Our Commonwealth by Anthony McCarthy 

The past week on Fresh Air from WHYY, was better than average. Especially good was the interview Terry Gross did Thursday with Michael Greenberger, from The University of Maryland School of Law, about the disaster that the deregulation of banking, lending and investments have caused. Usually what you hear or read is all about the poor investors who got taken while they were attempting to make money off of other peoples’ work and lives. Greenberger, though, touched several times on what it meant for people who were lured into borrowing by the loan sharking operations that unregulated markets always generate when allowed to, as well as those victimized without ever having agreed to participate in the corrupt system.

He pointed out the most basic point, one generally unmentionable in our media, the money stolen through the “new financial instruments” came from somewhere and it goes to those who made the best bets in the crap game that is the product of economic policies adopted from the 80's and 90's. Those in the management class, who through a combination of incompetence and larceny move that money from those who earned it into the winners’ pile, somehow become disgustingly richer as a result of their “work”.

Especially important was his repeatedly citing Phil Gramm as the source of the worst of the “reforms” that allowed the wholesale theft of as of yet untold tens of billions, maybe hundreds of billions. He especially mentioned removing “derivatives” from any possibility of regulation. Noting that Gramm is John McCain’s principle economic advisor is especially important this year. Since McCain himself admits that he knows nothing about economic issues, his choice of Gramm to serve as his brain in these matters should be enough to show he’s the opposite of the reformer his media-driven mythology insists on. That white-knight role is a pose that was created for him after he got caught in the Keating scandal. With his history, positioning the entirely tainted, ultra-sleazy, Phil Gramm as his candidate for economic Czar should be enough to kill that one off, though not in the corporate media. We’re going to have to do it outside the moldy media.

You’ve got to wonder what Russ Feingold was thinking when he handed that bucket of whitewash to McCain. What that could teach about the belief that process “reforms” are the answer to the corruption in American life, and the rather amazing fact that our politics seem to become increasingly more corrupt as these reforms are attempted, will be forced as that corruption balloons.

The word “reform”, how it has been distorted to mean “allowing theft by means of deception” and how it benefits from the suppression of historical education is worthy of a full airing. Maybe the generally perceptive Geoff Nunberg should target it for some intense investigation. How many of the changes in laws and regulation that get called “reform” today are nothing but a covert campaign to make theft by the rich legal? I’d guess that use of the word counts for at least 80% of its appearance in the corpus today.

John McCain using a complete rotter like Gramm as his economic brain is what Democrats and the left should be talking about constantly. As it is we are engaged in bashing both of those with the only chance at preventing Gramm giving the rest of our money to those who own him. We do have a bad habit of not keeping our eyes on the prize, don’t we. Maybe it’s because we have so little experience in getting it. As long as those who put pie-in-the-sky ahead of the task at hand are in charge, we will continue to fail to get even what we can here and now. Until theft is once again made illegal and those criminals are jailed and the money returned to its owners, process reform is a minor detail.

-----------------------------------
Unlike many of the media hacks and executive apologists brought in to explain these issues, Greenberger is a law professor. Maybe it’s a clue that you get new thinking when you ask different people who know what they’re talking about to explain these things. The rest of NPR should take that into account before they call the same shell game artists and con-men from the same old guess pools and other Republican fronts* - along with the one requisite insider-Democratic chump - for the twentieth time this year. If they want to inform, they would. Based on their continuing performance, that doesn’t seem to be their purpose.

Terry Gross can be one of the most frustrating as well as one of the best media figures in America. If her program was nothing but repeated attempts to prove that she’s still the coolest kid in the high school it would be less frustrating but sometimes her program is important and excellent. I wish she’d drop the increasingly tenuous attempts to fit in with the aging, youth culture, in-crowd. You would think that at this time of her life she doesn’t have to try for that distinction anymore. Terry, if I want to hear about TV I’ll watch TV. Why do you think I turn on the radio to begin with?

* As I am typing this, Steve Roberts is on the Diane Rehm Show blasting a caller for pointing out that John Yoo has been handsomely rewarded for his part in the Bush regime’s use of torture by a prestigious position at Berkeley and a platform provided to him by NPR. Roberts is using the cover of “The First Amendment”.

When did it become constitutional doctrine that there was a “First Amendment right” to talk on NPR? If this silly smokescreen for putting the worst of far right mouthpieces on NPR - and just about every other organ of the media- is true, some important truths need to be pursued. Seems that this “First Amendment” is a conspicuously, unevenly distributed commodity in the United States these days. Since there is limited time for this right to be exercised, isn’t it time for Roberts, who has wasted enormous amounts of air time for decades, repeating the received wisdom everyone else in DC blathers, to let someone else exercise their "rights"? Apparently he and a few select others, are hogging all of this "right" to themselves.

Yoo being given the privilege of promoting torture and excusing his part in its practice is not the fulfillment of his rights but a choice made by producers and others in the media to curry favor with criminals with power and money. When NPR is in bed with the likes of John Yoo, its reason to exist evaporates.

Rehm seems to have an increasing problem supplying this "right" to any but DC insiders these days, her Friday shows, for example. She seems to see the problem herself since as I continue typing she is objecting now to Roberts’ defense of giving the man who facilitates torture an NPR megaphone. But that only makes you wonder even more why she doesn’t get other people on her own show.
|

Friday, April 04, 2008

Friday critter blogging: What's that smell? (by Suzie) 

         

  Instead of a photo, I'm posting the smell of whatever my Chihuahua Ginger rolled in. It's so eye-watering strong that I'm sure you can smell it. In fact, I hope the stink doesn't crash the server. 
       My sister's St. Bernard, Chloe, used to love to roll on fish that had been dead for days beside the lake in Texas, near where she lived. The good news: Ginger is much easier to wash than Chloe. (For those on MySpace, here's Chloe's page.) 
     Ginger arrived two weeks ago. I find myself cooing: "You're a pretty little girl!" Then I rear back in feminist horror and say, "Actually, you're big for a Chihuahua. And you're not a girl. You're a mother whose breeding days are over. You're strong and smart." And really stinky. (Where's the shampoo?)    
|

Friday Critter Blogging: The Parrot Edition 



Pictures courtesy of Tlazolteotl, who tells us that the first parrot, Aziza, is a dusky Pionus:





The second parrot, Kelele, is a Timneh African grey:




|

Friday Critter Blogging: The Blond Edition 







That is Ali's Brook.





And this is scout prime's Willie B. He is originally a New Orleans kitty.

|

The Florida primary (by Suzie) 

     

         I get irritated when people call the Florida primary "meaningless." Like all elections, it was a snapshot of the voters at a particular time and place. Yes, it's possible that some people would have voted differently if the candidates had been allowed to campaign here, but it's not as if there was a media blackout.
        The primary holds special meaning for me because I accompanied a friend to the polls for the first time.
        I met Rom Delacroix at church. When I heard he worked at the local cancer center, I told him that he was my new best friend. As a patient, I meant that as a joke, but it came to pass. 
         A Parisian, Rom came to the United States in 1987 to work in an intentional community with children who had autism or Down syndrome. He later worked as a bookbinder, cheesemaker and teacher before going to nursing school. He recently became an advanced registered nurse practitioner (ARNP). 
         Rom says he appreciates feminism for raising the status of nurses. 
         In December, he became a U.S. citizen at a moving ceremony with lots of flag-waving. (On a side note: I didn't realize the government still asks people if they have ever belonged to the Communist Party.)  
         "I'd been thinking of becoming a citizen for a long, long time. It was just a question of paperwork," Rom told me today. "But I realized this election was very, very important, and I wanted to vote for my girl, Hillary. It's time for a woman to be president. She has good experience, intelligence and she's a Clinton."
        Voting for the first time "was very orgasmic" but "too quick." He said he wanted to vote for Clinton over and over. Now he's angry that his vote won't count.
         I don't want to make this too partisan. I have close friends who are just as passionate about Obama. It makes sense that those who voted for Clinton want their votes counted because she won, and they might feel differently if she had not. At the time, however, many of us went to the polls thinking that Democrats would sort out this mess.
   
|

Can we reclaim affirmative action? (by Suzie) 



         In his speech on race, Barack Obama said some people have implied his “candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action.” Conservatives have done such a good job of equating “affirmative action” with “giving preference to minorities who are less qualified” that even a Democrat considered liberal wants no part of it.
         Affirmative action can take different forms, such as advertising a job opening in a publication aimed at Latinos or holding a science camp for girls. But most people seem to associate affirmative action with preferences for white women or people of color in employment or education. Ballot initiatives are underway in five states to ban such preferences.
         I’ve read articles that say women (or white women specifically) benefit the most from affirmative action. I’m not sure how that was determined, but, hey, good for women! Let’s launch a campaign in which we wear T-shirts proclaiming, “I benefited from affirmative action.”
         Let’s talk about why we want to diversify campuses and workplaces, and how "diversity" is not just code for "color." Diversity also applies to women (whatever their color) in positions or disciplines dominated by men.
        Let’s explain that we aren’t lowering standards; we’re changing them to better reflect what we value. Let’s remember the need for education, training and support.

|

Watch out or we’ll start talking about quotas (by Suzie) 



          During this election season, there has been much gnashing of teeth over the idea that a woman might (or should) vote for a candidate because she’s a woman. Many women swear they would never, ever do such a thing. They support candidates who best serve their interests, regardless of gender.
         Meanwhile, countries around the globe have gender quotas for political offices.
         You can get some great data, as well as the pros and cons, from the Quota Project, a joint project of Stockholm University and the international Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.
          In general, quotas for women represent a shift from one concept of equality to another. The classic liberal notion of equality was a notion of "equal opportunity" or "competitive equality". Removing the formal barriers, for example, giving women voting rights, was considered sufficient. The rest was up to the individual women.
           Following strong feminist pressure in the last few decades, as expressed for instance in the Beijing “Platform for Action” of 1995, a second concept of equality is gaining increasing relevance and support: the notion of "equality of result". The argument is that real equal opportunity does not exist just because formal barriers are removed. Direct discrimination and a complex pattern of hidden barriers prevent women from getting their share of political influence. Quotas and other forms of positive measures are thus a means towards equality of result. The argument is based on the experience that equality as a goal cannot be reached by formal equal treatment as a means. If barriers exist, it is argued, compensatory measures must be introduced as a means to reach equality of result. From this perspective, quotas are not discrimination (against men), but compensation for structural barriers that women meet in the electoral process.

          The United Nations held a news conference in February to present its "2008 Map of the Political Representation of Women." The percentage of women in national parliaments has risen from 15.7 in 2005 to 17.7 in 2008.
          A news release quotes Anders Johnsson, Secretary-General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. “Asked what practical steps could be taken to ‘kick start’ the increase in women representation, Mr. Johnsson noted that the top-ranked countries all had some kind of quota system.”
          Quotas should be a temporary measure, Johnson added. He and other UN officials also talked about training and mentoring women as leaders.
          I'm impatient for change. I'm happy to talk quotas, even if it does nothing else but serve as the outer limit for negotiations. Sometimes you need to ask for more than you can get if you want to get anything at all. 

|

Thursday, April 03, 2008

More Laura Nyro 





|

Still Lively After All These Years 



Kathy Lee Gifford is returning to television:

Kathie Lee Gifford had no intention of returning to TV – she just happened to be in the right place at the right time.

"I was having lunch with a friend at [Manhattan restaurant] Michael's on Nov. 7, and Hoda [Kotb] ambushed me and said, 'Will you come on the Today show?' " Gifford, still lively at 54, told PEOPLE the day of Matt Lauer's announcement that she would co-host the NBC morning program's 10 a.m. fourth hour. She starts next Monday.

Imagine that, still lively at 54. Not dead or anything.

The world of television offers a fascinating glimpse of the society we pretend to live in: Almost all women are young and beautiful, with Barbie-like body proportions, and most of the men are young and handsome, too. The few old people we see regularly on television are almost all men, however, and in general television, as opposed to the real world, has many more men than women. Something happens to women in the television world which makes them not exist in large numbers and/or die young. It's probably that lack of liveliness the quote refers to.

That the U.S. culture is ageist goes without saying, but Rush Limbaugh has still said it, with the kind of distortion he excels in:

There is this thing in this country that, as you age -- and this is particularly, you know, women are hardest hit on this, and particularly in Hollywood -- America loses interest in you, and we know this is true because we constantly hear from aging actresses, who lament that they can't get decent roles anymore, other than in supporting roles that will not lead to any direct impact, yay or nay, in the box office. While Hollywood box-office receipts may be stagnant, none of that changes the fact that this is a country obsessed with appearance. It's a country obsessed with looks. The number of people in public life who appear on television or on the big screen, who are content to be who they are, you can probably count on one hand. Everybody's trying to make themselves look different -- and in that situation, in that case, they think they're making themselves look better. It's just the way our culture has evolved. It's the way the country is. It's like almost an addiction that some people have to what I call the perfection that Hollywood presents of successful, beautiful, fun-loving people. So the question is this: Will this country want to actually watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?

Mm. How about watching a guy president get older, day by day? Say, one like John McCain? Or does he get to benefit from the old guy exception to the ageist rules?

|

Goldilocks and the Three Bears: A Political Fairy Tale 



I once wrote a story called "The Little Red Riot-Helmet", where George Bush takes the place of the Little Red Riding-Hood. The reason for that exercise was that it was fun, but I also think that there is something to be learned from the use of fairy tales in the analysis of American politics. After all, we already use sports for that purpose, and fairy tales are at least equally steeped in deep mythological meanings and those whispering voices which connect directly with the more primal parts of our brains.

This is why reading the most recent Maureen Dowd column on Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton reminded me of Goldilocks and the Three Bears. Goldilocks is a little girl who enters the house of the three bears while the bears are out:

At the table in the kitchen, there were three bowls of porridge. Goldilocks was hungry. She tasted the porridge from the first bowl.

"This porridge is too hot!" she exclaimed.

So, she tasted the porridge from the second bowl.

"This porridge is too cold," she said

So, she tasted the last bowl of porridge.

"Ahhh, this porridge is just right," she said happily and she ate it all up.

After she'd eaten the three bears' breakfasts she decided she was feeling a little tired. So, she walked into the living room where she saw three chairs. Goldilocks sat in the first chair to rest her feet.

"This chair is too big!" she exclaimed.

So she sat in the second chair.

"This chair is too big, too!" she whined.

So she tried the last and smallest chair.

"Ahhh, this chair is just right," she sighed. But just as she settled down into the chair to rest, it broke into pieces!

Goldilocks was very tired by this time, so she went upstairs to the bedroom. She lay down in the first bed, but it was too hard. Then she lay in the second bed, but it was too soft. Then she lay down in the third bed and it was just right. Goldilocks fell asleep.

I'm not giving away the ending of the story, and it might not apply to the way Maureen Dowd always finds fault with Hillary Clinton (too harsh, too powerful, too masculine) and with Barack Obama (too timid, too nice, too effeminate). As an example of this, her latest column says:

When pressed about whether he's ready for Swift-boating, Obama has seemed a bit cavalier. But the Hillary camp will garrote him with his mistakes until he fully appreciates what garroting feels like. Ickes told a Web site Tuesday that he has been pursuing superdelegates by pressing the Rev. Wright issue.

...

Obama has been less adept at absorbing the lesson of Hillary's metamorphosis from entitled queen of the party to scrappy blue-collar mama. His strenuous and inadvertently hilarious efforts to woo working-class folk in Pennsylvania have only made him seem more effete. Keeping his tie firmly in place, he genteelly sipped his pint of Yuengling beer at Sharky's sports cafe in Latrobe and bowled badly in Altoona. Challenging Obama to a bowl-off, Hillary kindly offered to "spot him two frames."

It is very hard not to think that John McCain is the third bear of Maureen Dowd's story, the one who turns out to be just right for her. His personal foibles are not dissected, his ignorance of economics or memory lapses in foreign politics don't fire Dowd's keyboard, for some reason. He is the bear hiding just behind the corner, perhaps.

So I think that Dowd is a secret supporter of John McCain. Why else would she never write bad things about him? But McCain is not the bear who is just right, unless you like your bears getting into violent paroxysms of anger and eating you up.

|

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

Welcome to Gilead 



Gilead is the name of the dystopian country in Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale, and this news story sounds like something we would only read in that Gilead:

Police in Houston say a 14-year-old girl who delivered a stillborn fetus in an airliner restroom on her way back from a middle-school field trip will not be charged with any wrongdoing.

Homicide investigators say they interviewed both the girl and a 14-year-old boy believed to be the father.

Police say that prosecutors decided not to pursue charges against the girl. The fetus was found in a waste can on a Continental Airlines flight that landed at Houston after a flight from New York.

Authorities say the girl told police she didn't know she was pregnant. Preliminary autopsy results indicated the fetus was stillborn and not viable.

The girl's name has not been released.

Homicide investigators???? The fetus was stillborn and not viable, and in any case it was a fetus. What wrongdoing could she possibly have been charged with? Leaving a dead fetus in a waist can, perhaps, rather than wrapping it up carefully and taking it home to show to her parents?

She is fourteen years old, scared and in pain, I would think, and something horrible is happening to her. What would an adult woman have done in her place? Are all women now supposed to take extreme care not to have a miscarriage in any public place, because should that happen someone will call in the homicide investigators?

This story makes me sick, and not because of what the girl did or did not do.

|

The Goddess of Less-Than-Free Markets 



That's me, when it comes to certain markets, especially the markets for medical care. It's not terribly popular in this country to point out that markets are technical things, not something that god has created to mete out justice, love and bon-bons for all, and that markets which are pretty much left alone work great with some products and horribly with other products.

One product the markets have trouble with is health care. Of course health care is not just one product, but I'm going to pretend it is, for reasons of exposition. To see why this particular product (or many actual products inside that general category) causes difficulties for the markets, think of a totally different product, say bread.

Bread is something most of us have eaten and bought. We know how to judge whether bread is fresh and we know whether we like its taste. We can also judge pretty well what the price tag of, say, $3.25 on the loaf means to us. Sure, the baker of the bread knows more about it than we do, but on the whole we are pretty confident in our ability to judge bread as it is sold in the marketplace.

Now imagine a very odd world in which health care is called bread. You wake up in the morning and listen to your stomach rumbling, wondering what that might mean. The rumblings don't stop after a day or so and you start getting weaker. Better make an appointment with a bread specialist.

The specialist will then examine you and run some additional tests to see if you need bread or not, and if so, what kind of bread might be best for you. You sit there hoping that it's not an expensive type of bread and praying that the rumblings were not about hunger at all.

Then the bread specialist comes back and gives you a diagnosis and a recommendation for a particular type of bread, one which she or he has just happened to have baked and can sell you at $23, 567! You will then have to decide if that seems like a good deal.

Now, the story is preposterous, but the point of it is not: Consumers have very little information in health care markets, they don't really know if the product they are told to consume is the one they should be consuming, and they don't really know if the price is fair to pay. The recommendations they get come from the very same people who are selling the product to them! And all this happens in a situation that might be akin to starving to death from the lack of bread so you can't really get up and shop around to get the bread at the cheapest possible price.

Not all health care products are like the imaginary bread of my little story. But most of the products which really cost us a lot are indeed almost exactly like that. Yet McCain's health care proposal advocates more market competition as the way to reduce health care costs, presumably in the form of greater price competition. But what does such a competition mean in these circumstances?

Health care markets have never been allowed to operate without government intervention, by the way. Note that physicians must be licensed and that medical schools stress their role as the patients' agents, not as the sellers of health care. Malpractice suits exist to provide a reason for all physicians to avoid overtreatment for selfish financial reasons, and all types of medical firms must satisfy various governmental watchdog organizations. I'm not sure if McCain knows this, of course.

|

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

The Category of Personal Promotion 



I'm blogging as a guest at the Passing Through blog of the Nation magazine. Check the first post out if you like economics.

|

April Fool's Day 



I forgot about that, and now I wonder what I have swallowed without any cynicism today.

We really have had seven years of being April fools, haven't we? At least in terms of believing the propaganda campaigns of the Bush administration and especially the advertising push for the Iraq invasion and occupation.

Perhaps that is why I can't think of any clever stunt I could pull on you today. But happy All Fools Day, anyway.

|

It's A Jungle Out There 






Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon has written a book It's A Jungle Out There. The Feminist Survival Guide to Politically Inhospitable Environments. I read it with lots of enjoyment. Amanda is really very funny in the book, so despite it's depressing topic the book is not at all depressing. It's breezy and well written and takes us all on the kind of adventure a young feminist in Texas and then on a feminist blog might experience. Well, not just any young feminist, but someone like Amanda Marcotte. A warrior gal, though with the Mona Lisa smile.

The book packs an astonishing amount of information into its pages. It also mentions this blog in the Appendix which demonstrates Amanda's excellent taste.

I think the intended reader of Amanda's book, as also of the earlier book by Jessica Valenti (of the Feministing.com): Full Frontal Feminism: A Young Woman's Guide to Why Feminism Matters, is a teenager or young woman, one who is not sure if coming out as a feminazi is worth all the hassle and all those nasty attacks that an out-of-closet feminist still faces. Whether the books work for that particular audience is something I really cannot say, given my ancient standing as a feminazi of the highest degree. But I hope that they work.

Do you think that Amanda's and Jessica's books might be the beginning of a new wave of feminism as a respectable and womanly thing to do? I sure hope so.

|

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

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