An Act of War (by Phila)

The Right blogosphere has been very excited, lately, about reports that members of the Mexican army "invaded" a home in Phoenix and murdered its occupant (who appears to have been a drug dealer). The initial impetus for this story came from wingnut radio host (and former congressman) J.D. Hayworth, who got the story from Mark Spencer of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association. Spencer backed his theory up with a hearsay report that appeared in internal memos from the Phoenix Police Department, which he posted online (apparently in defiance of department policy).

Spencer's claim was then picked up by Fox News, which helpfully included a link to Hayworth's interview. Soon enough, bloggers were announcing that the Mexican Army had crossed the border to invade Phoenix, and calling it "an act of war."

As the story reverberated through hundreds of empty heads, it got weirder and more outrageous. All-American Blogger, for instance, concluded that "Mexican drug cartels are hiring members of the Mexican military to come across the border with full tactical gear and kill Phoenix police officers in their own homes," [emphasis added] and also informed Free Republic's elite cadre of revolutionaries and dialecticians that the "Mexican Military [is] Raiding The Homes of Phoenix Police Officers."

Both the ICE and the Phoenix PD have denied that any of the suspects were members of the Mexican military. However, Hayworth's radio station has phrased the denials in such a way that they'll confirm the darkest suspicions of immigrant-hatin' paranoiacs:

Phoenix police also did not confirm whether the men were from the military despite internal documents showing that they were.

In fact, these "internal documents" show only that one of the suspects claimed to be a member of the Mexican military. However, by cutting out that attribution, it's easy enough to represent it as the secret, publicly disavowed belief of the Phoenix PD.

And of course, official denials pose no problem at all for those who wish to believe this was an incursion by Mexican military personnel. On the contrary, the denials prove that the story is basically correct...or better yet, from the standpoint of emotional satisfaction, that the situation is much worse than they're letting on. This is the sort of narrative for which only two types of evidence exist: compelling and overwhelming.

Which is why stories like this one put the White House in something of a bind. If it denies that the Mexican military is crossing the border to murder American citizens, it's part of the conspiracy. And if it claims to be concerned, any action it takes that fails to satisfy the "border security" crowd's bottomless appetite for authoritarian brutality, bigotry, and stupidity will be rejected as capitulation or worse.

In my more dour moods, I assume that Bush's ability to enrage the Left still commands some superstitious respect among the gun hoarders and hyperpatriots and racists whom the Administration has played for suckers, even as a steady diet of unfalsifiable rumors and violent rhetoric brings their hysteria and hatred closer to the boiling point. It's easy to imagine things deteriorating once a more..."traditional" enemy of America takes office.

Totally Crazy (by Phila)

Kathryn Jean Lopez:

A totally crazy Saturday-morning thought: Wouldn't George W. Bush make an awesome high-school government teacher? Wouldn't it be something if his post-presidential life would up being that kind of post-service service? How's that for a model? Who needs Harvard visiting chairs and high-end lectures? How about Crawford High? (Or wherever?) Reach out and touch the young before they are jaded, or break them of the cynicism pop culture and possibly their parents have passed down to them.

Unless the last eight years were a horrible dream, George W. Bush weakened restrictions on air pollution under the Clear Skies Act, turned forests over to loggers under the Healthy Forests Initiative, detained prisoners indefinitely in the name of the law, tortured people in the name of civilization, censored scientists in the name of objectivity, alienated allies in the name of security, and is occupying another country in the name of freedom.

About the only thing he could possibly do to reduce American cynicism, at this point, would be to turn himself in at the nearest police station. (A totally crazy Saturday-afternoon thought, I know, and just about as plausible as K-Lo's fantasy.)

Anyway, while we're waiting for Bush to embark on his life of "post-service service," we mustn't forget to sneer at people who praise Jimmy Carter for building houses.

Obama, abortion and illusions (by Suzie)

      I was leisurely catching up on Shakesville last night when I saw people commenting on how feminist blogs are failing to discuss Obama's recent comments on abortion. Tsk, tsk, I thought. Then: Oh, damn, that's me. 

      I hope no one thought that I had the automated system replace "serious issues" with "Chihuahuas" yesterday. Automation was involved, however. I often write my posts in advance and schedule them for Friday, my usual blogging day.

     I can't keep up with the progressive (and I mean that in two senses of the word) disappointments over Obama. (See this NYT editorial.) Clinton supporters understood that she is a politician, and we knew her positions. But a lot of progressives thought that Obama was different, that he was above partisan politics, that he shared their views. 

     Some thought the same of Bill Clinton before he was elected president, and they ended up feeling angry and betrayed by some of his policies and actions. This colored some people's reaction to Hillary's race for the nomination. Now the cycle is repeating itself with Obama.

      I wish we could break free from the media game of building up people and then tearing them down. I don't mean that we shouldn't discuss Obama's faults, or problems with his policies. I mean that people shouldn't have turned him into the next American idol because that guaranteed disappointment would follow.

      I also see parallels with people hoping that Michelle will straighten out Barack on certain issues. Who knows. Is she a feminist?

"You know, I'm not that into labels," Michelle Obama said in the interview. "So probably, if you laid out a feminist agenda, I would probably agree with a large portion of it," she said. "I wouldn't identify as a feminist just like I probably wouldn't identify as a liberal or a progressive." 

          As an adult, I've always been to the left of our presidents. For me, this election is like many others: I'll vote for a person who can win and who comes closest to my views, knowing that I need to keep working on other issues that he won't support.

 ---------   

        For interesting comments on Obama and abortion, Shakesville has a good discussion. You also may enjoy this post on faith-based organizations at Pam's House Blend. I'm looking forward to a fundamental Christian group training a pagan nonprofit to run a preschool program.

Three Intimations.
I.
The hydrangea tree blooming over the old graves on the rise in the cemetery are the only flowers there. Bent and twisted by the winds and winter, there isn’t a time it wasn’t there. Afternoon wind.
II.
There is nothing whiter than the evening lychnis at dusk. Dry summer.
III.
So still tonight the moonlight is the loudest thing.

Anthony McCarthy: 1978

Noted Without Comment (by Phila)

The latest findings:

A study was conducted to assess whether individual differences in sexual activity during the past 30 days, in particular penile–vaginal intercourse (PVI; which is associated with measures of relationship quality), are related to the perception of the facial attractiveness of unknown men. Forty-five women reported the frequency of a variety of sexual behaviors and rated the facial attractiveness and friendliness of 24 men. Women who reported more frequent orgasm from masturbation rated men as less friendly. This finding might be reflective of the more anti-social attitude associated with more frequent masturbation. The results also show that women who engaged more frequently in most kinds of sexual behavior, not only PVI, considered unknown men to be less facially attractive. That is, individuals who engage more frequently in a variety of sexual behaviors with their partner perceived unknown men as less attractive and thereby may be less susceptible to the lure of other (or if the only sexual behavior is masturbation, any) men.

Supply-Side Shortages (by Phila)

Somehow, Terry Easton has gotten wise to our plans:

You would think that this story is right out of science fiction. But the facts appear to be that the US Democrat-controlled Congress intends to destroy the Republican middle class with $11 per gallon gasoline.

The Democrats’ base -- wealthy white “limousine liberals”, and very poor people -- won’t be harmed, but the families who live in suburbia will be devastated.

Easton left out a few important details. It's not just the Republican middle class we're after; we also need to destroy hungry seniors, whose traditional values pose an obstacle to the acceptance of mandatory same-sex marriage. Underprivileged children and the disabled are another target (Peter Singer absolutely insisted on it, and you know how hard it is to say "no" to him). Higher gas prices will also thwart efforts to control malaria, which will be a fitting tribute to the spirit of Rachel Carson.

Then there are cabbies. How are we supposed to create a socialist wonderland while counterrevolutionaries like these are able to buy food and pay their bills? Eleven-dollar gas is the least these running-dog lackeys to the bourgeoisie deserve. Last, crippling the production and distribution of fireworks will strike a deadly blow against patriotism, just when it's needed most.

The article goes on to explain that limousine liberals have thwarted efforts to drill in ANWR and along the coasts, and concludes with this dirge for human freedom:

Oil sells for $145 per barrel mostly because of artificially-created supply-side shortages. A small part of its price is also determined by speculators and uncertainty over a future cut-off of oil from the middle east that a war with Iran could cause. Assuming that Iran’s nuclear bomb program is destroyed by Israel this fall -- with or without America’s help - look for oil to spike up to $250-300.

Indeed. I think it's fair to say that things are proceeding quite nicely, don't you?

Fourth Of July Fireworks

The picture was taken by a friend of mine a few years ago.

Friday Critter Blogging: Deconstructing Disney (by Suzie)

        Now that I’ve become a Chihuahuaphile, I can’t resist Disney’s “Beverly Hills Chihuahua,” opening Oct. 3. I wish I could enjoy the little dancing dogs in peace, without seeing how the movie reinforces the patriarchy. But that’s the problem when you swallow the red pill; you can no longer watch fluff without deconstructing it.
         As Joss Whedon said: "People used to laugh that academics would study Disney movies. There’s nothing more important for academics to study, because they shape the minds of our children possibly more than any single thing."
         In the upcoming movie, a “spoiled” little white Chihuahua from Beverly Hills gets “lost in the mean streets of Mexico” and ends up guided by a bigger, darker, lustful Chihuahua. (I hope this isn’t “Swept Away” for Chihuahuas.) Guess which is male and which is female?
         Many people covet the smallest Chihuahuas. Because it’s often easier for bigger dogs to give birth, a lot of teeny-tiny males get bred to bigger females. (My “retired breeder” is one of these BBWs.) When you anthropomorphize dogs, however, I guess you have to stick to the conventions that say males must be bigger. At least Disney didn't make the female Chihuahua pink.
          On the Disney site, the synopsis tells the story of a female finding her footing, with the assistance of male dogs. But the trailer focuses on the male dog, with the female as accessory. Disney has to be careful not to lose too many boy viewers.
         Before the trailer came out, Disney started a viral video campaign featuring the male dog as revolutionary. He speaks of Chihuahuas as if all are male, and these males must reclaim their dignity after being carried in purses. They can no longer take orders from female dogs, either.
         Is Disney making fun of machismo? Riffing on the insecurity of men who fear being “feminized”? I wish everyone would see it that way. 
         You can catch the viral video (which really is funny) on Dog Art Today, where Moira McLaughlin discusses how artists have stolen from one another, in regard to dogs and revolutions. One of those artists, Kevin McCormick, says he has been calling on Chihuahuas to revolt for years.
         Mark Derr says small dogs are stigmatized as women’s pets. Bigger dogs are associated with men and work, such as herding sheep or finding prey for hunters. But a Chihuahua? It's just a companion, and being a companion has little value in our society.

        But hey, happy Fourth of July. Thank the goddess that I don't have a yappy dog that would bark every few minutes, when the fireworks go off. 

Roundup on women and media (by Suzie)

        Recently, I blogged about whether we can simply “add women and stir.” That concept came back to me as I was reading a news release from the International Women’s Media Foundation, which is honoring women who have continued coverage despite harsh conditions and death threats.
        These women deserve to be honored. But it’s not enough to honor women who risk their lives to do what men do. We also must value women who write about the stuff of women’s lives, the sorts of stories that get little coverage in mainstream media. The foundation helps make this possible by offering training and other resources.
          On the subject of female journalists who enter male-dominated areas: "Gillian Anderson will star in and produce a biopic of Martha Gellhorn, a trailblazing female war correspondent who covered conflicts from the Spanish Civil War to Vietnam," according to Variety. Can't wait for this? Then I hope you've already seen the movie about Irish journalist Veronica Guerin.
          (By the way, I'm always amused when writers feel the need to modify a job title with "female" even though it should be obvious from the context. I think readers can figure out that Gellhorn was a female correspondent by her name and the fact that she's being portrayed by a woman.)          

          I got the link on Gellhorn, as well as a lot of other news, from the Women's Media Center. It co-sponsored a forum titled "From Soundbites to Solutions: Bias, Punditry and the Press in the 2008 Election." It has video on its Web site.

          An article on the forum notes that women comprised 91 percent of the audience. Although women have a lot to discuss with one another, in regard to the forum's topic, we need more men interested.

What is art? (by Suzie)

       I made the mistake of taking a doctoral-level philosophy class on this topic, and I thought we covered every angle. But somehow we missed serving sushi on a naked woman. The St. Petersburg Times has a story and photo about a restaurant that does this. (OK, the woman isn't entirely naked. She wears "the smallest of G-strings and tiny flower-shaped pasties.") Invoking Picasso, the chef calls it his "expression of art." The art is enhanced by "two women dressed in skimpy school girl outfits danc[ing] on either side of the model."

         Most historians agree naked sushi — Nyotaimori (Japanese for "female body presentation") — started several hundred years ago in the geisha culture.
Critics say it eventually became less about the art and more about titillation. Now, even in the country where it originated, the event is conducted privately or in the red light districts.
         Naked sushi — banned in China because officials say it's unhygienic and infringes on women's rights — made its way to the United States in the early 1990s. It started in California and was featured in the movie Rising Sun ...

          What message do I get from this art? That women are decorative and functional objects, like fine china.

Music After Storm

Nina Simone: Here Comes The Sun.

More On Fertility Treatment

Suzie's post on the question whether society should pay for poor women's fertility treatment provoked a lot of interesting comments. Every time I read them I had this odd feeling that I should comment on something that is relevant but I couldn't quite get it.

Today I did, and the comment I want to make is that it is not only women who suffer from infertility problems. Around forty percent of all infertility experienced by couples is due to problems with the man. Yet when we discuss infertility and its treatments we see it as a problem for women, almost exclusively. Now why is that?

It could be that it's easier to treat male infertility or that it's not treatable at all. It could be that couples who suffer from male infertility just get sperm from a donor and so those cases never appear in the records of fertility clinics. Or it could be that we see all fertility as somehow all about women.

But surely some infertile men yearn for their own biological child, too. Or do they?

Pop Polygamy

I had a tough time deciding what to think about this article:

Polygamy's pop-culture moment now extends to the closet. FLDS women are offering their handmade, old-fashioned children's clothing for sale online - long underwear, slips and all.

At FLDSDress.com, pastel-pink dresses and denim overalls mirror the clothing that intrigued the nation when authorities raided the Yearning for Zion Ranch in Texas in April, taking children into custody while investigating charges of underage marriage and child abuse.

There are $65 "teen princess" dresses that stretch from ankle to wrist, long pajamas and matching robes, all sewn by the mothers themselves, even some in Arizona's own polygamist enclave of Colorado City.


Sales of the clothing will help the Texas FLDS women pay rent and support their families. Now displaced from their homes at the ranch, most of them are still in the midst of a child-abuse investigation, and lawyers have advised them to establish their own households.

Mothers originally created the site so Texas officials could get FLDS-approved clothing for the children while they were in state custody. Turns out other people were interested, too.

"We're used to our clothing not being popular," said Maggie Jessop, 44, an FLDS member who helps coordinate the sewing efforts. "(But) we've had many, many people say that they would like to have their children be more modest and have expressed interest in our modest lifestyle."

"There were a lot of people that asked, 'Where can I purchase those clothes?' " said Cynthia Martinez, spokeswoman for Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, which represents 48 of the mothers.

Paul Murphy, spokesman for the Utah Attorney General's Office, finds the FLDS women's fashion offerings quite smart.

"It's very clever," he said. "With all the issues that are going on, most of the media attention has been about the way they dress and the way they wear their hair.

"I give them credit for going where the interest is."

In some ways it's a prime example of how difficult it is for women in traditionally patriarchal systems to make a living on their own, because most of them are not allowed to learn marketable skills. That these women can make some money out of making clothing is certainly wonderful, though how much they actually get is unclear from the article. We all know that textile workers are not terribly well paid.

At least this business offers some women a chance to survive outside the church, should they wish to do so, right? However:

Carolyn Jessop applauds the women for finding a way to support themselves and tiptoe toward independence.

"When 100 percent of their (financial) support is coming from the (FLDS) church, that makes them 100 percent dependent on the church," she said. "If they realize they have a skill that is marketable ... they might realize they could do it outside of the church."

Familiar with FLDS financial practices, Carolyn is concerned that the funds the women earn with their clothing sales won't end up in the mothers' pockets.

According to an FLDS spokesman, the women are paid per item sewn, and if they draw in more revenue than is needed to cover expenses, it is shared with other families.

"If people who purchase (the clothing) would at least request that they make the check out to the woman who made the garment," Carolyn said, "then this could be a really positive thing."

Is all this a positive development or not? When did we start thinking about polygamous systems such as this one as part of the popular culture, as something that is fun to imitate? When did we let people like Warren Jeffs decide what "modesty" might be?

The FLDS wardrobe puzzled and captivated America as events unfolded in Texas. The poufed hairstyles, long dresses and buttoned-up shirts are mandated by jailed FLDS leader Warren Jeffs, who disallows patterned fabric and the color red. The FLDS members wear the clothing as a symbol of their faith.

The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is part of a group that split from the Mormon Church in 1890 over the practice of polygamy. Those who have fled the polygamist sect have long accused it of conducting underage marriages and other abuse.

Jeffs was convicted in September of being an accomplice to rape, charges stemming from his role in marrying a girl to her first cousin.

Suddenly the idea of these outfits signifying "modesty" made me feel nauseous. It's Warren Jeffs who decides what these women and men wear. It's Warren Jeffs who bans the color red but not the forced marrying of little girls to old men as one of their multiple wives.

Today's Funny

This one, about Tyson Gay's great race, as seen through the glasses of an anti-gay news site which automatically converts "gay" to "homosexual":

Tyson Homosexual was a blur in blue, sprinting 100 meters faster than anyone ever has.

His time of 9.68 seconds at the U.S. Olympic trials Sunday doesn't count as a world record, because it was run with the help of a too-strong tailwind. Here's what does matter: Homosexual qualified for his first Summer Games team and served notice he's certainly someone to watch in Beijing.

"It means a lot to me," the 25-year-old Homosexual said. "I'm glad my body could do it, because now I know I have it in me."

Hat tip to Rorshach.

Hitchens and Waterboarding

He tells us about his experiences being tortured. Somehow I have the impression that he used to be in the other camp about waterboarding: seeing it as not any worse than getting off the wagon before this little test? Note that in any case actually being waterboarded in interrogations would have an additional layer of horror because there the torturee is not in control of the process.

Who would have thought eight years ago that I would today write about the U.S. government applying medieval forms of torture and that there is an actual debate about whether they are torture or not?

How many ways did Osama bin Laden win? You might want to count them, starting with turning a somewhat free and democratic society into something much more closely resembling a police state, continuing with the loss of habeas corpus and the idea of pre-emptive warfare.

Studying the "Opt-Out" Revolution

Kathy G. has blogged about a new study which suggests that women in general or educated women in particular are not opting out of the labor force at any higher rates than in the past, rather the reverse.

I really should read the studies on the "opt-out" revolution (about the labor market hours of women with children) and write a post on them. For various good reasons the topic isn't that easy to analyze.

For instance, whenever employment goes down as a whole, because of an economic slump, some people write about the corresponding drop in mothers' employment as evidence of opting out. Yet when the slump is over those same mothers (and all the other workers who were laid off) are quite likely to return to the labor market. But nobody writes about that return as proof that "opting out" has ended. So if you read popular articles on educated women quitting work you will get the impression that it's happening a lot, and part of the reason for that impression is that nobody writes the articles to tell us about educated women going to work or returning to work.

I'm not arguing here that there is no change in mothers' labor market participation rates in the recent years. Neither am I arguing that there is. Hence the reason to spend some time with the studies.

What I do know, however, is that the articles on "opting-out" which have appeared in such august places as the New York Times are not based on careful research of overall trends but on thinking that such an article would be interesting and on contacting suitable people for interviews. The problem with this is, of course, that I could make up a trend about something, too, and then find people who reflect that made-up trend in their behavior. Trends can't be studied by looking only at people among your acquaintances, unless your acquaintances just happen to be a perfect microcosm of the world in general.

More importantly, there is a hidden emotional undertone to these stories, and the undertone has to do with "opting-out" being voluntary, something that all mothers just really want to do, something that has nothing to do with the meager maternity leaves or the general lack of support for mothers in general, or the idea that all childcare is the responsibility of women or the way work is structured to match traditional male roles. These mothers just wanted to opt out, and that means there's no problem for anyone else, thoughofcoursewenowwonderifwomenshouldtakeplacesfrommenincollege.

Err. Don't know how that got in there. In any case, Kathy's post discusses an interesting reason for the general belief that "opting-out" is common among educated women, whatever statistics might tell us:

Yet, in spite of these strong and consistent findings, the myth of the "opt-out revolution" persists. Perhaps the most interesting part of Percheski's paper is the section that explores why this is so. First, she says, for women, having children does continue to be associated with lower levels of employment, and even though more professional women are working than ever before, many of them still don't work full-time, year-round.

Related to this, since there are more professional working women than ever before, "there are more women available to exit." Writes Percheski:

The average person is thus more likely to personally know a professional woman who has left the labor force. A woman who does not work full-time and long hours may now seem anomalous and be more noticeable than the thousands of professional women who are working full-time in demanding jobs while raising young children. Additionally, although the percentage of women with advanced degrees who are not working is declining across cohorts, the percentage of non-working women who have an advanced degree is growing because the whole population is becoming more educated.

Did you get it? Of course the quasi-trend manufacture also helps. For some reason women tend to be the focus of a lot of them. "Educated women can't get married" is another which crops up at great frequency even when statistics don't support it. I'm sure you can think of others, once you figure out that the main point of them is to highlight the return to traditional gender roles.

Poor Haloscan

It appears to have died. I hope that is not true and that comments appear in short order, all hearty and hale.

Time To Move To The Center

That's the usual assumption about what happens after the presidential party primaries are over. The candidates stop courting their respective bases and start wooing the muddy middle of the so-called independent voters.

Thus, we should start seeing McCain sometimes sounding like a liberal (eek!) and Obama sometimes sounding like George Bush. We should. So far I have only seen Obama move to the right at a fairly good trot. Nothing corresponding appears to have happened to McCain.

The latest example of Obama's general election campaign shift is this:

Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans that would expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and — in a move sure to cause controversy — support their ability to hire and fire based on faith.

That last sentence means that religious providers of various social services can discriminate in their hiring decisions and still get tax money perhaps paid into the system by the very people who couldn't get jobs with those providers. I'm not happy with this. Not happy at all, especially given the other religion posts I've written today.

Obama is thousand times better than McCain (who is now openly expressing his contempt for unions and minimum wages and such), make no mistake about that. But we need to keep reminding him of the issues which matter to us.

Church Within Church And Feminist Musings

No, it's not Opus Dei within the Catholic Church this time, but the suggestion in Britain to protect those Anglican ministers who don't want to serve under female bishops:

MORE than 1300 clergy, including 11 serving bishops, have written to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to say that they will defect from the Church of England if women are consecrated bishops.
As the wider Anglican Communion fragments over homosexuality, England's established church is moving towards its own crisis with a crucial vote on women bishops this weekend.

In a letter to Rowan Williams and John Sentamu, seen by The Times, the signatories give warning that they will consider leaving the Church if two crucial votes are passed to introduce female bishops.

The Church's moderate centre is being pressured as never before by evangelicals opposed to gays and traditionalists opposed to women's ordination.

The crisis is unprecedented since the Reformation devastated the Roman Catholic Church in England in the 16th century.

The General Synod, the Church's governing body, meets in York on Friday where clergy will decide whether legislation to consecrate women should be introduced, and whether it should have legal safeguards for traditionalists or a simple voluntary code to protect them.

The signatories to the letter - who represent 10 per cent of all practising clergy and hundreds of recently retired priests still active in the Church - will only accept women bishops if they have a legal right to separate havens within the Church.

I had to read the story to the very end to find this:

At the same time, 1276 women clergy, 1012 male clergy and 1916 lay church members who support women bishops signed a statement objecting to the prospect of "discriminatory" legislation to safeguard opponents.

It's more interesting to focus on those who are opposed to female bishops than those who are for them, even if the latter are more in numbers.

By the way, today seems to have become my "religion-hates-women" day, mainly because religion very often does exactly that. I love the Southern Baptist definition of spiritual equality between the sexes as something which absolutely exists (absolutely!), but which somehow has zero implications in the here-and-now world, the only one on which we can look for corroborating evidence. In that world the men are the bosses and there's no way of firing a bad boss.

It's such a masterful concept! Do those Southern Baptist guys ever fear that to actually get those spiritual equality scales even might mean a hereafter where the women rule over men? Looking at the secular rules those guys have a little heavenly affirmative action in the opposite direction would appear to be necessary.

The Anglican case is nowhere as bad. Women can no longer be ministers at all in the Southern Baptist Church. The Anglicans let them minister and are just arguing over their ability to be bishops. The difference is humongous, enormous and gigantic.

Still, consider this odd fact of life: If you read this blog long enough you will find many, many posts on the topic of biological gender differences, how they are studied and how they are popularized, and in those posts I often scream and thunder about the need to control for the cultural effects before trying to study biology. The studies I criticize hardly ever do so. They pretend that women are treated in a perfectly gentlemanly manner (or cave-manly manner) by all and sundry and that nothing at all stops women from running or invading countries, from being the Pope and so on. It's only their itty-bitty genes which make women coy and family-centered and uninterested in casual sex or being bishops.

So these posts on religion serve as a very good reminder that we are slowly clawing ourselves up from a deep, deep well of gender-based restrictions, limitations and oppression, and that the resistance from the rest of the culture is something women have always had to take into account in whatever choices they were left.

Don't Lift The Rocks

Creepy-crawlies will wiggle and wriggle out of there, just like those who left some of the comments on this article:

A Muskegon Heights mother who put poison in her baby's bottle is headed to prison.

Police say Shatara Jones, 19, put bleach and another cleaner in her child's bottles last February. She entered a guilty plea last month.

Today, the judge went above sentencing guidelines, ordering Jones to prison for 8 to 15 years.

Jones' one-year-old girl never drank the deadly mixture of milk and poison because the child's grandmother took the bottle away. The grandmother pleaded with the judge for a light sentence saying she called police, so her daughter could get help, not prison.

Some in the court cheered the judges' decision for a long prison sentence. Others said it was far too harsh.

It's not possible to tell from the story what Shatara Jones' mental condition might have been or if anyone bothered to look into it in the first place. Post-partum psychosis and depression come to mind as possible candidates. I also wonder if she actually planned to kill her child, given that she did all this in front of her mother who stopped her and called the police in order to get help for her daughter.

Of course what the daughter got was 8-15 years in prison.

Perhaps she deserved it. I cannot tell. But I wonder if she had gotten the same treatment had she been white and rich, or if she had indeed gotten the help she so obviously needs.

Whatever the justice of her sentence, I was thoroughly disgusted by most of the comments attached to the article. We humans really are like the vengeful god we invented.

More Southern Baptist "Old Boy" Religion

Wanna learn how wife-abuse is the fault of the abused wives themselves? It's really easy to prove if you are Bruce Ware, a Southern Baptist preacher:

"One reason that men abuse their wives is because women rebel against their husband's God-given authority."

and that,

"(W)omen desire to have their own way instead of submitting to their husbands because of sin."

and,

"And husbands on their parts, because they're sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is of course one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged–or, more commonly, to become passive, acquiescent, and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and in churches,"

But of course abuse is one way for men to respond to such disobedient women. Of course.

I'm not sure how to even discuss something like this, to be quite honest. The Southern Baptist world view doesn't have many connections to my world view. For instance, I don't believe that men have a God-given right to rule over women. Neither can I understand how those with that view can blame the women if men fail to enforce that divinely ordained domination. Who was it again who is supposed to have the responsibilities of "leading" (as the religious fundies call bossing other people around)?

And what happens if the husband just likes to beat his wife and decides that the beatings are part of his God-given right to "lead"?

You might want to read more of Mr. Ware's thoughts on women, the evils of feminism and the need for women to voluntarily enslave themselves to the reproductive use of their husbands. For that is what he advocates, really.

Me, I think that anyone advocating such voluntarily enslavement based on nothing but gender is committing a sin themselves. But then I'm past redemption, most likely.

And yes, all this sounds very much like the radical Islamic view of the proper role of women.

The Flea's Eye View To The Environment

I was thinking about this today while walking in an area where bugs were everywhere. So many articles view the environmental crisis we might be facing as something to do with how humans could best control it, and many of those articles have the hidden assumption that the humans are the bosses, that the earth is our property and that all we need to figure is how to make the earth do what we want it to do.

It might be a fair stance to take. But suppose, instead, that our situation is more like that of fleas living on a dog (say, a smart poodle), and that we, the fleas, are smart enough to understand that what we are doing to the dog (living off it) is something the dog would rather not experience. If we go overboard on our blood sucking activities, the dog will get sick and might even die. Or -- horror of horrors! -- IF there is an owner to this planetary dog, the owner might decide to give it a fleabath. With poisons.

This changes the way the problem of environmental degradation might be seen. First, we have to try to survive without killing the dog (earth) and that might mean that we have to control the population of fleas. Also, if we are really smart fleas we should figure out how to suck the blood with the least damage to the host.

Meanwhile, in Romania

An eleven-year old girl, allegedly pregnant from rape by her uncle, is allowed to have an abortion even though her pregnancy is past the fourteen week legal limit in her country:

At a meeting, a Romanian government committee member, Vlad Iliescu, read out an emotive letter from the girl.

"I want to go to school and to play. If I can't do this, my life will be a nightmare," the letter said.

Iliescu said a 21-week-old foetus would have a 1% chance of survival. He added that "the girl's mental health would be severely affected if she had a baby".

Members had discussed the options of allowing the girl to travel to Britain for a termination or ruling she must continue with her pregnancy.

The UK has one of the highest legal limits for abortion in Europe, at 24 weeks. A Romanian living in Britain offered to meet the abortion costs.

The girl's parents discovered she was pregnant earlier this month after they took her to a doctor because she appeared unwell.

She told doctors she had been raped by her uncle, who allegedly threatened her and has since disappeared.

There's something horrible about all this being discussed all over the world, actually. We should be discussing the uncle's alleged behavior and he's the one who should be in the court of world opinion, not this little girl.

You Know What's Funny to Bill Kristol? Misogyny

Watch this video to see a conversation about misogyny and sexism which reads very differently as a transcript than the way it sounds. Kristol is making fun of misogyny. Pay attention to his face and the face of the interviewer.





The guys are smirking all through it. Smirking, note.

What about the meat in that sexism-is-funny sandwich? The bit about the Republicans not being as misogynist as the Democrats:

Summary: On Fox News Sunday, Bill Kristol, who previously declared that "[w]hite women are a problem ... we all live with that," stated of Sen. Hillary Clinton: "She's put behind her the horrible sexism and misogyny the Democratic primary voters demonstrated, which I'm appalled by, personally. Never would have happened in the Republican Party. You know, we're -- Republicans are much more open to strong women."

Much more open to strong women? Are they indeed? And who is it who has loved to hate Hillary Clinton for the last twenty years or so? It's the wingnut wing of the Republican Party, that's who, and even in the recent primaries the most viciously sexist comments came from right-wing talk show hosts and pundits.

Much more open to strong women? Like in the sense of wanting women to shut up and not to have the right to take discriminating employers to court? Like in the sense of wanting women not to have rights over their own bodies? Or like in opposing every single attempt to let American women have maternity leaves. Sigh.

Sure, the Republicans like a few token women, as long as those token women hate women, too. Ann Coulter comes to mind. A woman, sure, but one who thinks that it was a big mistake to let women have the right to vote. The other ones I can think of (Dr. Laura or the gals of the Independent Women's Forum) are all similary against women's rights. What's the latest book on these topics from the wingnuts? Something like Save the Males. Nuff said.

But the whole question of what makes a woman "strong" in the mind of guys like Kristol is fascinating, and it might well be worth our while to poke that one around a little.

Our Finer Feelings (by Phila)

Ever since the Supreme Court ruled that it's unconstitutional to execute people who rape children, I've heard and read a lot of gloating over the notion that these rapists will simply end up getting beaten to death by their fellow inmates. It's one of the few things the average American "knows" about incarcerated criminals: they tend to hate child molesters, and will beat and kill them when they can. "Prison justice," they call it, with a faint hint of envy.

The lack of mercy shown by the unmerciful on these occasions is supposed to tell us something about how abysmally low child molesters rate on the moral scale. But I've always suspected that it tells us a lot more about how easily people find things to feel self-righteous about, no matter what they themselves may be guilty of.

You can gun down a child's father in a liquor store robbery. Or beat a child's mother into a coma while raping her. Or vote against childhood healthcare services in your capacity as a member of Congress. Or cheer and wave the flag as a foreign city is bombed. But as long as you hate -- really, really hate -- child rapists, you can flatter yourself that you're on the side of the angels. No matter what you might've done to children through inattention or neglect, or for money -- no matter what you might still be doing -- you aren't as bad as you could be, as long as you can get yourself into a murderous rage over someone else's sexual abuse of a child.

Behind all the sentimental handwringing over the helplessness and innocence of children there's an unspoken assumption that there are better targets for exploitation and abuse and rape and murder. The shadow image of the innocent child who doesn't deserve to be raped is the guilty woman who does, because she wore the wrong clothes or stayed out too late.

We idolize the state of unknowing we call "innocence"...and punish young people for making "bad choices," even when they're a logical result of the ignorance we thrust upon them as a moral ideal. It makes no sense, but who cares? Child-rape cries out for the death penalty specifically because of the lasting psychological damage it inflicts on children...but an adult criminal who was raped as a child deserves no mercy. It's logically indefensible, but so what? Representing children as quasi-angelic messengers of goodness and purity makes them more attractive targets for rapists, and promising these rapists the death penalty in advance gives them no incentive to stop short of murdering their victims. It's dangerous and dumb, but what of it? If it feels good, do it!

McCain and Obama have both denounced the SCOTUS ruling; they agree, as serious men must, that such a "heinous crime" deserves the ultimate punishment. If either man is obliged to drop bombs on children in some other country -- Iraq, let's say -- he'll have no problem being accepted in polite society, though a few hysterics like myself may question whether it really is more "heinous" to rape one child than to mutilate hundreds or thousands with shrapnel.

It all comes down to one's intentions, I guess. The fact that we can overcome our natural abhorrence of hurting children long enough to destroy entire city blocks, regardless of how many children live in them, suggests that our intentions are basically good. Why else would we make such a superhuman effort to put aside our finer feelings?

The fact that we hate people who rape children -- really, really, really hate them, a lot! -- clinches the deal. And if anyone doubts our sincerity, or accuses us of using hackneyed and contradictory abstractions to ennoble or excuse our own everyday brutality, we can always point out that even the most hardened criminals know there's nothing worse than raping a child. QED!

If it were up to me, raping a 20-year-old would seem just as "sick" as raping an eight-year-old, and all the idolaters of innocence, and the self-appointed assessors of other people's "choices," and the people who hold up children as human shields against the justified criticism of policies that are essentially anti-human, would have to fold up their tents and seek honest work.

In the meantime, if children really are so precious that to abuse them, or injure them, or blight their lives is a crime that cries out for merciless punishment, so much the worse for all of us.

Second Best (by Phila)

Samuel Staley of the Reason Foundation has some advice for mass-transit advocates:

Transit’s long-term viability will depend on its ability to provide a reliable, superior alternative to its competition, not a “second best” alternative that consumers choose when they can’t afford their first choice (e.g., the automobile).

This strikes me as odd reasoning. If people increasingly can't afford to drive, being perceived as the second-best transportation option doesn't seem like such a bad thing, from a business perspective. Staley assumes that consumer preference will have a stronger long-term effect on transportation choices than the affordability of owning and operating a car; you don't have to be an "alarmist" to wonder whether this is really the case. (Nor do you have to be a communist to wonder whether Staley has any real interest in people for whom riding mass transit is not a choice, but a necessity.)

I'm old-fashioned enough to subscribe, more or less, to Guy Debord's view that the car is not "essentially a means of transportation," so much as "the most notable material symbol of the notion of happiness." To the extent that this is accurate, comparing a car to a bus or a train is somewhat misleading; much of what a car offers consumers is symbolic or otherwise nonessential, and much of this "value" may evaporate as gas prices rise (cf. the recent decline of cruising, which Atrios brings up).

That's a relatively theoretical objection, though. My real disagreement with Staley is a bit more concrete:

What transit cannot do is depend on high gas prices to make us worse off financially in order to push us out of our cars and onto buses and trains. Nor should transit advocates use public policy to purposely degrade the quality of transportation alternatives such as the car to tip the scales unfairly in transit’s favor.

Of course, public policy routinely degrades the quality of mass transit to tip the scales in favor of cars, and has for decades. Indeed, that's one of the reasons Staley can describe mass transit in generally negative terms. But this type of planning doesn't bother Staley, it seems; it's simply the natural order of things, and so obvious as to be invisible. (Elsewhere, Staley complains that "transit lost its way more than four decades ago when it largely ignored the needs and desires of a wealthier and more mobile middle class." For some reason, I'm picturing segregated, bulletproof buses that offer door-to-door service.)

Anyway, mass transit needs to improve to be viable...but that improvement apparently can't inconvenience drivers, or be justified by reference to higher gas prices. It's almost as though the cards are stacked in favor of auto dependency. To quote Debord again, "those who believe that the particulars of the problem are permanent want in fact to believe in the permanence of the present society."

Obama Nation (by Phila)

Like all good-hearted people, I was initially troubled by Barack Hussein Obama's status as a Metrosexual Muslim Marxist radical with no experience. But I soon found out that this was just the tip of the iceberg.

In addition to being too black and not black enough, and being unable to master the shifting demands of diner etiquette, and spurning all-American delicacies like cheese and salami because he'd rather sip arugula-infused martinis at elite country clubs while pouring his patrician scorn over honest sons of the soil like Karl Rove, he's also in utter thrall to a radical Christian preacher whose controversial views he prissily denounced (out of the basest opportunism and disloyalty, I hasten to add).

Not a very flattering portrait, you'll agree. But there's a worse revelation to come. Indeed, this may be the last straw:

Is Obama devotee of monkey-god idol?

A group of Hindus in India have presented Sen. Barack Obama's campaign with a two-foot Hindu monkey-god idol after hearing the candidate carries a smaller version of the Lord Hanuman good-luck charm with him as he vies for the presidency....

"Obama has deep faith in Lord Hanuman, and that is why we are presenting an idol of Hanuman to him," said Bhama.

Some might be inclined to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. But I say that if there's a one-percent chance that Obama's a secret Hindu (as well as a secret Muslim and an overly liberal radical Christian), we need to treat it as a certainty. Or to put it another way, z0mfg Obama totly worshipz teh monkey god!

If you want to vote for a one-man Muslim-Hindu-Christian Holy War, suit yourself. But speaking as a concerned lifelong Democrat, I'm casting my vote for Gene Amondsen.

At least you know where he stands.

The Latest Research (by Phila)

The Telegraph gives us a vibrant account of what it calls "the latest research":

According to the latest research women have negative feelings after a fling and remain unhappy with fleeting sexual encounters.

Researchers said the permissive society sparked during the Sixties was supposed to free women to enjoy casual sex just like men but it had failed.

That's what researchers say, and who are we to gainsay them? They have statistics on their side, for one thing. Eighty percent of men claimed to feel sexually satisfied after a one-night stand, compared to 54 percent of women. Men are more likely to boast to their friends about their "conquests," too.

Could this have anything to do with what has come to constitute "appropriate" behavior for men and women in this situation...exacerbated, perhaps, by certain small but important differences in physiology?

Fuck no. Women have simply failed to adapt to the world as it was, is, and shall ever be, despite the best efforts of "the permissive society":

The study concluded women "have not adapted" to meaningless sex because it did not suit them at this stage in evolution.

I submit that casual sexual encounters in which one's role is essentially to give a man something to ejaculate into, and something to brag about to his friends the next day, are not "meaningless" at all. And their meaning, I'd say, is probably what causes a good deal of the dissatisfaction and remorse these women are feeling, the eternal and all-compelling call of marriage and childbirth notwithstanding. "Permission" to engage in behavior that a pretty large portion of society still regards as "slutty" is not necessarily permission to enjoy sex as an equal partner. And the idea that as long as men are happy with a situation, a woman's dissatisfaction can only represent a failure to adapt is chilling even by the glacial standards of evolutionary psychology.

Obligatory notes on methodology:

A total of 1,743 men and women who had experienced a one-night stand were asked to rate both their positive and negative feelings the following morning, in an internet survey.

Starlets and groupies (by Suzie)

      I was reading a story about women dropping out of science careers on the ABC News site, when I saw a slide show titled "Jen: Starlet turned groupie?" and a photo of Jennifer Aniston. I clicked on it, and it had two different headlines for each photo and blurb: "Star by day, groupie by night" and "H'wood starlets, rock groupies." OMFG, this is ABC News. 

      The slide show includes Nicole Kidman, Drew Barrymore, Kate Hudson and Kirsten Dunst; other well-paid, well-known women; plus the required Paris Hilton mention. I guess "starlet" now applies to any female celebrity, even ones who make millions or win Academy Awards. "Groupie" used to mean female fans who had sex with musicians. ABC has now extended it to any famous woman who has a relationship, whether one date or marriage, with a musician. For example, singer Ashlee Simpson married rocker Pete Wentz. They're both in the music world, but she's tagged as the groupie. Apparently, men who have relationships with female musicians are not groupies, and there's no male equivalent of "starlet."

     

Should society pay for fertility treatment for poor women? (by Suzie)

       My short answer: No.
       If you're interested in the subject, I encourage you to read this column by Pamela Merritt, and the comments that were posted. There are some fascinating arguments.
       Merritt notes the high cost of infertility treatment, and the limits of insurance coverage. She asks who society deems worthy of motherhood. 

This election year, universal healthcare coverage is a key issue, but universal coverage for infertility treatments has not been part of the discussion even though infertility treatment remains economically out of reach for many who need it. As a reproductive justice issue, the right to choose is clearly being denied those seeking treatment for infertility. But the reproductive rights of low-income and poor people continue to be held hostage to the values of a society that associates money with a person's worthiness to receive medical treatment.

         I’d like to see our society get truly universal health care first. I’d like to make adoption easier and much more affordable. I’d also prefer society address the myriad difficulties for poor children before paying for infertility treatments for poor women.
          In my teen years, my family was poor. I have family members who are poor. If one said she wanted expensive infertility treatments, my reaction would be: What?!? 
          No one should force women to bear children, nor should women be prevented from having children they desire. But does society have an obligation to help women conceive and give birth? If so, is there any limit on how many kids we would pay for? In other words, could a woman keep getting infertility treatments as long as her health held out? Would there be an age cutoff, or could a 50-year-old ask for infertility treatments? If a woman with a fatal disease wanted infertility treatments, should society pay for them? If women have this right, should society also help men who are infertile?

          I've paired this post with the one below, in which I explain I never wanted children. Have my own desires clouded my thinking on this?

   

           

Have children now! (by Suzie)

       I had an arranged marriage. By 30, I had had a random sampling of the male population, and I was ready to settle on one. The man I was dating had a lot of good qualities for a husband, and so, I proceeded as if marriage could be arranged like a mortgage.
       We got a mortgage and lived together for a year before marriage. After the wedding, perhaps only a few minutes after the wedding, people began pressuring us to reproduce. I never wanted children, but everywhere I turned, I ran in to people wanting to know why, why, why!?
        My husband and I ended up divorcing, and in a sense, it may have been because we had not had children. It’s not that we disagreed on kids. If we had had kids, however, I think we would have stuck it out on their behalf. Would we have been better off? I don’t think so, but I have no way of predicting future outcomes by altering various past decisions.
         This topic has been on my mind since I got a news release promoting a parenting column by Alan Singer, a New Jersey family therapist. He tells parents to talk to their adult children, to URGE their children to marry instead of live together because that will increase their odds of staying together. Parents also should tell their children about all the physical risks of delaying conception and birth.
          In an earlier column, Singer acknowledges that “there is considerable research showing that marital satisfaction decreases with the arrival of each child,” but if couples know that, they can take steps to improve their marriage.
         Maybe it’s different in New Jersey. Where I’ve lived, however, there’s plenty of pressure to marry and reproduce. Nell also talked about this in recent comments.
         In lieu of Singer, I prefer what Amy Richards, author of “Opting In,” has to say. Laura Barcella notes that Richards addresses Sylvia Ann “Hewlett's controversial book 'Creating a Life,' and the backlash that surrounded her claims that 20- and 30-something women should ‘hurry up’ if they want to have kids.” Richards responds:

         Initially I misunderstood her to be saying that every [woman] should want to have babies, now. Then I reread it. What she was really saying was that if women want to have babies, they need to think about it sooner rather than later. I became more sympathetic [to Hewlett's message]. No one wants to use ART [Assisted Reproductive Technology] to have children; most want to have their own biological children. If that's what most women want, it's lying to tell them that it's safe to put it off until their late thirties/forties.
          … In their early thirties, women should be starting to ask themselves, "Do I want kids?" Know what your options are before you're in a vulnerable or desperate place.

ETA: See the comments for a response from Dr. Singer. 

Friday Critter Blogging

These pictures are from tispaquin The first one is a lovely spider on an equally lovely flower head:





And then some kitties, all litter-mates, looking through the window at the passing of the Republican era:

Shallow Thought For The Day

I write too much. My brain-box sounds hollow when tapped today. Even my demons are asleep. This means that you, my sweet and erudite readers (as well as honored trolls) get mostly fluff today. Like the bumper sticker I saw recently:

Bipartisanship:
I will hug your elephant if you will kiss my ass.

Funny, eh? It's relevant, because bipartisanship usually means the reverse: Doing things the wingnut way, and that's why we are seeing more and more demands for bipartisanship now that the Republicans are no longer in absolute power, which they used to seed the nonpolitical appointments in the Department of Justice with only conservatives, say. Now that was the kind of bipartisanship the Republicans like: Both parties working for their benefit, together, while singing Kumbaya.

Of course Reid sorta agrees with the wingnuts. And so does Hoyer. Only dirty fucking hippies disagree with that polite definition of bipartisanship.

Garden Blogging

Bleeding Hearts

The white form of dicentra spectabilis, the common bleeding heart, is a lesson in pure elegance. It grows happily in quite deep shade which it relieves with the fresh green of its filigreed leaves and the heart-shaped ivory pendants of its inflorescences. Combined with hostas and pulmonarias, it offers just the right touch of lightness, like the finely wrought lace on the otherwise stern dress of an Elizabethan gentleman.

Gardeners love the bleeding heart for its kind-natured temperament. It is easy to grow (although the white form somewhat less so than its pink sibling), starts flowering early enough to be used with tulips in the same colors for an unbeatable combination, yet continues, at least in northern gardens, for several more weeks after the tulips have packed it in. Its only character flaw is its penchant for early dormancy. In my garden it goes underground by the end of July, leaving its absence as notable as its presence was earlier.

This can be avoided by choosing some other form of dicentra, such as dicentra eximia. But the romantic in me prefers the common bleeding heart. The Finns call it the broken heart, and this is how I always think of the plant; a sufferer from unrequited love, true, but one which valiantly tries to go on, producing love offering after love offering in the shape of small hearts for all to admire. Yet each and every one of them emerges broken.

At last it simply can't tolerate this any longer. Like so many unhappy young lovers in books, plays and operas, it chooses an early death over a loveless existence.

So sad, don't you think? But also so right, somehow, if we wish our gardens to reflect all life, not just its happy hours.
----
You must also try this: Pick off one of the flowers, turn it upside down and pull on the two extreme petals. What you see then is a naked lady in a bathtub.

Distractions And Wolcott's Take on Cohen

I went to James Wolcott's blog at the Vanity Fair to read what he had to say about Richard Cohen's column discussing why the media loves John McCain and never ever says anything nasty about him. This is what Wolcott had to say:

Really, it's a shame we even bother fussing over the looming troubles confronting this country when we could just let "character" be the seeing-eye dog that guides us. McCain's positions on abortion, Supreme Court picks, military action against Iraq, Social Security privatization?--mere trifles. "A presidential race is only incidentally about issues," Cohen informs us, thus reaffirming Bob Somerby's in Daily Howler that Beltway pundits are engaged in an epic bout of metacriticism, reviewing the novel that they themselves are writing, a cartoon travesty starring fictionalized versions of Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, et al that double as voodoo dolls. There's no intellectual floor to their petty maraudings. It's novels all the way down.

Which really means that the media loves McCain and in any case it's all opera criticism.

I'm sure I had something deeper and more insightful to say about all this before I counted the number of plump breasts in the Vanity Fair ads on the right side of the blog. Two naked women and a couple of half-dressed ones, with urgings to watch a slide show of them. No naked men for me at all. Not even one stray chest hair!

Of course I'm a hardened blogger who doesn't let such ads affect her. But it's fascinating to note what the magazine thinks might sell.

P.S. You might not get the same ads but the plump breasts seem to stick.

Greetings From The Supreme Court

Today's decisions included that question about whether death punishment constitutes cruel and unusual punishment for the rape of a child, even if the child survives, and it is no wonder that the other decisions don't get as much coverage. But as Southern Beale points out, there was also a decision which favored Exxon-Mobil.

Some Very Odd Ads

I keep getting that woman who blows up and slims down and blows up and slims down until I think I will puke any minute. Then the text says that you can slim down and boost libido with just one simple pill! But would that pill ever stop from blowing my body up and shrinking it down? I still feel dizzy from having it blink on that site.

Other odd ads: An advertisement for car insurance which consists of a dancing skeleton! I'd like some of what the creators of that ad were imbibing.

And the recent hiring ad for a site which connects you with workers. The ad shows lots of people scurrying to and fro, as they would be seen from above, at a very high distance. Which means that I thought the picture was about bugs and moths crawling and creeping and skittering, and my first reaction was to squash them flat.

Of course I may not be in the target group for those ads. But still.

Back To The Future in Abortion

This story, arguing that a politician running on a pro-life agenda paid for his girlfriend's abortion and dropped her off at the clinic may or may not be true. But it reminded me of the many books and articles I have read about the world before Roe in the United States.

The rich could get safe abortions even then, though the safety wasn't always that much better than what a coat-hanger might provide. Still, if you had the money and the connections you could find a doctor who would perform the abortion either in the U.S. or abroad. It was the poor and the middle class women who had to resort to butchery either by themselves or by someone doing it on the kitchen tables.

What this means is that the illegality of abortion didn't mean that much for those in power, and the same would be true again in the world the pro-lifers plan. Even pro-life politicians could get their girlfriends or wives hush-hush abortions. It is the people without money and connections who would be forced to give birth. And that is already true, given the very unequal distribution of abortion resources within the country.

Weirdness

Maureen Dowd got lots of complaints for her use of gender stereotypes and the way she bashes all Democrats all the time. (This is a funny take on that.) So now her newest column actually attacks a Republican. Wonders never cease. Though she still isn't depicting Karl Rove as a Norwegian Viking princess with a horned hat, a Victoria's Secret bra and a false red clown nose.

We probably have to give her more time to get used to the revolutionary idea that Republicans, too, have gender which can be mocked.

Who Would Have Thought?

That the Justice Department used political criteria (a no-no) to hire nonpartisan career attorneys, in particular in the civil rights division? Oh my, what shall we tell the children?

This:

Applications that contained what were seen as "leftist commentary" or "buzz words" like environmental and social justice were often grounds for rejecting applicants, according to e-mails reviewed by the inspector general's office. Membership in liberal organizations like the American Constitution Society, Greenpeace, or the Poverty and Race Research Action Council were also seen as negative marks.

Affiliation with the Federalist Society, a prominent conservative group, was viewed positively.

So nice to know that the hiring process was changed to insulate it from party-political considerations in 2007. Also nice to know that several additional reports on all this are in the pipeline.

Female Suicide Bombers

Time has an article about a woman who decided to become a suicide bomber in Iraq after her brother turned into a "failed martyr" by having his bomb belt explode prematurely, without any innocent victims:

No one remembers Hasna Maryi ever opening her family's Koran. She rarely attended her village mosque and told others she regarded the Imam there as a lech. So it was not religious extremism that made this villager from Anbar province blow herself up at an Iraqi police checkpoint last summer, killing three officers and injuring at least 10 civilians.

Religion may not have been her motive, but Hasna was an early, willing casualty of the latest jihadi trend: the use of women on the frontlines of the Holy War. Although fewer than 30 of the nearly 1,000 suicide bombings since the end of the war have been attributed to women, American and Iraqi officials say jihadi groups are deploying female bombers far more frequently to slip past the heavy security cordons that are the backbone of the U.S. military's surge strategy. On Sunday, a female bomber killed 16 people and wounded at least 35 in Baquba. Just a few days before, two men and four women detonated a car bomb in a densely packed marketplace in northwest Baghdad, killing 63 people.

In every instance, female bombers have been able to get to their intended target despite multiple layers of security. In a culture that forbids male policemen or checkpoint guards from frisking women — yet also frowns on women joining the security forces — many have easy passage to high-value targets like police stations and markets. They can go unchecked where no man would dream of passing.

Suicide bombers may end their lives in the same way, but it would be foolish to draw any conclusions about their motivations from a single story. Still, how Hasna came to blow herself up sheds some light on the cycle of hopelessness some Iraqi women find themselves in.

According to this story, Hasna became a killer because her brother was one and she wanted to both complete his martyrdom and to follow him to Paradise. I'd argue that all of that is religiously motivated, even if indirectly. But the conclusion of the story is that she did it not for her religion but for a man, her brother in this case, and the unstated assumption is that her motives are something that male suicide bombers do not have. But I have read about female suicide bombers who stated their motives to be fanatically religious and I have read about male suicide bombers who turned into killers because of a death of someone they loved in the family. Sometimes the search for simple and clear-cut explanations is not that enlightening.

The article about Hasna's killing expedition ends like this:

The other video, shot by one of the men who drove her to the checkpoint, shows Hasna looking impassively out of the window until they approach Kilometer 5. Then she pulls a veil over her face and adjusts the belt around her waist before stepping out. One of the men in the car whispers, "God is great!" She doesn't respond or look back. As the car drives away, the video, shot through the rear window, shows her approaching the checkpoint. She is quickly obscured from view by the dust trail behind the car. Nearly a minute later there's a flash, a muffled boom and a column of black smoke. "God is great!" says the cameraman. "The stupid woman did it."

"The stupid woman did it." Is this something the cameraman might have said about any suicide bomber, with a change of "stupid woman" to "stupid man"? Or is the statement just a general expression of contempt towards women?

It's hard to say. But I think the article tries to explain why women would be willing to kill themselves for a movement which doesn't value them or respect them as human beings.


This story is in some ways quite typical of stories about violent women, stories which are a little like that old saw about news being not when a dog bites a man but when a man bites a dog. We all expect dogs to sometimes bite people, but we don't expect people to bite dogs. So the latter is interesting and newsworthy.

In the same way, a woman suicide bomber is newsworthy, because we don't expect women to be the perpetrators of violence but its victims. That the number of female suicide bombers is very small doesn't make them any less interesting, rather the reverse. We are not that interested in the minds of male suicide bombers, because the very idea is more familiar.

The whole treatment of gender and violence in studies and the media has a similar paradoxical flavor. On the one hand, we are blinded to the very gendered nature of violence to such an extent that Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate, a book about popularized evolutionary psychology as an explanation of Everything didn't bother to even mention violence in the chapter about gender differences, and I didn't find a single published criticism of the book that mentioned that odd omission.

On the other hand, when women do commit violent acts the attention those get is enormous, and everybody wants to know what "made her do it." Sometimes the culture in which we live blinds us to the way gender is viewed: as something that only women have. That's why the gendered aspect of violence only becomes visible when women kill.

When Is A Compromise Not A Compromise?

I'm scratching my divine head over the great victory Steny Hoyer has achieved by forcing the Republicans to compromise on the changes to the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Security Act). Remember all the furor over the warrantless wiretapping of Americans, over massive data-mining operations and over the retroactive immunity promises to the telecoms who participated in that? It would seem logical to expect the compromises to be about those three topics, would it not?

Yet Glenn Greenwald quotes the right-wing organ, the Washington Times, as saying this about the Hoyer's compromise:

The most important benefit of the agreement is that it grants retroactive liability protection to telecommunications companies who responded to the federal government's request for emergency help after September 11. . . . The legislation, which would sunset in 2012, also ends the foolish practice of requiring judicial (or formal attorney-general) authorization to monitor communications between terrorists overseas if their calls are routed through a switch located in the United States.

So what was the compromise? Where is that great Hoyer victory?

The more I read about it, the more the great Hoyer victory seems to be over the Democrats. To quote the august Washington Times again:

If the House vote is any indication, political fallout from the legislation will unify Republicans and deeply divide the Democrats - not unlike the presidential primaries which just concluded. In the House, Republicans voted 188-1 in favor of the bill, while Democrats voted 128-105 against it. Left-wing blogs like Talking Points Memo and DailyKos are furious with members of the House Democratic leadership like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes and members of the Blue Dog Coalition for supporting the bill.

Ok. So the Democrats voted 128-105 against Hoyer's great compromise, but only one Republican didn't like the compromise? How extremely fascinating! Who is it that Hoyer was fighting here but his own party.

He managed to cave in to the Republican minority. Now, that's a great victory, indeed. Unless you like the Constitution and stuff.

George Carlin can go to feminist hell (by Suzie)

for all I care. I know we're supposed to speak well of the dead. (Unless you're Bob Somerby talking about Tim Russert.) But the very fact that someone is down -- and DEAD -- makes it a lot easier to kick him. (I can't recall where I stole that joke; maybe it's from Carlin himself.) 

        Check out Carlin on the hilarity of rape jokes, including the idea that men commit rape because they're horny and can't get sex any other way. He also got laughs about “Eskimo rape,” before the recent publicity over the high rate of rape among indigenous women in Alaska.

       In his popular bit named "Feminist Blowjob," he say: "It doesn't take a lot of imagination to piss off feminists." He says we attack "fat-ass housewives." We attack men and yet act like men with our "pointless careerism." We are mostly white, middle-class women who "don't give a shit" about women of color. We blow stuff out of proportion, and we take ourselves too seriously. (Did I hear "Bingo"?)
        Like a lot of people, Carlin confused state censorship with individuals who prefer not to be maligned or misrepresented. He criticized feminists for wanting to control language and to tell people what to think. But he had strong opinions, and he used language in hopes of getting people to believe as he did. 

Republican Framing 101

Karl Rove is teaching us all how it is done:

ABC News' Christianne Klein reports that at a breakfast with Republican insiders at the Capitol Hill Club this morning, former White House senior aide Karl Rove referred to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, as "coolly arrogant."

"Even if you never met him, you know this guy," Rove said, per Christianne Klein. "He's the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by."

Rove's statement has nothing to do with the political skills of the candidates (Obama and McCain) and almost nothing to do with reality. McCain, for instance, is much, much wealthier than Obama. The "country club" reference is intended to evoke feelings of bitterness about the rich who go to such places, but of course African Americans have not traditionally been welcome in them at all. So Rove scores a double here in turning facts upside-down. It's McCain who would be a much better example of someone doing those things in a country club when he was younger: A military hero and all!

That whole statement is intended to provoke teenage feelings of resentment among those who hear or read it, to spread an odd veil of emotional envy towards Barack Obama, to poison the air with the ideas that it is he who is the elitist and not McCain even though McCain has considerably better qualifications for that role.

But of course all this is your typical Rove maneuvering: Take a fact and turn it completely back-to-front. Attack the strengths of the opposition and argue that they are the real weaknesses.

Because Obama's strength is partly that he is NOT in the ruling elite nor in the moneyed elite. If anything, he has the power of the outsider, and it is that power that Rove tries to destroy by his smears.

What Rove does is not that different from what Maureen Dowd does, every week in the New York Times: Encouraging people not to engage their thinking minds but instead decide on the world based on some very silly stereotypes and emotional grudges from past youth. This makes me very angry, because what is at stake is the real lives of people both in this country and elsewhere. Even their real deaths.

A Post On Subtitles.

A Post on Subtitles. Explaining in Great Detail Why Such Are the Pits and Should Be Banned by Law.

The best reason is that they irritate me, anger me and make me want to scratch my spinal cord. Why did we suddenly fall back into the Victorian custom of providing book summaries in the form of subtitles? Why? I demand an answer.

The title of a book should be short and redolent of the main message of the book and the emotions it provokes. It should stick in your memory and make it easy to talk about the book. Subtitles don't do any of that. They are crutches, added to keep the wobbly main title on its drunken feet, and I resent that very much.

Subtitles are not that common on the covers of most books, but they sure are proliferating on the covers of books about politics. It's as if readers of political books are expected just to read the subtitle before they go on some pundit show to discuss the book (which they mostly appear not to have read). Or as if readers of political books are viewed as so stupid that the political bias of the book must be condensed into a suitable subtitle. (If you have never heard of the author, you can look at the back cover and check who it is that has been made to recommend the book. If the three names there are all conservatives then you have a conservative book. If the three names are all liberals then you have a liberal book. Or you can check out the publisher's ideological bias.)

Now that was fun. I like selfish rants on my own blog, especially when they do have a point, though I still want to write The Memoirs of Echidne. My Life As An Old Man And How To Stuff A Mushroom If You Must.

Anyway, what this post really is about (after that very long subtitle) is this:

Shelby Steele, author of A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win (Free Press, December 2007), acknowledged that he thinks Sen. Barack Obama "can definitely win" the presidential election, despite the claim in the book's subtitle -- "Why He Can't Win" -- which he said was an "afterthought" that he "regret[ted]" and which he said did not represent the book's thesis.

This silliness is of course all about the real reason for subtitles in political books: They are there to market the book, in this case to those who rather want to see Obama fail and wish to read something that supports that view.

Liars Figure (by Phila)

An article in New Scientist presents a startling new scientific finding: Researchers whose definition of male success involves carefree sex with lots of women have discovered that men who have carefree sex with lots of women are successful:

Nice guys knew it, now two studies have confirmed it: bad boys get the most girls. The finding may help explain why a nasty suite of antisocial personality traits known as the "dark triad" persists in the human population, despite their potentially grave cultural costs.

The traits are the self-obsession of narcissism; the impulsive, thrill-seeking and callous behaviour of psychopaths; and the deceitful and exploitative nature of Machiavellianism. At their extreme, these traits would be highly detrimental for life in traditional human societies. People with these personalities risk being shunned by others and shut out of relationships, leaving them without a mate, hungry and vulnerable to predators.

The phrase "traditional human societies" begs a few pointed questions. But we'll put them aside for now. Bigger and better things are afoot.

[B]eing just slightly evil could have an upside: a prolific sex life, says Peter Jonason at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces. "We have some evidence that the three traits are really the same thing and may represent a successful evolutionary strategy."

That these complex traits are "really the same thing" is a fairly bold claim, and I'm not entirely surprised that Peter Jonason tries to support it by describing the behavior of a fictional character:

James Bond epitomises this set of traits, Jonason says. "He's clearly disagreeable, very extroverted and likes trying new things - killing people, new women." Just as Bond seduces woman after woman, people with dark triad traits may be more successful with a quantity-style or shotgun approach to reproduction, even if they don't stick around for parenting. "The strategy seems to have worked. We still have these traits," Jonason says.

We still have monastic celibacy, too, last time I checked. I don't find it puzzling that this "extreme" behavior hasn't become common in the general population. So why should I find it puzzling that not all men are promiscuous sociopaths?

"They still have to explain why it hasn't spread to everyone," says Matthew Keller of the University of Colorado in Boulder. "There must be some cost of the traits."

It's very heartening to think of the earnest debates that are being held as to whether a trait that is explicitly defined as narcissistic, callous, and exploitative -- that is explicitly defined, in other words, as antisocial -- might have some sort of social cost.

I've saved the best part for last:

Jonason and his colleagues subjected 200 college students to personality tests designed to rank them for each of the dark triad traits. They also asked about their attitudes to sexual relationships and about their sex lives, including how many partners they'd had and whether they were seeking brief affairs.

In other words, they asked male college students who scored high on a test for narcissistic and deceitful personality traits to report on their own sexual conquests, and took their answers at face value.

I'm no expert, but that really doesn't seem like a very good way to proceed.