Advice Goddess Blog

February 12, 2005

Art Is Commercial

Art Is Commercial

The chimp spots that first played during the Superbowl, which I believe is a popular sporting event.

Posted by aalkon at 09:47 AM | Comments (1)

The Freedom To Be Insulted

The Freedom To Be Insulted
Salman Rushdie, in the face of an increasing presence of funda-nutters, in our own country and around the world, warns that the battle of The Enlightenment is in danger of being unwon:

The idea that any kind of free society can be constructed in which people will never be offended or insulted, have the right to call on the law to defend them against being offended or insulted, is absurd. In the end a fundamental decision needs to be made: do we want to live in a free society or not? Democracy is not a tea party where people sit around making polite conversation. In democracies people get extremely upset with each other. They argue vehemently against each other's positions. (But they don't shoot.)

At Cambridge I was taught a laudable method of argument: you never personalise, but you have absolutely no respect for people's opinions. You are never rude to the person, but you can be savagely rude about what the person thinks. That seems to me a crucial distinction: people must be protected from discrimination by virtue of their race, but you cannot ring-fence their ideas. The moment you say that any idea system is sacred, whether it's a belief system or a secular ideology, the moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible.

Posted by aalkon at 08:32 AM | Comments (2)

February 11, 2005

Victims Gone Wild: How Feminism Has Messed Up Relationships

Victims Gone Wild: How Feminism Has Messed Up Relationships
That's the title of the piece I wrote for the 20th anniversary edition of the alt weekly, the San Jose Metro. Dan Pulcrano, the editor, who also designed and built my Web site (but not my blog), asked for something on how love, dating, sex, and/or relationships have changed in the past 20 years. Obviously, AIDS has had a major, major impact, and the Internet and other technology has had a big influence as well. But, I think what I call "victim feminism" has had a huge impact -- and I think few people realize exactly how damaging it's been. Here's an excerpt:

"IN SEDUCTION, the rapist often bothers to buy a bottle of wine," proclaimed radical feminist Andrea Dworkin in 1976. If you're a woman born 20 years ago, you probably don't even recognize Dworkin's name. Yet, there's a good chance you've had some seriously frustrating dates with her unwitting progeny: the guy who waits until date three or four—not to grab you, throw you up against the wall and suck face—but to politely inquire, "May I kiss you?"

Equal pay for equal work? It's a beautiful thing. Equal opportunity? Thrilled to have it. We women owe an enormous debt to Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and all who followed in their footsteps, fighting the righteous fight against sex-based discrimination.

Unfortunately, in the late '70s and early '80s, feminism got hijacked by a small but vocal gang of Victims Gone Wild. Leading the band with Dworkin was anti-porn harpy and law professor Catherine MacKinnon (most of whose outrageous, but now commonly accepted, claims about the damage done to women by pornography were neatly debunked in a 2004 analysis by psych professor Catherine Salmon).

Dworkin, MacKinnon and their hairy-armpitted underbosses gave the order to the "victimized"—women, largely privileged and white, on campuses across America—to crawl out from under the boot of "male oppression." In reality, what they were fighting wasn't male oppression, but maleness of any kind—based on the erroneous feminist notion that equality means sameness.

In their eyes, male sexuality isn't just different. It's WRONG. Penetration is a form of rape, don'tcha know? Ultimately, these femi-fascists sought to re-create men in their own image and to reshape sexual expression into something kinder, gentler and more "egalitarian." (Personally, I have no idea what more "egalitarian" sex is—and I hope I never find out.)

The rest of the piece is at the link above. The brilliant meta-analysis (study of a bunch of studies) by Catherine Salmon is in the book, Evolutionary Psychology, Public Policy, and Personal Decisions. P.S. If someone asks me if I am a feminist, I generally respond, "I'm an Elizabeth Cady Stanton feminist" (i.e., for equal treatment, not special treatment) to disassociate myself from all the weepy, jack-booted man-haters and all the women shouting about their vaginas onstage.

Posted by aalkon at 08:23 AM | Comments (21)

Condi LIed

Condi Lied
Kos has it -- a photo and PDF of a memo from Richard Clarke to Condolying Sleazebag Rice; the memo that she diminished, during the 9-11 hearings, as a mere "set of ideas." This is the memo, now newly declassified, that sounded the alarm on "Al Quida."

Remember when the Republicans called out the big guns when Clinton lied about the whereabouts of his penis?

Posted by aalkon at 06:16 AM | Comments (1)

February 10, 2005

The Perfect Child

The Perfect Child

If you can't sit next to one who's quiet and well-behaved, sit next to one with a big blank space where the screams are supposed to come out.

Posted by aalkon at 08:14 AM | Comments (6)

A Brilliant Idea About "Intelligent" Design

A Brilliant Idea About "Intelligent" Design
Reason's Ron Bailey has done it again. Not only has he written a brilliant piece that sweeps the floor with that funda-nutter favorite, "intelligent" design, he has a brilliant solution for those who would have us preach, uh, teach, it in the public schools:

Get rid of public schools. Give parents vouchers and let them choose the schools to which to send their children. Fundamentalists can send their kids to schools that teach that the earth was created on Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC. Science geeks can send their kids to technoschools that teach them how to splice genes to make purple mice. This proposal lowers political and social conflict, and eventually those made fitter in the struggle for life by better education will win.

Not to worry. I'm sure the children of the science geeks will eventually need cleaning ladies.

Posted by aalkon at 07:31 AM | Comments (10)

Bush Social Spaghetti Plan

And I Thought I Was Having A Hard Time Understanding The Social Security Options
Now, let's let George Bush explain (quote from Slate's Bushism Of The Day, by Jacob Weisberg):

"Because the—all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those—changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be—or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the—like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate—the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those—if that growth is affected, it will help on the red."—Explaining his plan to save Social Security, Tampa, Fla., Feb. 4, 2005

Posted by aalkon at 06:08 AM | Comments (4)

February 09, 2005

Judge For Yourself

Judge For Yourself
How big is the man who used the bushes in my neighborhood for his personal bathroom? Your estimate below! He said his name was "Seb," and said he was from Belgium. I suggested he drag his barnyard animal self back there and use his own country as a latrine, since it's kind of unpleasant when mine smells like the men's bathroom whenever it rains, thanks to guys like him. I also asked him for his address, so my neighbors and I could all reciprocate on his lawn, but he wasn't exactly forthcoming.

UPDATE: Ooh, cool! I'm Blog Of The Day on ImmaculateStroke.com! And a link from Emmanuelle, too, who emailed me that:

...an outraged Belgium reader reminded me that the Mankenpiss (the statue of the kid peeing in Brussels) is a national symbol there, so maybe this guy was only being patriotic!

Yes, but, when in Los Angeles...!

Posted by aalkon at 08:18 AM | Comments (15)

There Goes Georgie, Running Up The Credit Cards

There Goes Georgie, Running Up The Credit Cards
But he does talk tough on being poor and old! From The New York Times' editorial page:

President George W. Bush's latest deficit-steeped budget, for all its tough talk of reining in spending, stands out as a monument to misplaced political capital. It would take some hard work, indeed, to get Congress to face up to the binge of deficit spending that is haunting the United States and future generations of taxpayers. Yet Bush is not going to face the music. Instead, he's investing his precious re-election clout in pushing a wildly expensive plan to divert some Social Security payments to private accounts, a step that would not even address the long-term financial problems with the current system. His proposed budget, meanwhile, is a picture of reduced revenue and swollen pockets of hidden spending. The lip service about draconian clampdowns will hardly solve the problem, particularly in the eyes of the international markets that are studying the administration for signs of commitment to closing the budget deficit.

Bush is right to call for a healthy analysis of government programs to determine which ones cost more than they are worth. But the reductions he proposes for the biggest targets are timid ones.

...Overall, the budget is a sham that takes big cuts out of politically vulnerable programs that have very little to do with the explosion of the deficit in Bush's tenure.

Programs benefiting low-income citizens, like community development and health care, are destined to bear close to half of the cuts even though they accounted for less than 10 percent of the spending increases during the first Bush term. Some of the cruelest cuts would affect hundreds of thousands of working poor people who rely on child-care assistance and food stamps.

The deficit problem is a reflection of lowered revenue more than high spending - a fact that the president and the Republicans in Congress are determined to ignore. To the contrary, they propose to lock the once-"temporary" Bush tax cuts into stone. Meanwhile, expensive outlays will continue for the Pentagon, homeland security and mandated costs like Medicare. With such a lopsided perspective, vital environmental, education and housing programs cannot help but be disproportionately trimmed.

As a political tract, the budget neatly omits any accounting for next year's costs of the Iraq war, lately running at more than $5 billion a month. Nor do the budget figures for later years mention the hundreds of billions in borrowing that would be required to start up Bush's plan to allow Social Security taxes to be directed into private investments.

Washington hands expect many, if not most, of the president's proposed cuts to be reinstated by Congress. And given Bush's preoccupation with Social Security, it's hard to imagine him wasting much effort on a leaner Pentagon budget or saner agricultural subsidies. In the end, only the programs with the least political clout - generally aimed at helping the weakest groups in the country - will be pared down or eliminated. That might give some politicians a sense of political cover, but it would be a bad choice and would hardly solve the problem.

Posted by aalkon at 07:13 AM | Comments (4)

February 08, 2005

Today's Auto Erotica

Today's Auto Erotica

Posted by aalkon at 09:18 AM | Comments (2)

The Ugly Twins

The Ugly Twins
Uglybreastimplants.com. A pictorial tour of the detached retinas of the upper rib cage, in a number of highly unattractive flavors.

via Defamer

Posted by aalkon at 08:15 AM | Comments (4)

How Divisive Is George Bush's America?

How Divisive Is George Bush's America?
A number of Americans are moving to Canada to escape it, writes Rick Lyman in The New York Times:

Christopher Key knows exactly what he would be giving up if he left Bellingham, Washington.

"It's the sort of place Norman Rockwell would paint, where everyone watches out for everyone else and we have block parties every year," said Key, a 56-year-old Vietnam War veteran and former magazine editor who lists Francis Scott Key, who wrote "The Star-Spangled Banner," among his ancestors.

But leave it he intends to do, and as soon as he can. His house is on the market, and he is busily seeking work across the border in Canada. For him, the re-election of George W. Bush was the last straw.

"I love the United States," he said as he stood on the Vancouver waterfront, staring toward the Coastal Range, which was lost in a gray shroud. "I fought for it in Vietnam. It's a wrenching decision to think about leaving. But America is turning into a country very different from the one I grew up believing in."

In the Niagara of liberal angst just after Bush's victory on Nov. 2, the Canadian government's immigration Web site reported a surge in inquiries from the United States, to about 115,000 a day from 20,000.

After three months, memories of the election have begun to recede. There has been an inauguration, even a State of the Union address.

Yet immigration lawyers say that Americans are not just making inquiries and that more are pursuing a move above the 49th parallel, fed up with a country they see drifting persistently to the right and abandoning the principles of tolerance, compassion and peaceful idealism they felt once defined the nation.

America is in no danger of emptying out. But even a small loss of population, many from a deep sense of political despair, is a significant event in the life of a nation that thinks of itself as a place to escape to. Firm numbers on potential immigrants are elusive.

"The number of U.S. citizens who are actually submitting Canadian immigration papers and making concrete plans is about three or four times higher than normal," said Linda Mark, an immigration lawyer in Vancouver.

Other immigration lawyers in Toronto, Montreal and Halifax, Nova Scotia, said they had noticed a similar uptick, though most put the rise at closer to threefold.

Posted by aalkon at 06:25 AM | Comments (4)

Not Elective

Not Elective
Some people aren't cheering as loudly as other people at the news of the Iraqi elections. Cindy Sheehan lost her son Casey in Iraq:

My son, Spc. Casey Austin Sheehan (KIA, Sadr City, 04/04/04) enlisted in the Army to protect America and give something back to our country. He didn't enlist to be used and misused by a reckless Commander-in-Chief who sent his troops to preemptively attack and occupy a country that was no imminent threat (or any threat) to our country. Casey was sent to die in a war that was based on the imagination of some neo-cons who love to fill our lives with fear.

Casey didn't agree with the "mission"; he believed in being the courageous and honorable man that he was. He knew he had to go to this mistake of a war to support his buddies. Casey also wondered aloud many times why precious troops and resources were being diverted from the real war on terror.

Casey was told that he would be welcomed to Iraq as a liberator with chocolates and rose petals strewn in front of his unarmored Humvee. He was in Iraq for two short weeks when the Shi'ite rebel "welcome wagon" welcomed him to Baghdad with bullets and RPG's, which took his young and beautiful life. I think my son's helmet and Vietnam era flak jacket would have protected him better from the chocolates and flower petals.

Casey was killed after George Bush proclaimed "Mission Accomplished" on May 1, 2003. He was also killed after Saddam was captured in December of that same year. Casey was killed before the transfer of power in June of 2004 and before these elections.

Four marines were tragically killed after the election. By my count about five dozen Iraqis and coalition troops were killed on Election Day. Is this the definition of "Catastrophic Success?" Is that a good day in Iraq? Hundreds of our young people and thousands of Iraqis have been needlessly and senselessly murdered since George Bush triumphantly announced an end to "major combat" almost two years ago now. All of the above events have been heralded by this administration as "turning points" in the "war on terror" or as wonderful events in the "march of democracy." Really? I don't think, judging by very recent history, the elections will stop the bloodshed and destruction.

I would have asked Larry King (she was bumped for news of the Michael Jackson trial) if he would want to sacrifice one of his children for sham elections in Iraq. Would he or George Bush send their child to be killed or maimed for life for a series of lies, mistakes and miscalculations?

This war was sold to the American people by a slimy leadership with a maniacal zeal and phony sincerity that would have impressed snake oil salesmen a century ago. The average American needs to hear from people who have been devastated by the arrogance and ignorance of an administration that doesn't even have the decency or compassion to sign our "death" letters.

In the interest of being "fair and balanced" (oops, wrong network), I would have been pitted against a parent who still agrees with the "mission" and with the president. Although I grieve for that parent's loss and I respect that parent's opinion, I would have defied Mr. King or that parent to explain the mission to me. I don't think anyone can do it with a straight face. The president has also stated that we need to keep our troops in Iraq to honor our sacrifices by completing this elusive and ever changing mission. My response? Just because it is too late for Casey and the Sheehan family, why would we want another innocent life taken in the name of this chameleon of a mission?

At Casey's page, you'll see Cindy's letter to George Bush.

Posted by aalkon at 05:09 AM | Comments (2)

February 07, 2005

Still In Movable Type Hell

Still In Movable Type Hell

Comments still don't look like they're registering (all the counters below the posts read zero, and you'll get 500 errors when you comment), but comments are going in, and they're there if you click on "Comments." P.S. While Jesus hasn't done a damn thing for me, Gregg is working wonders.

Posted by aalkon at 09:45 AM | Comments (1)

Democracy Then

Democracy Then
Conservative Scott McConnell writes in The American Conservative that he fears the spread of fascism -- in our own country. He's joined by fellow conservatives, Paul Craig Roberts, Lew Rockwell, Justin Raimondo, and even Fritz Stern:

...Rockwell (and Roberts and Raimondo) is correct in drawing attention to a mood among some conservatives that is at least latently fascist. Rockwell describes a populist Right website that originally rallied for the impeachment of Bill Clinton as “hate-filled ... advocating nuclear holocaust and mass bloodshed for more than a year now.” One of the biggest right-wing talk-radio hosts regularly calls for the mass destruction of Arab cities. Letters that come to this magazine from the pro-war Right leave no doubt that their writers would welcome the jailing of dissidents. And of course it’s not just us. When USA Today founder Al Neuharth wrote a column suggesting that American troops be brought home sooner rather than later, he was blown away by letters comparing him to Tokyo Rose and demanding that he be tried as a traitor. That mood, Rockwell notes, dwarfs anything that existed during the Cold War. “It celebrates the shedding of blood, and exhibits a maniacal love of the state. The new ideology of the red-state bourgeoisie seems to actually believe that the US is God marching on earth—not just godlike, but really serving as a proxy for God himself.”

via metafilter

Posted by aalkon at 07:03 AM | Comments (3)

The Ugly American Goes To Auschwitz

The Ugly American Goes To Auschwitz
That would be our vice president, representing the United States of America, at a rather solemn, formal occasion, in an olive-drab parka, hiking boots, and a knit ski cap:

Other leaders at the event in Poland on Thursday marking the 60th anniversary of the death camp's liberation, such as French President Jacques Chirac and Russian President Vladimir Putin, wore dark, formal overcoats and dress shoes or boots.

"The vice president, however, was dressed in the kind of attire one typically wears to operate a snow blower," Robin Givhan, The Washington Post's fashion writer, wrote in the newspaper's Friday editions.

Between the somber, dark-coated leaders at the outdoor ceremony sat Cheney, resplendent in a green parka embroidered with his name and featuring a fur-trimmed hood, the laced brown boots and a knit ski cap reading "Staff 2001."

"And, indeed, the vice president looked like an awkward boy amid the well-dressed adults," Givhan wrote.

Britain's Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph newspapers also both noted that Cheney had opted for casual attire.

The Post's Givhan said Cheney might have been hoping to avoid the cold weather in Oswiecim, but noted he had worn a dark overcoat and no hat at all at another recent winter occasion -- his own swearing-in ceremony on Inauguration Day on Jan. 20 in snow-dusted Washington.

"The vice president might have been warm in his parka, ski cap and hiking boots," Givhan said. "But they had the unfortunate effect of suggesting he was more concerned with his own comfort than the reason for braving the cold at all."

Posted by aalkon at 06:12 AM | Comments (6)

Deep Throat Death Watch

Deep Throat Death Watch
John Dean says we'll soon know the identity of Watergate secret source, Deep Throat:

Bob Woodward, a reporter on the team that covered the Watergate story, has advised his executive editor at the Washington Post that Throat is ill. And Ben Bradlee, former executive editor of the Post and one of the few people to whom Woodward confided his source's identity, has publicly acknowledged that he has written Throat's obituary.

Posted by aalkon at 05:59 AM | Comments (0)

Youth In Where?

Youth In Where?
Kevin Roderick highlights the LA Times' Tim Rutten column about the issue everybody's ignoring as they celebrate Million Dolllar Baby.

Posted by aalkon at 04:14 AM | Comments (4)

February 06, 2005

Dead Center

Dead Center
Nancy Rommelmann has the cover of this weekend's LA Times Magazine, with her fascinating story on the alt-death movement -- reconsidering how we tend to and dispose of the dead; people taking death back from the funeral industry:

There's an alternative-death movement fomenting in Northern California, one that leaves the funeral industry out of the picture altogether. Proponents of home funerals and of green burials, wherein bodies are interred in natural environments and in ways that promote decomposition, insist that this country's "death-denying tradition," in Lyons' term, is not merely costly but corrosive to body and spirit, to land and communities. Fear and doubt, they say, crept into the space left when we handed death to others, and our attendant helplessness supports the multibillion-dollar death-care industry. And they know, even if we don't yet, just how badly we want to bury our own dead.

"We're always afraid of the unknown, until we've been exposed to it and seen that it isn't frightening," says Lyons, proffering several fat albums containing photographs of former clients: dark-haired Donna, who stenciled her own casket before dying of a brain tumor at 32; Bernd, who also died of cancer, lying in bed, wearing a prayer shawl, his mouth curled in an easy smile. There is nothing ghoulish or grotesque about the images; there is neither rictus nor putrefaction. Instead, there's a 3-year-old in foot-pajamas peering at Aunt Donna, lain out after death in her own bedroom.

There's also a picture of Carolyn Whiting, who died suddenly of respiratory failure in 1994 and whose friends, Lyons says, "were simply not ready to let her go."

It turned out that they did not have to. Convening at Whiting's home the night of her death, Lyons and others learned that she had left instructions as to how she wanted to be cared for. "She did not want to be turned over to a mortuary," Lyons says, "but rather wanted her friends to bring her body home if she was in the hospital, and prepare her body."

Lyons admits that they were caught off guard. "I don't think this would have occurred to us. At all," she says. "We, like everyone else I talk to about home funerals, would have asked, 'Is that legal?' "

Home preparation of the deceased, without an undertaker's involvement, is legal in every state but four. Today there are books (such as Lyons' "Creating Home Funerals" and Lisa Carlson's "Caring for the Dead: Your Final Act of Love") that give detailed instructions in after-death care. At the time, Whiting's friends winged it: They took her body home, bathed and perfumed her, picked out clothing, held a wake, and then loaded Whiting into a van and drove her to the crematory.

"It was so helpful to us, to deal with our shock and our grief, and in such a loving, beautiful way to celebrate her life," says Lyons, who went on to found Final Passages, a nonprofit educational program, and Home and Family Funerals, a service wherein Lyons is paid as a "death-midwife," helping the dying and their families with everything from preparing the body to filing paperwork. She works on a sliding scale, but says a full cremation with her facilitation could cost $750. She estimates that in the last 10 years she's helped more than 250 people "pass over."

"A person, their body doesn't immediately look white as a ghost, or change rapidly," Lyons says. "People think they're going to start decomposing instantly. And that's not so."

As she teaches in seminars around the country, the body can lie in state at home for up to three days, and perhaps longer, provided measures are taken within the first six to 12 hours. The body should be well washed, especially the genitals, with warm, soapy water; the abdomen should be pressed to expel any waste. After the body is dried and dressed, ice (preferably dry but regular will do), which has been wrapped in grocery bags and then cloth, should be placed beneath the torso to keep the organs cool, as these are the first parts of the body to break down. The body should be kept in a cool room. If the person dies with his mouth open, which can be disconcerting to visitors, a scarf may be looped beneath the chin and tied around the head until the mouth sets shut. Similarly, eyes may be closed by gently weighing them down with small bags filled with rice or sand. The casket can be decorated, and a memorial display set up, plain or fancy. One family Lyons helped watched a video with their departed father that he'd rented but had not had a chance to see; another put hiking boots on dad and wheeled him into the woods for a final "hiking trip to heaven."

These people were able to take a deep breath and do what needed to be done. Others need hand-holding. Lyons recently helped a family whose belief in anthroposophy (the philosophy of Rudolf Steiner) dictated that the father's body be kept at home for three days, surrounded by loved ones, read to and cared for. This frightened his teenage daughter.

"She did not come in the room as we were bathing him," Lyons says, "but eventually she came in and started asking questions, and started feeling really relaxed and comfortable." So comfortable that a while later she had her friends over. "They were in the other room, talking and being normal teenagers. It was all a part of family life."

Posted by aalkon at 08:35 AM | Comments (3)

Microsoft In The Head

Microsoft In The Head
Why are you still using a PC? Mark Morford lays out the best column I've read on all the reasons it's dumb to go with Gates. Here's his description of what happened when his girlfriend added DSL to her Sony Vaio:

She got online all right. The DSL worked great. For about four minutes.

Then, something happened. Something attacked. Something swarmed her computer the instant she tried to move around online and the computer slowed and bogged and cluttered and crashed, and multiple restarts and debuggings and what-the-hells only brought up only a flood of nightmarish pop-up windows and terrifying error messages and massive system slowdowns and all manner of inexplicable claims of infestation of this worm and that Trojan horse and did we want to buy McAfee AntiVirus protection for $39.95?

Four minutes. And she was already DOA.

My SO, she is not alone. This exact same scenario, with only slight variation, is happening throughout the nation, right now. Are you using a PC? You probably have spyware. The McAfee site claims a whopping 91 percent of PCs are infected. As every Windows user knows, PCs are ever waging a losing battle with a stunningly vicious array of malware and worms and viruses, all aimed at exploiting one of about ten thousand security flaws and holes in Microsoft Windows.

Here, then, is my big obvious question: Why the hell do people put up with this? Why is there not some massive revolt, some huge insurrection against Microsoft? Why is there not a huge contingent of furious users stomping up to Seattle with torches and scythes and crowbars, demanding the Windows Frankenstein monster be sacrificed at the altar of decent functionality and an elegant user interface?

There is nothing else like this phenomenon in the entire consumer culture. If anything else performed as horribly as Windows, and on such a global scale, consumers would scream bloody murder and demand their money back and there would be some sort of investigation, class-action litigation, a demand for Bill Gates' cute little geeky head on a platter.

Here is your brand new car, sir. Drive it off the lot. Yay yay new car. Suddenly, new car shuts off. New car barely starts again and then only goes about 6 miles per hour and it belches smoke and every warning light on the dashboard is blinking on and off and the tires are screaming and the heater is blasting your feet and something smells like burned hair. You hobble back to the dealer, who only says, gosh, sorry, we thought you knew -- that's they way they all run. Enjoy!

Would you not be, like, that is the goddamn last time I buy a Ford?

This post was written on a piece of art otherwise known as the new G5 iMac. My other car is an iBook. My original Mac, a Classic purchased in 1983, is still in operation in Rome. In all these years of Mac use, I've never had the need to read the directions.

Posted by aalkon at 07:36 AM | Comments (3)

February 05, 2005

Mock and Roll

Mock And Roll
That would be mock weddings and a roll of cash to throw them with, in the name of AIDS prevention. Just, whatever you do, don't say "condom." No..Shhhhhhh! Mock-wedding tossing AIDS "educator" Phillippia Faust is just one of many do-badders on the AIDS misinformation hall of shame list, but she's making it pay handsomely:

Got a lame, one-dimensional abstinence-only message for America's adolescents, ages 12 through 18? Get a grant! That's what Phillippia Faust, a nurse at Georgia's Rockdale County Medical Center, did last year. Faust was awarded a federal grant of $177,809 a year for three years (that's $533,427, or half a million dollars) to create an abstinence-only program. Now she no longer has to carry a poster from classroom to classroom -- Sex Outside of Marriage is ... Not needed. Not normal. Not expected! -- as she did in the past. Now, Faust can afford a staff, supplies and a real curriculum. "We do discuss teen pregnancy and STDs," says Faust. "But abstinence is all about strengthening the family. Abstinence upholds the family as the basic unit of society and recognizes marriage as the framework for the family, which equates childbearing within the context of family. Abstinence identifies marriage as the only acceptable and legitimate place for the sexual experience and that avoidance from premarital sexual activity, including but not limited to sexual intercourse, is the expectant standard for the unmarried." It's entirely possible that Phillippia Faust is a really nice person, but she sure does sound like an insufferable, proselytizing control freak with an astonishingly narrow and oppressive view of human sexuality. How does she stop teens from engaging in premarital sexual activity? By staging mock weddings -- complete with props, scenery, bridal attire and graphic slide show presentations of the ghastly things sexually transmitted diseases can do to your body. After two mock weddings last May, Faust told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "I just wanted kids to have a grand visual of what their day-to-day decisions can lead to for their families, with an image of two beds -- the bed of poor choices and the bed of 'we made good choices by waiting.'" Those are your tax dollars at work ... and a half a million bucks can buy a lot of mock weddings.

If this weren't so damaging it would actually be funny.

Posted by aalkon at 08:17 AM | Comments (11) | TrackBack

February 04, 2005

Blue Blog

Blue Blog
There's something weird going on with my comments and archived entries. They are blue, and you can't see the poster's name unless you roll your cursor over it (unless it's different on a PC -- I'm a Mac girl). The technology director/boyfriend is on it. It will be fixed soon. You still get 500 errors when you comment, but comments are going up, and comments may not look like they're registering (counter-wise), but they're there if you click on comments.

Posted by aalkon at 08:06 AM | Comments (47) | TrackBack

Bush Lies To Blacks

Bush Lies To Blacks
The GOP is playing the race card on Social Security, writes Farhad Manjoo on Salon (short but irritating commercial must be screened to read story), pushing the old lie that blacks collect fewer Social Security benefits because they don't live as long as whites:

Here's the trouble with the emotional, race-based appeal: It has no basis in fact. Or, as Dean Baker, co-director of the left-leaning think tank Center for Economic and Policy Research, puts it, "It's wrong in just about every single respect."

To begin with, there is no evidence that blacks, as a group, are cheated by Social Security. Yes, whites do live longer than blacks, which means that the average white woman will collect more benefit checks than the average black man. But, Baker points out, blacks also generally make less money than whites, which means that they get a higher rate of return on their contributions to the system. And because African-Americans suffer higher rates of disability than whites, they draw more from Social Security's disability benefits than whites. Meanwhile, spouses and minor children of African-Americans heavily depend on the system's survivor benefits. When economists have studied all that blacks put into the system compared with all they get out of it, Baker says, blacks, as a group, aren't being treated unfairly -- and they may even be doing better than whites.

Anti-Social Security agitators such as Stephen Moore, who heads the Free Enterprise Fund, have taken to calling Social Security a "massive income redistribution program" that sucks money out of African-Americans' pockets and spits it out to whites. But in truth, says Hillary Shelton of the NAACP, African-Americans would be absolutely destitute without Social Security. "African-American children are almost four times as likely to be lifted out of poverty by Social Security benefits than our white counterparts," Shelton says.

In a Social Security briefing paper, Shelton declares that "almost 80 percent of African Americans over age 65 depend on Social Security for more than half of their income, and more than half rely on it for 90 percent or more of their income." Basically, he writes, "without the guaranteed Social Security benefits they receive today, the poverty rate among older African Americans would more than double, pushing most African American seniors into squalor and poverty during their most vulnerable years."

But the main problem with the Republicans' argument that private accounts would be better for blacks than the current system is not that it's economically wrong. It's that it's gravely pessimistic. As the president took pains to point out in his State of the Union address, Social Security reform won't affect today's generation of retirees; it will benefit today's young people, who will retire 30 or 40 years from now. By that reasoning, conservatives are conceding that blacks will die young not only now but 40 years from now. Apparently, they aren't concerned about working to ensure that young African-Americans live as long and healthy lives as today's young white people.

The conservative argument, Baker points out, is based on the idea that inequality is persistent. But why should we accept that it is? According to national mortality statistics (PDF), African-Americans suffer a higher death rate than whites for a number of plausibly preventable causes -- AIDS and homicide, for instance. Innumerable such inequalities are responsible for blacks' shorter lives. "Maybe those inequalities won't disappear over the next 40 or so years," Baker says. "But can't we assume that they will get smaller and smaller?"

It's pretty scary that they can't sell this on the facts, and instead resort to Anne Coulter-style facts. If you remove Social Security as is, and let people manage their accounts, who takes care of them if they make bad investments and have nothing when they're 80? Are we going to have a massive public dole, complete with warehouse/poorhouses for the elderly, or are we just going to leave them out on the curb to starve? Then again, maybe Mr. Bush is so convinced "The Rapture" is upon us that he feels it's silly to worry about such things. (Don't pooh-pooh it so fast. We've got a fundamentalist puppet of other fundamentalists in The White House. There is actually a pretty good chance that he's running our economic system on the belief that "believers" will be airlifted to heaven in their jammies, and screw the rest of the heathens!) Modernity anyone? Rationality anyone? Remember I asked when you're 98 and scrimping to afford cat food, and not for the cat, either.

Posted by aalkon at 07:47 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

February 03, 2005

Welcome To Movable Type Hell

Welcome To Movable Type Hell

Comments still don't look like they're registering (all the counters below the posts read zero, and you'll get 500 errors when you comment), but comments are going in, and they're there if you click on "Comments."

Should be fixed soon!

Posted by aalkon at 11:57 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

The Fundamentalist-In-Chief Speaks

The Fundamentalist-In-Chief Speaks
Wednesday night, during the State Of The Union Address, I heard Bush use the word "sacred" in reference to "the institution of marriage."

Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.

Excuse me, but how does a guy get to be president in this country without comprehension of the concept of separation of church and state? There's no reason, in a country with this doctrine, that any two -- or three, or five -- people, of any sexes, shouldn't be allowed to make a state-recognized legal commitment to each other. Unless, of course, their personal, primitive, fundamentalist religion gives it the thumbs down, and they choose to go along with its nixing. Of course, while I don't care if you get married to your goat by your guru, making a lifelong commitment to anyone makes no sense vis a vis how long we live and how much we change. Then again, as I've said before, if straight people are allowed this right to make no sense -- gay people should be allowed it, too.

Posted by aalkon at 10:32 AM | Comments (29) | TrackBack

Wednesday's Cell Phone Shouter

Wednesday's Cell Phone Shouter
It's a quiet, Santa Monica coffee shop where every table but one is filled with readers and writers and people chatting softly. Suddenly, we're on the docks and the foreman is barking orders to the longshoremen. Oops, no...it turns out we're still in the coffee shop, and it's just a sweatshirted, 40-something mother with a frizzy, 80s blow-out barking the mundane details of her life into her cell. Tempted as I am to turn around and bark back, "Lady...just because you have a self doesn't mean you should express it!" I opt for a more mature, less immediately toxic approach, and merely shush her. Several times. Adding a turn and a look in my final shush. She eventually lowers the decibel level slightly. She eventually gets off.

SHOUTER: (sneering and aggressive) Is this a library?

ME: Nooo, it's disturbing to hear one very loud side of a conversation. I politely explain further.

She cuts me off.

SHOUTER: (angrily) You made your point. You made your point. Thank you.

Why is it that rude people never say, "Jeez, I'm so sorry, I didn't realize I was being rude." Oh. I get it: Because they aren't being rude, they are rude.

Posted by aalkon at 08:17 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

New Lows In Book Promotion

New Lows In Book Promotion
Excerpts from a press release I got late last night, and the replies I emailed back:

The author is currently seeking sponsors and translators that will enable him to donate thousands of the little books to tsunami survivors.

Awww, the search for sponsors always puts a tear in my eye. (I think those Tsunami survivors are just dying to hear a story about waves personified.) Apparently, there's no limit to the ends people will go to to sell their wares. I think I need a shower.

Any editorial comment or mention that you may give this press release would be greatly appreciated.

Lucky for you, I'll just post the above on my blog as an example of the crassest attempt to sell stuff I've seen in a long time, and not the name of the author or the book.

Eeeeuw. Double eeeuw.

UPDATE: The author writes back:

Not having the wherewithal to fund the printing of 1000s of copies, I thought I would look for help to do this, but make no profit myself from royalties.

If you would send me your snailmail address, I'd like to send you a copy of the (title ommitted by me) book so you could see for yourself what the tenor of this project is.

Best,
JB

No thanks. I'm trying to save water and I already need a shower. Something tells me the kids whose lives just got destroyed by a giant wave don't want to read about a wave personified. Hmm, imagine that.

Oh, and how wonderful that you'll make no profit from the royalties of these books. You couldn't possibly be looking for a little free international attention, now could you? Do you know how disgusting this is? Sigh. Apparently not.

Posted by aalkon at 07:17 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Gatsby Envy

Gatsby Envy
Great column by Nikki Finke on New York TImes entertainment beat journalist Bernie Weinraub's sign-off piece:

It was as if narrator Nick Carraway were given space in The Paper of Record to write honestly about the swell set, only this time he surprises us by revealing that he longed for the green light of status and money as much as Jay Gatsby did. Yet, as an ink-stained wretch and damned proud of it, I’ve got to say, Huh?

First, let me fully disclose that I won’t be attacking my pal Bernie personally over what is a beautifully written, though emotionally befuddled, look back at his 14 years inside and outside the entertainment business. (I’m especially sad that he revealed that incident in which he fell asleep during an interview with Jim Carrey, because I used it to blackmail him almost daily.) But for days now, my answering machine and e-mail have been filled with “What did you think of it?” messages, so I feel compelled to publicly examine Bernie’s 2,800-word tale of his Hollywood-style seduction.

And what oozes from it is the gunky notion that a journalist wanted to live like the people he covered here. And he isn’t alone. The studio and network parking lots are filled with the Porsches and BMWs of reporters and critics who jumped the fence (though, to Bernie’s credit, marrying a mogulette instead of writing your way into The Good Life remains a novel route, nonetheless). How abnormal I must be then. Because, clearly, I’m missing what appear to be the essential chromosomes composing the entertainment-biz reporters’ DNA: the Hollywood Envy gene.

As Weinraub writes, when he arrived here to start the gig, “I was struck almost immediately by the prevalence of money, and the crazy economic gap between journalists and the people they covered. It was like dropping into Marie Antoinette’s France.” But doesn’t anyone remember that Ol’ Mary was decapitated in the end? And that Gatsby got a bullet in the back as well? That’s exactly why I don’t lust after the trappings of Tinseltown: Everybody’s success and the conspicuous consumption that accompanies it bear too high a psychic price tag.

Posted by aalkon at 06:20 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

A Crack In The Glass House

A Crack In The Glass House
Mark Stevens writes in The New York Times of the late modernist architect Phillip Johnson's creepy past:

Philip Johnson did not just flirt with fascism. He spent several years in his late 20s and early 30s - years when an artist's imagination usually begins to jell - consumed by fascist ideology. He tried to start a fascist party in the United States. He traveled several times to Germany. He thrilled to the Nuremberg rally of 1938, and after the invasion of Poland, he visited the front at the invitation of the Nazis.

He approved of what he saw. "The German green uniforms made the place look gay and happy," he wrote in a letter. "There were not many Jews to be seen." As late as 1940, Johnson was defending Hitler to the American public. It seems that only an inquiry by the FBI - and, presumably, the prospect of being labeled a traitor if America entered the war - led him to withdraw completely from politics.

Today, any debate over an important figure with a fascist or communist background easily becomes an occasion for blame games between right and left. Johnson is no exception. Morally serious people can have different views of his personal culpability.

But what's essential is to let the shadow fall - to acknowledge that fascism touched something important in his sensibility.

Johnson's emphasis on the aesthetic as the only important value in art was remarkably cold-blooded. His main regret seems to be that contemporary republics have failed to create monuments that ravish the senses.

He never became a fascist architect. But he was probably one of those artists - among them many communists - whose philosophical sensibilities were gutted by the experience of the '30s and World War II. Afterward, he lived more than ever for the stylish surface, appearing uncomfortable with large-minded ideas even when his buildings reached for the sky.

Philip Johnson now seems like an emblematic figure partly because he appears to have been happily, marvelously, provocatively, disturbingly hollow. Johnson's main flaws as an artist - his tastes for razzle-dazzle and overweening scale - are equally the weaknesses of American secular culture. His main strengths - his openness to change, playfulness and urbane rejection of the Miss Grundys of the world - are equally its strengths.

The beautiful Glass House will remain Johnson's signature work. It's a dream house, a stylish stage set. It floats upon the land, eliding boundaries between inside and outside. It seems full of emptiness. It's not really a place to live, but was still Johnson's essential home. That uneasy stylishness deserves emphasis. Philip Johnson lived in a glass house. He threw stones, too.

Posted by aalkon at 02:12 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 02, 2005

A Year In The Merde

A Year In The Merde
It's the title of Stephen Clarke's hilarious-sounding new book on France.

Translation: "bitch!"

Here's Clarke's mini "insiders guide to getting good service in France," published in the London Observer:

In France, when a girl says no she often means yes. So does a guy for that matter. Indeed, sometimes getting good service in France can feel a bit like non-consensual sex.

Here is how the French 'no means yes' works.

I was in Reims to visit the champagne cellars and didn't want to leave the city without seeing the most spectacular of them, at the Pommery winery. Only trouble was, it was Sunday lunchtime, we were due to leave on the five o'clock train and you have to book a place on a guided tour.

I phoned Pommery and asked when the next tour was. 'Oh, we haven't got any vacancies till the 4.45 tour,' the hostess told me.

'You've got nothing at all before that?' 'No, sorry. We're completely booked up.'

At this point, the faint-hearted customer is supposed to ring off and leave the hostess in peace with her neat reservation list. But I've played the game before.

'But we've got a train at five,' I said, 'so 4.45 would be too late.' 'OK,' the hostess replied, 'how about 2.30?'

'Perfect,' I said, and reserved.

There was absolutely no point entering into an abstract moral discussion about why the hell she hadn't offered 2.30 in the first place. I'd got what I wanted, so who cared? Again, the vital thing is not to take it personally, a feat that becomes almost impossible when you reach...

Level three
Drive The Customer Mad

I don't think they do it deliberately. It is just their way of showing you that it's the service provider, not the customer, who is always right.

Posted by aalkon at 08:37 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

Bill Moyers On "The Rapture"

Bill Moyers On "The Rapture"
I've written about it before, but it's so little-known by the average (rational) person, it's worth repeating:

Go to Grist to read a remarkable work of reporting by the journalist Glenn Scherer -- "The Road to Environmental Apocalypse." Read it and you will see how millions of Christian fundamentalists may believe that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed -- even hastened -- as a sign of the coming apocalypse.

As Grist makes clear, we're not talking about a handful of fringe lawmakers who hold or are beholden to these beliefs. Nearly half the U.S. Congress before the recent election -- 231 legislators in total and more since the election -- are backed by the religious right.

Forty-five senators and 186 members of the 108th Congress earned 80 to 100 percent approval ratings from the three most influential Christian right advocacy groups. They include Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Conference Chair Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Policy Chair Jon Kyl of Arizona, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Whip Roy Blunt. The only Democrat to score 100 percent with the Christian coalition was Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia, who recently quoted from the biblical book of Amos on the Senate floor: "The days will come, sayeth the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land." He seemed to be relishing the thought.

And why not? There's a constituency for it. A 2002 Time-CNN poll found that 59 percent of Americans believe that the prophecies found in the book of Revelations are going to come true. Nearly one-quarter think the Bible predicted the 9/11 attacks. Drive across the country with your radio tuned to the more than 1,600 Christian radio stations, or in the motel turn on some of the 250 Christian TV stations, and you can hear some of this end-time gospel. And you will come to understand why people under the spell of such potent prophecies cannot be expected, as Grist puts it, "to worry about the environment. Why care about the earth, when the droughts, floods, famine and pestilence brought by ecological collapse are signs of the apocalypse foretold in the Bible? Why care about global climate change when you and yours will be rescued in the rapture? And why care about converting from oil to solar when the same God who performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes can whip up a few billion barrels of light crude with a word?"

Because these people believe that until Christ does return, the Lord will provide. One of their texts is a high school history book, "America's Providential History." You'll find there these words: "The secular or socialist has a limited-resource mentality and views the world as a pie ... that needs to be cut up so everyone can get a piece." However, "[t]he Christian knows that the potential in God is unlimited and that there is no shortage of resources in God's earth ... while many secularists view the world as overpopulated, Christians know that God has made the earth sufficiently large with plenty of resources to accommodate all of the people."

No wonder Karl Rove goes around the White House whistling that militant hymn, "Onward Christian Soldiers." He turned out millions of the foot soldiers on Nov. 2, including many who have made the apocalypse a powerful driving force in modern American politics.

It is hard for the journalist to report a story like this with any credibility. So let me put it on a personal level. I myself don't know how to be in this world without expecting a confident future and getting up every morning to do what I can to bring it about. So I have always been an optimist. Now, however, I think of my friend on Wall Street whom I once asked: "What do you think of the market?"I'm optimistic," he answered. "Then why do you look so worried?" And he answered: "Because I am not sure my optimism is justified."

I'm not, either. Once upon a time I agreed with Eric Chivian and the Center for Health and the Global Environment that people will protect the natural environment when they realize its importance to their health and to the health and lives of their children. Now I am not so sure. It's not that I don't want to believe that -- it's just that I read the news and connect the dots.

I read that the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has declared the election a mandate for President Bush on the environment. This for an administration:

• That wants to rewrite the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act protecting rare plant and animal species and their habitats, as well as the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires the government to judge beforehand whether actions might damage natural resources.

• That wants to relax pollution limits for ozone; eliminate vehicle tailpipe inspections, and ease pollution standards for cars, sport-utility vehicles and diesel-powered big trucks and heavy equipment.

• That wants a new international audit law to allow corporations to keep certain information about environmental problems secret from the public.

• That wants to drop all its new-source review suits against polluting, coal-fired power plants and weaken consent decrees reached earlier with coal companies.

• That wants to open the Arctic [National] Wildlife Refuge to drilling and increase drilling in Padre Island National Seashore, the longest stretch of undeveloped barrier island in the world and the last great coastal wild land in America.

I read the news just this week and learned how the Environmental Protection Agency had planned to spend $9 million -- $2 million of it from the administration's friends at the American Chemistry Council -- to pay poor families to continue to use pesticides in their homes. These pesticides have been linked to neurological damage in children, but instead of ordering an end to their use, the government and the industry were going to offer the families $970 each, as well as a camcorder and children's clothing, to serve as guinea pigs for the study.

I read all this in the news.

I read the news just last night and learned that the administration's friends at the International Policy Network, which is supported by Exxon Mobil and others of like mind, have issued a new report that climate change is "a myth, sea levels are not rising" [and] scientists who believe catastrophe is possible are "an embarrassment."

I not only read the news but the fine print of the recent appropriations bill passed by Congress, with the obscure (and obscene) riders attached to it: a clause removing all endangered species protections from pesticides; language prohibiting judicial review for a forest in Oregon; a waiver of environmental review for grazing permits on public lands; a rider pressed by developers to weaken protection for crucial habitats in California.

Dave Kopel derides Moyers, splitting hairs on Moyers' piece here. He doesn't discount the provisions to munch up the environment. Just some of Moyers contentions of the pervasiveness of the Religious "Right."

links via Instapundit

Posted by aalkon at 07:02 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

February 01, 2005

Pigs Without Spellcheck

Pigs Without Spellcheck
In an I-5 gas station gift shop, on our way home from San Fran.

Posted by aalkon at 09:48 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Conspiracy Against SUVS?...

Conspiracy Against SUVS?...
Or sloppy newswriting? Naturally, Michelle Malkin takes the conspiracy theory and speeds away with it. Here's the bit from Michelle's blog (indented below, with the news bit she quoted further indented):

A WNBC headline: Man In Wheelchair Struck, Killed By SUV In Bronx

Actually, he was killed by the driver of the SUV, wasn't he?

The story continues:

Police said 41-year-old Juan Jimenez was crossing Broadway near 230th Street at about 5:44 p.m. when a late model black Mitsubishi SUV hit him and pinned him under the vehicle with the wheelchair.

The vehicle then fled the scene, leaving Jimenez in the street.

The vehicle fled the scene? This anti-SUV bias is getting a little ridiculous, isn't it?

As one who is, herself, a fan of breathing, among other bright spots in life, I can't say there's enough "anti-SUV bias" just yet -- but I'm working on it. Of course, I remain unconvinced that the brown LA air I struggle to suck down while jogging is a mere mirage created by the liberal media. (Feel free to take that one and run with it, Michelle.) PS When you do, please refer to me as a libertarian (hence my notion that your right to stuff smog down anyone else's lungs ends where their lungs begin).

Posted by aalkon at 07:31 AM | Comments (12) | TrackBack

If You Say It, It Is True

If You Say It, It Is True
Ann Coulter and Canada and Vietnam. Ann gets clobbered by the CBC's Bob McKeown, but naturally, refuses to acknowledge it.

via Metafilter

Posted by aalkon at 04:33 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

January 31, 2005

The Big Ugly

The Big Ugly
Fashion in San Francisco.

Posted by aalkon at 10:17 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

"Safe, Legal, And Never"

"Safe, Legal, And Never"
Hillary Clinton's wise position on abortion, reported by William Saletan:

"With all of this talk about freedom as the defining goal of America, let's not forget the importance of the freedom of women to make the choices that are consistent with their faith and their sense of responsibility to their family and themselves."

Note the concluding words: faith, responsibility, family. This is the other side of Clinton's message: against the ugliness of state control, she wants to raise the banner of morality as well as freedom. Pro-choicers have tried this for 40 years, but they always run into a fatal objection: Abortion is so ugly that nobody who supports it can look moral. To earn real credibility, they'd have to admit it's bad. They often walk up to that line, but they always blink.

Not this time. Abortion is "a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women," said Clinton. Then she went further: "There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances."

Does not ever have to be exercised. I searched Google and Nexis for parts of that sentence tonight and got no hits. Is the press corps asleep? Hillary Clinton just endorsed a goal I've never heard a pro-choice leader endorse. Not safe, legal, and rare. Safe, legal, and never.

Once you embrace that truth—that the ideal number of abortions is zero—voters open their ears. They listen when you point out, as Clinton did, that the abortion rate fell drastically during her husband's presidency but has risen in more states than it has fallen under George W. Bush. I'm sure these trends have more to do with economics than morals, but that's the point. Once we agree that the goal is zero, we can stop asking which party yaps more about fighting abortion and start asking which party gets results.

Admit the goal is zero, and people will rethink birth control. "Seven percent of American women who do not use contraception account for 53 percent of all unintended pregnancies," Clinton said. That number drew gasps from her pro-choice audience. I bet if she translated it to abortions, it would knock folks in Ohio out of their chairs. How many abortions are you willing to endure for the sake of avoiding the word "condom"? Clinton says we can cut the abortion rate through sex education, money for family planning, and requiring health insurers to cover contraceptives. What's your plan? Ban abortion and monitor everyone's womb like Romania did? Or ban it and look the other way while the pregnancies go on and the quacks take over?

Posted by aalkon at 09:06 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

Raising Children With Brains

Raising Children With Brains
Nathalie Angier is one of the few non-primitive mommies out there, raising her children not to believe in anything without evidence. How sad that it's so rare for people these days to be intellectually modern. Instead, we've got a hoodoo-believing president. Even Republican cheerleader Peggy Noonan got uneasy at his relentlessly "god-drenched" inaugural address. Here's an excerpt, but here's the link to the whole thing, which is worth reading, despite the small type in the link:

I’m a science writer. I’m fond of evidence, and I’m a serious devotee of the scientific method, and the entire scientific enterprise. Let me tell you, scientists as individuals can be as petty, insecure, vain, arrogant and opinionated as the rest of us. The myth of the noble, self-sacrificing scientist should never have been allowed to grow beyond the embryonic stem cell stage, and most scientists will tell you as much. But science as a discipline weeds out most of the bluster and blarmy, because it asks for proof. “One of the first things you learn in science,” one Caltech biologist told me, “is that how you want it to be doesn’t make any difference.” This is a powerful principle, and a very good thing, even a beautiful thing. This is something we should embrace as the best part of ourselves, our willingness to see the world as it is, not as we’re told it is, nor as our confectionary fantasies might wish it to be. Science is also extraordinarily unifying. You go to a great lab or to a scientific meeting, and you will see scientists from around the world, talking to each other and forming international collaborations. This is something we should be proud of, even if we ourselves are not scientists – that our species, our collective minds, our heads knocked together, are capable of making sense of the universe. So to me, this, more than anything, is what being an atheist means, an ongoing devotion to exploration, a giving of pride of place to evidence. And much to my dismay, religion often is at odds with the evidence-based portrait of reality that science has begun, yes, only just begun, fleshing out. The biggest example of this is in the ongoing debate over evolution. This is like Rasputin, or the character from the horror movie Halloween – it refuses to die. The statistics are appalling. This year, according to the Washington Post, some 40 states are dealing with new or ongoing challenges to the teaching of evolution in the schools. Four-fifths of our states. According to a recent CBS poll, 55 percent of Americans believe that god created humans in their present form – and that includes, I’m sorry to say, 47 percent of Kerry voters. Only 13 percent of Americans say that humans evolved from ancestral species, no god involved. Only 13 percent. The evidence that humans evolved from prehominid primates, and they from earlier mammals, and so on back to the first cell on earth some 3.8 billion years ago is incontrovertible, is based on a Himalayan chain’s worth of data. The evidence for divine intervention is, to date, non-existent. Yet here we have people talking about it as though they were discussing whether they prefer chocolate praline ice cream or rocky road, as though it were a matter of taste.

To me, this borders on being, well, unethical. And to me, instilling in my daughter an appreciation for the difference between evidence and opinion is a critical part of childrearing. So when I tell my daughter why I’m an atheist, I explain it is because I see no evidence for a god, a divinity, a big bearded mega-king in the sky. And you know something – she gets that. She got it way back when, and I think once you get it, it’s pretty hard to lose it. People sometimes say to me, jokingly or otherwise, just you wait. She’s going to grow up and join a cult, be a moonie or a jew for jesus. But in fact the data argue against it. The overwhelming majority of people who join cults, more than three-quarters, were raised as one or another type of Christian, including Methodists, Episcopalians, Baptists, the works; and no greater percentage of atheists than in the general population. I’m sure Katherine will figure out a way to drive me nuts some day, but I don’t think the Rahjneeshi route is it.

Ah, but what of values, of learning the difference between right and wrong, good and bad? What about tradition, what about ritual, what about the holidays that children love so much? How will a child learn to be good without religious training? Well, damn. Do you really need formal religion to teach a child to be good, to be honest, to try not to hurt other people’s feelings, to care about something other than yourself? These are all variants on the golden rule, and there is nothing more powerful, in my experience, than sitting down with your kid and saying, how would you feel if somebody did that to you? There is a growing body of scientific research that demonstrates we are by nature inclined to cooperate, to trust others, even strangers, to an extraordinary degree. Even strangers we can’t see, over the internet, and even strangers that we’ll never meet again. None of this owes anything to the ten commandments. Which of those commandments tell you to help a stranger who looks lost, or jump into a river to help saving a drowning kid, or donate blood, maybe even a kidney or a slice of liver? Sure, people also do terrible things, scam you, betray you, steal from you, on and on. But sheesh, Rush Limbaugh was and for all I know still is a junkie, and priests abuse choir boys, and on and on.

...I don’t know the answer to fear of death, surprise surprise. But I find it interesting that religious people, who talk ceaselessly of finding in their religion a larger sense of purpose, a meaning greater than themselves, at the same time are the ones who insist their personal, copyrighted souls, presumably with their 70-odd years of memory intact, will survive in perpetuity. Maybe that’s the real ethic of atheism. By confronting the inevitability of your personal expiration date, you know there is a meaning much grander than yourself. The river of life will go on, as it has for nearly 4 billion years on our planet, and who knows for how long and how abundantly on others. Matter is neither created nor destroyed, and we, as matter, will always matter, and the universe will forever be our home.

via arts & letters daily

Posted by aalkon at 08:57 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

January 30, 2005

Fuzzy Dice

Fuzzy Dice
Is having a diseased child, when you know before you even try to get pregnant that you have a pretty good chance of passing on a genetic disease, "god's will" -- or a creepy act of willful, selfish parents?

Bonnie J. Rough writes in the New York Times that "god's will" is how her parents and grandparents rationalized it when they passed on "a disease for a serious disorder" to her brother Luke:

"It's called ectodermal dysplasia," I said. And then I told him everything I knew. I explained that my grandfather and my younger brother had both been born with sparse hair, missing tooth buds (which required them to wear dentures, even as children), and no sweat glands, making hot weather unbearable and even dangerous.

I explained that women carry the gene and risk passing it along to their sons. So if we were to have a boy - the son, yes, of an extraordinarily gifted athlete - there would be a good chance he'd be burdened with it. It goes without saying that it's pretty hard to play basketball, or any sport at all, if you can't sweat.

...E.D. is no Down syndrome, no cerebral palsy or cystic fibrosis. It doesn't affect mental capacity or motor skills. It doesn't cap life span. The more we talk about E.D., the littler it tends to sound. My brother, after all, is healthy and strong, getting good grades in his first year of college. He seems to know the name of every kid he sees on his way to class. In poker, he beats the pants off every guy in his hall and spends his winnings on books and food and, this month, in his first suit; he's taking a smart girl with blond, curly hair to the Charity Ball.

But Luke grew up in Seattle, where the weather is kind to him nearly all year, where top prosthodontists are plentiful, and where our father has a job with decent dental benefits. Growing up, I came to see E.D. as a mere inconvenience. Sometimes it brought heavy expenses for our parents, sometimes it caused physical embarrassments for my brother. But it never seemed cataclysmic.

So I fumbled for words recently when I found myself explaining to my brother that Dan and I hope to dodge E.D. I wondered if he was thinking, What's so bad that they'd try so hard to avoid it? As I stammered, Luke interrupted me with a "duh" look. "I wouldn't want your kids to have it," he said.

No, it's not the end of the world to give birth to a kid who will go through life toothless and unable to sweat, but if you know that you have a likelihood of passing this on...maybe you could live without the conceit of squeezing out a replica of yourselves...and adopt? Nope, no dice for Bonnie and her husband. They hope to "dodge" E.D., they say. Yeah, take that chance of stacking the deck against the kid right from the start -- just as long as the toothless little bugger has daddy's beautiful eyes.

Posted by aalkon at 09:18 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

Bums And Urine

Bums And Urine
In San Francisco. Driving home in a few minutes. Will post later.

Posted by aalkon at 08:47 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

January 28, 2005

Awwww, How Sweet!

Awwww, How Sweet!
During the last major, major rainstorm we had on a Monday, I stayed home to write because I didn't want to chance geting my computer hit by the cats, dogs, and small settees that were pouring out of the sky. Ooops, it seems that I forgot that it was street cleaning day on my block (but what kind of vehicle were they planning on cleaning it from -- an ark?!)...and the nice, considerate parking enforcement person was kind enough to preserve my rainy-day parking memento for me in a Ziplock bag.

Posted by aalkon at 09:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Let's Stuff Gay People In The Closet!

Let's Stuff Gay People In The Closet!
The government, in the person of the new secretary of "education," comes out against gay people; namely portraying them on TV in (gasp!) typical American family circumstances. Oooh, hide them away before the children immolate at the mere sight of them! (Um...on a blog comments note...anybody who posts here who has argued that the theocons are not shoving religion into government is now hereby ordered to eat their mouse pad.)

The nation's new education secretary denounced PBS on Tuesday for spending public money on a cartoon with lesbian characters, saying many parents would not want children exposed to such lifestyles.

The not-yet-aired episode of "Postcards From Buster" shows the title character, an animated bunny named Buster, on a trip to Vermont -- a state known for recognizing same-sex civil unions. The episode features two lesbian couples, although the focus is on farm life and maple sugaring.

A PBS spokesman said late Tuesday that the nonprofit network has decided not to distribute the episode, called "Sugartime!," to its 349 stations. She said the Education Department's objections were not a factor in that decision.

"Ultimately, our decision was based on the fact that we recognize this is a sensitive issue, and we wanted to make sure that parents had an opportunity to introduce this subject to their children in their own time," said Lea Sloan, vice president of media relations at PBS.

Yeah, right. Clearly the "education" secretary has never met any gay parents, and thus pictures them running off to the Gay Day Parade in leashes and loinclothes in their "baby-on-board" minivan, then running through the crowd half-naked...except for the babies in their backpacks. Everyone, repeat after me: "Yeah, right."

Then, read another take on what's being banned, from Suzanne C. Ryan and Mark Shanahan at the Boston Globe:

Karen Pike agreed to be a part of a children's show about families, and now she feels she's under attack.

This week, the new US secretary of education, Margaret Spellings, denounced PBS for spending public funds to tape an episode of a children's program that features Pike, a lesbian, her partner, Gillian Pieper, and their 11-year-old daughter, Emma. The installment of ''Postcards From Buster," which is produced locally at WGBH-TV (Channel 2) and which had been scheduled to air March 23, was promptly dropped by PBS, which is refusing to distribute the footage to its 349 member stations.

''It makes me sick," said Pike, a 42-year-old photographer in Hinesburg, Vt., who united with Pieper in a civil union in 2001. ''I'm actually aghast at the hatred stemming from such an important person in our government. . . . Her first official act was to denounce my family, and to denounce PBS for putting on a program that shows my family as loving, moral, and committed."

FYI, if any frightened theocons are reading this blog, here's a bit of news for you: Homosexual parents are just as boring as heterosexual parents. We, who are not parents (and who are thrilled with our barrenness), tend think of them -- all parents, homo and hetero -- as post-interesting and post-stylish...at least, in part. I might support the right to marry for all people (and without the "Do you fuck 'correctly'?" test), but I still think it's a really dumb idea to sentence yourself to forever with anybody, no matter whether you're into the same or the opposite sex.

Next, on the stupidity agenda is the case of the girl journalist who's getting forced out of her high school newspaper for profiling three gay students. Now, she was not outing this trio. She interviewed them. With their permission and knowledge that the interviews would run in the paper. Joel Rubin writes in the LA Times:

Howell (deputy superintendent for the Fullerton Joint Union High School District), who wouldn't discuss Long by name, said district and school officials did not object to the story's content. She said Long, 18, was being punished for violating the ethical standards of the journalism class and a state education code that prohibits asking students about their sexuality without parental permission.

"We're not saying there is anything morally wrong with the article," she said. "Freedom of speech is not at issue. Confidentiality and privacy rights are the issue."

It is a position that has left Long defiant and legal experts contending that the state law applies to faculty but not students.

"I don't think I've done anything that merits me stepping down," said Long, who vowed not to surrender her position. "Perhaps I should have called the parents to interview them for the story, but I don't feel like I should have been obligated to get their permission to write it. These students chose to talk to me."

At issue is a Dec. 17 article that chronicled the decisions of three students — two 18-year-olds and a 15-year-old — to reveal their homosexuality and bisexuality to family and friends. All three spoke to Long knowing their names would be used.

According to Long, her journalism teacher, Georgette Cerrutti, worked closely with her on drafts of the article for more than a month, at one point discussing with her the impact it might have on the students' families.

Long said Cerrutti never told her she needed to get the parents' approval.

On Monday, Long said, she was summoned to D'Amelia's office, where he and Cerrutti admonished her for not seeking the parents' permission.

"He told me I either had to resign and make an example of myself for failing to do my job," Long said of D'Amelia, "or that I would be removed."

In meetings Tuesday with Long's parents, D'Amelia and Troy Principal Chuck Maruca reaffirmed the school's stance, Long and her mother said.

Maruca and Cerrutti did not return calls seeking comment.

Howell said journalism students are taught to be cautious when writing stories that address other students' private lives. She said Long had violated the section of the California education code that requires written parental permission before asking students questions about their or their parents' "personal beliefs or practices in sex, family life, morality, and religion," as the code states.

Um, excuse me, but when I was in high school journalism class, we were told that that First Amendment thingie applied...even to us. Here I am, sneaking into the LA Times editorial page, to weigh in on the issue:

Something tells me nobody's ever gotten canned for identifying a student as heterosexual.

Amy Alkon
Santa Monica

Am I crazy, or does this country get increasingly less modern every day? By July, they'll be burning me at the stake. Please, somebody remind me to keep stocked up on marshmallows.

Posted by aalkon at 08:01 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

January 26, 2005

Movable Type Hell

Movable Type Hell
Sorry, a few technical problems today. Still might get 500 errors, and comments aren't registering numerically, but they're there.

Posted by aalkon at 09:37 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

A Diva Awakens

A Diva Awakens

Posted by aalkon at 09:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Sleeping Through Sex Prevents Sexually Transmitted Diseases!

Sleeping Through Sex Prevents Sexually Transmitted Diseases!
...And other idiocy brought to you by the backward fundamentalists running our government. Marti Harvey exposes the facts about keeping the facts of life from kids:

The high school health textbook Lifetime Health lists that one strategy for teens to avoid contracting a sexually transmitted disease is to get plenty of rest. Yep, that’s right. Get plenty of rest.

And while abstinence is touted as the preferred preventative, the book never mentions condom use. Never. Not once.

Apparently, some on the State Board of Education believe you can tell a teen to get plenty of rest, and they won’t have sex.

What an attractive form of contraception!

Continuing pressure from conservative groups such as Advocates for Youth has forced many textbook publishers to leave out controversial or sexual information for fear their books will be rejected by increasingly conservative review boards. More and more often, publishers are offering abstinence-based texts that are likely to be accepted.

As a result, three of the four new textbooks adopted by the State Board of Education last week promote abstinence and traditional marriage with almost no information about contraception, condoms and other sensitive sexual topics.

For example, Lifetime Health mentions abstinence, staying away from drugs and alcohol, respect for one’s self and choosing friends wisely as STD prevention strategies. It also says to go out as a group, get plenty of rest, and be aware of your emotions.

But it overlooks the elephant in the middle of the room — what if those things don’t work? What if a teen’s emotions get out of control? As adults who were young once, should we be surprised that teens occasionally use bad judgement?

... Most studies, including a recent one from health education professor Buzz Pruitt of Texas A&M, report that there is almost no evidence that abstinence programs work. If they did, why would Texas, which spends more in abstinence-based programs than any other state, have the highest teen pregnancy rate in the country?

Listen up folks.

It’s not the religious right or the liberal left that’s getting hurt here. It’s our kids. If their health education is really the issue, we should change course and begin to equip them with the information they need to make informed decisions. However, if promoting a religious agenda is the goal, then let’s be honest about it and see if others agree.

I bet they won’t. But if they do, I better get plenty of rest.

I wouldn’t want one of those nasty STDs finding me.

Posted by aalkon at 08:46 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

A Thrifty American In Paris

A Thrifty American In Paris
That would be...me! Eric Wahlgren writes in Business Week/Europe:

The weak dollar didn't stop Amy Alkon going to Paris on a recent weeklong trip. But currency woes did force the Los Angeles resident to keep herself on a budget. She slummed it at a two-star hotel and limited herself to cheap restaurants.

Her biggest privation? She nixed buying a pair of Yves Saint Laurent boots that, with the exchange rate, would have popped up as a $300 charge on her credit card, even though they were on sale.

MORE WITH LESS. "Every time I saw a sale in Paris that said things were 30% off, I realized that they were on sale for everybody but me," says Alkon, 40, a syndicated columnist whose column "The Advice Goddess" appears in more than 100 papers in the U.S. and Canada.

Tragic, simply tragic, huh?

Posted by aalkon at 05:49 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 25, 2005

How To Know You Are Not At The Beach

How To Know You Are Not At The Beach
White tablecloths, fine wine, candlelight, relatively pricey gourmet entrées, other patrons wearing attire suitable for fine dining at 9pm...all very reliable clues. In other words, get your hairy arms and your ugly-ass, flip-flopped bare feet out of Rocca, buttwad!

Posted by aalkon at 08:37 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

How To Buy The Morning-After Pill

How To Buy The Morning-After Pill
Fly to France. Walk into a pharmacy. Ask for it. Pay. Leave. Fly home.

The New York Times notes that the FDA ("F" is for...Fundamentalist-Influenced!) is still dragging its feet on approving the morning-after contraceptive pill for over-the-counter use. Why? Probably because fundamentalists don't really just want to prevent abortion, as they claim, but birth control of any kind. And because they have little, if any, respect for any books that aren't the bible (say, biology textbooks!), they don't understand why preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman's uterus isn't on par with robbing a liquor store and murdering the clerk in cold blood.

Under federal guidelines, the agency was supposed to issue a decision by Friday. Instead, the F.D.A. told the manufacturer, Barr Pharmaceuticals, that it was still conducting its review. The agency said it hoped to act soon, but set no specific date for action.

Yet, by now, there is no excuse for delay. No one questions that Plan B, which contains a concentrated dose of the progestin hormone found in daily birth control pills, is safe and effective. Moreover, by proposing to limit its availability over the counter to women over 16, Barr has removed as an issue the effect on adolescents, which the agency cited as a concern last May when, bowing to political pressure, it overrode scientific research and the overwhelming recommendation of two expert advisory panels to reject making Plan B available without a prescription to all women, regardless of age.

An internal memorandum by Dr. John Jenkins, director of the agency's own Office of New Drugs, suggests that the agency failed to follow proper procedure in making the decision. The memo, which is cited in a new lawsuit challenging the agency's May ruling, notes that drawing a distinction between different age groups is a departure from the agency's usual approach to contraceptive products.

Making Plan B available over the counter would prevent thousands of unintended pregnancies and thousands of abortions annually. It's time for the F.D.A. to allow women easy access to Plan B.

It's time, and it's been time, for a long time.

Posted by aalkon at 07:54 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

The March Of Moronism

The March Of Moronism
A New York Times editorial takes the Cobb County, GA, and Dover, PA, school boards to task for pandering to the science-denying fundies:

The (Cobb County) school board, to its credit, had been trying to strengthen the teaching of evolution. When the new course of study raised hackles among parents and citizens, the board sought to quiet the controversy by placing a three-sentence sticker in the textbooks: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

Although the board clearly thought this was a reasonable compromise, and many readers might think it unexceptional, it is actually an insidious effort to undermine the science curriculum. The second sentence makes it sound as though evolution is little more than a hunch, the popular understanding of the word "theory," whereas theories in science are carefully constructed frameworks for understanding a vast array of facts.

A more honest sticker would describe evolution as the dominant theory in the field and an extremely fruitful scientific tool. The sad fact is, the school board, in its zeal to be accommodating, swallowed the language of the anti-evolution crowd. A federal judge in Georgia ruled that the sticker amounted to an unconstitutional endorsement of religion because it was rooted in long-running religious challenges to evolution. In particular, the sticker's assertion that "evolution is a theory, not a fact" adopted the latest tactical language used by anti-evolutionists to dilute Darwinism, thereby putting the school board on the side of religious critics of evolution. That court decision is being appealed. Supporters of sound science education can only hope that the courts, and school districts, find a way to repel this latest assault on the most well-grounded theory in modern biology.

In the Pennsylvania case, the school board went further and became the first in the United States to require, albeit somewhat circuitously, that attention be paid in school to "intelligent design." This is the notion that some things in nature, such as the workings of the cell and intricate organs like the eye, are so complex that they could not have developed gradually through the force of Darwinian natural selection acting on genetic variations. Instead, it is argued, they must have been designed by some sort of higher intelligence.

The Dover Area School District in Pennsylvania became the first in the country to place intelligent design before its students, asserting that evolution was a theory, not a fact, that it had gaps for which there was no evidence, that intelligent design was a differing explanation of the origin of life, and that a book on intelligent design was available for interested students.

School boards and citizens need to be aware that intelligent is not a recognized field of science. There is no body of research to support its claims nor even a real plan to conduct such research. It should not be taught or even described as a scientific alternative to one of the crowning theories of modern science.

There ought to be some place in school where criticisms of evolution can be discussed, perhaps in a comparative religion class or a history or current events course. But school boards need to recognize that neither creationism nor intelligent design is an alternative to Darwinism as a scientific explanation of the evolution of life.

Posted by aalkon at 06:41 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

January 24, 2005

Movable Type Comments

Movable Type Comments On This Blog
For a while, if you post a comment, you may not see it immediately. Comments are not lost -- I see them in my publishing file for my blog; they're just not appearing right away. We upgraded to MT 3.14 and it seems it's a bit buggy. This should be fixed soon. Go ahead and comment. If you receive a 500 error, just hit the back button and repost. Also, you may have to hit "link me" to comment instead of the regular comments button. We're working on it!

Posted by aalkon at 08:43 AM | Comments (35) | TrackBack

Sarah! Your Mom's On The Telephone (Pole)!

Sarah! Your Mom's On The Telephone (Pole)!

Posted by aalkon at 08:31 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

One In Five Statistics Is Crap

One In Five Statistics Is Crap
In my Tuesday night French class, somebody mentioned that they'd heard a stat on (gak!) Dr. Phil that one in five children has been propositioned by pervs on the Internet. I don't know if "propositioned" was exactly how it was put on Dr. Phil, since it was just en Français hearsay, but I do know that one in five seems awfully suspect. One in five? One in five? Well, it turns out The Wall Street Journal's new "Numbers Guy," Carl Bialik, felt as I did, and did a little investigation, to boot:

It's an alarming statistic: One in five children has been sexually solicited online.

That stat is turning up on billboards and television commercials around the country, driven by an aggressive push from child-protection advocates. In the TV version, eerie music plays as a camera pans over a school playground and then shows a park. A female narrator intones: "To the list of places you might find sexual predators, add this one" -- as the image changes to a girl using a computer in her bedroom. The spot ends with the one-in-five stat. It's all part of an ad blitz that has gotten millions of dollars of free media time since its launch last year and is set to continue through 2007.

But while the motivation behind the campaign appears to be sound, the crucial statistic is misleading and could scare parents into thinking the danger is greater than it really is.

Here's a more accurate use of the statistic that we'll likely never see in an ad: Five years ago, one in five children -- ranging from fifth graders to high school seniors -- who used the Internet at least once a month said in a telephone survey that they'd received an online sexual solicitation, according to research paid for by advocates of the issue. Solicitations were broadly defined to include "unwanted" sexual talk, whether from someone they knew or a stranger, or any sexual talk with someone over 18. Only 24% of the solicitations came from people who identified themselves as adults; the bulk of the remainder came from other minors (or those purporting to be under 18).

Only 3% of the children surveyed said they received an "aggressive solicitation," which includes measures like requests for an offline meeting or telephone calls. None of the solicitations led to actual sexual contact or assault. And most children successfully cut off the undesired communication themselves. (The study focused largely on "live" chats like instant-messenger exchanges; e-mail spam wasn't counted.)

...There's no question that online sex crimes are a serious problem. According to a separate University of New Hampshire study partially funded by NCMEC, law-enforcement officials made about 2,600 arrests for Internet sex crimes against minors over 12 months in 2000 and 2001. That number surely is lower than the actual number of Internet sex crimes, because many don't lead to arrests and some may not have been classified as arising from online interaction. Still, that's a long way from one of every five children.

Numbers Guy reader Kraig Eno spotted billboards carrying the stat in the Seattle area and researched its source. When he discovered it was based on a five-year-old study and hardly covered all children, he concluded in an e-mail, "The billboard's statement is so misleading as to be almost completely false, however important its warning is. ... But so what if the billboard's statement isn't true? It's propaganda, but it's the RIGHT KIND of propaganda. Nine out of 10 ad executives would surely agree!"

The stat also got attention from University of Delaware professor Joel Best, who in his book last year, "More Damned Lies and Statistics," mentioned it alongside some other published stats about children, like how many are involved in bullying and the percentage of girls abused on dates, in which researchers made methodological choices that tended to lead to bigger numbers.

Dr. Best points out that everyone involved -- advocates, researchers, journal editors and newspaper reporters and editors -- benefits from bigger numbers. And it's not coincidental that he found several examples of questionable statistics involving children. "Expressing threats in terms of dangers to our children is very emotionally powerful in our society," he says.

Unfortunately, passing off lies as statistics is quite damaging, creating what Barry Glassner called "The Culture Of Fear," and causing funding and attention to go where it isn't needed -- and leaving holes where it is:

On campus, for example, the "date rape" movement and the "Take Back the Night" marches are giant mobilizations to help young women cope with the threat of rape. Katie Roiphe has pointed out that a young woman's chances of being raped at Princeton or Mount Holyoke or Smith or the University of Minnesota are miniscule. We have massive resources going to staff rape crisis centers for privileged young women on our campuses, but women who really need the services are women in the inner city, which suffers a much higher incidence of sexual assault.

Posted by aalkon at 08:00 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

January 23, 2005

New Entry

Posted by aalkon at 10:10 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

A Meatball-Head On Religion

A Meatball-Head On Religion
I love these people who think they can call the utterly irrational rational and logical as if this will make it be so. This particular meatball-head is a fundamentalist film critic. Here are a few examples of his utter inability to think critically:

There is an unrequited darkness and bitterness in the soul of those who hate religion and faith. Only Jesus Christ can overcome this darkness and bitterness.

Recently, two journalists (make that three journalists, hamburger brain), Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, have appeared on TV and radio talk shows speaking bitterly and falsely against people of faith, especially Christians. They think people who have faith in God and Jesus are irrational and stupid.

In reality, however, it is the atheist who must be irrational in order to believe the fantastic idea that all human science and art come from non-rational processes that are purely, only physical. As the leading atheist Antony Flew has discovered, such belief is not rational or scientific.

Unlike all other religions, Christian theology is based on logic and on historical fact. No one has successfully refuted the historical reliability of the New Testament documents, which contain journalistic investigations and historical eyewitness testimonies about the life, death and physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. Only a rational, logical person can truly understand these texts, their historical context and their meaning.

Oh, please. Don't you know, the person with the extraordinary claim is the person who must prove it? The stuff in this book is beyond extraordinary. Eyewitnesses? Where? Crazy people who say Jesus speaks to them? (Just a suggestion, but maybe the leader of the most powerful land in the world who says he hears voices should be strapped to a bed somewhere, not led to a comfortable chair in the Oval Office?) More from the meatball-head follows:

Whenever Christians rationally study these texts, God illuminates their minds with the power of the Holy Spirit. That power is a rational power, which helps them apply the logic and reason of their own spirits or minds (mind is just another word for spirit in this article) to understand these texts. Such power is foolish to the atheist, because the atheist himself ultimately does not really understand the power of our God-given logic and reason.

Hello? If anyone were "rationally" studying these texts, or applying "logic and reason," they wouldn't be pondering what "God" or "the Holy Spirit" is doing, now would they? The atheist does understand all this bullshit doublespeak above, especially if he or she is a capitalist: It's highly necessary to keep separating willing fools and their money in order to keep the business of religion in business. More from Mr. Meatball:

God is the ultimate source of all logic and reason.

Yeah, and my toast is the source of Congress.

He uses our minds to make us whole, through the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That Gospel is empirically revealed and taught through the journalistic investigations and historical eyewitness testimonies in the New Testament about the life, death and physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. These empirical investigations and testimonies are composed of logical, rational truth.

Thus, having trusting faith and confidence in God and Jesus Christ is not irrational. In fact, it is one of the most rational things you can do. It is a rational faith founded on fact.

It's anything but -- no matter how many times you write or say it, chopped beef-for-brains. Since Bertrand Russell has been speaking to me (unfortunately, unlike the religious, it's only through words printed on the page, not voices in my head) I'll pull a few of Bertie's words on the topic of religion which I read today.

From various pages in the opening chapter of Why I Am Not A Christian:

There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination.

...Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him, so that I am not concerned with the historical question, which is a very difficult one. I am concerned with Christ as He appears in the Gospels...and there one finds some things that do not seem to be very wise. For one thing, He certainly thought that His second coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all people who were living at that time. There are a great many texts that prove that.

...The early Christians really did believe it, and they did abstain from such things as planting trees in their gardens, because they did accept from Christ the belief that the second coming was imminent. In that respect, clearly He was not so wise as some other people have been, and He was not superlatively wise.

And was Jesus really such a great guy? Bert says no!

Then you come to moral questions. There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly human can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching -- an attitude which is not uncommon with preachers, but which does somewhat detract from superlative excellence. You do not, for instance find that attitude in Socrates. You find him quite bland and urbane toward the people who would not listen to him; and it is, to my mind, far more worthy of a sage to take that line than to take the line of indignation.

...There is the instance of the Gadarene swine, where it certainly was not very kind to the pigs to put the devils into them and make them rush down the hill into the sea. You must remember that He was omnipotent, and He could have made the devils simply go away; but He chose to send them into the pigs. Then there is the curious story of the fig tree, which always rather puzzled me. You remember what happened about the fig tree. "He was hungry; and seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, He came if happily He might find anything thereon; and when He came to it He found nothing but leaves, for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it: 'No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever' . . . and Peter . . . saith unto Him: 'Master, behold the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.'" This is a very curious story, because it was not the right time of year for figs, and you really could not blame the tree. I cannot myself feel that either in the matter of wisdom or in the matter of virtue Christ stands quite as high as some other people known to history. I think I should put Buddha and Socrates above Him in those respects.

And I think I should, too!

Thanks, LYT, for pointing out Mr. Meatball

Posted by aalkon at 09:17 AM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

Better Living Through Chemistry

Better Living Through Chemistry
Benedict Carey reports in The New York Times about a slight loosening by the anti-drug nannies in the magic mushrooms department:

If there's a drug for social phobia, maybe there could be one to help us relax in the company of death.

Last month, the Food and Drug Administration gave the go-ahead to a Harvard University plan to study the recreational drug "ecstasy" as a treatment for anxiety in terminal cancer patients. Elsewhere, researchers in California are studying the effect of psilocybin - the active ingredient in hallucinogenic mushrooms - in similar patients. Both teams hope to learn whether the drugs, which can induce effusiveness and heightened awareness, will help people express and manage their fears in a therapeutic setting.

Although these illegal drugs are controversial, their use is a natural outgrowth of the medicalization of all emotional difficulty, from childhood shyness to adult phobias and depression. Doctors already prescribe antidepressants widely to dying patients, as well as anti-anxiety medications, like Valium, which can be emotionally numbing.

The possibility of using potent consciousness-altering agents raises a question: At what point do the theological, cultural and personal significance of mortality become altered, or lost? Does going high into that good night risk mocking end-of-life customs - prompting rave flashbacks rather than life review, rude jokes rather than amends?

"I see death not only as an opportunity to reflect on the meaning of your own existence, but to offer your life as a gift to others," said the Rev. Donald Moore, a professor of theology at Fordham University. The end presents us with a time to ponder - and discuss, if possible - what life has meant and might continue to mean for others. Any drug that interferes with that experience comes at a steep cost, he said.

"If I never ponder these things," Father Moore said, "if I never face up to these questions intellectually, if I'm so spaced out it doesn't make any difference, then I think the experience is pretty empty and meaningless. In death we can become more a part of others' lives, and if I have decided simply to escape, I may have missed that opportunity."

How lovely that Reverend Moore has figured out the right way to die for the rest of us. Thanks, but I'll reflect on life while I'm alive, but as long as I'm going to be decomposing, I'll go for that "steep cost" he predicts of "going high into that good night."

Posted by aalkon at 08:27 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

The Latest eBay Scam Email

The Latest eBay Scam Email
The question is, which site I was on while in France was the scam generator? I have my suspicions.

Dear eBay Member, We recently noticed one or more attempts to log in to your eBay account from a foreign IP address and we have reasons to believe that your account was used by a third party without your authorization. If you recently accessed your account while traveling, the unusual login attempts may have been initiated by you

By now, we used many techniques to verify the accuracy of the information our users provide us when they register on the Site. However, because user verification on the Internet is difficult, eBay cannot and does not confirm each user's purported identity. Thus, we have established an offline verification system to help you evaluate with who you are dealing with.

click on the link below, fill the form and then submit as we will verify (Yeah, right...verify all the way to the bank.)

Please save this fraud alert ID for your reference

Please Note - If you choose to ignore our request, you leave us no choice but to temporally suspend your account.

* Please do not respond to this e-mail as your reply will not be received.

FYI, for anyone who would be gullible enough to click on the link in the email, while you could probably use the lesson, I'm going to set you straight: Only go to eBay itself to log in. Any information you need about your account will be there.

A public service from your public skeptic.

Posted by aalkon at 05:51 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

January 22, 2005

A Sane Take On Summers

A Sane Take On Summers
MIT biologist Nancy Hopkins claims she was in danger of blacking out or throwing up after hearing Harvard president Lawrence Summers speculating as to why there aren't more women in math and science. This proves what...that women, in general, are hysterical and in poor health? Not any more than Summers proved or probably even intended to even suggest that any one woman is unqualified to be a math or science prof. Jacob Sullum approaches Summers' address from a more rational point of view:

This controversy is ostensibly about the ability of women to excel in math and science. But it says more about the ability of academics to engage in rational debate when confronted by views that contradict their cherished assumptions.

Speaking at a conference sponsored by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Summers, an economist and former treasury secretary, suggested three factors that may help account for the scarcity of women on the math, physical science, and engineering faculties of leading universities. In addition to discrimination (the explanation favored by Hopkins) and the reluctance of mothers to put in the long hours required by top math and science positions, he mentioned sex-related differences in ability.

Summers' remarks may have failed the Hopkins Nausea Test, but they hold up better when judged by more scientific standards. Decades of testing have shown that boys and men tend to do better than girls and women on tasks that require spatial reasoning (e.g., mentally rotating objects) and advanced mathematical abilities. These differences are especially pronounced at the upper end of the distribution, where future scientists and mathematicians congregate.

"It has been fashionable to insist that these differences are minimal, the consequences of variations in experience during development," wrote University of Western Ontario psychologist Doreen Kimura in a 1992 Scientific American article. "The bulk of the evidence suggests, however, that the effects of sex hormones on brain organization occur so early in life that from the start the environment is acting on differently wired brains in girls and boys."

Since then, the evidence has become stronger. "A variety of data collected throughout the 1990s show that gonadal hormones...have demonstrable effects on the cognitive abilities of women and men," wrote psychologists Diane Halpern of California State University in San Bernardino and Mary LaMay of Loma Linda University in a 2000 Educational Psychology Review article. "Converging evidence from a variety of sources supports the idea that prenatal hormone levels affect patterns of cognition in sex-typical ways."

The precise contributions of early brain structure and subsequent experience are still a matter of controversy. Halpern and LaMay, for instance, suggest initial differences in aptitude may be magnified by their impact on interest, encouragement, and self-esteem. But Summers never implied the matter was settled; to the contrary, he called for further research and debate.

His critics took it personally. A Harvard senior told the Times "it's disconcerting that the man who is supposed to have your best interest in mind and is the leader of your education community thinks less of us."

Yet average group differences in ability do not imply a judgment about any particular individual, since there is still much overlap between the sexes. Although men predominate in the upper echelons of math and science, that doesn't mean the women who make it are any less qualified. The situation could change, of course, if the demand for gender balance leads universities to select faculty members based on their sex.

Given the implications for attempts to achieve faculty "diversity" (a goal to which Summers pledges allegiance), it's not surprising that the subject of sex differences in math and science aptitude provokes strong feelings among academics. But that is not all it should provoke.

"I think if you come to participate in a research conference," Georgia State University economist Paula Stephan told the Times, "you should expect speakers to present hypotheses that you may not agree with and then discuss them on the basis of research findings." Surely that is not demanding too much of people who consider themselves scientists.

Posted by aalkon at 08:43 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

Celebrating Homosexuality

Celebrating Homosexuality
What's wrong with celebrating homosexuality? That's the question nobody bothers to ask in all the stories about the fundie nutties who are protesting the SpongeBob video for school kids. Here's an excerpt from CNN.com:

Conservative Christian groups accuse the makers of a video starring SpongeBob SquarePants, Barney and a host of other cartoon characters of promoting homosexuality to children.

The wacky square yellow SpongeBob is one of the stars of a music video due to be sent to 61,000 U.S. schools in March. The makers -- the nonprofit We Are Family Foundation -- say the video is designed to encourage tolerance and diversity.

But at least two Christian activist groups say the innocent cartoon characters are being exploited to promote the acceptance of homosexuality.

"A short step beneath the surface reveals that one of the differences being celebrated is homosexuality," wrote Ed Vitagliano in an article for the American Family Association.

The video is a remake of the 1979 hit song "We Are Family" using the voices and images of SpongeBob, Barney, Winnie the Pooh, Bob the Builder, the Rugrats and other TV cartoon characters. It was made by a foundation set up by songwriter Nile Rodgers after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, in an effort to promote healing.

Christian groups however have taken exception to the tolerance pledge on the foundation's Web site, which asks people to respect the sexual identity of others along with their abilities, beliefs, culture and race.

"Their inclusion of the reference to 'sexual identity" within their 'tolerance pledge' is not only unnecessary, but it crosses a moral line," James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, said in a statement released Thursday.

No, Dobson's the one who's crossing a moral line. One that belongs back in the Middle Ages. Dude, haven't you heard of the Age of Reason? Consider entering it.

And while we're at it, I think this would be a lovely time for another Bertrand Russell moment. Another quote from his book, Why I Am Not A Christian; this time, from page 28; a critique of the current crop of abstinence nannies and other damaging religious fanatics, then and now:

It is not only in regard to sexual behavior but also in regard to knowledge on sex subjects that the attitude of Christians is dangerous to human welfare. Every person who has taken the trouble to study the question in an unbiased spirit know that the artificial ignorance on sex subjects which orthodox Christians attempt to enforce upon the young is extremely dangerous to mental and physical health, and causes in those who pick up their knowledge by the way of "improper" talk, as most children do, an attitude that sex is in itself indecent and ridiculous. I do not think there can ever be any defense for the view that knowledge is ever undesirable. I should not put barriers in the way of the acquisition of knowledge by anybody at any age. But in the particular case of sex knowledge there are much weightier arguments in its favor than in the case of most other knowledge. A person is much less likely to act wisely when he is ignorant than when he is instructed, and it is ridiculous to give young people a sense of sin because they have a natural curiousity about an important matter.

Posted by aalkon at 07:51 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

January 21, 2005

Put Luke On Your Thong

Put Luke On Your Thong
While, if you're a hottie, Luke Thompson (of LYTrules.com) would probably like to be in your thong, on your thong might be the next best thing.

On your dog might be the next best, next best thing.

Of course, Lucy is more the jewels and feathers kind of girl, but perhaps for her boyfriend, Leroy...? Hmm, maybe I should try this Café Press thing. How hard is it, Luke, to create this stuff?

Posted by aalkon at 08:11 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

Walking The Dinosaur

Walking The Dinosaur
Apparently, an early alternative to walking the dog, according to creationist morons, who insist man coexisted with the dinosaurs. There's loads of other such crap in the "Museum of Creation and Earth History" in Santee, where Patt ("The Hatt") Morrison recently paid a visit:

...and walked into the gift shop in time to hear a customer assuring the clerk that the Smithsonian in Washington has actual pieces of Noah's ark but won't admit it and won't let anyone near them.

Keep in mind I'd just seen "proof" that the Earth is no older than about 10,000 years, that man and dinosaurs coexisted before a flood that not only created the Grand Canyon but put the final score at humans (Noah and kin) 1, dinosaurs 0. After all that, the bit about the Smithsonian nearly sent me into a faint. I needed someone to deliver a couple of "quick, snap out of it, girl" taps with a copy of Scientific American.

Santee is a long way from Los Angeles, in a lot of ways. I saw more Bush bumper stickers there in an hour than I had in all of last year in L.A. It's closer in spirit to Cobb County, Ga., where stickers applied to biology textbooks declared that evolution is a theory, not a fact. Or, they did until last week, when a federal judge told the school board to unstick them because they endorsed religious beliefs.

The Santee museum has been making the creationism argument for 33 years, with low-tech exhibits bearing the touching, dorky earnestness of middle-school science projects — plastic butterflies, blue-painted fake stalactites, piped-in music from some De Mille biblical epic. When I was there, a gaggle of schoolgirls was taking earnest notes in front of an exhibit on Noah's ark. In the artist's rendering of life below decks, the ark looked an awful lot like the dining room at Musso & Frank, except the booths were occupied by ostriches and bears.

What confronted the Georgia judge is not Santee's brand of quaint creationism but a more sophisticated, neo-creationism creep that's moving through school boards and state legislatures across the country. The forces behind it are emboldened by another four years of a president who is on the record as saying: "On the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created the Earth." They're emboldened by the bogus logic that declares that wanting WMD is just as dangerous as having WMD, so wanting Genesis to be science is just as good as making it so.

The sweaty hallelujah chorus of the 1925 Scopes "monkey trial" is out of the picture. The talk now is about "Intelligent Design." ID says chance alone can't account for everything in creation, and that's where a higher intelligence — meaning God, though the ID forces may not use the word — comes in. ID is a canny tactic, a wedge into the realm of science, in which the Bible is an encoded science text. If IDers can put their argument on an equal footing with science, they figure they'll skip nimbly around the Constitution's church-state wall without having to wear themselves out trying to knock it down.

Really, it's a backhanded compliment to science that religion tries to co-opt its vocabulary. Santee's museum has its Institute of Creation Research. (Americans respect words like "institute" and "research.") ID materials show lab beakers, not Bibles. ID also takes a science word like "theory" and deliberately twists its meaning, equating the empirical research that backs up a scientific theory with any fleeting idea that finds a roost in more than one brain. Like the theory that the Smithsonian has a secret stash of ark bits.

Science and faith should always be at odds. Science starts with the smallest bits of evidence, collecting facts and data to figure out the principles that make them all work together. Faith starts with unshakable belief in itself. Cross those wires and you get oxymorons like creation science.

There was a man in the last century who practiced top-down science with harrowing consequences. His ideology came first, and science had to fit it. He denounced the important genetic studies of Mendel as the work of "enemies" — not exactly the language of science. He insisted, among other things, that wheat plants could bear rye seeds. His notions sent real scientists to exile and execution and condemned whole populations to starve. He wasn't a scientist himself but he played one at the Kremlin. His name was Trofim Lysenko, and his ideology was communism.

Posted by aalkon at 07:31 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

The Bertrand Russell Reader

Amy Alkon's Bertrand Russell Reader
The following is today's excerpt from the excellent Bertrand Russell book, Why I Am Not A Christian, that I started reading on the plane home.

Page 6, Bertrand Russell writes:

I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question 'Who made God?'"

Posted by aalkon at 06:00 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

January 20, 2005

Writergirl On The Go

Writergirl On The Go
A girl and her portable, international office:

At less than five pounds and about the size of a loaf of bread, my mobile HP deskjet (450 ci, in case you want one, too) leaves plenty of room for all the clothes I would have bought if the Euro wasn't hovering at just over the 50-cent piece!

Posted by aalkon at 08:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Fundamental Illness

Fundamental Illness
Religion is storming into European life, and it's an ugly business, writes Alan Riding in the IHT:

Two senior BBC executives were under police protection last week after receiving death threats. An Asian-British playwright went into hiding last month when her life was threatened. A Dutch moviemaker who ignored similar warnings was killed on an Amsterdam street in early November. The three episodes had religion in common. And in each case, the issue was blasphemy.

So, have European artists been exceeding the accepted boundaries of tolerance or is religion becoming a taboo subject?

For decades, artistic freedom has seemed assured in Western Europe by a strong liberal tradition and growing secularity. Gone are the days when D.H. Lawrence's "Lady Chatterley's Lover" was sold under the counter here and Stanley Kubrick's "Clockwork Orange" was banned as too violent. Sex, above all, has ceased to shock, whether in art or on screen, stage or television. Expletives have become common currency in books, movies and television.

At the same time, artists and audiences alike have shown little interest in religion. Monty Python's "Life of Brian," a 1979 religious satire, amused more than it offended. More recently, French Christian groups were largely ignored when they protested that posters for Milos Forman's "The People vs. Larry Flynt" and Costa-Gavras's "Amen" abused the cross. In brief, Europeans have tended to view a militant Christian right as an American monopoly.

"Sensation," an exhibition of works by irreverent young British artists, illustrated different attitudes. When it was shown at London's Royal Academy of Arts in 1997, complaints focused on a portrait of a notorious child murderer made out of children's handprints. But when the show traveled to the Brooklyn Museum of Art in 1999, it was Chris Ofili's painting of "The Holy Virgin Mary," decorated with elephant dung, that caused an outcry as sacrilegious.

Yet religion has re-entered European public life. One catalyst has been fear of Muslim fundamentalism, notably since 9/11. This and power struggles between traditional and modern currents inside different faiths have served to raise the religious stakes across the board. Today, religion in Europe is more intertwined with politics than in recent memory. And perhaps for this very reason, some artists believe it again worthy of attention.

One such artist was Theo van Gogh, a Dutch moviemaker. Working with a Somali-born Dutch legislator, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, he made a short television documentary called "Submission," which used a naked body and words from the Koran to denounce violence against Muslim women. Its broadcast last fall brought cries of blasphemy and death threats. Unlike Hirsi Ali, van Gogh refused a police guard. On Nov. 2, he was slain, and a Dutch Muslim of Moroccan parentage was held.

The killing provoked outrage in the Netherlands. It also stirred intense debate about artistic freedom. Already four years earlier, "Aïsha," a Dutch opera about a strong-minded wife of Muhammad, was canceled after the Moroccan cast and composer were pressured into withdrawing by Muslim clerics. Today, many Dutch consider their liberal values to be increasingly hostage to religious intolerance.

...Perhaps artists are taking on religion precisely because it is the last taboo. On the other hand, if charges of blasphemy are accompanied by threats of violence, artists - or BBC executives - may choose to think twice before exercising their freedom on matters of faith. Either way, religious tensions have begun spilling into the cultural arena. And, for postwar Western Europe, this is new and disturbing.

Posted by aalkon at 07:07 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Nancy Deux

Nancy Deux
Perhaps it's just me, but I did a double-take when I passed this photo opening poster, thinking it was a picture of Nancy Rommelmann.

P.S. Nancy's blogging again.
.

Posted by aalkon at 06:26 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

January 19, 2005

All That Glitters

All That Glitters

No, it isn't a camera trick. The eggs at Flore really are this golden, and they taste it, too. Probably because food in France is generally not “preserved” or otherwise altered with some chemical cousin of a Styrofoam cup. For the record, these are Gregg's eggs from this summer pictured here, but I've been eating them every day at Flore (oeufs au plat, bacon). What with the ruined dollar, my favorite, the salade landaise (goose livers, salade frisée, and a raw egg), at 15 euros plus 30% (ie, $20), is out of the fucking question!

Gaito got us this cheese, which he heated in the oven, in the balsa wood thing it came in, for seven minutes. Amazing, fantastic, marvelous, fabulous, superbe!

Even the centerpieces are golden and edible. (Those are apricots around the vase.) That was the first photo I took when I came into France, as I was walking from the RER (suburban train that runs to and from the airport) stop at Invalides. (Only dumb old LA Times travel writer Susan Spano is too dim to figure out that you don't take the RER from nightmare station and pickpocket capital of the universe, Les Halles. I guess that's why she, not Jason Stone, earns the big bucks for Paris blogging.)

Posted by aalkon at 08:50 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

Britain's Abu Ghraib

Britain's Abu Ghraib
Now, Britain has a prisoner abuse scandal of its own, writes Audrey Gillan in The Guardian:

Images of British soldiers described as shocking and appalling that allegedly show the abuse of Iraqi prisoners were shown to a court martial in Germany yesterday as the long-awaited case of three members of the 1st Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers got underway.

Graphic photographs showing how squaddies forced Iraqis to strip bare and simulate oral and anal sex were put before a panel of seven officers. They also saw pictures of a grimacing Iraqi who had been strung up in a cargo net made from thick rope which had been hung from a forklift truck. Another showed a soldier, wearing just shorts and flip flops, standing on an Iraqi man who was crouched in a foetal position on the ground.

The military court in Osnabruck in Germany began hearing the evidence against Corporal Daniel Kenyon, 33, and lance corporals Darren Larkin, 30, Mark Cooley, 25, who face a total of nine charges relating to the alleged abuse of the Iraqis they had taken prisoner two weeks after the conflict was declared over in May 2003. L/Cpl Larkin has pleaded guilty to a charge of battery but has denied "disgraceful conduct of an indecent kind" after he was said have forced two "unknown males" to undress in front of others.

L/Cpl Cooley has denied two offences involving conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline for simulating punches and kicks to an Iraqi and allowing them to be photographed. He also denies disgraceful conduct of a cruel kind after he tied up an Iraqi and hung him from a forklift truck.

Cpl Kenyon denies all charges, including two of aiding and abetting a person to force two naked detainees to simulate a sex act.

If found guilty the men face prison sentences and dismissal from the army with disgrace. The case has been dubbed "Britain's Abu Ghraib", coming just one week after an US court martial sentenced one of its soldiers to 10 years for torturing Iraqis. US army specialist Charles Graner was accused of stacking naked prisoners in a human pyramid and later ordering them to masturbate while other soldiers took photographs at the prison, near Baghdad.

Yesterday's panel was presented with a collection of 22 photographs, taken from the cameras of five soldiers.

The three accused soldiers had been part of an operation to stop Iraqi looters from stealing humanitarian aid from the British-run camp Bread basket, half a mile west of Basra. The court heard that their commanding officer, Major Daniel Taylor, devised a plan, codenamed Operation Ali Baba, aimed at rounding up thieves who had become a major problem at the camp.

The fusiliers were sent out in groups of four armed with one SA80 assault rifle and camouflage poles to capture Iraqis and bring them back to the camp with the intention of "working them hard" to deter looting. The court heard such an order was illegal and was in contravention of the Geneva Convention.

Posted by aalkon at 07:36 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Hanging CBS, But Not The Guy Who Opted Out

Hanging CBS, But Not The Guy Who Opted Out
Kos has a good point:

With all the wingnut crowing about CBS and 60 Minutes, you'd think they blew the story that Bush had been AWOL. Fact is, CBS got one piece of evidence wrong,...

But there was a truckload of evidence that showed that George Bush was AWOL, and about that, nobody seemed to care. Truckload contents pasted in below. More at the link above:

# Upon being accepted for pilot training, Bush promised to serve with his parent (Texas) Guard unit for five years once he completed his pilot training.

But Bush served as a pilot with his parent unit for just two years.

# In May 1972 Bush left the Houston Guard base for Alabama. According to Air Force regulations, Bush was supposed to obtain prior authorization before leaving Texas to join a new Guard unit in Alabama.

But Bush failed to get the authorization.

# In requesting a permanent transfer to a nonflying unit in Alabama in 1972, Bush was supposed to sign an acknowledgment that he received relocation counseling.

But no such document exists.

# He was supposed to receive a certification of satisfactory participation from his unit.

But Bush did not.

# He was supposed to sign and give a letter of resignation to his Texas unit commander.

But Bush did not.

# He was supposed to receive discharge orders from the Texas Air National Guard adjutant general.

But Bush did not.

# He was supposed to receive new assignment orders for the Air Force Reserves.

But Bush did not.

# On his transfer request Bush was asked to list his "permanent address."

But he wrote down a post office box number for the campaign he was working for on a temporary basis.

# On his transfer request Bush was asked to list his Air Force specialty code.

But Bush, an F-102 pilot, erroneously wrote the code for an F-89 or F-94 pilot. Both planes had been retired from service at the time. Bush, an officer, made this mistake more than once on the same form.

# On May 26, 1972, Lt. Col. Reese Bricken, commander of the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, informed Bush that a transfer to his nonflying unit would be unsuitable for a fully trained pilot such as he was, and that Bush would not be able to fulfill any of his remaining two years of flight obligation.

But Bush pressed on with his transfer request nonetheless.

# Bush's transfer request to the 9921st was eventually denied by the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver, which meant he was still obligated to attend training sessions one weekend a month with his Texas unit in Houston.

But Bush failed to attend weekend drills in May, June, July, August and September. He also failed to request permission to make up those days at the time.

# According to Air Force regulations, "[a] member whose attendance record is poor must be closely monitored. When the unexcused absences reach one less than the maximum permitted [sic] he must be counseled and a record made of the counseling. If the member is unavailable he must be advised by personal letter."

But there is no record that Bush ever received such counseling, despite the fact that he missed drills for months on end.

# Bush's unit was obligated to report in writing to the Personnel Center at Randolph Air Force Base whenever a monthly review of records showed unsatisfactory participation for an officer.

But his unit never reported Bush's absenteeism to Randolph Air Force Base.

# In July 1972 Bush failed to take a mandatory Guard physical exam, which is a serious offense for a Guard pilot. The move should have prompted the formation of a Flying Evaluation Board to investigation the circumstances surrounding Bush's failure.

But no such FEB was convened.

# Once Bush was grounded for failing to take a physical, his commanders could have filed a report on why the suspension should be lifted.

But Bush's commanders made no such request.

# On Sept. 15, 1972, Bush was ordered to report to Lt. Col. William Turnipseed, the deputy commander of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group in Montgomery, Ala., to participate in training on the weekends of Oct. 7-8 and Nov. 4-5, 1972.

But there's no evidence Bush ever showed up on those dates. In 2000, Turnipseed told the Boston Globe that Bush did not report for duty. (A self-professed Bush supporter, Turnipseed has since backed off from his categorical claim.)

# However, according to the White House-released pay records, which are unsigned, Bush was credited for serving in Montgomery on Oct. 28-29 and Nov. 11-14, 1972. Those makeup dates should have produced a paper trail, including Bush's formal request as well as authorization and supervision documents.

But no such documents exist, and the dates he was credited for do not match the dates when the Montgomery unit assembled for drills.

# When Guardsmen miss monthly drills, or "unit training assemblies" (UTAs), they are allowed to make them up through substitute service and earn crucial points toward their service record. Drills are worth one point on a weekday and two points on each weekend day. For Bush's substitute service on Nov. 13-14, 1972, he was awarded four points, two for each day.

But Nov. 13 and 14 were both weekdays. He should have been awarded two points.

# Bush earned six points for service on Jan. 4-6, 1973 -- a Thursday, Friday and Saturday.

But he should have earned four points, one each for Thursday and Friday, two for Saturday.

# Weekday training was the exception in the Guard. For example, from May 1968 to May 1972, when Bush was in good standing, he was not credited with attending a single weekday UTA.

But after 1972, when Bush's absenteeism accelerated, nearly half of his credited UTAs were for weekdays.

# To maintain unit cohesiveness, the parameters for substitute service are tightly controlled; drills must be made up within 15 days immediately before, or 30 days immediately after, the originally scheduled drill, according to Guard regulations at the time.

But more than half of the substitute service credits Bush received fell outside that clear time frame. In one case, he made up a drill nine weeks in advance.

# On Sept. 29, 1972, Bush was formally grounded for failing to take a flight physical. The letter, written by Maj. Gen. Francis Greenlief, chief of the National Guard Bureau, ordered Bush to acknowledge in writing that he had received word of his grounding.

But no such written acknowledgment exists. In 2000, Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett told the Boston Globe that Bush couldn't remember if he'd ever been grounded.

# Bartlett also told the Boston Globe that Bush didn't undergo a physical while in Alabama because his family doctor was in Houston.

But only Air Force flight surgeons can give flight physicals to pilots.

# Guard members are required to take a physical exam every 12 months.

But Bush's last Guard physical was in May 1971. Bush was formally discharged from the service in November 1974, which means he went without a required physical for 42 months.

# Bush's unsatisfactory participation in the fall of 1972 should have prompted the Texas Air National Guard to write to his local draft board and inform the board that Bush had become eligible for the draft. Guard units across the country contacted draft boards every Sept. 15 to update them on the status of local Guard members. Bush's absenteeism should have prompted what's known as a DD Form 44, "Record of Military Status of Registrant."

But there is no record of any such document having been sent to Bush's draft board in Houston.

# Records released by the White House note that Bush received a military dental exam in Alabama on Jan. 6, 1973.

But Bush's request to serve in Alabama covered only September, October and November 1972. Why he would still be serving in Alabama months after that remains unclear.

# Each of Bush's numerous substitute service requests should have formed a lengthy paper trail consisting of AF Form 40a's, with the name of the officer who authorized the training in advance, the signature of the officer who supervised the training and Bush's own signature.

But no such documents exist.

# During his last year with the Texas Air National Guard, Bush missed nearly two-thirds of his mandatory UTAs and made up some of them with substitute service. Guard regulations allowed substitute service only in circumstances that are "beyond the control" of the Guard member.

But neither Bush nor the Texas Air National Guard has ever explained what the uncontrollable circumstances were that forced him to miss the majority of his assigned drills in his last year.

# Bush supposedly returned to his Houston unit in April 1973 and served two days.

But at the end of April, when Bush's Texas commanders had to rate him for their annual report, they wrote that they could not do so: "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of this report."

# On June 29, 1973, the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver instructed Bush's commanders to get additional information from his Alabama unit, where he had supposedly been training, in order to better evaluate Bush's duty. The ARPC gave Texas a deadline of Aug. 6 to get the information.

But Bush's commanders ignored the request.

# Bush was credited for attending four days of UTAs with his Texas unit July 16-19, 1973. That was good for eight crucial points.

But that's not possible. Guard units hold only two UTAs each month -- one on a Saturday and one on a Sunday. Although Bush may well have made up four days, they should not all have been counted as UTAs, since they occur just twice a month. The other days are known as "Appropriate Duty," or APDY.

# On July 30, 1973, Bush, preparing to attend Harvard Business School, signed a statement acknowledging it was his responsibility to find another unit in which to serve out the remaining nine months of his commitment.

But Bush never contacted another unit in Massachusetts in which to fulfill his obligation.

Posted by aalkon at 07:24 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

January 18, 2005

Flore Power

Flore Power

The fashion designer Sonia Rykiel is here, upstairs at Le Flore, my Paris office. She gave me a big smile as she came in. She’s always very warm and friendly when she sees me. I think she finds me amusing, with my zebra striped iBook and manic typing. She once told me she liked my pants –- a black and white pair with newsprint all over them that I bought for $20 at a designer resale store in LA.

It’s always interesting upstairs at Flore…occasionally, I see Deneuve here, sometimes with Yves St. Laurent (easy to play it cool around slobbo LA movie stars, but hard not to sneak a peek at La Deneuve). There’s always somebody -- Greil Marcus or various and sundry French novelists or Freud-clingers -- getting interviewed by a TV crew...in addition to the usual crowd of gray-skinned depressive intellectuals and preternaturally tanned BCBGs. (BCBG is short for Bon Chic, Bon Genre –- the 80s French term for “yuppie” –- probably as creaky in France as the term “yuppie” is for us, but it’s hard enough to learn to speak intelligibly in ordinary French without keeping up on all the “argot.”)

Although I usually spend most of my conversational time at Flore torturing French people (ie, forcing them to pick out the meaning from my attempted français), I met a very interesting British woman here yesterday -- a lawyer for a big company living in Paris for 20 years, with a pretty good French accent (at least, to me). I only learned she was British because she forgot her purse, and as she was hurrying down the stairs, I was trying to quickly collect the French to tell her: “Madame, vous avez oublié votre sac!” She came back and sat beside me for quite a while, talking about the state of things in America, the Middle East, and Europe, and asking about what I do. Like many Europeans, she's surprised (horrified?...translation from British) by the advance of religion in America.

They've got a lot of dumb policy in France (all the commie-inflected stuff), but they've got one thing right -- separation of church and state, and not just as a matter of lip service. I was talking yesterday with a French man about the principle of Laïque (secularism) in the public schools in France. When you go to a public French school, you are a little French child, not a Muslim, or Jewish, or Christian -- hence, the prohibition on religious attire like head scarves. You want to wear the trappings of religion? Attend a private fundamentalist institution. The man also told me how shocking it would be for a head of state here in France to take an oath of office by swearing on a bible, like our president does...or to talk about god in relation to matters of state. We Americans might be economically ahead, but philosophically, we have "reculé" (backed up).

By the way, my American friend Jason, who’s a Paris resident and blogger with a Harvard MBA and a degree in chemical engineering, is looking for a job, toute de suite (pronto!), befitting his serious credentials -- but, in France with an American or international company. The reader of this blog who leads him to one he lands gets a free hour telephone consultation with me on the problems of their choice –- romantic, aesthetic, or dietetic…since I am now an expert on how to lose weight while burying one’s face in a plate of bleu des Causses cheese or other equally calorie-neutral delicacies. (If you want to pack on some pounds, eat Snackwells and other calorie-reduced crap!)

Posted by aalkon at 08:42 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

Costco: The Front Line Of The War On Drugs

Costco: The Front Line Of The War On Drugs
If you've got cold symptoms, you'd better bring them to Costco one at a time.

Posted by aalkon at 07:57 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 17, 2005

Oui, monsieur!

"Oui, Monsieur!"

Here I am at a quirky, old restaurant in the seventh arrondisement (I think, called Le Breteuil), with Mark, Emily, and Chantal, wondering whether the waiter really just offered to serve me his grandmother, sliced, on toast.

Posted by aalkon at 09:09 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

It's The Democracy, Stupid

It's The Democracy, Stupid
It isn't American aid that makes the difference in Muslim countries, writes Thomas Friedman:

I believe the tensions between America and the Muslim world stem primarily from the conditions under which many Muslims live, not what America does. I believe free people, living under freely elected governments, with a free press and with economies and education systems that enable their young people to achieve their full potential, don't spend a lot of time thinking about whom to hate, whom to blame, and whom to lash out at. Free countries don't have leaders who use their media and state-owned "intellectuals" to deflect all of their people's anger away from them and onto America.

Ah, you say, but the Europeans live in free-market democracies and they have become very anti-American. Yes, some of them. But for Europeans, anti-Americanism is a hobby. For too many in the Muslim world it has become a career.

I am sure that young people in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Poland and India have their views on America, but they are not an obsession. They want Americans' jobs, not Americans' lives. They live in societies that empower their young people to realize their full potential and to express any opinion - pro-American, anti-American or neutral.

So I don't want young Muslims to like America. I want them to like and respect themselves, their own countries and their own governments. I want them to have the same luxury to ignore America as Taiwan's young people have - because they are too busy focusing on improving their own lives and governance, running for office, studying anything they want or finding good jobs in their own countries.

The Bush team is certainly not fostering all this when it mismanages a war it began in order to liberate the people of Iraq. Its performance has been pathetic, and I understand anyone on the right or the left who wants to wash his hands of the whole thing. Speaking personally, though, I am still hoping that these Iraqi elections come off - out of respect for the Iraqis who have been ready to risk their lives for a chance to vote, out of contempt for the insurgents who want to prevent that and out of a deep conviction that something very important is at stake.

No, these elections won't change Iraq or the region overnight, and Thomas Jefferson is not on the ballot. But they will at least kick off what the Iraq expert Yitzhak Nakash calls "a real, Iraqi political process run by and for Iraqis."

Posted by aalkon at 07:19 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

January 16, 2005

Emily Tarr's Paris

Emily Tarr's Paris
Emily Tarr introduced me to Paris, and takes the best pictures of me in it -- or anywhere. Here I am chez Emily:

Tristement, mon petit chien est chez moi à Los Angeles, parce-qu'il fait très froid ici. (Translation: It's as cold as fuck here, so my doggie is sleeping on my couch in warm, sunny Los Angeles when she isn't playing over at my neighbors'.)

Photo by Emily Tarr...bien sur!

Posted by aalkon at 01:53 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

Fur A Good Time...

Fur A Good Time...
NSFPMOOBH. (Not Safe For PETA Members Or Other Bunny-Huggers.)

Thanks, Sheryl!

Posted by aalkon at 12:24 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

The White Stuff

The White Stuff
Terrific investigative piece written by docu-maker Angus Macqueen, who spent 18 months on "the cocaine trail" across Latin America. The story is subtitled with the lines, "Here he recalls the journey that revolutionized his views and explains why he believes 'the dandruff of the Andes should be sold in (the English drugstore) Boots.'"

Posted by aalkon at 12:03 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 15, 2005

Rue de Sèvres

Rue de Sèvres at Place Léon-Paul Fargue
Wild. I'm blogging from a Paris phone booth, on Rue de Sèvres, just outside the Duroc metro, on borrowed Wifi. Took a bunch of photos, and I even got a...device, shall we say...to transfer them. Therein lies a story. But I must tell it from a more comfortable location, because the photo transfer device requires some sort of CD installation process. I still can't get over that I'm blogging from a Paris phone cabine. What a high tech world we live in!

Posted by aalkon at 10:31 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

"Religion Moderation" And Other Jokes

"Religion Moderation" And Other Jokes
Astonishingly, perhaps 230 million Americans, according to polls, "believe a book that shows neither unity of style nor internal consistency was created by an omniscient deity," writes Sam Harris in Playboy. He then explores what it means to be a “religious moderate,” an oxymoronic term many Americans would use to define their level of belief:

The problem, however, is that moderation in religion is completely without intellectual or theological support. It offers us no bulwark against the threat of religious extremism and religious violence.

Religious moderation springs from the fact that even the least educated person knows more about certain matters than anyone did 2000 years ago, and much of this knowledge is incompatible with scripture. Most of us, for example, no longer equate disease with demonic possession. About half of us find it impossible to take seriously the idea that the universe was created 6000 years ago. But such concessions to modernity haven't made faith compatible with reason. It's just that the utility of ignoring (or "reinterpreting") articles of faith is now overwhelming. Anyone who has flown to a distant city for heart bypass surgery must concede that we have learned a few things about physics, geography, engineering and medicine since the time of Moses.

The problem with religious moderation is that it doesn't permit anything critical to be said about religious literalism. By failing to live by the letter of the texts--while tolerating the irrationality of those who do--we betray faith and reason equally. We can't say fundamentalists are crazy, because they are merely practicing their freedom of belief. We can't even say they are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivaled. All we can say as religious moderates is that we don't like the personal and social costs imposed on us by a full embrace of scripture.

Religious moderates have merely capitulated to a variety of all too human interests that have nothing in principle to do with God. Religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance. It has no credibility, in religious terms, to put it on a par with fundamentalism. Each text is perfect in all its parts. By this light, moderation appears to be nothing more than an unwillingness to submit to the law of God. Unless the core dogmas of faith (ie:, there is a God, and we know what He wants from us) are questioned, religious moderation won't lead us out of the wilderness.

Insofar as it represents an atteot to hold on to what is still serviceable in orthodox religion, such moderation closes the door to more sophisticated approaches to human happiness. Rather than bring the force of creativity and rationality to bear on the problems of ethics, social cohesion and spiritual experience, moderates ask that we relax our standards of adherence to ancient superstitions while we otherwise maintain a belief system passed down from men and women whose lives were ravaged by ignorance. Not even politics suffers from such anachronisms.

Moderates don't want to kill anyone in the name of God, of course. But they do want us to keep using the word God as though we knew what we were talking about. And they don't want anything critical to be said about people who believe in the God of their fathers, because tolerance, perhaps above all else, is sacred. To speak truthfully about the state of our world--to say, for instance, that the Bible and the Koran both contains reams of life-destroying gibberish--is antithetical to tolerance as moderates currently conceive it.

And, in the days after our fundamentalist-in-chief noted that he couldn’t see how anybody but a believer in god could lead this, the most powerful and scientifically advanced nation in the world, Harris’ ending remarks carry even more weight:

Nothing is more sacred than facts. Where we have reason, we don't need faith. Where we have no reason, we have lost both our connection to this world and to one another. People who harbor strong convictions without evidence belong at the margins of our society, not in the halls of power. We should respect a person's desire for a better life in this world, not his certainty that one awaits him in the next.

But religious moderates imagine that the path to peace will be paved once we learn to respect the unjustified beliefs of others. This ideal of religious tolerance now drives us to the abyss. As every fundamentalist knows, the contest between our religions is zero-sum. Religious violence is still with us because our religions are intrinsically hostile to one another.

Where they appear otherwise, it is because secular interests have restrained the most lethal improprieties of faith. It is time that moderates recognize that reason, not faith, is the glue that holds our civilization together.

Posted by aalkon at 08:01 AM | Comments (16) | TrackBack

Penile Stretching And Twisting

Penile Stretching And Twisting
A little film capsule hilarity from LAObserved.

Posted by aalkon at 07:27 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 13, 2005

My Ass...

My Ass...

...Is in Paris, but my camera cable is at home. Sigh. Pictures as soon as I can get to Le Office Depot!

Posted by aalkon at 09:59 AM | Comments (11) | TrackBack

Just Another Orwellian News Cycle

Just Another Orwellian News Cycle
Another chilling development from the Bush administration:

'Bush Plans to Screen Whole U.S. Population for Mental Illness', read the headline in the 'British Medical Journal' (BMJ) and the project, with increasingly controversial drug treatment at its core, is underway as you read this.

Structures to put the scheme in place have been developed under a so-called "Federal Action Agenda," announced in Washington on Jun. 9, and include mandatory mental health screening, which the plan recommends be linked with "treatment and supports".

The plan's full details have yet to emerge as the Action Agenda still "has not been publicly released," according to A Kathryn Power, director of the Centre for Mental Health Services (CMHS), the Bush administration body spearheading the effort.

Developed by the President's New Freedom Commission On Mental Health, the effort, critics charge, is a pharmaceutical industry marketing scheme to mine customers and promote sales of the newest, most expensive psychiatric medications.

Under 'New Freedom', mental health screening of adult Americans is slated to occur during routine physical exams while that of young people will occur in the school system. Pre-school children will receive periodic "development screens."

What happens when YOU don't agree that you're mentally ill? And what is mental illness, anyway? What if you're a little wacky and it doesn't stop you from functioning? What if you're a lot gay? Until recently, homosexuality was identified as a mental illlness! in the DSM, the diagnostic manual of the mental health professions. Talk about sick!

Posted by aalkon at 08:50 AM | Comments (15) | TrackBack

January 12, 2005

The Ugly Squad On Patrol

The Ugly Squad On Patrol

Wearing a dress this hideous, paired with equally hideous white
patent leather shoes, is a highly effective form of abstinence.

Posted by aalkon at 11:44 AM | Comments (18) | TrackBack

Duh Is For Democrats

Duh Is For Democrats
One reason the Democrats are the losingest political team around is their fondness for hiring political consultants like Joe Hansen, writes Amy Sullivan for Washington Monthly:

Hansen is part of a clique of Washington consultants who, through their insider ties, continue to get rewarded with business even after losing continually. Pollster Mark Mellman is popular among Democrats because he tells them what they so desperately want to hear: Their policies are sound, Americans really agree with them more than with Republicans, and if they just repeat their mantras loud enough, voters will eventually embrace the party. As Noam Scheiber pointed out in a New Republic article following the great Democratic debacle of '02, Mellman was, perhaps more than anyone else, the architect of that defeat. As the DSCC's recommended pollster, he advised congressional Democrats to ignore national security and Iraq in favor of an endless campaign about prescription drugs and education. After the party got its clock cleaned based on his advice, Mellman should have been exiled but was instead ... promoted. He became the lead pollster for John Kerry's presidential campaign, where he proffered eerily similar advice – stress domestic policy, stay away from attacking Bush – to much the same effect.

Hansen and Mellman are joined by the poster boy of Democratic social promotion, Bob Shrum. Over his 30-year career, Shrum has worked on the campaigns of seven losing presidential candidates – from George McGovern to Bob Kerrey – capping his record with a leading role in the disaster that was the Gore campaign. Yet, instead of abiding by the "seven strikes and you're out" rule, Democrats have continued to pay top dollar for his services (sums that are supplemented by the percentage Shrum's firm, Shrum, Devine & Donilon, gets for purchasing air time for commercials). Although Shrum has never put anyone in the White House, in the bizarro world of Democratic politics, he's seen as a kingmaker – merely hiring the media strategist gives a candidate such instant credibility with big-ticket liberal funders that John Kerry and John Edwards fought a fierce battle heading into the 2004 primaries to lure Shrum to their camps. Ultimately, Shrum chose Kerry, and on Nov. 3, he extended his perfect losing record.

Since their devastating loss last fall, Democrats have cast about for reasons why their party has come up short three election cycles in a row and have debated what to do. Should they lure better candidates? Talk more about morality? Adopt a harder line on national security? But one of the most obvious and least discussed reasons Democrats continue to lose is their consultants. Every sports fan knows that if a team boasts a losing record several seasons in a row, the coach has to be replaced with someone who can win. Yet when it comes to political consultants, Democrats seem incapable of taking this basic managerial step.

A major reason for that reluctance is that Democrats simply won't talk openly about the problem. Shrum did eventually take some heat publicly during the 2004 campaign when the contrast between his losing record and his high position in the troubled Kerry campaign became too stark to ignore. But in general, a Mafia-like code of omerta operates. Few insiders dare complain about the hammerlock loser consultants have on the process – certainly neither the professional campaign operatives whom the consultants hire nor the journalists to whom the consultants feed juicy inside-the-room detail. "Everybody in town talks [privately] about Hansen and how he's held candidates hostage through the DSCC," says Chuck Todd, editor of National Journal's Political Hotline. Todd, however, is one of the few brave insiders. I interviewed two dozen Democratic Party leaders, operatives, and others for this story. Virtually no one had a good thing to say about Hansen or the rest of the oligarchy. Yet few would talk on the record. The exceptions were those who have gotten out of the business of working for political candidates such as Dan Gerstein, a former advisor to Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.). "If a company like General Motors had the same image problem that the Democratic Party does, they would fire the guys responsible," Gerstein told me. But not Democrats. "We don't just hire those guys," Gerstein said, "we give them bonuses."

Posted by aalkon at 09:00 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Are You A Right Libertarian Or A Left Libertarian?

Are You A Right Libertarian Or A Left Libertarian?
A few conflicts from within the fold.

Posted by aalkon at 08:48 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

January 11, 2005

Old Maids Rule!

Old Maids Rule!
"Women live longer if they throw away the ring," says an article by Adele Horin in the Sydney Morning Herald:

If women are looking for the key to long-lasting health, they should consider getting rid of their man.

That is one finding of research by two Queensland universities that reveals that divorced, widowed and single women in older age appear to be healthier than their married counterparts.

A man's health, however, appears to be unaffected by his marital status.

The surprise finding may help allay fears that the burgeoning group of older single females - products of the divorce surge of the 1970s and 1980s - will place an extra burden on health budgets.

The Queensland University and Queensland University of Technology study - Marriage dissolution and health amongst the elderly: the role of social and economic resources - was based on a sample of 2300 Australians over 60 and will be published in the forthcoming issue of the journal Just Policy.

It shows that divorced, widowed and never-married elderly women reported significantly better general health than married women, challenging long-held beliefs that married people had better overall physical and mental health than non-married.

"Maybe married women are worn out from looking after their husbands," said researcher Belinda Hewitt, of the school of social science at the University of Queensland.

I'm so tired of the myth that your life simply isn't complete without a significant other. I have a boyfriend, but that's only because I accidentally met somebody very, very right for me after tossing back hundreds that came before him like sickly trout. A glamor-girl friend sent me her black-wit birthday invite today:

In honor of me turning a year older, I’m having a few folks over for cocktails this Saturday. If getting one step closer to dying old and alone isn’t a reason to drink, I don’t know what is.

Here was my response:

Oh, you glama girl, look on the bright side: dying old and alone is better than dying old and a nursemaid to some demented old coot who needs a lot of help with his diapers!

I mean, if you love somebody to pieces, sure, diaper duty comes with. But too many people are too desperate to partner up -- and why? Because they aren't interesting enough to be by themselves for any length of time! And so they'll have somebody around to wipe their drool! And in the name of "love"? Please. Live with dignity while you're young, and make enough money that you can pay somebody later in life to follow you around with a washrag and clean up your spit!

Posted by aalkon at 08:35 AM | Comments (23) | TrackBack

Come Out, Come Out, Where Ever You Are!

Come Out, Come Out, Where Ever You Are!
Armstrong Williams said he wasn't the only one secretly on the take from the Bush administration, writes David Corn:

"This happens all the time," he told me. "There are others." Really? I said. Other conservative commentators accept money from the Bush administration? I asked Williams for names. "I'm not going to defend myself that way," he said. The issue right now, he explained, was his own mistake. Well, I said, what if I call you up in a few weeks, after this blows over, and then ask you? No, he said.

Does Williams really know something about other right-wing pundits? Or was he only trying to minimize his own screw-up with a momentary embrace of a trumped-up everybody-does-it defense? I could not tell. But if the IG at the Department of Education or any other official questions Williams, I suggest he or she ask what Williams meant by this comment. And if Williams is really sorry for this act of "bad judgment" and for besmirching the profession of right-wing punditry, shouldn't he do what he can to guarantee that those who watch pundits on the cable news networks and read political columnists receive conservative views that are independent and untainted by payoffs from the Bush administration or other political outfits?

Armstrong, please, help us all protect the independence of the conservative commentariat. If you are not alone, tell us who else has yielded to bad judgment.

Posted by aalkon at 07:51 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 10, 2005

Einstein Was No Idiot

Einstein Was No Idiot
Contrary to what the religious would have you believe, Einstein did not believe in god:

Just over a century ago, near the beginning of his intellectual life, the young Albert Einstein became a skeptic. He states so on the first page of his Autobiographical Notes (1949, pp. 3-5): "Thus I came--despite the fact I was the son of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents--to a deep religiosity, which, however, found an abrupt ending at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic [orgy of] freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived...Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude...(w)hich has never left me..."

We all know Albert Einstein as the most famous scientist of the 20th century, and many know him as a great humanist. Some have also viewed him as religious. Indeed, in Einstein'(s) writings there is well-known reference to God and discussion of religion (1949, 1954). Although Einstein stated he was religious and that he believed in God, it was in his own specialized sense that he used these terms. Many are aware that Einstein was not religious in the conventional sense, but it will come as a surprise to some to learn that Einstein clearly identified himself as an atheist and as an agnostic. If one understands how Einstein used the terms religion, God, atheism, and agnosticism, it is clear that he was consistent in his beliefs.

Part of the popular picture of Einstein's God and religion comes from his well-known statements, such as: "God is cunning but He is not malicious."(Also: "God is subtle but he is not bloody-minded." Or: "God is slick, but he ain't mean." (1946)

"God does not play dice."(On many occasions.)

"I want to know how God created the world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."(Unknown date.)

It is easy to see how some got the idea that Einstein was expressing a close relationship with a personal god, but it is more accurate to say he was simply expressing his ideas and beliefs about the universe.

Einstein's "belief" in Spinoza's God is one of his most widely quoted statements. But quoted out of context, like so many of these statements, it is misleading at best. It all started when Boston's Cardinal O'Connel attacked Einstein and the General Theory of Relativity and warned the youth that the theory "cloaked the ghastly apparition of atheism" and "befogged speculation, producing universal doubt about God and His creation"(Clark, 1971, 413-414). Einstein had already experienced heavier duty attacks against his theory in the form of anti-Semitic mass meetings in Germany, and he initially ignored the Cardinal's attack. Shortly thereafter though, on April 24, 1929, Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of New York cabled Einstein to ask: "Do you believe in God?"(Sommerfeld, 1949, 103). Einstein's return message is the famous statement: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings"( 103). The Rabbi, who was intent on defending Einstein against the Cardinal, interpreted Einstein's statement in his own way when writing: "Spinoza, who is called the God-intoxicated man, and who saw God manifest in all nature, certainly could not be called an atheist. Furthermore, Einstein points to a unity. Einstein's theory if carried out to its logical conclusion would bring to mankind a scientific formula for monotheism. He does away with all thought of dualism or pluralism. There can be no room for any aspect of polytheism. This latter thought may have caused the Cardinal to speak out. Let us call a spade a spade"(Clark, 1971, 414). Both the Rabbi and the Cardinal would have done well to note Einstein's remark, of 1921, to Archbishop Davidson in a similar context about science: "It makes no difference. It is purely abstract science"(413).

The American physicist Steven Weinberg (1992), in critiquing Einstein's "Spinoza's God" statement, noted: "But what possible difference does it make to anyone if we use the word 'God' in place of 'order' or 'harmony,' except perhaps to avoid the accusation of having no God?" Weinberg certainly has a valid point, but we should also forgive Einstein for being a product of his times, for his poetic sense, and for his cosmic religious view regarding such things as the order and harmony of the universe.

But what, at bottom, was Einstein's belief? The long answer exists in Einstein's essays on religion and science as given in his Ideas and Opinions (1954), his Autobiographical Notes (1949), and other works. What about a short answer?

In the Summer of 1945, just before the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Einstein wrote a short letter stating his position as an atheist (Figure 1). Ensign Guy H. Raner had written Einstein from mid-Pacific requesting a clarification on the beliefs of the world famous scientist (Figure 2). Four years later Raner again wrote Einstein for further clarification and asked "Some people might interpret (your letter) to mean that to a Jesuit priest, anyone not a Roman Catholic is an atheist, and that you are in fact an orthodox Jew, or a Deist, or something else. Did you mean to leave room for such an interpretation, or are you from the viewpoint of the dictionary an atheist; i.e., 'one who disbelieves in the existence of a God, or a Supreme Being'?" Einstein's response is shown in Figure 3.

Combining key elements from the first and second response from Einstein there is little doubt as to his position: "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."

(P.S. Thanks, Charles [GodlessRose], for posting this in the comments on the Mencken entry. Thought it was worth an item all of its own.)

Posted by aalkon at 09:29 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

Good Morning, 1984

Good Morning, 1984!
It's starting. Libraries are banning books. Mississippi libraries, in particular, are banning The Daily Show book due to a humorous depiction, involving nudity, of the Supreme Court. "We're not an adult bookstore," said one librarian quoted in the article. Excuse me, but could there possibly be anything to turn anybody on in a depiction of nude Supreme Court justices? The book...

...features the faces of the nine Supreme Court justices superimposed over naked bodies.

The facing page has cutouts of the justices' robes, complete with a caption asking readers to "restore their dignity by matching each justice with his or her respective robe."

The book by Stewart and the writers of "The Daily Show," the Comedy Central fake-news program he hosts, was released in September. It has spent 15 weeks on The New York Times best seller list for hardcover nonfiction, and was named Book of the Year by Publishers Weekly, the industry trade magazine.

Former English teacher Tara Skelton of Ocean Springs said the libraries shouldn't decide what is in poor taste.

"It just really seemed kind of silly to me," she said. "I don't think the Supreme Court justices have filed any defamation of character or libel suits. It's humor."

How sweet, they're "respecting" the justices by disrespecting the Constitution (that little passage, called "The First Amendment," about the freedom of expression). And isn't it blind stupidity, if you want to prevent kids from reading something, to tell them they can't? (As a blog reader emailed me: "Applying this standard, you have to wonder if this library has also banned human sexuality textbooks.") And, contrary to what the neo-Puritans will tell you, what's horrible, terrible, and tragedy-producing about viewing a bunch of naked middle-aged and old people naked? Especially if it might get kids a little interested in politics and government!

Posted by aalkon at 08:16 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

January 09, 2005

Abu Who?

Abu Who?
Does the right remember Abu Ghraib, asks the Washington Post's Anne Applebaum?

During the past eight months there have been many news cycles, many front-page stories, many events. There have been elections. There have been hurricanes and tidal waves. Nevertheless, in the grand scheme of things, eight months is not a very long time. In most of the world, something that happened eight months ago is considered "recent." In Washington, however, it seems that eight months ago is considered "ancient." How else to explain the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to the post of attorney general of the United States?

Or, more to the point: How else to explain the widespread assumption that Gonzales -- who commissioned the "torture memo" of August 2002, following a meeting in his office -- will be decisively confirmed? After all, eight months ago, much of the country -- and much of the Republican Party -- was gripped by horror and embarrassment after the publication of photographs from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Those photographs haven't gone away: As I write this, I need only click on my computer's Internet Explorer icon and there is Lynndie England, grinning and giving a thumbs-up behind a pile of naked men.

If the pictures haven't gone away, the value system that led to Abu Ghraib hasn't gone away either. Last month -- really recently -- lawsuits filed by American human rights groups forced the government to release thousands of pages of documents showing that the abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Naval Base long preceded the Abu Ghraib photographs, and that abuse has continued since then too. U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan have, according to the administration's own records and my colleagues' reporting, used beatings, suffocation, sleep deprivation, electric shocks and dogs during interrogations. They probably still do.

Although many people bear some responsibility for these abuses, Alberto Gonzales, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, is among those who bear the most responsibility. It was Gonzales who led the administration's internal discussion of what qualified as torture. It was Gonzales who advised the president that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to people captured in Afghanistan. It was Gonzales who helped craft some of the administration's worst domestic decisions, including the indefinite detention, without access to lawyers, of U.S. citizens Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi.

By nominating Gonzales to his Cabinet, the president has demonstrated not only that he is undisturbed by these aberrations, but that he still doesn't understand the nature of the international conflict which he says he is fighting. Like communism, radical Islam is an ideology that people will die for. To fight it, the United States needs not just to show off its fancy weapons systems but also to prove to the Islamic world that democratic values, in some moderate Islamic form, will give them better lives. The Cold War ended because Eastern Europeans were clamoring to join the West; the war on terrorism will be over when moderate Muslims abandon the radicals and join us. They will not do so if our system promotes people who support legal arguments for human rights abuse.

via Virginia Postrel

Posted by aalkon at 11:18 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Future Crock

Future Crock
What can a psychic tell you about the future? Not much, writes Gene Emery:

"Given their track record, it's amazing that a psychic can tell you when the 10 O'Clock News is going to come on," he joked.

A few of the 2004 predictions?

...Terry and Linda Jamison, who are twins, said "Saddam Hussein will be killed by U.S. troops early in the year." They also predicted that "Pope John Paul II will pass away in June."

Anthony Carr, billed as "the world's most documented psychic," may have some well-documented failures this year. He said nuclear weapons would accidentally detonate in North Korea and kill thousands; Saddam would be shot to death and that a woman "will be involved;" and scientists would "successfully bring the first-ever male pregnancy to term." He even predicted the gender: a boy.

Other Carr predictions were about as firm as the filling in a Boston creme pie. Carr said Osama bin Laden would be brought to New York, but he couldn't decide if the terrorist would be alive or dead. He said the Martha Stewart trial "could" send the domestic diva to prison. And he said the Hollywood area "is due" for "a colossal earthquake early in 2004." If Tinsel Town had been destroyed, he would certainly take credit for the forecast. But because it didn't, nobody can technically say he was wrong, said Emery.

Colin Powell showed up in a couple of forecasts. Carr said Powell would accept the nomination for President after twice refusing it. "Psychic" Martha Henstridge said Powell would change political parties and "trounce" Bush in the November election.

Henstridge also said 2004 would be the year an anti-gravity engine was developed and patented, and although she didn't say whether Martha Stewart would be found guilty or innocent, she did inform us that Stewart "will take the fashion world by storm with a new line of prison-themed designer clothing."

Henstridge and other psychics have already made forecasts for 2005 in the Sun. But this year the tabloid has made sure they won't be embarrassed by any inaccurate forecasts, said Emery.

Not only are the psychics' names not attached to any of the predictions, but their forecasts have been mixed in with predictions from dead people like Edgar Cayce, Nostradamus, and Our Lady of Fatima.

"So a year from now," said Emery, "we won't be able to say who was responsible for predicting that a murder will take place on a shuttle flight to Mars, Osama Bin Laden will be crushed by a comet, a tidal wave will wipe out Tokyo and the Korean peninsula, and newly-discovered writings from St. Paul will reveal that eating with a fork is a sin."

Posted by aalkon at 08:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Belief In Mencken

Belief In Mencken
Old HL was nobody's fool. Here are a few of his quotes to prove it:

* Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.
* A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass; he is actually ill. Worse, he is incurable.
* We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.
* Say what you will about the Ten Commandments, you must always come back to the pleasant fact that there are only ten of them.
* Theology is the effort to explain the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing.
* The believing mind is externally impervious to evidence. The most that can be accomplished with it is to induce it to substitute one delusion for another. It rejects all overt evidence as wicked...
* It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities.
* I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind -- that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking.
* Sunday: A day given over by Americans to wishing that they themselves were dead and in Heaven, and that their neighbors were dead and in Hell.
* Sunday School: A prison in which children do penance for the evil conscience of their parents.
* The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails.
* The theory seems to be that so long as a man is a failure he is one of God's chillun, but that as soon as he succeeds he is taken over by the Devil.
* Why assume so glibly that the God who presumably created the universe is still running it? It is certainly perfectly conceivable that He may have finished it and then turned it over to lesser gods to operate. In the same way many human institutions are turned over to grossly inferior men. This is true, for example, of most universities, and of all great newspapers.
* It is impossible to imagine the universe run by a wise, just and omnipotent God, but it is quite easy to imagine it run by a board of gods. If such a board actually exists it operates precisely like the board of a corporation that is losing money.
* Creator - A comedian whose audience is afraid to laugh.
* Imagine the Creator as a low comedian, and at once the world becomes explicable.

Posted by aalkon at 07:45 AM | Comments (19) | TrackBack

January 08, 2005

Asleep At The Bar

Asleep At The Bar
It isn't just the torture malfunction. Alberto Gonzales, nominated by our "moral values" president to be our nation's chief law officer, has had a few morality malfunctions in the past, too; specifically, in the shoddy and cavalier way he memo'ed Bush on whether death row candidates might deserve clemency. The whole article is worth a read (on Salon, so there is that annoying commercial):

Consider the matter of David Wayne Stoker, who was executed for murdering convenience store clerk David Manrique in a 1986 robbery that netted $96. Gonzales, a Harvard-educated lawyer, summarized the substantive issues in this vicious, stereotypically "pointless" crime in a grand total of 18 lines. Had Gonzales been willing to expend just a little more ink on this matter of life and death, here are some of the things he might have mentioned to the governor: For starters, he might have pointed out that a federal appellate judge concluded that the state's star witness against Stoker was just as likely the murderer. He might have noted that a key state witness recanted following Stoker's conviction, explaining that he'd been pressured by the prosecution to perjure himself. He might have mentioned that the state's star witness received a financial reward for fingering Stoker and had felony drug and weapons charges dropped the day he testified against Stoker -- raising the obvious possibility that he had had a motive for accusing Stoker.

But that's not all. Gonzales apparently didn't think his boss needed to know that this star witness and two police witnesses lied under oath at trial, that the state's expert medical witness pleaded guilty to seven felonies involving falsified evidence in capital murder trials, and that the state's expert psychiatric witness, whose testimony provided the jury with a legal basis for handing down a death sentence, never bothered to interview Stoker. By the time Gonzales was supposedly researching the case for Bush, this expert had been expelled from the American Psychiatric Association for repeatedly providing unethical testimony in murder cases. Needless to say, Gonzales didn't think it was worth pointing out that the jury that had sentenced Stoker to death was ignorant of all those facts.

Would Bush have opted to execute Stoker even if Gonzales had given him all of that mitigating evidence? Probably, given all we know about his record on clemency. Nonetheless, the case raises important questions about a lawyer's moral obligation to keep his client adequately informed, as well as that lawyer's basic sense of fairness and decency. Senators might want to ask themselves if they would have been willing to execute Stoker based on Gonzales' 18-line summary. Alternatively, would they have executed him knowing the facts Gonzales failed to include? Finally, they might ponder whether Bush, relying on Gonzales, executed an innocent man.

A first-year law student preparing a brief for his client such as the one Gonzales wrote up on the Stoker case would probably be advised to consider another line of work. But not Gonzales. Bush, who would later make "character" the mantra of his first presidential campaign, was apparently more than happy with the Reader's Digest Condensed work product offered up by his lawyer. In his autobiography, Bush wrote that for every death case, the office of legal counsel would "brief me thoroughly, review the arguments made by the prosecution and defense, raise any doubts or problems or questions." Bush promoted Gonzales to the office of the Texas secretary of state, to the Texas Supreme Court and finally to White House counsel's position.

Legal ethicists may argue that the client calls the shots and that the president should have the attorney he is comfortable with. The question the Senate must now confront is whether Gonzales is the right attorney for the rest of the country.

Posted by aalkon at 09:42 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

"That Time Of The Month?"

"That Time Of The Month"?
If you live in Virginia, maybe it won't be long before you need to report it to the cops. No, the bill John Cosgrove, a Republican State Congressman in Virginia, is proposing probably isn't intended to go that far -- but, just going by the wording of it, it could. Cosgrove, who also wants specific language inserted in the Virginia state constitution that "marriage may exist only between a man and one woman," is seeking to make miscarriage a Class 1 misdemeanor unless a woman reports it to the police, and within 12 hours. The goal, says the site, DemocracyForVirginia, is "the advancement of the cause of recognizing legal 'personhood' for all products of conception." "Products of conception? Not to be too gross, but that's where the menstruation reporting could come in. And, here's the miscarriage scenario:

You are at home alone at 8:00 on a Friday night. You are 8 weeks pregnant. You are excited about the pregnancy, but being cautious, you haven’t told anyone about it yet except your partner, your best friend, your parents, and your doctor.

All of a sudden, you begin to experience heavy cramping. Bleeding ensues. You realize with shock and sadness that you are probably experiencing a miscarriage. You leave a message with your doctor’s service. The on-call doctor calls back, offers sympathies, and advises taking pain medication or going to the hospital if the bleeding gets worse. She offers you the next available appointment for a follow-up exam - Monday at 3PM. You accept. You are overwhelmed with grief and surprised by the intensity of physical pain involved. You call your partner and ask him to come home from his “boys night out”, sparing him the reason over the phone. You call your best friend. She offers to come over immediately and make you cocoa. You cry.

You decide not to tell your parents yet; let them sleep through the night before delivering the terrible news. Your partner comes home and you break the sad news to him. He holds you on the couch and you both cry together. Your best friend comes over with cocoa. You cry some more. Over the next few hours, you suffer pain, cramping, and intermittent bleeding. Exhausted, you finally fall asleep in your partner’s arms around 4 AM. You sleep until noon, and then gird yourself for the difficult call to your parents, who were so eagerly anticipating their first grandchild.

Guess what? You just earned yourself up to 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine. Why? Because you failed to call the cops and report your miscarriage within 12 hours.

True? Not yet. But if Delegate John Cosgrove (R-78) has his way, HB1677 will become law in a few short months, and this scenario will be reality for many women in Virginia. (Read the rest at the Democracy For Virginia link above.)

Until the Republican party stops being the party of religious fascists and starts becoming a part of true conservatives, who act as upholders of The Constitution instead of poodles of the religious "right," it's important to acknowledge the danger of voting for Republicans. And I say this as a non-Democrat (and non-Republican) common-sense moderate who voted for Schwarzenegger.

Posted by aalkon at 08:14 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

January 07, 2005

Stern Warning About The Jack Boots Under Karl Rove's Bed

Stern Warning About The Jack Boots Under Karl Rove's Bed
"A Student of Democracy's Collapse," The New York Times calls Fritz Stern, in a story by Chris Hedges. A Holocaust survivor, Stern sees frightening parallels in the religious right and Nazi fascism:

FRITZ STERN, a refugee from Hitler's Germany and a leading scholar of European history, startled several of his listeners when he warned in a speech about the danger posed in this country by the rise of the Christian right. In his address in November, just after he received a prize presented by the German foreign minister, he told his audience that Hitler saw himself as "the instrument of providence" and fused his "racial dogma with a Germanic Christianity."

"Some people recognized the moral perils of mixing religion and politics," he said of prewar Germany, "but many more were seduced by it. It was the pseudo-religious transfiguration of politics that largely ensured his success, notably in Protestant areas."

Dr. Stern's speech, given during a ceremony at which he got the prize from the Leo Baeck Institute, a center focused on German Jewish history, was certainly provocative. The fascism of Nazi Germany belongs to a world so horrendous it often seems to defy the possibility of repetition or analogy. But Dr. Stern, 78, the author of books like "The Politics of Cultural Despair: A Study in the Rise of the Germanic Ideology" and university professor emeritus at Columbia University, has devoted a lifetime to analyzing how the Nazi barbarity became possible. He stops short of calling the Christian right fascist but his decision to draw parallels, especially in the uses of propaganda, was controversial.

"When I saw the speech my eyes lit up," said John R. MacArthur, whose book "Second Front" examines wartime propaganda. "The comparison between the propagandistic manipulation and uses of Christianity, then and now, is hidden in plain sight. No one will talk about it. No one wants to look at it."

..."There was a longing in Europe for fascism before the name was ever invented," he said. "There was a longing for a new authoritarianism with some kind of religious orientation and above all a greater communal belongingness. There are some similarities in the mood then and the mood now, although also significant differences."

HE warns of the danger in an open society of "mass manipulation of public opinion, often mixed with mendacity and forms of intimidation." He is a passionate defender of liberalism as "manifested in the spirit of the Enlightenment and the early years of the American republic."

"The radical right and the radical left see liberalism's appeal to reason and tolerance as the denial of their uniform ideology," he said. "Every democracy needs a liberal fundament, a Bill of Rights enshrined in law and spirit, for this alone gives democracy the chance for self-correction and reform. Without it, the survival of democracy is at risk. Every genuine conservative knows this."

..."The Jews in Central Europe welcomed the Russian Revolution," he said, "but it ended badly for them. The tacit alliance between the neo-cons and the Christian right is less easily understood. I can imagine a similarly disillusioning outcome."

Posted by aalkon at 08:24 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

January 06, 2005

Save The Advice Goddess In Ithaca

Save The Advice Goddess In Ithaca
If you read my column in Ithaca, and are a fan, here's some bad news: The publisher wants to drop it after getting complaints about a line I wrote -- "Sex isn't special." Here it is in the context of the column (entire text of the column here):

Where you go wrong is thinking sex is special. It isn’t. Monkeys have it, and not because somebody gave them flowers and expensive jewelry. But consider this: while your girlfriend was the antithesis of selective about the men she slept with (apparently, not only sowing her wild oats, but a soybean crop equivalent to that of mainland China’s), she appears quite picky about the man she relationships with.

Now, I have no problem with people writing in to say I'm wrong or immoral. In fact, I welcome dissent. Papers should, too. Instead, daily newspapers tend to bend over the moment three old ladies (or some church group) complains. I work very hard to tell the truth and present data-based answers in my column instead of taking the easy way out: simply rubberstamping the status quo. Sadly, many papers would rather foster docile readers than spirited discussion.

If you live in Ithaca (ONLY if you live in Ithaca and read me -- this has to be an honest reflection of reader opinion), and if you like my column and want to continue to see it in the paper, please call the publisher:

Jim Fogler, President/Publisher (607) 274-9252 jfogler@ithaca.gannett.com

Apparently, a lot of people are calling the features editor to complain, but when they ask people to call the publisher, they all get intimidated and hang up. There's probably some church group or organized group of neo-Puritans campaigning to get me out of the paper. Only if there's a campaign on some commensurate level, favoring free expression, might this have a chance. Jeez, it's hard earning a living without selling out and giving them what they want. Not that I could do that, but the thought that that's what it takes to get a column to really take hold in papers is really depressing.

**IF YOU DON'T LIVE IN ITHACA, BUT KNOW ANY BLOGGERS THERE, PLEASE PASS THIS LINK ON! I've put a call in to the publisher to plead my case, but have yet to talk to him.

Here's the email the features editor wrote me:

Hi Amy, Thanks for your note and phone call earlier today. Unfortunately, I probably didn't give as complete an explanation as I should have as to why we've dropped your column. While I personally have liked running it our weekly arts section, both my editor and publisher have been wanting me to keep moving the content in a different, fresher direction. We've been running your column for quite a while, and had been thinking about discontinuing it as part of our ongoing process of reassessing our publication. The particular column that aroused reader controversy recently just served to spur the final decision.

Also, I wasn't aware that my editor had already notified Creators Syndicate about discontinuing the column, which also has led to some of the confusion on the part of myself and my assistant in providing appropriate notice to our readers and you about our decision.

While I'm sure the blog posting will result in my publisher getting barraged with calls and emails, at this point I don't think it will help the cause. We've had a good run with your column, but it's one that's come to an end.

Thanks,
Jim Catalano

Here's what I wrote back:

Thanks for your note -- but actually, it doesn't go through Creators; it comes directly from me, so notification of cancellation needed to come to me. I'm really disappointed at your decision, because I know I have a lot of fans there -- especially college students -- who read it. That it has run for a while seems a weird reason to drop something. My column appeals to men like no other does -- and women as well. I would still like to talk to your managing editor and the publisher. You don't say my column is bad or weak or unfunny -- just that there was a controversy and you're dropping it. This is most disappointing, both personally and in terms of my idealistic view of what papers should do -- not foster docile readers but foster discussion. Sad. Pardon me, but what content is "fresher" than what I write? I challenge the status quo every week -- I go to anthropology conferences and read the same journals shrinks and scientists do. I'm desperate every week, not just to rubberstamp the status quo, but to reexamine how things are done and see if they still make sense, and figure out what makes the most sense, vis a vis a rational, libertarian perspective. Albert Ellis, the 90-year-old father of Rational Behavior Therapy is a fan of my work -- as are a number of other eminent people in psychology and science. Plus, I write humor. I'm reminded of the Dave Barry quote from a week or two ago, on how few editors would have had the guts to run him if he'd started writing now. If you think my column sucks, I can respect that as a reason to let it go. If it's just that it isn't namby pamby enough...well, no wonder dailies are losing younger readers right and left. -Amy Alkon

ANOTHER THOUGHT: If I were an editor, I would see a controversy about something in a column or article as an opportunity. Maybe let a reader write a counterpoint to my column, or run a whole page of points and counterpoints. Imagine that, a daily newspaper starting a discussion instead of trying to silence one. Well, you'll have to imagine that, because so few are willing to make that their m.o. That's why my column runs mostly in alt weeklies, where they aren't afraid of a little debate -- and even see creating it as part of their job.

Posted by aalkon at 11:15 AM | Comments (21)

In The Blame Of The Father

In The Blame Of The Father
God believers are performing all matter of mind contortions to rationalize their irrational belief in god with the massive death wake of the tsunami. A few words on that from Ron Rosenbaum, who first quotes Arts&LettersDaily's Dennis Dutton on the general idiocy of believers' thinking:

"If God is God, he’s not good. If God is good, he’s not God. You can’t have it both ways, especially after the Indian Ocean catastrophe."

And then Ron gets into one of the specifics I, too, find particularly annoying:

This is something I find particularly annoying: a God who can intervene to save a handful out of a hundred thousand and gets credit for all the goodness displayed in the aftermath of the havoc He wrought.

"Why this need to defend God?" someone (that would be me) finally posted on the Beliefnet comment board in response to the multiple alibis for God that others were posting. All so eager to rush forward and exonerate their version of God from any connection to the slaughter. It began to smack of "they doth protest too much": The disaster somehow gets transformed into a display of God’s wonderfulness. In a way, doesn’t this sort of thinking suggest a kind of Stockholm syndrome? He’s the only God we’ve got, He’s got us imprisoned in this hell of a world—so, after a while, we worship Him.

One of the most glaring instances of this sort can be found in a quote in a story the Post carried on Jan. 2.

It was the heartwarming story of a baby boy born prematurely while his mother fled upland from the waves as they hit the coast of India.

Yes, it was the heartwarming "MIRACLE OF LIFE" that the Post headline had it.

But then I have to admit that I cringed when I read the words of the baby’s father (who had given him the name "Tsunami"—I’m sure the parents of those who lost babies will think this is really cute).

But the thing that made me cringe was this quote from the father of Baby Tsunami: "It’s all God’s grace!" he said.

I can’t really blame the guy for saying whatever he says at a moment like that. He’s got his baby. But think of the implications. Either he believes that his family has special grace, and that the tens of thousands of other families who lost children suffered the torment of a lost child because they deserved it, because they lacked "God’s grace." Or he believes that God looked down and saw tens of thousands of imperiled children and decided that this one deserved the special intervention of his "grace" and the others didn’t.

If you believe that God intervened to save this one little life, you have to believe that He chose not to intervene to save the lives of all the other children. He wanted them dead.

Yes, all those evil little babies are being punished for the cars they might steal for joyrides when they're 15. Oh, but they have "original sin." Now there's a clever concept. You simply have to join the church because, before you've so much as teethed, you're an evil motherfucker.

Posted by aalkon at 08:08 AM | Comments (4)

January 05, 2005

Heidi Klum to Wed Seal After Mountaintop Proposal

Heidi Klum to Wed Seal After Mountaintop Proposal
You'd think the girl could at least score herself a sea lion or a dolphin.

Posted by aalkon at 01:11 PM | Comments (11)

Pay For Me Because I'm Blond And Mean

Pay For Me Because I'm Blond And Mean
A dominatrix will let you pay her bills...and more! But first, you have to send her a "tribute."

Posted by aalkon at 09:41 AM | Comments (6)

Wal-Fare

Wal-Fare
What we pay for Wal-Mart Employees' health care, from a New York Review Of Books analysis of books and documents by Simon Head:

One of the most telling of all the criticisms of Wal-Mart is to be found in a February 2004 report by the Democratic Staff of the House Education and Workforce Committee. In analyzing Wal-Mart's success in holding employee compensation at low levels, the report assesses the costs to US taxpayers of employees who are so badly paid that they qualify for government assistance even under the less than generous rules of the federal welfare system. For a two-hundred-employee Wal-Mart store, the government is spending $108,000 a year for children's health care; $125,000 a year in tax credits and deductions for low-income families; and $42,000 a year in housing assistance. The report estimates that a two-hundred-employee Wal-Mart store costs federal taxpayers $420,000 a year, or about $2,103 per Wal-Mart employee. That translates into a total annual welfare bill of $2.5 billion for Wal-Mart's 1.2 million US employees.

Wal-Mart is also a burden on state governments. According to a study by the Institute for Labor and Employment at the University of California, Berkeley, in 2003 California taxpayers subsidized $20.5 million worth of medical care for Wal-Mart employees. In Georgia ten thousand children of Wal-Mart employees were enrolled in the state's program for needy children in 2003, with one in four Wal-Mart employees having a child in the program.[9]

This isn't capitalism. This is the corporation as welfare mother.

Posted by aalkon at 08:06 AM | Comments (9)

January 04, 2005

Mystery Call

Mystery Call

I got a nasty attempt at an anonymous phone call this afternoon from some genius who forgot to block his number. It was a man -- sounded between 25-55, I'd guess -- probably in his mid-forties. The guy said, "Amy?" "Yes," I responded. Then he said, "You are a vicious..." ("bitch," or something like that -- I've already forgotten). Anyway, my caller ID read:

Zane Greene, 310-573-4309

Thinking to check my Caller ID, I quickly got in a friendly "Zane!" before the guy hung up. I called the number, and it's a fax machine. Maybe I'll try later. Google comes up with some phone company business under this name, and the Reverse Directory says it's a Verizon number, in Santa Monica, CA, but may have moved due to number portability. I just tried to fax the person the following, but they stopped the fax:

310-573-4309, Zane Greene

If you have some problem with me, you might avoid the fourth-grade approach of playing hangup, and instead write me at adviceamy@aol.com.

Now, this person seems to know me, but if they really did, wouldn't they know how irritating I get around a mystery?! Anybody out there heard of this Zane Greene? Anybody try the number -- now, or, perhaps...later! -- and have any luck getting anybody on the other end to pick up?

Posted by aalkon at 01:48 PM | Comments (9)

Plugging The Dyke

Plugging The Dyke
When I read the obits for Susan Sontag in The New York Times and LA Times, I surmised that she must have split up with photographer Annie Leibovitz, her longtime girlfriend. I mean, it's 2005, people, can't we say "lesbian"? Repeat after me: "Lesbian! Lesbian! Lesbian!" Now, you haven't been struck with a mysterious urge to visit Henrietta Hudson (a lesbian bar in New York) or The Cockpit (a gay bar nowhere, but isn't that a good name for one?), now have you? Author Patrick Moore rightfully slaps The Gray Lady and The Aspiring Gray Lady for omitting any reference to Sontag's sexuality or love life...as if it's somehow shameful. And it is. Shame on them.

In a 1995 New Yorker profile, Sontag outed herself as bisexual, familiar code for "gay." Yet she remained quasi-closeted, speaking to interviewers in detail about her ex-husband without mentioning her long liaisons with some of America's most fascinating female artists.

An unauthorized biography written by Carl Rollyson and Lisa Paddock and published by W.W. Norton in 2000, reports that Sontag was, for seven years, the companion of the great American playwright Maria Irene Fornes (in Sontag's introduction to the collected works of Fornes, she writes about them living together). She also had a relationship with the renowned choreographer Lucinda Childs. And, most recently, Sontag lived, on and off, with Leibovitz.

Sontag's reticence is surely part of why the two Timeses neglected this part of her life. But she didn't deny these relationships. And given that obituaries typically cite their subjects' important relationships, shouldn't the two best newspapers in the country have reported at least her most recent one, with Leibovitz, as well as her marriage, which ended in 1958?

Some will ask why revealing Sontag's sexuality is relevant. As Charles McGrath wrote in his appreciation of Sontag in the New York Times, "Part of her appeal was her own glamour — the black outfits, the sultry voice, the trademark white stripe parting her long dark hair." Sontag was well aware of herself as a sexual being and used her image to transform herself from just another intellectual into a cultural icon. She may well have felt that her true sexuality would limit her impact in the male-dominated intellectual elite, while an omnisexual charisma opened doors.

More important, though, Sontag's lesbian relationships surely affected her work and our understanding of it. Two of Sontag's most famous essays dealt with issues associated with homosexuality: "Notes on Camp" and "AIDS and Its Metaphors."

The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times found ample room to discuss Sontag's cancer and subsequent mastectomy, which were not seen as lurid details but as necessary information in understanding the work of the author of "Illness as Metaphor." The papers also included extensive discussions of Sontag's schooling, her early family life, how she met her ex-husband, even her thoughts on driving in Los Angeles. However, her relationships with women and how they shaped her thoughts on gay culture and the larger world of outsiders and outlaws (a Sontag fascination) were omitted.

There is, of course, a larger issue here: Continued silence about lesbians in American culture amounts to bias. Gay men seem to have settled into the role of finger-snapping designer/decorator/entertainers in the mass media. Meanwhile, most lesbians who achieve widespread fame — Ellen DeGeneres, Melissa Etheridge and Rosie O'Donnell — have to remain in the closet until they have gained enough power to weather the coming-out storm. This model victimizes those who are out and proud from the very beginning.

The obituaries, remembrances and appreciations in New York and Los Angeles do anything but honor Sontag. They form a record that is, at best, incomplete and, at worst, knowingly false. But don't look for corrections, clarifications or apologies.

The New York writer and activist Sarah Schulman has been, ironically, described as "the lesbian Susan Sontag." Schulman told me recently that Sontag "never applied her massive intellectual gifts toward understanding her own condition as a lesbian, because to do so publicly would have subjected her to marginalization and dismissal."

Posted by aalkon at 11:11 AM | Comments (5)

The Godless Harlot's Top Ten List

The Godless Harlot's Top Ten List
Check out The Secular Ten Commandments, from the fantastic site, waronfaith.com, written and manned by a former Marine and current "Texas Peace Officer":

The Secular Ten Commandments

Rule 1 - Do anything that makes you happy as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else.

Rule 2 - Do anything that makes you happy as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else.

Rule 3 - Do anything that makes you happy as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else.

Rule 4 - Do anything that makes you happy as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else.

Rule 5 - Do anything that makes you happy as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else.

Rule 6 - Do anything that makes you happy as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else.

Rule 7 - Do anything that makes you happy as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else.

Rule 8 - Do anything that makes you happy as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else.

Rule 9 - Do anything that makes you happy as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else.

Rule 10 - When in doubt, refer to Rule 1.

Posted by aalkon at 08:30 AM | Comments (9)

Writer's Lifeboat

Writer's Lifeboat
I'm on The Writer's Lifeline e-mailing list for their one-a-day quotes. Here's Sunday's:

"There are NO aesthetic emergencies." -Ken Atchity

My response?

I would say Britney Spears is an aesthetic emergency with legs.

But, forget Britney for a moment. The best way to do that is to head over to Britney's Web site, "Britney's Guide To Semiconductor Physics" (and no I am not kidding), and then, get Hedy. Hint: To be thematically correct, get Hedy on your cell phone if you can.

Posted by aalkon at 07:52 AM | Comments (0)

January 03, 2005

Sex With Ron Jeremy

Sex With Ron Jeremy

Don't get excited. (Or hurl.) Ron Jeremy simply held the door for me as we were coming out of Musso & Frank's late Saturday night. I didn't know who he was, but Gregg recognized Jeremy -- the porn star Wikipedia reports is known as "The Hedgehog," "due to his hirsute and overweight body, and because he can orally stimulate himself (contorting himself the way a real hedgehog does when rolling into a ball, and owing to his 9¾-inch-long penis)." While I do commend Mr. Jeremy on his good manners in door-holding, seeing what he looks like left me with a burning question: WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD HAVE SEX WITH THIS MAN...OR EVEN LET HIM TOUCH THEM!?

P.S. Let's just say the Wikipedia photo in the link above is a very flattering representation!

Posted by aalkon at 11:20 AM | Comments (19)

Celebrity Flab

A Moss Gathers Some Rolls
Look here for a livin' lard Kate Moss, and other real-life lanky-lebrities, Photoshopped into Fattyland!

Posted by aalkon at 08:52 AM | Comments (1)

Bitch Like Me

Bitch Like Me
This bloggergirl is a bitchin' read!

via Gawker

Posted by aalkon at 07:00 AM | Comments (1)

Unmarried Partners Legislation

With This Pen, I Thee Register
All people in this country should have access to all rights (including the right to marry the person of their choice), regardless of color, sex, how they like to have sex, and with which consenting adult. That said, as a person who doesn't believe in marriage or "marriage-privileging" (granting special rights only to married people), next on the agenda is rights for unmarried but committed partners of both heteros and homos, like those granted by filing a PACS (Pacte Civile De Solidarité), in France. For example, as Peter Tatchell writes:

Far more useful to most gay couples would be an Unmarried Partners Act, giving automatic legal rights to all unwed lovers, gay and straight. These rights could include acknowledgement as next-of-kin in emergencies like arrest or accident; joint guardianship of any children; life insurance pay-outs and inheritance of property on the death of a partner; and entitlement to company benefits that extend to employee's spouses, such as pension and health-care cover.

It is these practical rights - not marriage - that most lesbian and gay partners want. Providing such rights as a matter of course, without couples having to endure a state-approved ceremony to get them, would help vastly more same-sex lovers than gay marriage or registered partnerships.

One great virtue of an Unmarried Partners Act is its flexibility. The rights are automatic, but they have to be claimed. This 'opt in' system, allows partners to 'pic 'n' mix'. They can claim all of the rights, some of the rights, or none of the rights, depending on their needs. In contrast, couples in gay marriages and registered partnerships get lumbered with a full set of rights (and duties), whether they want them or not.

Under an Unmarried Partners Act, couples in a relationship of at least 12 months standing would be entitled to claim partnership rights (the one year qualifying period being advisable to prevent short-term, opportunistic lovers claiming their partner's property). Proof of eligibility would be a simple Letter of Partnership, signed by the couple and a person of professional standing (such as a lawyer or doctor), confirming that they had been partners for a year or more. This Letter of Partnership could be revoked at any time by either partner signing a Letter of Annulment witnessed by a professional.

In the event of one partner becoming mentally incapacitated or dying without having signed a Letter of Partnership, the other partner could still make a claim. However, to prevent people claiming to be partners when they are not, the relationship would have to be confirmed by two professionals and be backed up with documentary evidence.

There may be some people who, for whatever reason, do not want their lover to claim partnership rights, such as inheritance. They would be able to 'opt out' of any (or all) of the rights by specifying this in a will or affidavit, which would have legal precedence.

This Unmarried Partners Act is a modern, democratic form of partnership recognition: simple, egalitarian and flexible. Ensuring legal rights for all unwed couples, gay and straight, such legislation may not be as 'respectable' as gay marriage and registered partnerships, but it would be infinitely more beneficial.

Posted by aalkon at 06:36 AM | Comments (0)

January 02, 2005

Who Thanks "God" For Tsunamis And Dead People?

Who Thanks "God" For Tsunamis And Dead People?
Who else?! Religious fanatics. Here's a link to some sick, sick shit from the Westboro Baptist pervo who has made a career out of worrying about how other people have sex. The headline?

Thank God for Tsunami & 2,000 Dead Swedes! How many dead Swedes are fags & dykes? vacationing on their fat expendable incomes without kids to bother with and spend money on. (the sick shit continues at the link)

In a way, it's better when hate-mongers like Westboro Baptist's Fred Phelps are "out of the closet" about their vile thinking. It's easier for the average person to give a pass to the George Bushes and Dick Cheneys of the world who use such polite language about why gays should be denied rights...but aren't they all really coming from the exact same place?

Balance the voices of the gay-haters (more or less diplomatic) against the "think globally, not just locally" voice of Princess Margrethe of Denmark from the following CNN.com report.

It is thought around 20,000 Swedes had travelled to Thailand this holiday season, to escape the harsh winter of northern Europe.

While only 59 Swedes have so far been confirmed dead, authorities are fearing this tragedy may well become the worst natural disaster in the nation's history.

With a population of only 9 million, Sweden's expected loss of life proportionately matches that of Indonesia, and is exceeded only by Sri Lanka.

Along with Sweden, other Nordic countries have been hard hit by the tsunamis' impact in Thailand.

In neighboring Denmark, Queen Margrethe started her annual televised New Year's speech by addressing the tsunami disaster that has killed seven Danes and left 466 missing.

"We are just happy tourists seeking a warmer sun and a sea that is more blue than our coasts," the monarch said in her speech aired live on major television and radio channels.

"Let us not only just think of our losses but also of the many thousand people who now must see their whole existence broken into pieces."

Royalty might be a backward concept, but this royal, at least on the issue of sexuality, is sounding a lot more forward than the people we have in office, and the people who back the sort of gay-hating agenda, tacit or overt, that they do. Here's how being gay works in Sweden, a place gays have full rights, same as any other citizen, including gay marriage, which is a legislated right "equal with straight marriage" :

Compared to virtually any other country on the planet, being born gay, lesbian or bi in Sweden is a stroke of good genetic luck. The issue of alternative sexuality that evokes hysteria, hatred and bigotry in so many other cultures is, in Sweden, a non-issue. Homosexual behavior was legalized in 1944. and the first LGBT organization started in 1950--a time when the rest of the world hardly knew that homosexuality existed. Today, of course, Sweden has some of the most progressive laws and leadership regarding LGBT affairs. (See story #1 below.) This is not to say that all Swedes have smooth-sailing on this; there is ignorance everywhere in the world and rural Sweden is no exception. And not every gay youth flies out of the closet fully self-identified. (See stories #2 and #3 below) But once out, he or she is well protected by the law and is surrounded by a wide variety of rainbow organizations. Gay loving and living is mostly relaxed and safe here--about as good as it gets anywhere.

What a shame we're stuck with all these religious primitives over here; an unfortunately large number of which seem to be running the show at the moment.

Posted by aalkon at 08:37 AM | Comments (10)

Religion Kills, Science Saves

Religion Kills, Science Saves
Or would have, writes Dawkins, in a letter to the editor, if the energy, funds, and attention devoted to primitive religious belief had been put into science instead:

The Bishop of Lincoln (Letters, December 29) asks to be preserved from religious people who try to explain the tsunami disaster. As well he might. Religious explanations for such tragedies range from loopy (it's payback for original sin) through vicious (disasters are sent to try our faith) to violent (after the Lisbon earthquake of 1755, heretics were hanged for provoking God's wrath). But I'd rather be preserved from religious people who give up on trying to explain, yet remain religious.

In the same batch of letters, Dan Rickman says "science provides an explanation of the mechanism of the tsunami but it cannot say why this occurred any more than religion can". There, in one sentence, we have the religious mind displayed before us in all its absurdity. In what sense of the word "why", does plate tectonics not provide the answer?

Not only does science know why the tsunami happened, it can give precious hours of warning. If a small fraction of the tax breaks handed out to churches, mosques and synagogues had been diverted into an early warning system, tens of thousands of people, now dead, would have been moved to safety.

Let's get up off our knees, stop cringing before bogeymen and virtual fathers, face reality, and help science to do something constructive about human suffering.
Richard Dawkins
Oxford

Posted by aalkon at 07:58 AM | Comments (2)

January 01, 2005

Other People's Dead Relatives

Other People's Dead Relatives
Patti Davis bitchslaps George and Laura for choosing religion over science -- and, in turn, death over life for a whole lot of people:

I wonder if President Bush could look into the eyes of Christopher Reeve’s family and tell them that it’s because he values life so deeply that he is preserving clusters of cells in freezers—cells that resulted from in-vitro fertilization and could be used for embryonic stem cell treatment—despite the fact that more people will die as a result of his decision. I wonder if he could stare into their grief and defend the fact that he has released only a few lines of stem cells—lines that are basically useless because they have been contaminated. Or brazenly point out that he has authorized funding for adult stem cells—which do not hold the same miraculous potential as embryonic stem cells.

The sad fact is, the president probably could. After all, Laura Bush went on national television during the week of my father’s funeral and spoke out against embryonic stem cell research, pointing out that where Alzheimer’s is concerned, we don’t have proof that stem-cell treatment would be effective. It wasn’t too long after that interview that she gave a speech in which she chided people for offering “false hope” to the families of Alzheimer’s patients. In a sweetly patronizing tone, she said it’s terribly unfair to all of those who are vulnerable and in pain to suggest that a cure is just around the corner.

Memo to Mrs. Bush: I am one of those poor, vulnerable souls who you think has been misled. I speak for many others when I say that none of us believe a cure is just around the corner. We believe it’s around a very wide bend, which we can’t get around because your husband has put up a barrier to further research. And as far as false hope, there is no such thing. There is only hope or the absence of hope—nothing else.

What's your prediction? How many years will it take before people look at this sort of thing and say, "Gee, how primitive!"?

Posted by aalkon at 08:47 AM | Comments (20)

December 31, 2004

Too Bad Your Children Aren't This Well Behaved

Too Bad Your Children Aren't This Well Behaved
Yes, that's Lucy, my Yorkshire terrier, perfectly quiet and still, on my lap under the table at Kate Mantilini...

Very good-natured of her, considering what it takes to sneak her in.

Posted by aalkon at 09:11 AM | Comments (7)

By The Simplistic, For The Simplistic

By The Simplistic, For The Simplistic
Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu gives his review of the Bush administration in a Newsweek interview by Arlene Getz:

You said George Bush should admit that he made a mistake. Were you surprised at his re-election?
[Laughs] I still can't believe that it really could have happened. Just look at the facts on the table: He’d gone into a war having misled people—whether deliberately or not—about why he went to war. You would think that would have knocked him out [of the race.] It didn’t. Look at the number of American soldiers who have died since he claimed that the war had ended. And yet it seems this doesn't make most Americans worry too much. I was teaching in Jacksonville, Fla., [during the election campaign] and I was shocked, because I had naively believed all these many years that Americans genuinely believed in freedom of speech. [But I] discovered there that when you made an utterance that was remotely contrary to what the White House was saying, then they attacked you. For a South African the déjà vu was frightening. They behaved exactly the same way that used to happen here [during apartheid]—vilifying those who are putting forward a slightly different view.

Do you see any other parallels with white-ruled South Africa?
Look at the [detentions in] Guantanamo Bay. You say, why do you detain people without trial in the fashion that you have done? And when they give the answer security, you say no, no, no, this can't be America. This is what we used to hear in South Africa. It's unbelievable that a country that many of us have looked to as the bastion of true freedom could now have eroded so many of the liberties we believed were upheld almost religiously. [But] feeling as devastated in many ways as I am, it is wonderful to find that there are [also] Americans who have felt very strongly [about administration policies]—the people who turned out for rallies against the war. One always has to be very careful not to do what we used to do here, where you generalize very facilely, and one has to remember that there are very many Americans who are feeling deeply distressed about what has taken place in their country. We take our hats off to them.

Talking about religion, much has been said about the role it played in the White House race. What do you say to those who believe that Bush was chosen by God?
[Laughs] I keep having to remind people that religion in and of itself is morally neutral. Religion is like a knife. When you use a knife for cutting up bread to prepare sandwiches, a knife is good. If you use the same knife to stick into somebody’s guts, a knife is bad. Religion in and of itself is not good or bad—it is what it makes you do… Frequently, fundamentalists will say this person is the anointed of God if the particular person is supporting their own positions on for instance, homosexuality, or abortion. [I] feel so deeply saddened [about it]. Do you really believe that the Jesus who was depicted in the Scriptures as being on the side of those who were vilified, those who were marginalized, that this Jesus would actually be supporting groups that clobber a group that is already persecuted? That’s a Christ I would not worship. I'm glad that I believe very fervently that Jesus would not be on the side of gay bashers. To think that people say, as they used to say, that AIDS was God’s punishment for homosexuality. Abominable. Abominable.

Is this bigotry masquerading as faith?
No. I think there are people who do believe things genuinely. Bush followed the example of President [Ronald] Reagan—to be very simplistic. Bush said we are the goodies, those are the baddies, [just] as Reagan said about the Soviets—that they were the evil empire. President Bush has found much the same kind of thing: that people don't like ambiguities.

Posted by aalkon at 08:35 AM | Comments (22)

December 30, 2004

Playing It By "Seer"

Playing It By "Seer"
For my column for this week's deadline, I researched the hooey that is "psychics," palm readers, and TV mediums. Here's a smart article I just stumbled on, Cold Reading: The Tricks of the Psychics, by William Goldberg, MSW, BCD, that explains, pretty concisely, how this stuff works.

Psychics know that almost all of the questions people have will fit under one of three headings. Usually, people are concerned about affairs of the heart, problems with health, or issues around money. Therefore, the psychic might explain that he or she senses three areas that either now are giving the customer, that have in the past given the customer concern, or that will give the customer concerns in the future. There isn't time to discuss all three, so the customer is asked which one to focus on. The customer's answer, combined with an assessment of his or her age, ethnicity, socio-economic status (as ascertained by dress, car, jewelry, etc.) and a common sense knowledge of typical life crises people encounter (i.e. birth, puberty, career choice, work, marriage, children, middle age, declining years, death), narrows the field of inquiry. This knowledge, combined with a scrutiny of the customer's involuntary (and sometimes voluntary) reactions to the psychic's pronouncements can be used to quickly lead the pair in the direction the customer wants to go. If initial, highly general statements are off the mark, the customer's facial expression, breathing pattern, eye movements, etc. will let the reader know. A good reader picks up on the cues and is able to adjust the reading to fit the cues. In a short period of time, the reader is seemingly able to "discover" what's on the customer's mind. At this point, the customer, especially if he or she is inclined to fall for the psychic's hype, charisma and mystical surroundings, will often let his or her guard down and reveal the burning question or questions.

Ray Hyman, a psychologist who has written about this topic, points out that all forms of communication are incomplete, and that the recipient of every form of communication becomes a creative problem-solver, looking for meaning in the communication. Hyman explains that, "the task is not unlike that of trying to make sense of a work of art, a poem, or, for that matter, a sentence. The work of art, the poem, or the sentence serves as a blueprint or plan from which we can construct a meaningful experience by bringing to bear our own past experiences and memories." The psychic's customer fills in the blanks, ignores contradictory messages and emphasizes statements that are meaningful while discarding or de-emphasizing statements that don't fit. The process is completed when the customer, in time, forgets all the contradictory "misses" and remembers only the "hits."

In their book, The Psychology of the Psychic, David Marks and Richard Kanunann discuss an all purpose cold reading developed by psychologist Bertram Forer. Students were told that this reading was developed especially for them after the administration of a personality test they had taken. Ninety-five percent of the students rated this "reading" as either Excellent or Good. See whether there are more "hits" than "misses" here for you:

"You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. At times, you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You also pride yourself as an independent thinker and do not accept other's statements without satisfactory proof, but you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself lo others. At times, you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be unrealistic."

Accomplished psychics have memorized a number of stock readings which they then modify to fit the circumstances of the customer. The fact is that there are more qualities that we share with others than that differentiate us from others. Obviously, an elderly, upper-class man will get a very different stock reading than a teenage girl. Stock readings, combined with the unique, individual characteristics that the psychics are able to trick their customers into revealing make up a cold reading. Our human tendency to focus on the "hits," to forget or reinterpret the "misses," and to fill in the blanks, complete the experience. The next time someone tells you of a wondrous "truth" that a so-called psychic has revealed, ask about how that "truth" was revealed and whether there were a lot of half-truths and non-truths mixed in

Posted by aalkon at 08:05 AM | Comments (9)

Wide Eyes Shut

Wide Eyes Shut
Andrew Gumbel misses the America he thought he came to a few years back -- the "melting pot" America -- and reflects on what America has become, thanks to the people who elected George Bush:

Theirs is an America that is almost exclusively white, almost exclusively Protestant, almost exclusively rural or suburban. It is an America more comfortable with people who believe homosexuals should be killed on sight than it is with homosexuals themselves. It is an America that believes sex of any kind between unmarried adults is a greater moral crime than dumping toxic waste or knowingly selling unsafe medicines. It is an America that believes it is promoting a “culture of life,” even as it applauds the bombing of civilians in faraway countries, the execution of juveniles and the mentally retarded, and the use of torture in military interrogations.

I started the year writing about Tom Vail, an official guide at the Grand Canyon who had written a book positing that God personally carved out the spectacular rock formations above the Colorado River in forty days and forty nights. And I finished it reading about a booklet being taught in a Christian school in North Carolina, in which slavery is characterized as both biblically justifiable and also a positive, happy experience for the slaves themselves.

Such aberrant thinking has always existed, of course, but now it is creeping ever closer toward becoming an official ideology. The kind of anti-evolutionary nonsense peddled by Tom Vail has just been voted onto the curriculum in a rural Pennsylvania school district in the form of “intelligent design,” a more sophisticated, superficially more acceptable variant on old-style creationism. The authors of the revisionist booklet on Southern slavery, meanwhile, have responded to their outraged detractors in much the same terms used by social conservatives in and around the Bush administration. “Establishment secularism can’t stand real criticism,” they proclaimed. “It can’t bear real differences.” Suddenly, it’s not about excusing slavery, it’s about the refusal of American liberals to accept God. We’ve certainly heard that one before – Bill O’Reilly and the jihad against Christmas, anyone? – and we are likely to hear it over and over in the next four years.

Posted by aalkon at 07:59 AM | Comments (15)

December 29, 2004

Old Unfaithful

Old Unfaithful

A neighborhood gusher, after an out-of-control driver hit a fire hydrant

Posted by aalkon at 09:49 AM | Comments (8)

In Today's Barf Bag

In Today's Barf Bag
Is it just me, or is anybody else retching every time some CNN anchor breathily reports on the CELEBS! affected in Sumatra?

Posted by aalkon at 09:22 AM | Comments (1)

Africa By Way Of Los Angeles

Africa By Way Of Los Angeles
What is Kwanzaa? Probably not what you think, writes William J. Bennetta, a professor who criticizes its inclusion in a Prentice Hall textbook:

It was created some 40 years ago, in Southern California, by a black racist who had begun life as Ron N. Everett but later had assumed the name Maulana Karenga.

Karenga -- known chiefly as the inventor of Kwanzaa, a fake "African" holiday that he contrived in 1966 -- has enjoyed a truly colorful career. He was a prominent black nationalist during the 1960s, when his organization was involved in various violent operations. He was sent to prison in 1971, after he and some of his pals tortured two women with a soldering iron and a vise, among other things. He emerged from prison in 1974, and a few years later -- in a maneuver that even The Kingfish might have found difficult -- he got himself installed as the chairman of the Department of Black Studies at California State University at Long Beach. CSULB wasn't the only American university that got the racial willies during the 1970s and set up a tin-pot black-studies department, but CSULB (as far as I know) was the only one that hired a chairman who was a violent felon.

After the brutal murder of Rio Linda High School senior Michelle Montoya, hiring a felon to teach in California schools was supposed to be prohibited. I can't find the exact passage in the California Education Code, but this passage alludes to it:

(e)(1) A person, firm, association, partnership, or corporation offering or conducting private school instruction on the elementary or high school level shall not employ a person who has been convicted of a violent or serious felony or a person who would be prohibited from employment by a public school district pursuant to any provision of this code because of his or her conviction for any crime.(2) A person who would be prohibited from employment by a private school pursuant to paragraph (1) may not, on or after July 1, 1999, own or operate a private school offering instruction on the elementary or high school level.

Here's more on Everett/Karenga:

Karenga has concocted some bits of lore, lingo, and mumbo-jumbo that are intended to make Kwanzaa look like something out of Africa instead of something from Los Angeles County, but his efforts have been feeble. If you scan The Official Kwanzaa Web Site [see note 1, below], you'll read that the origins of Kwanzaa lie in "the first harvest celebrations of Africa," which allegedly "are recorded in African history as far back as ancient Egypt and Nubia" -- but there is no explanation of why any ancient Egyptians or Nubians might have held harvest festivals around the time of the winter solstice, and there is no identification of the crops that they harvested. Karenga's formula for celebrating Kwanzaa requires the use of two ears of maize -- but maize is a New World plant, and it wasn't known at all in ancient Africa.

True believers can purchase ears of maize and other Kwanzaa equipment (e.g., candles and seven-holed candle-holders and straw mats) from the University of Sankore Press, a company in Los Angeles. This outfit evidently is controlled by Us and serves as Us's marketing unit. It isn't a university press, and its name is a mockery. The so-called University of Sankore was an aggregation of Islamic schools that flourished at Timbuktu in the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries. No University of Sankore exists today.

In Karenga's Kwanzaa-lingo, ears of maize are called by the Swahili name "muhindi." In fact, all the objects that Karenga has worked into Kwanzaa have names taken from Swahili, which The Official Kwanzaa Web site describes as "a Pan-African language" and "the most widely spoken African language." The labeling of Swahili as a "Pan-African" language is rubbish. Swahili -- a Bantu tongue that includes many words absorbed from Arabic, from Persian and from certain Indian languages -- is spoken by some 50 million people (i.e., about 7% of Africa's population). Most of those Swahili-speakers are concentrated in eastern Africa, in a region that includes Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and a strip of Zaire. The language which is used most widely in Africa is Arabic; and indeed, Swahili was originally written in Arabic script [note 2].

Kwanzaa is a hoax -- a hoax built around fake history and pseudohistorical delusions. By attempting to dignify and promote Kwanzaa in The American Nation, Prentice Hall has joined in a flim-flam.

Posted by aalkon at 08:53 AM | Comments (8)

Matt Welch On The Right Approach To Abu Ghraib

Matt Welch On The Right Approach To Abu Ghraib
Fantastic piece by Matt in Reason about conservative commentators, and their take on Abu Ghraib. The upshot:

But we now know that many of the shocking images from Abu Ghraib that we've been allowed to see —the hoods, the dogs, the sexual humiliation, the photography, the beating —have occurred elsewhere in Iraq, Guantanamo, and Afghanistan; and in many instances they reflect nothing more than official United States policy. How we respond, whether conservative, libertarian, liberal or other, will tell us a lot about what we've become.

Posted by aalkon at 08:06 AM | Comments (0)

Locate The Sex Offender Nearest You!

Locate The Sex Offender Nearest You!
This Web site is for locating California sex offenders only, due to Megan's Law:

As a result of a new law, this site will provide you with access to information on more than 63,000 persons required to register in California as sex offenders. Specific home addresses are displayed on more than 33,500 offenders in the California communities; as to these persons, the site displays the last registered address reported by the offender. An additional 30,500 offenders are included on the site with listing by ZIP Code, city, and county. Information on approximately 22,000 other offenders is not included on this site, but is known to law enforcement personnel.

Once you have read and acknowledged the disclaimer on the next page, you may search the database by a sex offender's specific name, obtain ZIP Code and city/county listings, obtain detailed personal profile information on each registrant, and use our map application to search your neighborhood or anywhere throughout the State to determine the specific location of any of those registrants on whom the law allows us to display a home address.

Creeeeeepy! But, very interesting. I didn't see any neighbors I recognize -- but, do you?

Posted by aalkon at 04:58 AM | Comments (0)

December 28, 2004

Hitting Middle

Hitting Middle
George Carlin goes into rehab for alcohol and Vicodin over-use, disproving the autopilot thinking that a person has to hit bottom before they do something. For a rational approach to overcoming addictions, visit Stanton Peele.

Posted by aalkon at 10:13 AM | Comments (4)

"Oh, Excuse Me For Not Willingly Becoming An Amputee!"

"Oh, Excuse Me For Not Willingly Becoming An Amputee!"
That's what the US soldiers who scrounge in Iraqi trash dumps to improvise protective armor for their vehicles must think. 28-year Army Reserve commander, Major Cathy Kaus, just wanted the equipment she needed to do her job properly. The Army didn't provide her with it, so, resourceful lady, she went out and scrounged it up herself with the assistance of Chief Warrant Officer Darrell Birt. You'd think they'd each get a big pat on the back, or maybe even a medal. Nope! Try a court-martial and a dishonorable discharge:

"The soldiers were held accountable for their actions," an Army spokesman said. In other words, Kaus and Darrell were punished for breaking the rules so their troops could do their mission.

But no one holds Rumsfeld accountable for undermining the mission and undercutting the troops.

The recent flap over unarmored humvees - and Rumsfeld's flip remarks to a reservist who complained about having to scavenge for armor - are part of a bigger pattern.

There's a reason why 50,000 reservists were sent to war in 2003 with outdated body armor, and why families had to raise funds to send their loved ones Kevlar vests with ceramic plates. There's a reason so many humvees and trucks are still unarmored.

There's a reason Kaus and Birt had to improvise to sustain their mission: Rumsfeld refused to recognize the nature of the situation into which he sent those troops.

Rumsfeld was so eager to test out his new, lean military machine that he didn't want to plan for the likelihood of instability after Saddam fell. The State Department, the CIA, and many military commanders all urged that more forces be available to establish order after the war.

No way, said Rumsfeld.

According to the Pentagon, the aftermath of the war was supposed to be easy. No military police were sent in to stop postwar looting, which encouraged the rise of the insurgents. Pentagon officials talked about drawing down to 50,000 U.S. troops by fall of 2003.

No wonder no one paid attention to the reservists. They weren't supposed to be on the front lines. The Pentagon never contemplated the prospect of an insurgency, in which the front lines are everywhere.

Even as the insurgency took root Rumsfeld refused to admit the situation was urgent. As late as this month, he tried to blame the shortage of armored humvees on lack of production capacity. Yet the manufacturers of humvees and armored plates for the U.S. military say they aren't running near capacity. They say the Pentagon just hadn't asked them to produce more.

Oops! Rummy makes a boo-boo! Good thing he and his boss don't have any kids in Iraq, or he might be forced to do a little more than rubber-stamp his name on those "so sorry your kid croaked" letters. Is it just me, or is this war starting to bear an increasing resemblance to Custer's Last Stand?

Posted by aalkon at 08:10 AM | Comments (1)

What The War Is About, And Why We Might Lose It

What The War Is About, And Why We Might Lose It
Democracy now, in Iraq. Well, maybe they'll have it sometime, maybe not, writes Thomas Friedman:

As the Johns Hopkins foreign policy expert Michael Mandelbaum so rightly pointed out to me, "These so-called insurgents in Iraq are the real fascists, the real colonialists, the real imperialists of our age." They are a tiny minority who want to rule Iraq by force and rip off its oil wealth for themselves. It's time we called them by their real names.

However this war started, however badly it has been managed, however much you wish we were not there, do not kid yourself that this is not what it is about: People who want to hold a free and fair election to determine their own future, opposed by a virulent nihilistic minority that wants to prevent that. That is all that the insurgents stand for.

Indeed, they haven't even bothered to tell us otherwise. They have counted on the fact that the Bush administration is so hated around the world that any opponents will be seen as having justice on their side. Well, they do not. They are murdering Iraqis every day for the sole purpose of preventing them from exercising that thing so many on the political left and so many Europeans have demanded for the Palestinians: "the right of self-determination."

What is terrifying is that the noble sacrifice of U.S. soldiers, while never in vain, may not be enough. We Americans may actually lose in Iraq. The vitally important may turn out to be the effectively impossible.

We may lose because of the wrong way that Donald Rumsfeld has managed this war and the cynical manner in which Dick Cheney, George W. Bush and - with some honorable exceptions - the whole Republican right have tolerated it. Many conservatives would rather fail in Iraq than give liberals the satisfaction of seeing Rumsfeld sacked. We may lose because our Arab allies won't lift a finger to support an election in Iraq - either because they fear they'll be next to face such pressures, or because the thought of democratically elected Shiites holding power in a country once led by Sunnis is anathema to them.

We may lose because most Europeans, having been made stupid by their own weakness, would rather see America fail in Iraq than lift a finger for free and fair elections there.

As is so often the case, the statesman who framed the stakes best is the British prime minister, Tony Blair. Count me a "Blair Democrat." Blair, who was in Iraq this week, said: "Whatever people's feelings or beliefs about the removal of Saddam Hussein and the wisdom of that, there surely is only one side to be on in what is now very clearly a battle between democracy and terror. On the one side you have people who desperately want to make the democratic process work, and want to have the same type of democratic freedoms other parts of the world enjoy, and on the other side people who are killing and intimidating and trying to destroy a better future for Iraq."

Posted by aalkon at 07:39 AM | Comments (1)

December 27, 2004

She Is Hot In The Ass

She.Is.Hot.In.The.Ass

It's the perfect personalized license plate for the Francophile. It's no longer available in California. But maybe you can still get it in your state. Get it past the censors by telling them it's the initials of your grandchildren, all except for that méchant little Marcel Duchamp.

P.S. There's an ass theme on my blog today (with some entries more subtle than others), and I hope you'll take the time to appreciate that fact. To be honest, it just happened that way, and then I ran with it. Of course, in a perfect world, I'd have the patience to wait and post it all on a Wednesday, but the donkey pun below is probably way beyond my groaner allotment as it goes.

Posted by aalkon at 10:49 AM | Comments (11)

Blowing Smokeless Up The Public's Ass

Blowing Smokeless
Smokeless tobacco is 98% less likely to cause cancer than the smokeable kind, writes Jacob Sullum, in Reason, but that's not what the liars at the CDC will tell you:

In the U.S., where smokeless tobacco remains legal, this approach takes the form of a misinformation campaign that encourages people to think oral snuff is just as dangerous as cigarettes. That belief, which seems to be widely accepted by smokers, is clearly wrong.

Based on the incidence of tobacco-related deaths among users, University of Alabama at Birmingham oral pathologist Brad Rodu estimates that smokeless tobacco is 98 percent safer than cigarettes. The difference is so stark that public health officials have been forced to quietly retreat from their false risk equivalence.

Last year, for instance, Surgeon General Richard Carmona told a congressional subcommittee "smokeless tobacco is not a safer substitute for cigarette smoking"—a claim that is scientifically unsupportable. But in the version of his testimony that appears on the Web site of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, he says "smokeless tobacco is not a safe alternative to cigarettes"—the same true but misleading warning that appears on oral snuff packages.

Similarly, a CDC Web page aimed at children asks, "Is smokeless tobacco safe?" The answer: "No way!" But the search listing for the page shows that the question used to be, "Is smokeless tobacco safer than cigarettes?" I suspect the CDC's answer was not "You bet!"

Perhaps the most telling recent change in the official line on smokeless tobacco was made to a pamphlet published by the National Institute on Aging. When I looked at the online version of the pamphlet in March, it said: "Some people think smokeless tobacco (chewing tobacco and snuff), pipes, and cigars are safer than cigarettes. They are not." The passage now reads: "Some people think smokeless tobacco (chewing tobacco and snuff), pipes, and cigars are safe. They are not."

This change came in response to a March 16 complaint from the National Legal and Policy Center arguing that the pamphlet violated the Data Quality Act by disseminating erroneous information. Among other sources, the complaint quoted a 2001 report from the National Academy of Sciences that said "the overall risk [from smokeless tobacco] is lower than for cigarette smoking, and some products such as Swedish snus may have no increased risk" (because they're especially low in carcinogens).

The fact that public health officials seem less inclined to tell outright lies about smokeless tobacco is a small victory. They are still obscuring the issue by doggedly repeating that smokeless tobacco is not risk-free when the relevant point for a cigarette smoker who is thinking about switching is that it's much less likely to kill him than his current habit.

Why let the truth get in the way of perfectly good propaganda?!

Posted by aalkon at 08:35 AM | Comments (12)

A Fad Ass In France

A Fad Ass In France
According to this IHT article, it's the latest thing :

"Forget the dog," brayed a recent issue of the French weekly news magazine Le Nouvel Observateur. "Buy a donkey!"

This was a year when the donkey was feted in France with its own national postage stamp. It also is glorified in a new glossy trade magazine, The Donkey, an ad-rich journal for smitten masters with pull-out posters and testimonials like this: "Martine is an excellent guard, better than our dog Syska. When someone comes to our porch she lets out a bray."

In the south of France, nutrient-rich donkey milk is being churned into lavender soaps and Ozoane face creams. Parisians are renting donkeys by the day to explore the Pyrenees and Provence.

This new appreciation appears to be spreading slowly to other countries where donkeys were long ago abandoned in rural areas for what seemed at the time to be more efficient tractors and cargo trucks.

Earlier this month, the Italian town of Treviso, near Venice, started outsourcing the work of tractor mowers to six donkeys. The aim is to reduce the town's annual roadside grass-cutting costs of €100,000, or $135,000.

Posted by aalkon at 07:17 AM | Comments (0)

Matt Welch Is An Ass-Clown

Matt Welch Is An Ass-Clown
As Matt put it about the guy whose blog carries the above subtitle, "the lifelong burden of being a Red Sox fan -- in every sense of the phrase -- has finally caused one grown 'man' to snap."

Posted by aalkon at 05:05 AM | Comments (0)

December 26, 2004

My Kinda Broad

My Kinda Broad
Coming from me, the term, "a great broad," as applied to a certain kind of east coast, power-with-wit-and-style sort of woman, is a high compliment. Newspaper columnist, Mary McGrory, who died this year, sounded like that kind of woman:

Mary always got her way -- one way or another. When her editor at The Washington Post -- where she moved after The Star folded -- told her he did not have an extra pass for her to get into the Clarence Thomas hearings, Mary was displeased. Shortly thereafter, the editor was watching the hearings on TV and suddenly saw Mary being escorted to a front-row seat by the committee chairman, Joe Biden.

Mary loved The Star and Rome and rogues and children and losers and underdogs and Jack Kennedy. ''He walked like a panther,'' she told me.

She did not love, as her nephew Brian McGrory, the Boston Globe columnist, said, pomposity or self-involvement or bullies or Richard Nixon. She was very proud of being on his enemies' list. She hated blowhards. Once she wanted to get away from John Volpe, who had been in the Nixon cabinet, when he was droning on at her during a party at the Shoreham Hotel. ''Hey,'' she interrupted him finally, ''you were the secretary of transportation. Where are the elevators?'' And away she went.'

Posted by aalkon at 08:25 AM | Comments (0)

If There Were A God, It Would Be Jay Allen

If There Were A God, It Would Be Jay Allen
He invented MT Blacklist, the anti-spam software now in use on this blog. Before we got the new version installed, which involved my leaving my server company for another, I was spending an hour a day deleting spam. Now, spam me once, and you're blocked from posting your URL again. And the reporting process is very automated now -- pretty much does it for you. Check this out -- the number of comment spams blocked since the beginning of December!

Comment spams blocked: 12590

Is anybody using the new beta version of Blacklist? Any reviews?

Posted by aalkon at 07:30 AM | Comments (1)

December 25, 2004

Jackie On How To Make Christmas Crack

Jackie On How To Make Christmas Crack

I don't have a photo of Jackie, who's this fab blog friend from England I finally met for real, but the above is a slice of German chocolate cake she watched Cathy and me attack from both sides of the table when she visited recently and we had lunch at Barney Greengrass, over Barney's. Actually, depending on which way you were facing, Cathy was the left-wing cake obliterator, and I was on the right, whaddya know!

Besides being a fan of Paris, like me, Jackie, like our mutual friend Nancy, is a major foodie and girl gourmet. On Gastroblog, she manages to make food and cooking very entertaining reading -- even for those, like me, whose main contact with it is ordering it made by somebody else in restaurants. Jackie didn't feel like lugging this Crate and Barrel chocolate and peppermint dealie back to London, so she just made it herself and blogged about it. Here's how she did it. (PS I would recommend the dark chocolate, myself!)

Posted by aalkon at 09:13 AM | Comments (2)

How Effective Are Those Prayers?!

How Effective Are Those Prayers?!
If The Pope's prayers can't get through, whose can? At a midnight mass, the ailing big guy of the Christian church prayed for peace in "The Holy Land"...for Christians, Muslims and Jews to achieve a peaceful coexistence...

...through the mutual respect of its inhabitants," said one of the Mass intentions, read in German. "May it be a safe place, and hospitable to pilgrims and truth-seekers."

How soon do you predict they'll all be singing kum bayah? Do you pray? Why? What effectiveness do you think your prayers will have, or is it a bit of Pascal's Wager on your part?

Posted by aalkon at 08:52 AM | Comments (7)

December 24, 2004

The Healthy Smoker Becomes The Quit Smoker

"The Healthy Smoker" Becomes "The Quit Smoker"
Theo Van Gogh's prescient words about the death of Pim Fortuyn, his fierce, pro-American-ism, and more. The link above will get you to a translation (from the Dutch) of his Web site, The Healthy Smoker, now called The Quit Smoker after his murder by a Moslem extremist. Here's one excerpt:

I am too old to emigrate to America, that beacon of light in an ever darkening world. What else can you do here in Holland but to watch in amazement at the collusion of politically correct politicians with that underworld of women-hating Imams, Moroccan gay-bashers and anti-American demonstrators? You can not in Holland congratulate on TV the leader of the Green Left Party with the successful murder of May 6 at the risk of being called depraved or being cast as a village idiot. “Please let’s keep things nice and cozy." My problem is: I don’t see anything remotely nice or cozy.

via Metafilter

Posted by aalkon at 09:36 AM | Comments (0)

Just Say No To Draconian Drug Laws

Just Say No To Draconian Drug Laws
Martha Stewart speaks out against drug sentencing guidelines and sentences for nonviolent, first-time offenders:

When one is incarcerated with 1,200 other inmates, it is hard to be selfish at Christmas -- hard to think of Christmases past and Christmases future -- that I know will be as they always were for me -- beautiful! So many of the women here in Alderson will never have the joy and wellbeing that you and I experience. Many of them have been here for years -- devoid of care, devoid of love, devoid of family.

I beseech you all to think about these women -- to encourage the American people to ask for reforms, both in sentencing guidelines, in length of incarceration for nonviolent first-time offenders, and for those involved in drug-taking. They would be much better served in a true rehabilitation center than in prison where there is no real help, no real programs to rehabilitate, no programs to educate, no way to be prepared for life "out there" where each person will ultimately find herself, many with no skills and no preparation for living.

via Reason

Posted by aalkon at 08:45 AM | Comments (14)

Calling All The Lawyers

Calling All The Lawyers
Somebody is subscribing to magazines in my name, and I just got a book club subscription (a box of books and an invoice arrived today). (The day I buy a book by Sean Hannity is the day you know I've gone totally insane.) Anyway, I'm trying to figure out my rights in this. One site I found says I don't have to send them back -- that I can keep the books. Clearly, this is fraud on somebody's part. Is anybody informed about the law and my rights in this arena? P.S. Judging by the contents of the box of books, let's just say it's unlikely they were sent by a left-winger or an atheist.

Posted by aalkon at 05:02 AM | Comments (10)

December 23, 2004

Claws For Confusion

Claws For Confusion
Unbelievably, after I was dropped by a certain paper -- not because my column was bad, the editor told me, but because they wanted to run somebody local -- the mediocre local writer and thinker they picked up after ditching me emailed me to ask me to help her syndicate herself!

I nixed that idea, and took a quick look at her column, which contained such great original wit and wisdom as "everything happens for a reason." In a rare moment of maturity and restraint, I avoided taking any jabs at the quality of her work when I informed her why my column was dropped, and said, thanks, but I thought I'd pass on offering her syndication advice (which I really don't do for anybody, as responding via email and mail to as many requests for love advice as I can is my priority).

ME: Um, forgive me, but your editor fired me to pick up your column -- but not because I sucked, but because I am not local -- so maybe I'm not so interested in offering you syndication advice?

Besides, while I'm happy to -- and do -- help my friends, whose minds and work I respect, why would I help a stranger whose work I've never even seen? Well, the chick actually writes back and chides me for not giving her free assistance!

OTHER COLUMNIST: Obviously that's your prerogative, but I would hope you would see it as a nice thing to do rather than a disadvantage to your career.

...I can't speak to the reasons why the paper decided to try going the local route but they did keep one syndicated column in the line-up. I suppose the best person for the job was chosen. Have a wonderful day.

Oh, barf. I wrote back, not so mature and restrained this time, flicking in that hackneyed "everything happens for a reason" line from her column for good measure.

ME: Never assume, in daily newspapers, that "the best person" gets the job. It's kind of like assuming "everything happens for a reason," which is irrational and idiotic.

Dumb girl, she bites. And writes back:

OTHER COLUMNIST: I'm a believer in "everything happens for a reason" - it's not idiotic or irrational in my book. That said, I was not referring to my column when I said I supposed the best person for the job was chosen.

Now I just can't help myself:

ME: Oh, when little kids are killed in genocide in Sudan, what reason do you think that happens for? When all these young men and women -- and not just Americans -- are being killed in Iraq before they've lived -- what reason do you think that happens for? When a four-year-old dies terribly painfully of cancer at four? What reason do you think that happens for? And based on what? The truth is, your belief is based on zero evidence. Thus, it's irrational and idiotic to believe, and I would be embarrassed to think or say it -- and, especially, to print it in the newspaper and put my name on it. Let's just say, you're not exactly Bertrand Russell. Neither am I at this point, but at least I appear to be trying. PS You can Google him to find out who he is.

Meee-YOW!

Posted by aalkon at 08:06 AM | Comments (16)

December 22, 2004

Cents And Sensibility

Cents And Sensibility
This week's outrageous request:

Dear Amy:
I’m writing this letter because I need a lot of help. PLEASE READ this entire letter. I am a 47 year old domestic violence’s victim with a 13 year old daughter at home. Four weeks ago my husband asked for a divorce after 14 & a half years together. We have a lot of bills that are all in my name and a house. My husband is an alcoholic and over the years has spent a lot of our bill money. Whatever he wanted we bought. Through the years I have worked two jobs, borrowed money from my parents and friends and used all of my little bonus money to pay bills. I have worked so hard to keep our house and to keep my credit. Also through the years he has beaten me, spit on me, mentally abused me everyday, and accused me of cheating because I have to work late at the end of the month. He has pointed a rifle at me, cut up the clothes while on my body, and degraded me. He also has embarrassed me, left me to find my own way home from places and constantly calls me filthy names. After every big blow up, I have had to get on my knees and beg for forgiveness. Everyone who knows my husband thinks he is so wonderful. They do not know what goes on behind close doors. And now he wants a divorce. Even after all this, it is still very hard for me and I am completely heart broken and scared. Everyone says I will be a lot better off without him. Right now I cannot see that. I pray everyday for that serenity. I cannot believe that after 14 and a half years he just wants to get up and leave. I am a very hard worker and I’ve tried to keep him happy, but things had gotten to the point where I just started shutting up and not talk to him at all because of the mental abuse. I also found out a month ago that I was losing my job of 17 years. He doesn’t care about this either. The company I work for is moving our jobs to Tempe Arizona in June of 2005. I do not want to up route my daughter, so I will need to find another job.

The lawyer I went to see said because I make almost as much as he does I do not have much of a leg to stand on. I know that my daughter wants to live with me and have him pick her up everyday after school as usual. She will spend that time with him until I get home from work. I work in San Francisco and I get off at 5:30pm. I then take B.A.R.T. home.. When I get home, my daughter and I talk and watch TV together. This has been our everyday routine. So I will not get much child support if any. I also found out that I need to buy him out of the house. Which means I need to come up with $50,000.00 for that and pay off my share of our bills which is approximately $20,000. If I cannot do this, the court will make us sell the house. My husband does not care whether his daughter is able to stay in the house she was raised in or not. He wants to sell the house and take his share of the money and get on with his life. The town I live in is now very expensive. If I have to sell the house I will never be able to buy another. The lawyer also said I will have to show that I can pay the house payment which is $1,500.00 a month and provide a living for our daughter. Without the bills, I can do this on my two jobs. The reason for this letter is to ask for help coming up with all this money. I’m hoping that you can publish this letter. If I have to pay for this to be in the newspaper I will. I believe in people, and that they would be willing to help. Even a Five dollar donate from several people will add up. I give to the homeless as much as I can. I have helped many of my sisters and friends out when they needed it, but no one has this kind of money. I know it is terrible of me to ask but I am very desperate. I cannot refinance the house because I did that already this year. Please, please consider this. I need big time help. Thank you for reading this whole letter. I hope to hear from you. I will put my name and address on the bottom of this letter. God bless you.

Sincerely,
Name Withheld
Benicia, CA 94510

My reply:

First, I'm very sorry to hear what a hard time you're having. So, you might have to sell your house. It is not tragic to live in an apartment. Priorities. You want people to GIVE you money? If you have a house it will take $50,000 to buy your husband out of, you have much more money than I do, and you should be donating money to me:

Amy Alkon
171 Pier Ave #280
Santa Monica, CA 90405

...is where you can send your check. $500 would be quite nice. Next, you should take responsibility for your actions. You're setting a terrible example for your daughter. It's disgusting, in fact. For perspective on why you don't stay with an abuser, call 1800TRYNOVA. They're experts in this area. You know, every week, I hear about a newer, weirder sex act and get pictures of men in ladies underwear from my readers, but I haven't been surprised lately like you surprised me now. Where do you get off asking people to give you money? Look around lady. There are people going hungry on street corners, who haven't had a warm bed in years. You can't live in suburban style? Well, boo hoo. Try to work up the sensibility it would take to feel ashamed of yourself for asking.

Posted by aalkon at 08:32 AM | Comments (10)

December 21, 2004

Did Lincoln Like The Logs Better Than The Ladies?

Did Lincoln Like The Logs Better Than The Ladies?
A new book says Lincoln was gay, writes Paul Harris in the London Observer:

It is news guaranteed to make many Republicans squirm. Was Abraham Lincoln, founder of the party now seeking a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in America, actually gay himself?

A new book, published next month, certainly thinks so. The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln by C.A. Tripp produces evidence that one of America's greatest Presidents had a long-term relationship with a youthful friend, Joshua Speed, and shared his bed with David Derickson, captain of his bodyguards.

Tripp, a former researcher for sex scientist Alfred Kinsey and an influential gay writer, includes asides by many of Lincoln's close friends. 'He was not very fond of girls, as he seemed to me,' his stepmother, Sarah Bush Lincoln, once told a friend.

It also includes a diary excerpt by one upper-class Washington woman who wrote of Derickson: 'There is a Bucktail soldier here devoted to the President, drives with him, and when Mrs L is not home, sleeps with him. What stuff!'

Scholars have long debated Lincoln's sexuality, and as early as the 1920s were making veiled references to his relationship with Speed. However, critics say that in the pioneer days men sleeping together in rough circumstances was not uncommon.

Now Tripp has discovered letters between Lincoln and Speed which supposedly betray a deep intimacy.

But Tripp's book really breaks new ground in its exhaustive portrayal of many of Lincoln's possible gay lovers, including one man who said Lincoln's thighs 'were as perfect as a human being could be'.

All that and ending slavery, too!

Posted by aalkon at 08:16 AM | Comments (7)

Waste Gas, Get A Fat Ass

Waste Gas, Get A Fat Ass
Another reason America has become the land of the morbidly obese.

Posted by aalkon at 07:47 AM | Comments (2)

December 20, 2004

A Fundamentalist Against Bush

A Fundamentalist Against Bush
Chuck Baldwin is a fundamentalist who has protested at abortion clinics and helped Jerry Falwell register "more than fifty thousand new conservative voters" when Reagan was running...and more. But he deplores what the Religious Right has become:

The willingness of the Religious Right to give President Bush king-like subservience is easily seen in the way they demonize anyone who dares to oppose him. This is very unnerving.

Are we heading for a modern day religious inquisition, this one led not by the Catholic Church but by the Religious Right? Are we witnessing the type of marriage between Church and State that America's founders originally feared?

I used to believe that liberals were paranoid for being fearful of conservative Christians gaining political power. Now, I share their trepidation.

Of course, the sad truth is, neither George W. Bush nor the Republican Party in Washington, D.C. represents genuine Christian or even conservative principles. If they did, they would take their oaths to the Constitution seriously and then neither liberals nor conservatives would have anything to fear, for the U.S. Constitution protects the rights and freedoms of all men.

Unfortunately, when the seed of Bush's unconstitutional policies come to fruition, it will produce large scale fallout economically, socially, and politically. And sadder still will be that, instead of blaming Bush's infidelity to constitutional government and conservative principles, people will blame Christianity and conservatism itself. The result of this miscalculation will doubtless be a massive tide of support for more and greater unconstitutional government, but only under a different name.

Posted by aalkon at 08:41 AM | Comments (6)

December 19, 2004

Frank Under Fire

Frank Under Fire

My Faith Under Fire "Ask The Atheist" TV segment turned out better than I thought it would be. They cut out the front part of it, where I couldn't get a word in edgewise because boorish former Cincinnati Reds pitcher, Frank Pastore, kept talking over me. They also cut out the part where I threatened to walk off because he was being so rude. The rest is intact. Gregg is turning it into postable video, which you can click on here.

*You will need Quicktime to view it. It's available free, even to Windows people. Just click on the movie, and it will tell you what to do.

For a great resource for the rational, turn to the-brights.net. Lots of smart stuff there, including this link to a logically based defense of Dawkins and evolution.

Posted by aalkon at 10:29 AM | Comments (29)

Free, Free, Set Them Free!

Free, Free, Set Them Free!
Heather MacDonald tells a story, not-to-be-believed, but true, in the New York Post, of illegal immigrants sneaking into Vermont, who are simply let loose into this country, and warned that they'd better show up at a deportation hearing. Wooo, how intimidating. Wonder what the count is on how many of them are stone-dumb enough to show up?

Every week, agents in the border patrol's Swanton sector catch Middle Easterners and North Africans sneaking into Vermont. And every week, they immediately release those trespassers with a polite request to return for a deportation hearing. Why? The Department of Homeland Security failed to budget enough funding for sufficient detention space for lawbreakers.

In May alone, Swanton agents released illegal aliens from Malaysia, Pakistan, Morocco, Uganda and India without bond. Since all these aliens chose to evade the visa process, none has had a background check by a consular official that might have uncovered terrorist connections. All are now at large in the country.

The failure to interdict northern trespassers is particularly worrisome, since Canada is a proven springboard for terrorists. Ahmed Ressam, the Algerian caught at the Canadian border with 100 pounds of explosives destined for the Los Angeles airport in December 1999, ran an al Qaeda cell in Montreal, despite having previously been ordered deported by the Canadian government. Two of the seven most wanted al Qaeda members are naturalized Canadians.

This "catch and release" policy is in force all across the country for the same reason: no detention space. On June 8, agents in the Las Cruces, N.M., station apprehended three illegal Pakistanis and promptly let them go. The same day, guards at Texas' Uvalde station released a Bosnian wanted on an Interpol warrant for aggravated rape.

The number of people caught at the southern border from "countries of interest" — terror dens — is on the rise: This year's list includes people from Afghanistan, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen and — in greatest numbers — Pakistan. Law-enforcement authorities told The Washington Times that al Qaeda is well aware of the border patrol's detention-space crisis and resulting "catch-and-release" policy, which it hopes to exploit to loose its agents into the country.

If the government were serious about ending illegal entry and its threat to national security, it would fund adequate detention space. Instead, the Bush administration plans to add only 117 new detention beds in 2005 (while probably losing another 1,400 beds for failure to reimburse county and local jails for the space it rents from them).

The government is serious -- serious about funding abstinence programs that have been proved not to work (kids in them do wait to have sex [about a year and a half later], but when they do, they are, of course, unprepared to protect themselves from pregnancy and disease). The tough-on-terror stance? Lip-service!

Posted by aalkon at 09:12 AM | Comments (0)

Remember When Senators And Congressmen Used To Be Human?

Remember When Senators And Congressmen Used To Be Human?
Me neither. But David Rosenbaum calls the retiring senator, Ernest Hollings, 82, "the last of a breed once prevalent in Congress: the quick-witted wielder of the folksy metaphor and aphorism. Here are a few samples:

To opponents of government regulation:

"Letting y'all regulate yourselves is like delivering lettuce by way of a rabbit."

On his marriage:

"People always wonder how Peatsy and I stay together, with so many divorces around us. And a friend of ours used to say, 'It's simple. They have a lot in common. They're both in love with the same fella.' "

[During her husband's campaign for his party's presidential nomination in 1984, a reporter called their hotel room and asked to speak to Senator Hollings. Mrs. Hollings held the phone away from her mouth and said, "Hey, mister, you Hollings?"]

Responding to a Republican challenger who dared him to take a drug test:

"I'll take a drug test if you take an I.Q. test."

While debating John Glenn, the former astronaut:

"But what have you done in this world."

And my personal favorite:

On President Bush's effort to distance himself from the Enron scandal:

"I did not have political relations with that man, Ken Lay."

Posted by aalkon at 08:59 AM | Comments (0)

December 18, 2004

Peek Experience

Peek Experience
Okay, I wasn't going to tell anyone, but I've changed my mind. The show I taped, Faith Under Fire, where I debated former Cincinnati Reds pitcher, Frank Pastore, is on tonight, 10pm PST, on Pax network. It was the most unpleasant television appearance I ever made, because Pastore boorishly interrupted me each time I tried to speak. He was such a boor that the entire staff of the show came out afterward and apologized to me for his behavior, and later sent me another apology via email. Well, a lawyer friend -- perhaps just trying to make me feel better -- just emailed me from New York (where it appeared at an earlier time) to compliment me on my appearance:

You kicked that Pastore's ass so hard I may need to defend you on a manslaughter charge. WOW!!! You were so amazing. You were so calm and focused and funny. Any more TV and you won't have time for your columns.

I thought I'd been really off my game, and didn't properly debate Pastore on the points because I was working so hard just to hold the floor when I got it. But, maybe I was wrong about that. I always judge myself very harshly when I'm on TV. Let me know what you think. If it actually is good (or not too horrible, from my point of view), I'll ask Gregg to post it here.

Find out where it's showing by clicking here. In LA, it's Channel 30 on Adephia or Comcast at 10pm.

Posted by aalkon at 11:55 AM | Comments (0)

The Physics Of Laws

The Physics Of Laws
Leave it to law enforcement top dogs to "stretch" the law whenever it's cheaper or more convenient for them, here and in Britain -- with slightly different Nanny-gates. But, getting back to our country, where is Kerik's nanny now? What's become of her? Luis Humberto Crosthwaite wonders:

No matter how much I've read about this matter, I can't find out anything about this girl or woman. We don't know her name or place of origin. We don't know if she liked her job or how much she was paid. We only know she was undocumented. Shortly after Kerik made the phone call, his nanny disappeared, and all we know is she returned to her own country.

Maybe it's because my only point of reference is my mother and other women who have worked taking care of children or the elderly, but I don't like the idea that she was forced to leave the country, summarily, for looking after the children of a man who sought a government post he didn't deserve.

I wonder if they paid her when they fired her. I wonder if she got a Christmas bonus. I wonder if she had grown to love those children she can no longer see. I wonder if Mr. or Mrs. Kerik thanked her.

It seems that if a person is interested in a political future in this country, he or she must be free of several sins – among them, hiring undocumented workers. Their résumé must be free of any undocumented gardener, maid, dishwasher, chauffeur or any worker that might get in the way of a government job.

Kerik is not the first and won't be the last to get in trouble for hiring a worker in the country illegally. This practice is common, and not only among government officials.

The presence of immigrants is apparent everywhere we look. Why deny it? It is very probable that the person who cleans your house or tends your lawn is an immigrant. The support workers at your office, the people who prepare the food and wash the dishes at your favorite restaurant, they all immigrated to this country, legally or illegally, and they make your life easier in one way or another.

But I don't think that these people get hired for important jobs, cleaning your house and taking care of your children, just as a way to avoid taxes or to pay low wages.

You trust these people because of their commitment to their work, because of the special way they treat your loved ones.

And you hire them because you know your neighbors do, too. And because the authorities accept this and don't break into your home to remove them as if they were hunting for drug traffickers.

I have no doubt that Kerik, for a number of reasons, was not the best-qualified man to lead the Department of Homeland Security. What I question is the logic behind a system that on the one hand condemns undocumented immigration and on the other depends on it.

I do love the irony, too -- that for thugs like Kerik, complete with ties to suspected mobsters, the law is something you get to enforce upon other people, but feel completely free to break yourself.

Posted by aalkon at 09:18 AM | Comments (3)

La Réalité Bites

La Réalité Bites
The Japanese are clinically depressed that Paris, in reality, is ill-matched to their romantic illusions of the place, says an Agence France Presse report:

More than a 100 expatriates a year are sinking into a state called "the Paris syndrome" which is characterised by feelings of persecution or suicidal tendencies, according to the mental health facilities of city hospitals.

Part of their clinical depression stems from having to reconcile their romanticism about Paris with reality, psychiatrists said.

"Magazines are fuelling fantasies with the Japanese, who think there are
models everywhere and the women dress entirely in (Louis) Vuitton," Mario Renoux, the head of a French Japanese Society for Medecine was quoted as saying.

After a relatively short period of only three months or so, Japanese immigrants expecting to find a haven of civilisation and elegance instead discover a tougher existence with many problems dealing with the French.

"They make fun of my French and my expressions", "they don't like me" and "I feel ridiculous in front of them" are common refrains heard by the doctors.

The need to forcibly express one's self to be noticed - seen as vulgar in Japanese society - and exposure to a humour sometimes seen as offensive adds to the unhappiness.

"However, not wanting to give up their Paris dreams, the patients refuse to go back to Japan," the newspaper noted.

Posted by aalkon at 08:00 AM | Comments (2)

December 17, 2004

The United Christian States Of America

The United Christian States Of America
That's what one teacher's trying to preach, uh, teach, in a Silicon Valley public school, writes Andrew Gumbel:

If you haven’t spent the past couple of weeks tuned into right-wing talk radio and Fox News, you might not have heard of Stephen Williams. Out there in the land of Rush and Sean Hannity, though, he has already been enshrined as a folk hero of the triumphant new right, a saint and perhaps also a martyr.

Williams is a fifth grade teacher in Silicon Valley and practicing Christian who fell foul of his school principal because he was overeager to emphasize the religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers in his history classes. So far, so banal. He wasn’t suspended or fired. The principal at Stevens Creek Elementary School in Cupertino simply became a little alarmed when Williams distributed a handout entitled “What Great Leaders Have Said About The Bible,” which quoted a handful of Republican presidents (all pro!) alongside Jesus himself. She became more alarmed still when he asked his class to read a chunk of St. Luke’s Gospel to help them understand the meaning of Easter. So, at the end of the last school year, she asked him to submit his lesson plans to her in advance to make sure his classes didn’t violate the separation of church and state.

When Williams edited down the Declaration of Independence to include only its references to a higher being, or when he reproduced chunks of George Washington’s prayer journal to the exclusion of the Father of the Nation’s more obviously political reflections, the principal drew the line and told him to take the discussion in a different direction.

There the affair might have ended had it not been for Williams’s friends in a Phoenix-based fundamentalist Christian outfit called the Alliance Defense Fund, who persuaded him that what was going on was a brazen attempt by Left Coast liberal heathens to airbrush God out of the public arena altogether. The ADF started spreading stories that he was the victim of an out-of-control principal who was as allergic to religious references as vampires are to garlic and rosewater. And they bankrolled a federal lawsuit against the school district, filed last month, in which Williams alleged that his First Amendment and other constitutional rights were violated.

Note to Hannity: It's "DEMocracy," not "THEocracy."

Posted by aalkon at 08:47 AM | Comments (15)

How To Glam

How To Glam
Order a subscription to French Vogue via Amazon. I just did. It's $53.69, which works out to $5.37 an issue, delivered to your door -- much better than you'll pay at the newsstand, if you can even find it at a newsstand.

Know any girls who walk around looking like unwashed homeless people, yet whine pitifully that they don't have boyfriends? The perfect gift for them. First of all, because it's so heavy, so you can knock them over the head with it, perhaps knocking some sense into them. Then, you can leave it by their side, so they'll have something inspiring to look at when they wake up. The pictures are amazing even if you can't speak French. And even if you can.

Posted by aalkon at 07:16 AM | Comments (1)

December 16, 2004

Be Cool-er

Be Cool-er
Drive a 66mpg Honda Insight (specs here).

The trailer to Be Cool, the sequel to Elmore Leonard's Get Shorty, just came out, and my little hybrid, the Honda Insight (pictured), is one of the stars of the show. Here's an excerpt from the end of the trailer, with Travolta and Danny DeVito's characters talking outside The Viper Room valet parking:

DeVito: Is that your car?

Travolta: It's the Cadillac Of Hybrids.

(Some outrageously expensive sports car pulls up behind the car)

DeVito: But, what about speed?

Travolta: If you're important...they'll wait.

Similar logic applies to public cell-phoning. If you're truly important, you probably have a battery of assistants and secretaries who keep you from being reached. You are not shouting your business into a cell phone over a lunch tray at The Rose Cafe. Recently, I was in the Rose Cafe, enjoying lunch, when some young guy, probably late 20s, came in and started bellowing show biz lingo into his cell at high decibel. (No, we don't think you're important; we just think you're permanently damaging our hearing.)

This went on for quite some time, and a woman actually got up and moved away from him because he was so loud. Not wanting to have some toxic exchange that might give me indigestion later, but not able to drown out his conversation with the loudest setting on my iTunes, I politely asked him to lower his wheeling and dealing volume. He seemed shocked that I asked, apologized, and went immediately back to his shouting. No need to go into my whole dull exchange with yet another person who must have been an orphan (because if he'd had a mother, she probably would have taught him manners!).

He eventually accused me of "trying!" to listen to his conversation. I replied that I actually would have given anything not to hear it, if that had been humanly possible. Still, the suffering almost became worthwhile when the guy actually defended himself by announcing, "That's Tom Cruise on the other line!" as if I should be ashamed to interrupt his shouting for a little peace and quiet because he's talking to A FAMOUS PERSON!

First of all, I'm sure Tom Cruise would fire any of his minions who announced anything of the kind. Second, I would simply DIE before I, 1. told somebody who I was talking to as if it made me important, or 2. think it made me important in any way, shape or form! Naturally, I practically fell out of my chair laughing when he said that, and others around me looked like they were working pretty hard to stifle some guffaws. I told him that I didn't care if he was talking to the garbage man -- as if my life should stop because Tom Cruise (who most certainly wasn't on the line!) makes movies for a living instead of bagging groceries or selling futons.

Of course, it's always best, in this town, to remember that you never know who you're talking to. If I did think it was Cruise on the line, and if I didn't think even stars deserve some privacy, the guy would have been in some trouble. An old assistant who'd worked at Warner Brothers a while back gave me a printout of the movie star portion of her ex-boss' Rolodex. Perhaps some of the numbers have been changed by now, but I do have Tom Cruise's home number (from the Nicole days), his personal cell, and personal assistants' cell numbers floating around here somewhere. It is just a little tempting to think of picking up the phone and saying, "Yo, Tom, that's some ill-mannered cur you've been doing business with!"

Posted by aalkon at 09:56 AM | Comments (4)

'Roid Rage Of A Different Kind

'Roid Rage Of A Different Kind
Dr. Andrew Bernstein, a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute, says (as I have continued to say) the government has no proper role in banning steroid use by athletes -- or any other drug use:

The use of steroids and other performance enhancing drugs by major league baseball players has drawn threats from the United States government. Major league baseball had better institute strict drug policies, warned Senators John McCain and Byron Dorgan, or it will face Congressional action.

But the government should not be granted the power to dictate to consenting adults what they can and cannot ingest, stated Dr. Andrew Bernstein, senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute. Major league baseball is a private organization that has the right, if it chooses, to ban steroid use among players by contractual agreement. As with any private individual or organization, it has the right to lay down the terms under which it will associate with others--leaving it to the voluntary decision of players to accept the terms or play elsewhere.

More broadly, Bernstein pointed out, in a free society an adult has the right to think and decide for himself in the pursuit of his own happiness. A necessary consequence is that he may choose self-destructive actions--whether to drink harmful amounts of alcohol or use toxic drugs. A legal prohibition on drugs, as on alcohol, is a violation of the right of the individual to determine the course of his life. Bernstein concluded that Congress should butt out and let Major league baseball determine its own course of action regarding players’ use of steroids.

Posted by aalkon at 08:38 AM | Comments (24)

December 15, 2004

They Don't Make Catfights Like They Used To

They Don't Make Catfights Like They Used To

MeeeeeYOW! A fabulous little snittyfit, between LA newsreaders Paul Moyer and Ann Martin. It was recorded back when they shared the anchor desk on the Channel 7 Eyewitness News, from about 10 years ago, and posted (as text) by Kevin Roderick, at LAObserved:

Can't tell what they are fighting about, but this snippet is bound to be a classic in local TV lore, if it isn't already. I especially like that the specter of working with Harold Greene is viewed as a threat.

P.S. That cat in the photo is up that tree because it, apparently, saw my termite-sized Yorkie, Lucy, as a threat. How comforting that someone or something does!

Posted by aalkon at 09:34 AM | Comments (0)

The Lurking American Taliban

The Lurking American Taliban
"The American Taliban" is usually hyperbole used by those limp of minds who compare something to Naziism or The Holocaust. In this case, Christian Reconstructionist beliefs -- not held by all Christian Reconstructionsists, Free Inquiry article author Skip Porteous maintains -- are truly odious and dangerous, and are correctly compared. Here's one example of what some believe: That gays (caught in the act of sodomy), adulterers, and abortion doctors should be executed. The man advocating this in the discussion below is Gary DeMar, a leading reconstructionist author and lecturer, who poisons young minds at a Christian summer camp. People who voted for that lame-ass Bush (as opposed to that lame-ass Kerry) out of some misguided idea that he's fiscally conservative or tough on terrorism don't get it -- how dangerous it is to let religious fanatics get a foothold in this country. Here's an excerpt from this sick man, Gary DeMar's talk:

DEMAR: The definition of Christian Reconstruction is simply this: The Bible applies to every facet of life. That means not just the judicial aspects of life, such as civil government, church government, but business, economics--every facet of society. The Bible has something to say about each area. For example on homosexuals: We do not believe that homosexuals ought to be executed. The Bible doesn't say that homosexuals ought to be executed. What it says is this: If two men lie together like man and woman, they are to be put to death.

PORTEOUS: What the hell do you think that is?

DEMAR: Well, wait a minute. If a guy comes up to me and he says, "I'm a homosexual," that doesn't mean he's to be executed. If you understand the scriptures, it says very clearly, if a man comes up to you and says, "I've murdered somebody," that doesn't mean that person ought to be executed.

GONZALES: Oh, so what you are saying Gary, is, if you catch homosexuals in the act, then the Bible says to execute them.

DEMAR: The Bible lays forth the severest penalty, which would be capital punishment for two men who publicly engage in sodomy.

GONZALES: Does it say "publicly" in the Bible?

DEMAR: You've got to have at least two witnesses who would come forth and testify against the two people who had engaged in sodomy. The severest punishment would be capital punishment. It doesn't mean that has to be the punishment.

PORTEOUS: Now, there was a case a couple of years ago, and I believe it was Georgia....

DEMAR: It was Georgia.

PORTEOUS: Two men were seen by the police, because the police came in the house for a different reason, and saw them having sex, engaging in homosexual activity in bed.

DEMAR: Sodomy.

PORTEOUS: They were arrested. So you're saying that these two men, according to the Bible, could receive the death penalty?

DEMAR: Well...

PORTEOUS: Is that what you're saying?

DEMAR: First of all, remember, the Supreme Court upheld Georgia's law. Second, yes I agree that the Bible lays the death penalty for two men who are engaged in sodomy in public.

P.S. I landed on this link by Googling information while reading an excellent article on sex-mad Jewish mother and discredited researcher, Judith Reisman. Worth a read. By the way, in the current issue of Hustler (marked February), I have an article that uses data to say what the actual effects of porn are on women. And no, porn does not cause violence against women. It's utterly idiotic to say it does. Just look at the logic: Supposedly, if a person sees a porn film, he then is compelled to rape? Riiiight. The logic, in terms of human behavior, simply doesn't play out. I mean, I saw Oceans 11, and I didn't feel compelled to rob a casino afterward.

Based on meta-analysis (a look at many legitimate, peer-reviewed studies) by professor Catherine Salmon, my piece points out that there's only one way porn, specifically, "hurts" women -- economically -- by reducing their sexual bargaining power for men's resources. I am for complete free expression and complete free speech by consenting adults. If you aren't, I'm sure the other Taliban would be thrilled to have you.

Posted by aalkon at 08:06 AM | Comments (1)

December 14, 2004

A May-December Relationship

A May-December Relationship

Gregg thinks the pickup is a 1950 Ford F-1 fender-side. The little car is an "R" Car, an EV (electric vehicle). It almost makes my dinky little eco-mobile look like a Hummer by comparison!

Posted by aalkon at 08:01 AM | Comments (3)

What It Means To Win

What It Means To Win
We are winning the war in Iraq, aren't we? Of course we are! But what does "winning" mean, exactly? James Carroll gets to the truth of the matter in The Boston Globe:

Why don't we Americans look directly at the war? We avert our gaze, knowing that the situation in Iraq grows more desperate by the day. Vaunted "coalition" efforts to "break the back" of the "insurgency" have only strengthened it.

The violence among Iraqis would surely qualify as civil war - except that only one side is fighting. The structures of relief and repair are gone. Whole cities are destroyed, populations displaced. The hope for elections is mortally compromised. Coalition members are dropping out. The mission of American force is to secure the country, but it can't even secure itself. The performance of U.S. intelligence has been consistent: Its strategic failures caused the war, and its tactical ignorance of the enemy is losing the war.

Meanwhile, in America, this, the gravest foreign policy crisis in a generation, source of a crisis of conscience for tens of millions of citizens, is not a subject of political debate. For many months, overt opposition to the war was sublimated in the effort to defeat George W. Bush in the November election. John Kerry's fatal ambivalence about Iraq sealed the war off from the great quadrennial decision, with the result that the voices of those who hated the war were muted, and the uneasiness of those who were troubled by it was never addressed.

Astoundingly, the Democrats cooperated with the Republicans in assuring that the war in Iraq - the one thing that might have defeated Bush - was not an issue. That marginalization of the antiwar impulse continues in the suspended animation of a period after the American election and before the Iraqi election.

The new Bush administration has moved to reconfigure itself in most ways but one. The president's affirmation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in combination with his naming of Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, reflects a blind determination to "stay the course" in Iraq, never mind that the course is heading off a cliff.

I have a new anti-SUV campaign now, cards that read:

How many dead Marines did it take to gas up your SUV? Stylish, aren't you?

Because I put my email address on them, I get replies from time to time, from people whose behemoths I've "carded." Here's one of them:

SUV driver:
Since you have such an allegiance to mother's of dead marines, let me ask you a question. Are you one?

My reply:
Aren't we all? I'm actually not a mother of anyone, but your lack of solidarity with people who are dying on behalf of our country is shocking. Then again, considering your narcissistic choice of vehicle, maybe it's simply to be expected. There are others on the planet besides you, selfish bozo.

Posted by aalkon at 07:00 AM | Comments (18)

December 13, 2004

Amy's Floor

Amy's Floor
I didn't know my floor was a source of amusement until I woke up and noticed my boyfriend photographing it, but I guess juxtaposition is everything.

Posted by aalkon at 09:42 AM | Comments (7)

The Sunnier Side Of Slavery

The Sunnier Side Of Slavery
A North Carolina Christian school is teaching children "a different side" of slavery, writes T Keung Hui. No, this is not a joke (just a sick fact). Check out a few of the quotes from the booklet about slavery they're using -- co-authored by a pastor and a member of the Alabama-based League of the South (classified as a "hate group" by an Alabama-based civil rights group):

"Slave life was to them a life of plenty, of simple pleasures, of food, clothes, and good medical care." (page 25)

"Slavery as it existed in the South was not an adversarial relationship with pervasive racial animosity. Because of its dominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence." (page 24)

"But many Southern blacks supported the South because of long established bonds of affection and trust that had been forged over generations with their white masters and friends." (page 27)

Of course, the justifications for teaching the "kinder, gentler view" of "owning" other human beings because they have more melanin in their skin -- well, they're kind of similar to the justifications for teaching creationism:

Angela Kennedy, whose daughters have attended Cary Christian since 1996, said all the booklet does is help students learn about both sides so that they have a basis to form their own opinions. She pointed out that the students also read Abraham Lincoln's speeches.

"They really do get both sides of the story," Kennedy said. "In public schools, all they get is one side of the story. That's not education. That's indoctrination."

Luckily, there are Christian schools to teach how sweet and lovely racism is -- when they aren't too busy telling kids that the Grand Canyon was formed in 20 minutes by the big guy (perhaps he was out of finger bowls?), and damn the fossil record!

Posted by aalkon at 07:57 AM | Comments (2)

Osama Who?

Osama Who?
Could the Bush administration's retarded response to the WTC bombing (we get hit by Osama; we bomb...Saddam?!) be part of what's foiling the search for Bin Laden? James Risen and David Rohde write in The New York Times:

More than three years after the Sept. 11 attacks on the Pentagon and New York transformed Osama bin Laden into the most wanted man in the world, the search for him remains stalled, frustrated by the remote topography of his likely Pakistani sanctuary, stymied by a Qaeda network that remains well financed and disciplined, sidetracked by the distractions of the Iraq war, and, perhaps most significantly, limited by deep suspicion of the United States among Pakistanis.

Lucky we're winning in Iraq, huh?!

Posted by aalkon at 05:28 AM | Comments (5)

December 12, 2004

Sister Of Twisted Sister

Sister Of Twisted Sister
There's something even creepier about this one than the one I posted yesterday.

Posted by aalkon at 09:35 AM | Comments (2)

A Land Of Primitive Religious Fanatics

A Land Of Primitive Religious Fanatics
That would be ours -- at least compared to Spain and Canada, which don't let all the religious nuts dictate who does and doesn't get equal treatment under the law based on their sexuality. A number of my gay friends -- some of them valuable minds in universities, industry, and public policy -- are considering a move to Canada now. My French teacher told me she's had dozens of people inquire about taking private French lessons since the election, since fluency in French is one way to get enough "points" to become a Canadian citizen. Yes, Canada is pretty cold, but it can't be any chillier up there than living in a place that treats gays and lesbians like second-class citizens, but requires them to pay full fare in taxes. The least we could do is recognize how we're discriminating, and lets gays and lesbians pay a discounted tax rate since they aren't allowed full rights and benefits of citizenship like the rest of us.

P.S. Canada might not stay cold for long. No, that's not a crack about global warming. There's a petition to make the British colony of Turks and Caicos part of Canada.

Posted by aalkon at 08:23 AM | Comments (6)

French Twist

French Twist
The French offered to help in Iraq, writes Brian Knowlton; the U.S. simply ignored their offer:

Although Secretary of State Colin Powell called pointedly on Europeans this week to provide new assistance to Iraq, French officials said an offer made nearly a year ago by France to train Iraqis as military police remains unanswered. A similar offer from Germany has been accepted.

A reminder by a French diplomat of that untaken offer came at the beginning of a week in which the United States wrangled with six NATO members, including France, over their refusal to take part in a NATO plan to train Iraqi soldiers at a site near Baghdad.

Trained Iraqi security forces are one of the most crying needs in Iraq, the United States has said. The U.S. ability to draw down American forces will depend largely on the pace of Iraqi training.

"We are ready to help" by training hundreds of gendarmes, the diplomat said, underlining other French contributions: the forgiveness of Iraqi debt and participation with NATO peacekeepers in Afghanistan.

The diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity, did not blame the United States for blocking the earlier French offer to train gendarmes somewhere outside of Iraq. That left an unspoken implication that the interim Iraqi government was behind the decision.

The United States had been particularly angry with the French for their leading role in opposing the war. On various levels the administration has appeared quicker to forgive the Germans for their own opposition.

Posted by aalkon at 07:50 AM | Comments (2)

December 11, 2004

Twisted, Sister!

Twisted, Sister!
A window display at the Third Street Promenade, Santa Monica.

What is this girl thinking?! Insert your caption below!

Posted by aalkon at 08:16 AM | Comments (7)

The Hallucinate-tivity Scene

The Hallucinate-tivity Scene
Government anti-drug thugs won't be allowed to prohibit a New Mexico church from using hallucinogenic tea in their Christmas ritual, the Supreme Court ruled:

The church, which has about 140 members in the United States and 8,000 worldwide, said the herbal brew is a central sacrament in its religious practice, which is a blend of Christian beliefs and traditions rooted in the Amazon basin.

Hollander said the tea is drunk in a ritual similar to the Catholic Communion. Church members then sit in a circle and meditate; they believe the tea brings them closer to God.

The tea is brewed from plants found in the Amazon River Basin and contains DMT, which officials say is a controlled substance under an international treaty.

However, Bronfman's complaint contends the tea is "non-addictive, is not harmful to human health and poses none of the risks commonly found with the use of certain controlled substances."

The church had drawn parallels to federal protection for members of the Native American Church using peyote, which also has hallucinogenic properties.

I'm still not sure why the government should be allowed to tell us what we can and can't put in our bodies -- as long as we aren't operating heavy machinery -- which is probably not exactly first on your to-do list if you just gulped some 'shroom tea or something. Why is this constitutional? I can't see how it could be.

For a great book on the serious use of hallucinogens (not just to get happy, but as a form of self-help -- and I'm not kidding), check out Archaic Revival, by Terence McKenna. I knew Terence and Os Janiger, both. Os was the one who worked with Cary Grant and others with LSD, and thought hallucinogens could have had a lot of promise in drawing out certain kinds of patients (terribly repressed, etc., and in improving creative work).

Unfortunately, there can be no inquiry into this, thanks to the anti-drug police, who are all about "just say no!" (and please don't engage your brain or anything before doing it). Listen to my other friend, Stanton Peele, whose most recent book is Resisting 12-Step Coercion: AA replaces one addiction with another. All drug use is not abuse. And addiction is not a disease, but a choice. Sure, some people are more biologically prone to make that choice, but it's basically choosing short-term gratification over longterm. Radical stuff, but he backs it up with good data -- something the DEA is completely opposed to doing, because it would get in the way of their fun playing police state.

Posted by aalkon at 07:08 AM | Comments (5)

A Tale Of Two Mercy Killings

A Tale Of Two Mercy Killings
Amy Langfield compares the sentences of Jack Kevorkian and a U.S. soldier who put an Iraqi "out of his misery."

Posted by aalkon at 06:16 AM | Comments (0)

December 10, 2004

Watch Amy On Web Teevee!

Watch Amy On Web Teevee!
For a limited time only, to see my Dennis Miller appearance from last night, click here. They said they liked me and want me back, although I did get chided by Dennis for my Cheney remark!

Here's Paul, who's very funny and absolutely darling, asking somebody out there to give us a show together: "Lucille Ball! Lucy/Desi reality show!" I told him we should do an advice show together on the radio on Sunday nights. Any takers out there?!!

*You will need Quicktime to view this. It's available free, even to Windows people. Just click on the movie, and it will tell you what to do -- just like me!

Posted by aalkon at 08:37 AM | Comments (8)

December 09, 2004

It's Miller Time!

It's Miller Time!
I'll be on Dennis Miller tonight, with comedian Paul Rodriguez and Joseph Phillips. 6pm and 9pm PST, on CNBC. Check your cable guide to find the channel in your area.

Posted by aalkon at 09:43 AM | Comments (8)

Barry Nanny-State Of Bush & Co

Barry Nanny-State Of Bush & Co
Matt Welch decries the revenge move against Barry Bonds and other athletes by the government for alleged steroid use:

...The federal justice system should be about apprehending serious criminals, not "sending messages" to schoolchildren by abusing the grand jury process to compile and illegally leak publicly damaging information about non-criminals.

Thirdly, in an era when testosterone and other hormones are being used safely to treat various illnesses, isn't it time to ask why, exactly, they can't be used to help men who use their bodies for a living recover from the daily strain as they reach retirement age?

And finally, think back to poor Barry Bonds, if you can call a jerk who makes $19 million a year "poor." What if he told the truth under oath, and never knowingly took illegal or banned substances?

If that's the case, then the man who had the season to end all seasons was rewarded for it by A) being made the prime target of a multi-agency federal investigation backed directly by the president and attorney general; B) having his reputation (and endorsements-earning potential) deliberately shredded; and C) being forced to fend off continuous hostile cross-examination, even while compiling the best four-year run in baseball history.

There is such a thing as the presumption of innocence, no matter what you read in the sports pages. As it stands, Barry Bonds has not even been formally accused of violating a single baseball rule, let alone federal law.

President Bush has indeed "sent a message" to the kids of America: We can make you look guilty, even when you've never been charged. It's a rough lesson, but they might as well start getting used it.

Posted by aalkon at 08:00 AM | Comments (2)

Winning The War On Terror

Winning The War On Terror
Or something like that:

A classified cable sent by the Central Intelligence Agency's station chief in Baghdad has warned that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating and may not rebound any time soon, according to government officials.

Osama who? The guy doesn't even need to recruit anymore. With our invasion of Iraq, we're like the ROTC for terrorists.

Posted by aalkon at 07:45 AM | Comments (0)

Why Fundamentalists Drive Cadillac Escalades

Why Fundamentalists Drive Cadillac Escalades
More on "The Rapture." Doesn't it seem, well, un-Christian, to run roughshod over the planet, fouling the air, water, and food we all eat? Bill Moyers, like George Monbiot, contends it's quite the contrary:

Remember James Watt, President Reagan's first Secretary of the Interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever engaging Grist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, "after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back."

Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn't know what he was talking about. But James Watt was serious. So were his compatriots out across the country. They are the people who believe the Bible is literally true - one-third of the American electorate, if a recent Gallup poll is accurate. In this past election several million good and decent citizens went to the polls believing in the rapture index. That's right - the rapture index. Google it and you will find that the best-selling books in America today are the twelve volumes of the left-behind series written by the Christian fundamentalist and religious right warrior, Timothy LaHaye. These true believers subscribe to a fantastical theology concocted in the 19th century by a couple of immigrant preachers who took disparate passages from the Bible and wove them into a narrative that has captivated the imagination of millions of Americans.

Its outline is rather simple, if bizarre (the British writer George Monbiot recently did a brilliant dissection of it and I am indebted to him for adding to my own understanding): once Israel has occupied the rest of its "biblical lands," legions of the anti-Christ will attack it, triggering a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon. As the Jews who have not been converted are burned, the messiah will return for the rapture. True believers will be lifted out of their clothes and transported to heaven, where, seated next to the right hand of God, they will watch their political and religious opponents suffer plagues of boils, sores, locusts, and frogs during the several years of tribulation that follow.

I'm not making this up. Like Monbiot, I've read the literature. I've reported on these people, following some of them from Texas to the West Bank. They are sincere, serious, and polite as they tell you they feel called to help bring the rapture on as fulfillment of biblical prophecy. That's why they have declared solidarity with Israel and the Jewish settlements and backed up their support with money and volunteers. It's why the invasion of Iraq for them was a warm-up act, predicted in the Book of Revelation where four angels "which are bound in the great river Euphrates will be released to slay the third part of man." A war with Islam in the Middle East is not something to be feared but welcomed - an essential conflagration on the road to redemption. The last time I Googled it, the rapture index stood at 144 - just one point below the critical threshold when the whole thing will blow, the son of God will return, the righteous will enter heaven, and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire.

So what does this mean for public policy and the environment? Go to Grist to read a remarkable work of reporting by the journalist, Glenn Scherer - "The Road to Environmental Apocalypse." Read it and you will see how millions of Christian fundamentalists may believe that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed - even hastened - as a sign of the coming apocalypse.

Primitive thinking has a very high cost -- for the rest of us. Enjoy breathing and eating fish that isn't a birth control pill with gills? Maybe you should vote, the next time around, for people who don't think allowing pollution will be their ticket to flying out of their pajamas into heaven while all the rational people (and religious nutbags of other stripes) burn alive. For people who don't base their policy on stuff like the notion that Barney is the anti-Christ:

Barney the Dinosaur Because John, the writer of Revelation, would never have known what a dinosaur looked like, it's logical to assume he would have identified any vision of Barney as one of a dragon. Taking this into consideration, you might find the following Scriptures quite revealing: Revelation 12:3, "And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon…," Revelation 13:4, "And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?" Revelation 20:2, "And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years."

Posted by aalkon at 07:35 AM | Comments (0)

December 08, 2004

Low Marks For Bad Stats

Low Marks For Bad Stats

A UC Berkeley study by sociology prof Michael Hout and his grad students showing anomalies with Florida e-voting used a faulty equation, reports Kim Zetter in Wired:

The study, released three weeks ago by seven graduate students from the University of California, Berkeley's Quantitative Methods Research Team and sociology professor Michael Hout, presented analysis showing a discrepancy in the number of votes Bush received in counties that used touch-screen voting machines versus counties that used other types of voting equipment.

But Bruce McCullough, a decisions science professor at Drexel University in Philadelphia, and Binghamton University economics professor Florenz Plassmann released an analysis (.pdf) of the Berkeley report criticizing the results.

According to the Berkeley study, the number of votes granted to Bush in touch-screen counties far exceeded expectation, given a number of variables -- including the number of votes those counties gave Bush in 2000 -- while counties using other types of voting equipment gave Bush a predictable number of votes.

The analysis was not peer-reviewed, although Hout and the students said that seven professors examined their numbers. They would not speculate about what occurred with the voting machines, but voting activists on internet forums seized the study as proof of faulty voting machines or election fraud. Drexel University's McCullough, however, found fault with the study.

"What they did with their model is wrong, and their results are flawed," McCullough said. "They claim those results have some meaning, but I don't know how they can do that."

McCullough said they focused on one statistical model to conduct their analysis while ignoring other statistical models that would have produced opposite results.

"They either overlooked or did not bother to find a much better-fitting (statistical) regression model that showed that e-voting didn't account (for the voting anomalies)," McCullough said.

Charles Stewart, an MIT political science professor, called the study "the type of exercise that you do in a graduate data-analysis class" rather than as an academic paper.

"If I were to get this article as (an academic) reviewer, I would turn it around and say they were fishing to find a result," Stewart said. "I know of no theory or no prior set of intuitions that would have led me to run the analysis they ran."

Some red faces up there in Birkenstockville, I think.

Posted by aalkon at 08:26 AM | Comments (2)

Please Stay In Detroit

Please Stay In Detroit
Professional sap Mitch Albom makes the right decision. Sniff, sniff. Boo-hoo.

via Romenesko

Posted by aalkon at 07:20 AM | Comments (2)

December 07, 2004

They Never Say "God Thought She Was A Crappy Person"

They Never Say "God Thought She Was A Crappy Person...
So he took her out!" when people croak in accidents. A woman survived being impaled by a 12-foot metal fence post that pierced her through the mouth and exited the back of her neck after a car crash. When the emergency crew freed her, the fire chief instantly attributed her survival to god -- not simply random luck that she didn't end up two inches to the left or right:

"Talk about having an angel as a co-pilot," Fire Chief J.R. Rosencrans said. "On her rearview mirror she had a picture of the Madonna. You can tell she is a religious person."

Oh, and religious people never die horribly or anything, do they, chief? (I wonder if he thinks god makes a special effort to smite you if you have fuzzy dice or plastic titties dangling from the rear-view.)

Posted by aalkon at 09:47 AM | Comments (4)

Pee-Wee's Rig Adventure

Pee-Wee's Rig Adventure
A computer programmer says a congressman ordered up vote fraud code, writes John Byrne, at RAW STORY:

The programmer, Clinton Curtis, said that he was told the program needed to be “touch-screen capable, the user should be able to trigger the program without any additional equipment, [and that] the programming was to remain hidden even if the source code was inspected.”

Curtis asserts that he told Feeney it would be nearly impossible to write a code to change the voting results if anyone were able to view the source code.

“However,” he added, “if the code were compiled before anyone was allowed to review it then any vote fraud would remain invisible to detection.”

Nevertheless, he says that he was asked at the meeting by Yang to build the prototype anyway.

Curtis states he initially believed that Feeney’s sought to stop Democrats from using such a program and “wanted to be able to detect and prevent that if it occurred.”

It was not until after the prototype was delivered that he says he got wind of its possible, more nefarious usage.

According to his affidavit, Yang, his employer, later informed him that the software might be used to “control the vote in South Florida.” He says that he would never have developed the software had he known its alleged ultimate purpose.

The claim of naivité by the programmer is a little hard to believe...kind of like squealing, "Oh, I had no idea what they wanted with this huge facility filled with plutonium rods! They said they had a whole lot of toast to make."

via Metafilter

Posted by aalkon at 08:30 AM | Comments (1)

December 06, 2004

Jesus Of The Bronx?

Jesus Of Staten Island?
Well, maybe not, but Time and Newsweek both have stories debunking the born-in-Bethlehem notion, along with a few other more sacred "truths":

Among the conclusions in Time and Newsweek: Jesus was born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem; there is little evidence of three kings following a star, and the story of the virgin birth may have been borrowed.

"The Nativity saga is neither fully fanciful nor fully factual but a layered narrative of early tradition and enduring theology," Newsweek writes in examining the Sunday-school version of the birth of Christ.

This may be unwelcome "news" to most Americans. A Newsweek poll found that 55% of Americans believe every word in the Bible is literally true, 67% believe the entire Christmas story is literally true and 79% believe Jesus was born to the Virgin Mary with no human father.

Now, I know that the virgin birth story is quite popular as the unquestionable truth among "the faithful," despite the flagrant lack of anything more than the printed page to "prove" it actually happened...but how many believers who are dads would buy that one if little Ashley came home knocked up?

I just had three of these people trying to convince me to "accept Jesus as (my) personal savior" in a Detroit Starbucks this weekend. I explained that while I am highly rational, and thus have no idea whether there is or isn't a god, and really couldn't care less; I had, in the past, accepted Jesus (pronounced: "Hay-zeus") as my personal mechanic -- until that lummox cracked my carbureter.

When I tried to talk reason to one of the women, she told me she just knows there's a god because "Jesus is inside her." (Hmmm, and I thought she just needed to cut down on portion size.) Unfortunately, she was short on cash, or I might have made a killing selling her the bridge to Canada.

Posted by aalkon at 10:54 PM | Comments (15)

Jeff Jarvis Bitchslaps Brent Bozell

Jeff Jarvis Bitchslaps Brent Bozell
Brent Bozell, like Michael Powell, is vying to be the mommy of us all, with an attack on our freedoms combined with a personal attack on Jeff Jarvis. Jarvis comes to our rescue:

And I am an American but you do not speak for me. This is a nation built on free speech and a belief in tolerance and the value of the marketplace of ideas and the blessing of diversity. You are against all that. You try to stop the rest of us from watching what you think we should not watch. You disdain and condemn your fellow Americans and our culture because it does not match your idea of what it should be. That, sir, seems distinctly unAmerican to me.

You think you have some God-given right to tell us what we should and should not do. You do not.

But you know what? I think you should be able to watch whatever you want to watch, even if it is the 700 Club with its hate and homophobia. I would not presume to try to get it taken off the air for hate speech. I simply turn the channel. You should do the same.

And so now I'll get to the second fisking in two days (that's fisking not fisting, sir, a bloggers' word; please call off your complaint factory) with my response to King Prig. Note that I cannot do this on Bozell's site because he does not allow comments. I've already had a dialogue with one of his people in my comments and I continue that here because, Bozell, I'm an American and I believe in the free marketplace of ideas. So, to Bozell's "column":

Ever since exit-pollsters discovered a significant chunk of voters were casting their ballots based on which candidate stood for moral values - and most of those who chose that reason for their vote said they picked Republicans - the Hollywood crowd has tried to pick the idea apart, as conflicted, even ridiculous.

This is fun already. First, you know damned well -- oops, goshdarned well -- that exit poll in question was full of crap. In fact, you know what should really scare you (based on your own skewed mathematical analysis below): It should scare you that 100 percent of voters did not say they valued moral values. What about those other 78 percent, Brent? Are they all Democrats?

But, of course, the real truth is that all 100 percent of those voters do have moral values and value morals; they simply don't all have your moral values. And that is what makes America great. That is why this country was founded. That is the essence of America.

For you to say as you do here that morality = GOP is the clearest indication of your true agenda.

The anything-goes gang is suggesting we live in a pretty hypocritical country if we can profess our desire for moral leadership and make our number-one smash on television the ABC smut soap "Desperate Housewives."

You call it a smut soap. I call it a fun show. Fine. You change the channel and I won't. That's why we have tons of channels now. Go enjoy something else. Watch Bambi. I'll watch Desperate Housewives. Just leave me alone and we're both happy. Oh, but you don't want to leave me alone. You want to tell me what I can and cannot watch. I keep forgetting. You're our self-appointed censor. The unAmerican.

Posted by aalkon at 08:08 AM | Comments (10)

December 05, 2004

"Protecting" Away Gay Rights

"Protecting" Away Gay Rights
Bigoted Michigan voters who passed the so-called “marriage protection amendment” are yanking more than marriage from gays and lesbians in the state, writes Detroit News metro columnist Laura Berman:

But how much more? And what, really, does it say?

Gov. Jennifer Granholm doesn't know. Her minions negotiated same-sex domestic partner health benefits for 50,000 or so state workers beginning next Oct. 5 -- and then she put them on ice last week, citing "the legal cloud," created by the new amendment.

The attorney general doesn't seem to know. His spokesman, Randall Thompson, said nobody at the AG's office has researched the issue. But that's because not a single legislator or state official has asked Mike Cox for a legal opinion on what the amendment means.

He hasn't been asked about those six murky words that gunk up the amendment, making it mean more than a ban on marriage between same-sex partners. No Democrat is likely to ask him and no Republican has.

"If anyone says they know what 'similar union for any purpose,' means, they're either a fool or a liar," insists David Fink, who heads the Office of the State Employer.

So the state and UAW agree they're stuck. They can't, in the governor's words, "move forward," with the new benefits until they get clarification from a court.

But after news stories reported that Granholm had "yanked" the provision, and her office was deluged with angry phone calls and e-mail, she released a statement saying she "continues to support same-sex partner benefits."

What's clear, though, is that civil rights language that's standard across the country is now being scrutinized in state government as if it was weird. Now in doubt are benefits - including tuition discounts, medical and life insurance - that have been in place for Wayne State University employees, for example, for a decade.

Sick. While, as a fiscal fascist, I don't believe in relationship-privileging for anyone (ie, that you get to stick your husband, wife, or partner on your healthcare and your employer or the state picks up the tab), if that option is available to heteros it should be available to everybody.

Posted by aalkon at 11:37 AM | Comments (16)

Michael Powell As Mommy

Michael Powell As Mommy
This New York Times Letters To The Editor writer has a point: It's ridiculous and wrong that the FCC is stepping in for parents who aren't doing their job, thus narrowing the field of programming for the rest of us:

To the Editor:

Re "Don't Expect the Government to Be a V-Chip," by Michael K. Powell (Op-Ed, Dec. 3):

The most common reasoning I have heard quoted for greater government regulation over television and radio is that we must protect our children from programming that leads to moral degradation.

It strikes me as odd (as a parent) that parents have the wherewithal to determine which programming is unsuitable for their children, but apparently lack the capability to communicate this to their children by changing the channel, setting rules for television viewing, or simply removing the television completely.

Instead, it seems that parents would prefer to spend time complaining to the Federal Communications Commission in hopes that it will assist them in parenting their children.

When I was growing up, my parents shut the TV off during the weekdays, and allowed restricted viewing of programs during the weekend; somehow that approach today seems much more effective than looking to the F.C.C. to solve the problem.

What we need in our culture is more parent intervention, not more government intervention.

Mark Lisi
Briarcliff Manor, N.Y., Dec. 3, 2004

We weren't allowed to watch TV as kids, save Disney on Sunday nights, and a few other programs. Then again, my parents acted like parents (ie, fascists), not overgrown friends.

Posted by aalkon at 08:04 AM | Comments (5)

December 03, 2004

WeHo Bridges The Discrimination Gap

WeHo Bridges The Discrimination Gap
West Hollywood, CA, is registering gay partners so they can collect health benefits, among other things, writes Richard Fausset in the LA Times:

When Aimee Wilson asked about adding her gay partner to her corporate health insurance plan earlier this year, her employer told her it would be easy. All she had to do was get a government body to sanction the relationship.

But for Wilson, a resident of Frisco, Texas, that was going to require some fancy bureaucratic two-stepping, because the Lone Star State doesn't officially recognize same-sex partners.

Wilson found her solution 1,400 miles away at West Hollywood's City Hall, where, for a $25 fee, the clerk placed Wilson and her then-pregnant partner, Margaret Richmond, on the city's domestic partnership registry in March. The couple dropped their check and a notarized application in the mail. Richmond made the company's health insurance rolls in time to deliver twins.

"It really felt weird, especially having to go all the way across the country to get it," Wilson said in a phone interview recently. "But it was kind of neat. We even got a certificate."

As the new gay rights battles rage across the American landscape, creating a conflicting, state-by-state patchwork of rules on marriages and domestic partnerships, West Hollywood is among a handful of state and local governments that have been quietly reaching out to gay couples beyond their borders. The city offers to officially sanction unconventional relationships and, just as important, to do it by mail, saving out-of-state partners the cost of a plane ticket.

The policies are by no means as dramatic as those in San Francisco, where Mayor Gavin Newsom allowed gay couples to marry this year, until the actions were blocked by the California Supreme Court. Despite its cachet with insurance programs, the registration has no legal status outside the city boundaries.

But the registrations exemplify the peculiar jurisdiction-shopping gay couples are employing to maximize their rights in a deeply divided country.

Other governments that allow nonresident couples to register by mail include the city of Seattle and the states of Hawaii and California. The Golden State enacted its domestic partners law in 1999. A California secretary of state spokeswoman said the out-of-state provisions were necessary to extend pension benefits to former state employees who had moved elsewhere — and also to help non-Californians sign up for corporate health insurance benefits.

But it is West Hollywood's pioneering domestic partner registry, created in 1985, that remains one of the country's best known, with its mail-in procedures listed on a number of gay rights websites. This year, the city's loose registration rules have enticed 193 out-of-state couples to register — accounting for about 60% of West Hollywood's total domestic partnership rolls for 2004.

They are gay couples who are not allowed to marry and straight couples who choose not to. Many of their hometowns — such as Grain Valley, Mo., and Waveland, Miss. — are cultural galaxies from the raucous boys' town bars of Santa Monica Boulevard.

This brings up an interesting point -- straight couples who choose not to. We are legislated by religious hand-me-down to have only marriage as the recognizable form of committed relationship. If my boyfriend gets sick, I won't be allowed to visit him in the hospital. Committed partners aren't allowed on each other's health insurance. If you love somebody from, say, Italy, you must marry them if you want to be with them, or they might not be allowed to stay in the country. We need a registered partner agreement in the USA, like the PACs in France, to allow people to make a commitment to each other in the way that works for them; not necessarily lifelong, but dissolvable, like the PACs is, by one or the other partner going to city hall and saying it's dissolved. Oh, and P.S. Don't make me laugh by saying marriage is a lifelong commitment. Seen the line at divorce court lately?

Posted by aalkon at 03:28 PM | Comments (15)

Frozen Tundra

Frozen Tundra
I'm in Detroit, frozen solid, after arriving on the red-eye. More blog items after I thaw.

Posted by aalkon at 09:09 AM | Comments (3)

The 10 Least Successful Holiday Specials Of All Time

And A Lump Of Coal To You, Too!
The 10 Least Successful Holiday Specials Of All Time. Hilarious. Here's my favorite:

Ayn Rand's A Selfish Christmas (1951)

In this hour-long radio drama, Santa struggles with the increasing demands of providing gifts for millions of spoiled, ungrateful brats across the world, until a single elf, in the engineering department of his workshop, convinces Santa to go on strike. The special ends with the entropic collapse of the civilization of takers and the spectacle of children trudging across the bitterly cold, dark tundra to offer Santa cash for his services, acknowledging at last that his genius makes the gifts -- and therefore Christmas -- possible. Prior to broadcast, Mutual Broadcast System executives raised objections to the radio play, noting that 56 minutes of the hour-long broadcast went to a philosophical manifesto by the elf and of the four remaining minutes, three went to a love scene between Santa and the cold, practical Mrs. Claus that was rendered into radio through the use of grunts and the shattering of several dozen whiskey tumblers. In later letters, Rand sneeringly described these executives as "anti-life."

Then again, how can't you go wrong with Zbigniew Brzezinski?

A Muppet Christmas with Zbigniew Brzezinski (1978)

A year before their rather more successful Christmas pairing with John Denver, the Muppets joined Carter Administration National Security Advisor Brezezinski for an evening of fun, song, and anticommunist rhetoric. While those who remember the show recall the pairing of Brzezinki and Miss Piggy for a duet of "Winter Wonderland" as winsomely enchanting, the scenes where the NSA head explains the true meaning of Christmas to an assemblage of Muppets dressed as Afghan mujahideen was incongruous and disturbing even then. Washington rumor, unsupported by any Carter administration member, suggests that President Carter had this Christmas special on a repeating loop while he drafted his infamous "Malaise" speech.

(via Reason's blog)

Posted by aalkon at 08:26 AM | Comments (1)

December 02, 2004

Tough Girls

Tough Girls
My friend, Cathy Seipp, who will bolt you to the courthouse wall and make you pay -- triple -- if you try to screw her over...and my friend, Emmanuelle Richard, who just graduated from private detective school, and posted this comment about the picture of her shooting a gun on Cathy's blog:

On the pic, I'm actually killing innocent bystanders on a simulation video at the FATS range (Firearms Tactics Scenario) so, any shooting tip is very welcome!

Did much better at the real range, though. The instructor suggested I hang the perforated target on my garage door with the inscription: "We shoot trespassers. Survivors will be shot again."

Lucy will just bite your head off. (If you have a head the size of a Ken doll's, that is.)

Posted by aalkon at 09:31 AM | Comments (4)

Larry, Moe, And Condi

Larry, Moe, And Condi
There's a scathing report by a Pentagon advisory panel, delivered in September, "but silently slipped onto a Pentagon Web site on Thanksgiving eve, and barely noticed by the U.S. press." That report, writes Sidney Blumenthal, calls Bush's "war on terror" an unmitigated disaster:

The Bush administration, according to the Defense Science Board, has misconceived a war on terrorism in the image of the Cold War -- "reflexively" and "without a thought or a care as to whether these were the best responses to a very different strategic situation." Yet the administration seeks out "Cold War models" to cast this "war" against "totalitarian evil." However, the struggle is not the West vs. Islam; nor is it "against the tactic of terrorism." "This is no Cold War," the report insists. While we blindly and confidently call this a "war on terrorism," Muslims "in contrast see a history-shaking movement of Islamic restoration" against "apostate" Arab regimes allied with the U.S. and "Western Modernity -- an agenda hidden within the official rubric of a 'War on Terrorism.'"

In this conflict, "wholly unlike the Cold War," the Bush administration's impulse has been to "imitate the routines and bureaucratic responses and mindset that so characterized that era." So the U.S. projects Iraqis and other Arabs as people to be liberated like those "oppressed by Soviet rule." And the U.S. accepts authoritarian Arab regimes as allies against the "radical fighters." All of this is nothing less than a gigantic "strategic mistake."

"There is no yearning-to-be-liberated-by-the-U.S. groundswell among Muslim societies -- except to be liberated perhaps from what they see as apostate tyrannies that the U.S. so determinedly promotes and defends. (Original emphasis.)" Rhetoric about freedom is received as "no more than self-serving hypocrisy," daily highlighted by the U.S. occupation in Iraq. "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather, they hate our policies." The "dramatic narrative since 9/11" of the "war on terrorism," Bush's grand justification, his story line connecting all the dots from the World Trade Center to Baghdad, has "borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars." As a result, jihadists have been able to transform themselves from marginal figures in the Muslim world into defenders against invasion and attack with a growing following of millions.

Thanks, Colin, for playing good soldier and going along, and thanks Condi, our Cold War go-to girl, who moonlights cleaning up PR messes.

Posted by aalkon at 08:29 AM | Comments (4)

Why All The Broadcasters Are Bending Over

Why All The Broadcasters Are Bending Over
Jeff Jarvis explains why 1994 was the last time a broadcaster challenged an FCC ruling:

Why? Well, because the FCC holds the broadcasters by their shrunken balls. The FCC holds it in its power to not only fine them but revoke their licenses and shut down their businesses -- as the FCC warned it would do in its Bono F-word decision.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely why 66 stations in this great nation refused to air Saving Private Ryan: They had been told by the FCC that airing the F word was illegal and could cost them their businesses.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is also why Viacom just castrated itself by paying a $3.5 million consent decree with the FCC that includes all kinds of onorous clauses and why the dickless Clear Channel settled its fines ... and why every broadcaster has settled every fine for a damned decade.

Thus, the First Amendment never gets its day in court. Thus, the fined broadcasters -- not to mention we, the people -- never get the chance to test the constitutionality of what the FCC is doing to free speech in this nation.

As for what the rest of us should be doing...

But in all fairness, it's not just the broadcasters who should be fighting.

Newspaper editorialists should have been defending the First Amendment when the FCC was going after Howard Stern. They didn't. They waited until they went after Private Ryan.

We on the internet should be fighting the FCC -- for they'll come after us next.

There is still a chance. Only 22 members of the House had the balls to vote for free speech and against the indecent indecency bill. The rest sang soprano because they didn't want to go home and be accused of voting for smut. Well, we need to give them cover. We need to pressure them to vote for free speech and the First Amendment and the Constitution and everything America holds holy.

So let's hear it, TV and radio executives and personalities. Let's hear it, editorialists. Let's hear it, journalists. Let's hear it, cable executives (they want to get you, too). Let's hear it, satellite executives (they want to get you, too). Let's hear it, internet executives. Let's hear it, bloggers.

It's time to fight back.

Posted by aalkon at 07:53 AM | Comments (3)

December 01, 2004

Today's Dopey Advice Requester

Today's Dopey Advice Requester
**Updated at bottom of entry!

In a message dated 11/30/04 2:59:13 PM, DopeyAdviceRequester@yahoo.com writes:

I have been whollped with bad energy and have lost alot of my life. Is it best I leave the area I am in (Rochester, NY) I would love to do what you do and I am an intuitive counselor and healer Besides the money to market my self, wha tis in my way?
--DopeyAdviceRequester (name changed to protect the idiotic)

Amy's response:
I'm highly rational, and I limit myself to giving love advice not career advice. There are books on writing for newspapers. It's pretty much impossible to syndicate yourself unless you're famous and a highly talented writer. "Wholloped with bad energy?" How about you take responsibility for your life. Read Nathaniel Branden, The Art Of Living Consciously, and Guide To Rational Living by Ellis. How about using reason instead of woo-woo intuition? It will get you far.

In a message dated 12/1/04 6:50:16 AM, DopeyAdviceRequester@yahoo.com writes:

Well, thank you foir responding For someone who give "love" advice, you hav eno compasssion I am a gifted healer and counsler who has been seriously harmed. Taking responsibility for my life has nothing to do with it I'll be sure to send you a lesson to adjust that for mind oriented attitude. Find your Heart
--Dopey Advice Requester

Amy's response:
Really? How are you harmed? Because I told you to take responsibility for your life? Woo, aren't I a bitch! You'll send me a "lesson"? So, let's see, you're a woo-woo feel good nicey-nicey person...except when you're sending out little packages of "bad karma"? You're hilarious. Thanks for the laugh. My heart is directly behind my lungs, last they looked at the doctor. Rationally yours, -Amy

UPDATE: Dopey writes back with a threat!

In a message dated 12/1/04 6:35:15 PM, DopeyAdviceRequester@yahoo.com writes:

More rude, tactless and hurtful words You need HELP I will send this to your editors

Amy's response:
Yes, this was a terribly shocking exchange, filled with suggestions that you boil puppies -- well, probably, somewhere between the lines of all that "be rational/take responsibility" advice. If you read my column, you'd know the editor picked it up because I don't mince words. I didn't with you, either. It's right in character. You simply don't like hearing my opinion that you should take responsibility for your life, not blame your problems on bad energy. Oooh, harsh! You can read more of the same in the paper every week. You might check out those books. One can never be too rational! Cheers! -Amy

Posted by aalkon at 08:01 AM | Comments (6)

November 30, 2004

Yeah, The Right Wing Is Sooo Pro-Pothead

Yeah, The Right Wing Is Sooo Pro-Pothead
David Bernstein worries that the outlook on Randy Barnett's case to allow medical marijuana (Raich v. Ashcroft) looks glum, according to Nina Totenberg, then blames it all on the "liberals" (a code word used by right-wingers for "turds who stand for everything that's wrong in the universe). Now, I'm no liberal, but I can smell horseshit just fine when somebody sticks it right under my nose; for example:

...I think that Randy did a great job. Whether that will be enough to overcome the statist liberal obssession with ensuring that every aspect of human life may be regulated by the federal government (despite a profound lack of constitutional legitimacy for such a position)...

Oh, please. Like the nutbag fundamentalists (read: right wingers, mainly) aren't riding the lead horses for the dumbass war on drugs -- along with about a dozen other dumb wars; all based on their selective interpretations of their favorite book of fables. And I say that as a libertarian more than anything else. Certainly not a Democrat. Or a turd...I mean, liberal.

Getting back to the case, here's an interesting excerpt Jim Lindgren pulled from Larry Solum's account of the proceedings.

Souter: Suppose that 100,000 people are in chemotherapy in California. Then couldn't there be 100,000 users of medical marijuana?

Barnett: There could be.

Souter: If there are 34 million people in California, then there could be 100,000 people in chemotherapy.

Barnett: It is important to remember that the law confines medical cannabis use to the people who are sick and have a physicians recommendation. Wickard v. Filburn's aggregation principle does not apply if the activity involved is noneconomic.

Souter: But isn't the argument that it is economic activity if it has a sizeable effect on the market?

Barnett: No. The effect on the market is only relevant if it is market activity.

Souter: But in Lopez wasn't the effect on the market much more remote than the effect involved in this case?

Barnett: The point is that economic activity and personal liberty are two different categories.

Souter: That is not a very realistic premise.

Barnett: The premise is that it is possible to differentiate economic activity from personal activity. Prostitution is economic activity, and there may be some cross substitution effects between prostitution and sex within marriage, but that does not make sex within marriage economic activity. You look at the nature of the activity to determine whether or not it is economic.

Breyer: If marijuana is medically helpful, can't your clients go to the FDA and get it rescheduled. Then if the FDA rules against them, they can go to court and the FDA ruling can be reviewed for abuse of discretion. And if there is no abuse of discretion, then wouldn't I believe as a judge and an individual that it is doubtful there is a medical benefit? Is medicine by regulation better than medicine by referendum?

RB: I would simply ask you to read the account of obstruction of research in the amicus brief and the Institute for Medicine report cited by both us and the government. It is true that marijuana is smoked, but that is because it saves the lives of some sick people.

Posted by aalkon at 08:53 AM | Comments (12)

November 29, 2004

Truth Or Mere Conspiracy Theory?

Truth Or Mere Conspiracy Theory?
Translator Sibel D. Edmonds and friends have something to spill about 9-11. Here's a letter about the letter -- posted by a guy who calls himself "a conservative Christian Republican." The actual letter follows at the link above:

A Conservative Christian Republican Says Listen To Whistleblower Sibel D. Edmonds
By Karl W. B. Schwarz
Online Journal Contributing Writer
11-21-4

The following is an open letter to Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General for the State of New York and William Casey, Chief Investigator for the Attorney General's Office. In fact, this was hand delivered to Mr. Spitzer's office before it was published as was a three-part expose I have written titled Pop Goes the Bush Mythology Bubble. That three-part article will break soon and is in the hands of investigators at this time.

Sibel D. Edmonds was one of the many multilingual translators hired by our FBI to help track down terrorists and anticipate their next moves. At least, that was the plan and the purported "job description."

Once Sibel was working inside the FBI she uncovered something, tried to go public with it when Attorney General John Ashcroft and her FBI superiors would not, and the Bush-Cheney-Ashcroft team slapped a gag order on her so you could not hear what this lady has to say. What she has to say directly relates to 9-11 and it totally disputes the Bush Mythology they want Americans to believe.

So listen up, America. Here is what Sibel uncovered - she found "drug trafficking, money laundering, foreign names and American names directly involved in the financing of the 9-11 attacks on WTC (World Trade Center) and the Pentagon." It was not the Saudis, folks. Americans were involved and Bush does not want you to know that. That exposes the Bush Mythology as the lie that it is.

Some of the names on our list are also on the list that Sibel Edmonds knows and found inside the FBI. We came at the problem through telecom fraud, international securities fraud and kept finding trails that led to the Caspian Basin, Pakistan, and former BCCI (Bank of Credit and Commerce) scam artists. Some of you might remember BCCI and that many called it Bank of Crooks and Criminals International and did so for good cause.

There was something else "odd" about what Sibel Edmonds found. The facts did not surface out of counter-terrorism (Richard Clarke's group); they surfaced out of ongoing investigations by the FBI, some of which date back to 1998.

Here's what Edmonds spilled previously: Her contention that the Department Of Justice asked her to retranslate and adjust her previous of terrorist intercepts to wash them of damning information.

(via Metafilter)

Posted by aalkon at 09:51 AM | Comments (2)

The Rules Of Baggage Claim

To The Mannerless Born And Raised
Jason Stone has a few tips for the boors in baggage claim. My favorite excerpts:

...If there is barely enough space between me and the person standing in front of me at the belt, please do not wedge yourself in between us. I really have no desire to see the 6 cm hair growing out of your ear or the moles on the back of your neck.

...While I find the site of all of the manly men hovering around the “opening” where the luggage first appears pretty funny, because it reminds me of bears when they are just sitting in the stream waiting for the salmon, I, also, find it really inefficient. Please spread yourselves out a little. The two minutes you are going to save by being the “first” to get the luggage will really not get you home any faster than me, because we all still have to wait for the bus/train/taxi next.

My personal pet peeve: People whose "carry-ons" could comfortably accomodate a dead body; maybe two; leaving zero room in the overhead bin for your handbag -- or even your change purse.

Posted by aalkon at 08:25 AM | Comments (1)

November 28, 2004

Elmo Got Tickled A Few Times Too Many

Elmo Got Tickled A Few Times Too Many

photo stolen from Gregg Sutter

Posted by aalkon at 04:01 PM | Comments (1)

How Lovely Are Your Labia?

How Lovely Are Your Labia?
Lip-lift, anyone? No, the other lips. Plastic surgery "down there" is, apparently, the next big thing. Mireya Navarro, poor dear, who is apparently assigned to the pussy beat at The New York Times, goes deep under cover to find out why:

"The women feel undesirable or unpretty," Dr. Stern said. "Even if nobody sees it, they see it."

The yoga instructor from Boston, who flew to Dr. Alter in Beverly Hills for a labiaplasty four years ago, said she was "asymmetrical": part of her inner vaginal lips extended about half an inch beyond the outer labia.

"The only women I could compare myself to was women in pornographic movies," she said. "They were tiny and dainty and symmetrical. Nobody looked like me."

...One patient, a 22-year-old college student from Toronto, said she had never had intercourse until after her labiaplasty because she felt "insecure and ugly" about excess labia tissue.

"It's just that when you feel bad about your body, especially this part of your body, it's kind of impossible to let your true feelings and passions show," she said.

Now, after the surgery last May, she said, "I have nothing to hide."

Some sex therapists are troubled that the emphasis on a youthful look in the doctors' ads are creating demand. And some pointed out that there are dissatisfied customers as well.

Dr. Laura Berman, director of a treatment clinic for female sexual dysfunction in Chicago, the Berman Center, said some of her patients complained that they ended up with pain or could no longer be sexually aroused after undergoing some of the procedures. Unlike most other cosmetic procedures, she said, genital plastic surgery has the potential to harm function.

"Any time you're having surgery that involves any kind of intervention in the genitals you're asking for trouble in regard with your sexual function," she said.

...Some plastic surgeons, who note that there is no such thing as "normal" female genitals, are scratching their heads.

"It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, to be honest," said Dr. Young, of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, who said he does a small number of labiaplasties in his practice in St. Louis. "I try to discourage most patients."

Even people in the pornographic film industry say there is no universal standard of beauty for genitals and that, in any event, men fantasize about the woman, not any one body part.

Mark Kernes, a senior editor with the trade magazine Adult Video News, said, "I really don't think most men care."

I know a very pretty (and horny) woman who had a few pounds on her, and was worried that men wouldn't want to have sex with her because of it. I told her most guys are just grateful that you're having sex with them; they aren't sitting around taking measurements of your thighs. Unless you can swing your labia round your neck and wear them as a scarf...are they really a problem?!!

Posted by aalkon at 08:04 AM | Comments (24)

November 27, 2004

The Most Important Lady In The Whole World!

The Most Important Lady In The Whole World!

Do you know who I am? I am verrrry important. Well, I must be, because, although I appear completely able-bodied, as does my ?grandson in the back seat, I felt compelled to park my Mercedes so it blocked the fire lane for over a half hour. Yes, I took up an entire lane just to park my car -- at exactly the point where cars need two lanes to get into the parking lot. While no fire engines or ambulances needed to get through, this caused many cars (and Hummers, ha!) to line up and wait for access to the single lane I left open. Well, that's the breaks, when you're as imporrtant as I am!

Posted by aalkon at 11:42 PM | Comments (12)

God's Won't

God's Won't
An Amish guy named Curtis Selby, 55, "doesn't believe in health insurance," writes Lucette Lagnado in The Wall Street Journal -- well, not when he's paying for it. How nice that he found his way to believing in other people kicking in when he got prostate cancer and treatment was projected to cost between $80,000 and $100,000. How come "god's will" becomes other people's generosity when it involves bringing out one's checkbook? The guy (who, Lagnado wrote, could afford health insurance, but chose not to have it because it doesn't agree with his religious beliefs) ended up sucking up "charity" funds that could have been used for somebody who "believes" in health insurance, but has fallen on hard times and doesn't have the money to pay for it:

...Mr. Selby threw a monkey wrench into the hospital's financial-aid apparatus by refusing to apply for Medicaid or Medicare, citing his religious principles. While his church doesn't forbid accepting Medicaid, Mr. Selby says that "individual convictions based on scriptures," guide him and others on health-care issues.

That was a big problem for UCSF. According to the hospital's policy, UCSF can write off some medical care as charity, but only if the person has been turned down for Medicaid or Medicare.

Mr. Selby and his wife went to meet UCSF's admissions director, Myriam Cabello. She decided to invoke a religious exception to the hospital's policy. She cited the fact that Mr. Selby couldn't apply to government health-care programs because of his beliefs, as a way to get around the rule. She also dipped into a private, philanthropic fund the hospital maintains to help cancer patients. The fund now stands at $213,000. Mr. Selby wasn't opposed to private charity.

The decision to decline health insurance is left to individuals, says Kenneth Landes, 72, a church elder. The Old German Baptist Brethren isn't a hierarchical organization. The estimated 6,000 to 7,000 members have local councils, and a standing committee of a dozen elders who meet once a year. Mr. Landes, who has served on the standing committee, says he has steered clear of commercial insurance out of a sense of community. "I felt that it is probably better that we would take care of ourselves and each other," he says.

In and around his community of Eldorado, Ohio, church members are assessed money each month for an "assurance" program to help pay medical bills of members who also haven't bought into health plans or HMOs. Some Brethren do purchase commercial insurance, Mr. Landes notes. He and others accept Medicare, he says, because they have paid into the system with their taxes. Others decline government health care.

Mr. Selby says UCSF delicately tried to determine what he could afford to pay for his cancer treatment. The figure $25,000 was suggested by a staffer at the cancer center, he says. He thought that was fair. He told them he would try to come up with that amount of cash.

At the same time, he was checking out other options. Months earlier, he had contacted Loma Linda University Medical Center in Loma Linda, Calif., which is well-known for its prostate-cancer treatment. The institution first quoted him an $80,000 treatment plan, he says.

After several phone discussions with officials at Loma Linda, the price came down dramatically, Mr. Selby says -- to between $36,000 and $38,000.

Cindy Schmidt, executive director of the patient-business office at Loma Linda said while they have a record of Mr. Selby's calls, they don't have records of any negotiations and can't comment. She added: "We make every effort to ensure that cash patients do not pay more than what an insurance company would pay."

Still, Mr. Selby was hoping that UCSF could work out a financial package for him. It did -- agreeing to do the treatment for one-fourth the cost of its initial estimate. Ms. Cabello approved the $25,000 price tag in late June 2003.

Mr. Selby's first radiation treatment began in July. At times, Mr. Selby would lug bins of sweet corn, tomatoes, and other fresh fruits and vegetables to the hospital -- and distribute them to therapists, the receptionist, office secretaries, and Dr. Roach, the physician recalls.

The UCSF hospital lost money treating Mr. Selby, says Ms. Cabello. Based on the hospital's list prices, his treatment cost $88,652. He came up with $25,000, and the philanthropic fund chipped in $34,000 -- for a total of $59,000. The rest will be written off as charity care.

And that makes me boil!

Posted by aalkon at 08:02 AM | Comments (3)

November 26, 2004

The Latest In Grilled Cheese Iconography

The Latest In Grilled Cheese Iconography
A miracle in Hello Kitty! Sold on eBay for $61!

Best of all, in the words of the seller:

I would like to add that this is item has 100% more miracles than other icon-in-grilled-cheese-sandwich auctions you may find on e-bay.

...Yesterday before the sandwich was even made my wife found over $4.00 in change while cleaning out her purse, Every single sock that has gone into the laundry has come back out, While making the sandwich we were able to get tickets to a sold out Jimmy Buffett concert, I can show the ticket stubs to the high bidder if they are interested, I would like all people to know that I do believe that this is Hello Kitty, That is my solem belief, but you are free to believe that she is whomever you like...

(via Volokh.com)

Posted by aalkon at 08:14 AM | Comments (7)

House Of Me Toos

House Of Me Toos
Thursday night, while my boyfriend was cooking our Thanksgiving dinner, I went for a run along the nearly desolate Sunset Boulevard, from Fairfax to Doheny and back. Street traffic was extremely light, and the sidewalks were bare except for the occasional homeless person.

A handful of people were eating dinner at Mel's and the few tourist trapperies open on the north side of the street. The only crowds were consolidated at two places: The Laugh Factory, for their annual freebie dinner for starving actors, and the House Of Blues, for "Cradle of Filth with Bleeding Through, Arch Enemy and Himsa." A few hundred people, mostly 20-somethings, snaked out of the club, clogging the sidewalk and spilling onto the street for an entire block.

The funny thing was, they were about as uniformly uniformed as an army of Wal-Mart employees: 400 sullen, aging children, rebelling against the dictates of a conformist society by looking almost exactly alike. Almost every single one of them was dressed in black -- either in a t-shirt with some parent-displeasing message (guys, mostly), or in a raggy melange of grunge and goth (most of the girls). Snarling faces and snarled, unwashed hair were unisex de rigeur. Not one seemed to pick up on the obvious irony: To be non-conformist in this particular sea of non-conformity, you'd have to show up wearing a raspberry cardigan sweater and a pair of jeans from The Gap -- or a McDonald's uniform and a smile.

Posted by aalkon at 07:38 AM | Comments (5)

November 25, 2004

Thanksgiving Culinary Tip

Thanksgiving Culinary Tip
Come on, be honest: Unless you're a particularly good cook, your turkey probably tastes like crumbled particle board! In my life, I have had one tender, juicy serving of turkey, and it was cooked by Mark Gaito, one of my favorite food whores, in New York City, in the late 80s. I would predict that occasional left-coast restaurant critic and fellow foodie, Nancy Rommelmann, makes a mouth-worthy one, too. As for most people's turkeys, however, Nicole Hollander offers some excellent advice -- which could be expanded to turkey in the pre-leftover stage:

Cooking tip. Wrap turkey leftovers in aluminum foil and throw them out.

Posted by aalkon at 09:52 AM | Comments (2)

Jesus As A Serial Killer

Jesus As A Serial Killer
"Roast the non-believers!" This is not your kinder, gentler Jesus that best-selling novelists Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins write for the fundamentalist set, but, as Nicholas Kristof notes in his New York Times column:

The "Left Behind" series, the best-selling novels for adults in the U.S., enthusiastically depict Jesus returning to slaughter everyone who is not a born-again Christian. The world's Hindus, Muslims, Jews and agnostics, along with many Catholics and Unitarians, are heaved into everlasting fire: "Jesus merely raised one hand a few inches and . . . they tumbled in, howling and screeching."

Gosh, what an uplifting scene!

If Saudi Arabians wrote an Islamic version of this series, we would furiously demand that sensible Muslims repudiate such hatemongering. We should hold ourselves to the same standard.

Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, the co-authors of the series, have both e-mailed me (after I wrote about the "Left Behind" series in July) to protest that their books do not "celebrate" the slaughter of non-Christians but simply present the painful reality of Scripture.

"We can't read it some other way just because it sounds exclusivistic and not currently politically correct," Mr. Jenkins said in an e-mail. "That's our crucible, an offensive and divisive message in an age of plurality and tolerance."

Silly me. I'd forgotten the passage in the Bible about how Jesus intends to roast everyone from the good Samaritan to Gandhi in everlasting fire, simply because they weren't born-again Christians.

I accept that Mr. Jenkins and Mr. LaHaye are sincere. (They base their conclusions on John 3.) But I've sat down in Pakistani and Iraqi mosques with Muslim fundamentalists, and they offered the same defense: they're just applying God's word.

What their particular word of god got me, as a little Jewish girl, was chased down the street in a Detroit suburb by Christian kids shouting "dirty Jew." When they weren't busy doing that, or throwing chairs at me in the junior high school hallway, or toiletpapering our trees, they were smashing pumpkins on our driveway or egging our house or shaving creaming the words "Dirty Jew" on our garage door. Want to talk reality, Mr. Jenkins and LaHaye? THAT is the reality of the shit you're shoveling.

Religion is about irrational belief in god, and it's based in primitive fears, and it leads far too many of the irrational believers to hate, be violent to others, and go out of their way to discriminate. It's backward, it's primitive, and it's depressing how many people believe in god, sans any reasonable proof (see Sam Harris quote) that there is one, instead of using their ability to reason -- which would get them to where I am: I have no idea whether there is or isn't a god, and I couldn't care less.

It's perfectly possible to be a good person without believing that somebody's going to smite you if you don't do as some book, supposedly handed down from the heavens, says you should. In fact, it's far more virtuous if you're good for goodness' sake, rather than because you think you're going to get something out of the deal. So, exactly how righteous are all of these believers?

Posted by aalkon at 08:45 AM | Comments (6)

Andrew Gumbel Talks Sense

Andrew Gumbel Talks Turkey About The Election
Okay, you can stop tapping your ruby-red slippers together. Listen to Andrew:

Okay, deep breath, and repeat after me: George Bush won the election. George Bush won fair and square. He won in Ohio. He won in Florida. And he carried the national popular vote by a margin of well over three million. He may be a bum, a bozo, a corporate shill, a reckless bomb-thrower or any of the other things his opponents like to call him, but the brute fact is that he’s the guy a clear majority of voters picked to lead the free(-ish) world for the next four years.

It might seem eccentric to have to insist on this point more than three weeks after John Kerry’s crystal-clear concession. But I keep having conversations with otherwise reasonable, intelligent people who are unshakable in their belief that the election was stolen. Some believe the fraud will come to light as soon as journalists like myself get off our rear ends and start digging. Others believe the evidence is already available for those with eyes to see it, and seem incredulous that I refuse to join their number.

Here’s what I tell them. Yes, there are ample grounds to question whether this election was conducted according to international standards of transparency and fairness. Yes, there are questions concerning just about every aspect of the vote, from registration to absentee procedures to provisional balloting to polling-station access to the reliability of the voting machines and the accuracy of the final count.

Precisely because of those concerns, however, it is essential to work on the basis of real evidence and real numbers, not wishful thinking. And the real evidence, to date, indicates that Bush won by too wide a margin for any of the irregularities to make a difference to the outcome.

But but but, my friends and e-mail correspondents counter, how can the exit polls have got it so wrong? How come the variance in the actual results consistently favored Bush, never Kerry? What about the Florida counties with high Democratic registration which were recorded voting overwhelmingly for Bush? What about all the uncounted punchcard votes and provisional ballots in Ohio?

Unfortunately, many of these questions are based on published reports that are wild, grossly irresponsible and, in many cases, flat wrong. Take Greg Palast’s assertion, days after the election, that Kerry won Ohio and therefore the presidency, because the uncounted ballots were more than enough to overcome his 136,000-vote deficit. Palast had absolutely no basis for knowing how the uncounted votes might pan out, and his arithmetic made assumptions about the levels of hidden support for Kerry that simply did not withstand serious analysis. (Salon’s Farhad Manjoo has done a particularly good job of demolishing his numbers.)

Or take Thom Hartmann’s piece on the Common Dreams website alerting the world to the Democrat-registered Florida counties which voted for Bush. He and his source, a mathematician called Kathy Dopp, said the tabulation of these optically scanned votes was so out of line it must have fallen victim to partisan hacking, starting as early as 2002. Clearly, Hartmann and Dopp were unaware that these counties were part of the redneck Solid South which long since started switching allegiance from Democrat to Republican. And they didn’t bother to check that every one of them voted for Bush over Gore in 2000.

Posted by aalkon at 06:28 AM | Comments (2)

November 24, 2004

Theocrap

Picking Up After Your Dogma
A remarkable comment about our theocratic, ever-so-sure-he's-doing-god's-will president, by John Johnson, of Encino, in Tuesday's LA Times:

An Abiding Faith in Democracy's Power

After reading Jonathan Sacks' commentary, "Religion's Eternal Life" (Nov. 19), I wished he had expanded more on his key premise. In describing why the world began to reject theocracy in the 18th century, he states, "men and women of goodwill lost faith in the ability of religious believers to live peaceably with one another." This a remarkable observation because it marks the point in history where the world split into two camps: Those who were sure they were right, and those who weren't so sure.

Theocracies are driven by dogmatic, uncompromising belief systems, while secular governments are more tolerant and accommodating. A democratic leader is, by definition, unsure of his decisions. He seeks the counsel of others, considers opposing views and frequently agonizes over the consequences of his decisions. His self-doubt governs his behavior, while the people who "know" have no such inhibiting mechanism.

Only those who are totally certain of their place in heaven can strap on a suicide vest and blow themselves up on a busy street crowded with women and children. A person uncertain of his salvation, or even of God's existence, is more likely to seek understanding and place a higher value on his or her life.

The great irony here is that the person who is unsure is the one who is acting on faith, because real faith cannot exist without a seed of doubt.

Posted by aalkon at 08:21 AM | Comments (7)

November 23, 2004

Testing 1-2-3

Tuesday's Fascinating Construction Update
Lucy Riccardo here. I made a bit of a techno-mess by pushing the wrong button at 3am, which is why the site still has a few bugs in it. To the uninitiated, this page is my blog (we're bouncing the old URL to this page, but if you're looking for columns or articles, click the red links to the left). Gregg is gluing the shards of broken glass back together into a Web site. You can comment now, although you may get an error message, but your comment will post. We're getting closer!

Posted by aalkon at 10:33 AM | Comments (8)

Amy Alkon, Stripper

Hugs And Juggs
For all those out there who are up nights wondering if I'm a real redhead, I should soon be moonlighting as a stripper, in the airport nearest me.

Lucy, the sock thief, picks up the slack after an in-home strip session.

There was yet another article about TSA pat-downs in today's New York Times, by Joe Sharkey, complete with tales of passengers (mainly female) enduring boob and genital feelie sessions by security workers:

A provision in the new rules - which says that a screener's "visual observation" of a passenger is enough to order a secondary screening - seems to single out women, something that many women searched attribute to a belief that bras are good places to conceal nonmetallic explosives.

The provision states, "T.S.A. policy is that screeners are to use the back of the hand when screening sensitive body areas, which include the breasts (females only), genitals and buttocks."

At the Fort Lauderdale airport on Nov. 5, Ms. (Patti) LuPone says she removed her shirt after vehemently protesting, revealing the thin, see-through camisole that she was wearing. Next, she was given a pat-down by a screener who, she said, "was all over me with her hands," including touching her groin area and breasts.

Ms. LuPone said she demanded an explanation. "We don't want another Russia to happen," she said one of the screeners told her.

Nancy Davis Kho, a financial data developer from Oakland, Calif., said, "They're totally overlooking the need to preserve a person's dignity." Ms. Kho said she was mortified at La Guardia Airport in New York on Sept. 28, when a female screener patted her down, "running her hands under bra straps and just about everywhere else," while other passengers gawked.

Lu Chekowsky, an advertising executive from Portland, Ore., said her cosmetics case set off the alarm at the airport there a couple of months ago. Since then, she says, she has been patted down so many times that she has taken to wearing baggy trousers, flip-flops and a big sweatshirt to make the procedure less onerous.

"Routinely, my breasts are being cupped, my behind is being felt," Ms. Chekowsky said. "And I feel I can't fight it. If I were to say anything, I picture myself being shipped off to Guantánamo."

Male screeners can do the pat-downs when female screeners are not available, but female passengers have the option of waiting until a woman can be found.

Ms. Maurer, the executive from Washington, reluctantly agreed to a search by a male security officer when a woman was not available. After he gave her a full body pat-down, she said, "he lifted my shirt and looked down the back of my pants.''

"I said, 'I am really uncomfortable having you feel me up,' but I basically had no choice. It was either that or miss my flight."

Well, I'm glad I'm a runner, because I will lickety-split strip right down to my bra and thong -- or less -- before I let some TSA worker start groping me. Moreover, if I'm feeling huffy enough about it (because this wouldn't be happening if nobody believed in god), I will not wait until I get behind some curtain to do it. In fact, I might just make people in line wonder what happened to the flashing strobe lights and the greased-up pole. Just stuff your 20-dollar bills in my thong, people!...just as soon as I can yank it out of the TSA guy's teeth and get it back on.

Posted by aalkon at 09:04 AM | Comments (4)

Dial-A-Dong

Dial-A-Dong
Porn might be just a cell phone call away, writes Peter J. Howe in The Boston Globe:

The lure of pornography helped drive the mass-market adoption of videocassette recorders, satellite television, and the World Wide Web.

Now, history could repeat itself in the world of cellphones -- specifically, the newest generation of cellphones, which sport high-resolution color screens and connections to super-fast data networks that can stream X-rated photos and film clips straight to the handset.

Adults-only wireless websites have begun sprouting in many regions, including Europe and Australia, that are generally a year or more ahead of the United States in adopting advanced wireless technology. In Britain, the profusion of adult sites and the interest in them has forced the six major British wireless carriers to develop ways to block people younger than 18 from getting access.

As implausible as the idea of trying to look at pornographic images on a screen of only three square inches may seem, some industry analysts think a combination of novelty, and especially privacy -- unlike a computer, a phone can be used almost anywhere -- make cellphones an appealing way for some to view pornography.

Almost all of the content available today via cellphone is found on foreign websites. US cellphone users with Web access plans can already download images -- as explicit as anything that's found on the Internet -- without dialing an overseas number. They simply use the Web browsers in their cellphones. Usually, the sites offer free access.

Playboy Enterprises Inc., which recently added Spain and Portugal to the dozen other countries where it is licensing adult content for cellphones, says it hopes to reach the US market within the next several months.

US wireless carriers already offer pictorial and digital content, including television-style news clips, and roughly one-fifth of the 171 million US cellphone owners carry handsets that can receive full-color digital photos and video.

Since it seems unlikely a cell porn user will have a screaming orgasm while seated next to me at a café, cell porn calls might just be a major improvement over loud cell phone calls by the poorly raised.

(via ObscureStore)

Posted by aalkon at 08:48 AM | Comments (2)

November 22, 2004

Soak The Middle Class

Soak The Middle Class
In short, that's George Bush's idea of a tax plan -- eliminating incentives for employers to offer health plans, AND disallowing the deduction of state taxes from federal ones, write Jonathan Weisman and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum in The Washington Post. No, I'm not making this up:

The Bush administration is eyeing an overhaul of the tax code that would drastically cut, if not eliminate, taxes on savings and investment, but it is unlikely to try to replace the existing tax code with a single flat income tax rate or a national sales tax, according to several sources familiar with ongoing tax deliberations.

During his reelection campaign, President Bush piqued interest among conservatives and liberals alike when he said replacing the income tax with a national sales tax was "an interesting idea." Just after the election he signaled that tax policy would be a centerpiece of his domestic agenda, reiterating his pledge to name a bipartisan panel to draft a fundamental tax reform proposal. That sent conservatives scurrying into either the flat tax or sales tax camp to muster political momentum.

Administration officials have begun dialing back expectations that they will move to scrap the current graduated income tax for another system.

Instead the administration plans to push major amendments that would shield interest, dividends and capitals gains from taxation, expand tax breaks for business investment and take other steps intended to simplify the system and encourage economic growth, according to several people who are advising the White House or are familiar with the deliberations.

The changes are meant to be revenue-neutral. To pay for them, the administration is considering eliminating the deduction of state and local taxes on federal income tax returns and scrapping the business tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance, the advisers said.

Smart guy, that George Bush, charging the people who didn't vote for him the most (that would be New York and California, the states that have disproportionately high taxes).

Posted by aalkon at 04:16 PM | Comments (1)

November 21, 2004

How To Be A Good Houseguest

How To Be A Good Houseguest
The chapter I wrote for the book, The Experts' Guide To 100 Things Everyone Should Know How to Do, is mentioned in today's New York Times Styles section:

Amy Alkon, also known as the Advice Goddess, can come stay with me anytime. Her advice on how to be a good houseguest — be neat, be quiet, leave soon — flows from this essential truth.

"People are annoying," she writes. "All people. Including you, me and Jennifer Aniston. Like the rest of us, you're loud, messy, demanding and unsightly, with numerous irritating habits, which degenerate from irritating to excruciating the longer you're around."

I guess, now, I should write another whole book, not just go chapter by chapter.

Posted by aalkon at 01:08 AM | Comments (2)

The People Have Spoken

The People Have Spoken! (But What Were They Saying?)
Math prof John Allen Paulos finds it difficult to draw statistical conclusions from the Bush victory:

George Bush's election has generated far too many ill-founded conclusions about the US electorate. Despite Bush's assertions to the contrary, the voters certainly did not give him a mandate to further "traditional moral values" (or, indeed, to do anything else).

No deep theorem in arithmetic is needed to see that the 51% of the electorate who voted for him constitute a bare majority. The outcome looks even more questionable in the electoral college. Bush received approximately 130,000 more votes than John Kerry in Ohio, so if 65,000 Bush voters in the state had switched, we'd now be talking about president-elect Kerry.

Looking back over recent elections strengthens the view that no seismic realignment of the electorate has occurred. Of the last four presidential elections, the Democratic candidate has received a greater popular vote in three and a greater electoral vote in two.

Excuse my mathematician's obsession with coin flips, but consider this. There is a large bloc of people who will vote for the Republican candidate no matter what, and a similarly reliable Democratic bloc of roughly the same size. There is also a smaller group of voters who either do not have fixed opinions or are otherwise open to changing their vote.

To an extent, these latter people's votes (and thus elections themselves) are determined by chance (external events, campaign gaffes, etc).

So what conclusion would we draw about a coin that landed heads two or three times out of four flips (or about a sequence of two or three Democratic victories in the last four elections)? The answer, of course, is that we would draw no conclusions at all.

He has some interesting ideas about the propensity for conclusion-drawing:

One reason we tend to draw far-reaching conclusions about elections is the charming superstition that significant events must be the consequence of significant events.

This psychological foible is illustrated by an experiment in which a group of subjects is told that a man parked his car on a hill. It then rolled into a fire hydrant. A second group is told that the car rolled into a pedestrian.

The members of the first group generally view the event as an accident; the members of the second generally hold the driver responsible. People are more likely to attribute an event to an agent than to chance if it has momentous or emotional implications. Likewise with elections.

Posted by aalkon at 12:19 AM | Comments (1)

November 18, 2004

The List Of Things That Don't Grow On Trees

The List Of Things That Don't Grow On Trees
Well, I guess we can cross off Hostess Ding-Dongs.

Posted by aalkon at 08:14 AM | Comments (8)

November 17, 2004

Letters From The "Dissent Not Welcome Here" Democracy

Letters From The "Dissent Not Welcome Here" Democracy
After posting this piece critical of notsorryeverybody.com, I got a few well-reasoned letters...like this one:

Amy, if, as you say, you're really "ashamed of our country", then why don't you just get the HELL OUT, and move to Iran, Cuba, or North Korea?? I'm sure they would love to have people who are ashamed of America as their citizens. America is MY country, and right or wrong, she is still my country!! How dare you say that you're ashamed of MY AMERICA!! By the way, if you do decide to leave, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out....good riddence!!

This was my response:

You don't get it, do you? America has been about freedom of speech. I'm ashamed to live in a place where people vote to discriminate against other people. This is horrible -- as was denying blacks civil rights -- another shameful chapter in our history. It doesn't mean I am not American, or proud of many other things in our as-of-yet still-free society. The solution, when something is flawed, isn't to leave, but to change things so they are right. I don't see a better country than America, but I'm deeply disturbed at the way irrational religious fanatics are taking over. It's people with views like yours, who want to end discussion rather than be honest about what's wrong, that promote the wrongs continuing. -Amy

Posted by aalkon at 08:48 AM | Comments (20)

Let's Keep The Crooks In Power!

Let's Keep The Crooks In Power!
The GOP apparently doesn't care if you're a crook, as long as you're one of their crooks, according to a Washington Post story by Charles Babington. House Republicans proposed changing their rules to allow members indicted by state grand juries to remain in their posts. Surprise, surprise, this might just benefit Majority Leader Tom DeLay, in case he's charged by a Texas grand jury, that's already indicted three of his political associates:

House GOP leaders and aides said many rank-and-file Republicans are eager to change the rule to help DeLay, and will do so if given a chance at today's closed meeting. A handful of them have proposed language for changing the rule, and they will be free to offer amendments, officials said. Some aides said it was conceivable that DeLay and Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) ultimately could decide the move would be politically damaging and ask their caucus not to do it. But Rep. Jack Kingston (Ga.), another member of the GOP leadership, said he did not think Hastert and DeLay would intervene.

House Republicans adopted the indictment rule in 1993, when they were trying to end four decades of Democratic control of the House, in part by highlighting Democrats' ethical lapses. They said at the time that they held themselves to higher standards than prominent Democrats such as then-Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.), who eventually pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to prison.

The GOP rule drew little notice until this fall, when DeLay's associates were indicted and Republican lawmakers began to worry that their majority leader might be forced to step aside if the grand jury targeted him next. Democrats and watchdog groups blasted the Republicans' proposal last night.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said last night: "If they make this rules change, Republicans will confirm yet again that they simply do not care if their leaders are ethical. If Republicans believe that an indicted member should be allowed to hold a top leadership position in the House of Representatives, their arrogance is astonishing."

Posted by aalkon at 07:30 AM | Comments (3)

November 16, 2004

Just Another Monday Night In Paradise

Just Another Deadline Night In Paradise
There are worse places to be huddled over a paragraph.

Posted by aalkon at 09:33 AM | Comments (12)

Jeff Jarvis Is My Free-Speech Hero

Jeff Jarvis Is My Free-Speech Hero
Guess how many viewer complaints the FCC got before they levied a 1.2 million dollar "indecency" fine on Fox: 3,000? Nope. 300? Nuh-uh. Just three. Jeff Jarvis is calling the FCC's sweaty little autocrats on their shit -- here -- and here. Here's a copy of the e-mail (simply brilliant) he wrote to protest the use of "the 'F' word" on "Saving Private Ryan":

I am filing a complaint regarding the airing of "Saving Private Ryan" on WABC TV in New York between 8 and 11 p.m. on Thursday, Nov. 11.

I heard the word "fuck" -- or variants of it -- three times in one sentence.

I personally believe that the FCC should not be regulating or overseeing speech in any way and should not be in a position to fine speech. I further believe the FCC's actions in this arena are unconstitutional as is the new indecency legislation about to give you further power to fine.

However, because you have declared that Bono violated the law for saying "fuck" you must find that WABC and every other ABC outlet that aired "Saving Private Ryan" violated the law. There is no difference. Because you have fined Howard Stern far more for what many would argue is far less -- even for mere fart sounds -- you must fine WABC and other ABC outlets.

You made this bed, FCC. Now lie in it.

I am very serious about this complaint. I am not just making a statement. I am making a formal complaint and believe that you must be consistent in your enforcement of this law and regulation. Yes, I will tell you that I relish your embarrassment at having to fine very ABC outlet that aired "Saving Private Ryan" for every instance of a "bad" word or deed. I relish the opportunity to point out the absurdity and Constitutional offensiveness this law and of your inconsistent enforcement. And thus, I file this complaint with all seriousness. I received no reply to a prior complaint I filed against Oprah Winfrey for the same alleged sins that brought Howard Stern huge fines. I expect a reply to this complaint.

Sincerely,
Jeffrey Jarvis

Go to the links above, and pitch in a letter of your own. Or just copy his! That, apparently, works just fine with the profanity nannies at the FCC.

Posted by aalkon at 08:49 AM | Comments (0)

Rewriting Private Ryan

Rewriting Private Ryan
Syndicated editorial cartoonist Jeff Danziger gets janitorial:

Tentatively titled "Praying for Private Ryan," the story cleans up some of the gore and all of the language. Here are some examples:

Off camera, a howitzer tears Tom Hanks' friend in two. "Well, double hockey sticks to that," exclaims Tom, speaking from the heart.

Up the beach we go, through enemy fire, crawling over bodies and wrecked materiel. Finally unable to stand any more carnage, Tom cries out: "Darn these Germans, anyhow!"

In one of my favorite scenes, Tom is approached by a fresh-faced young corporal. "I'm worried, sir," the soldier says. "We've run out of ammunition!" "Fudge!" Tom says.

"What?" asks the young lad, appropriately shocked.

"I mean fiddlesticks!"

It's not easy writing this stuff, trying to be accurate and yet OK for prime-time TV. But I and my fellow script doctors have done our homework, and we've based the best lines on actual soldiers' memoirs. Some of these lines are just great, punctuating the fire and smoke of battle with pithy, yet morally valuable, sentiments. For example, "Drat, there goes my leg!"; "I'd like to kick Hitler in the pants!"; and the searing, "By Jiminy, we're all going to die."

Finally, Private Ryan is located, ("There you are, you son of a biscuit!") and a happy ending is appended. The audience is happy, the FCC is happy and the execs at the ABC affiliates are happy. Most important, the true picture of men at war is provided to a country now somewhat fearful about the nature of armed conflict, even when led by men of towering faith. The lesson is that if soldiers are fighting for freedom and democracy they can get the job done without a lot of bad words.

Posted by aalkon at 05:05 AM | Comments (0)

November 15, 2004

The Lotsa Spin Zone

The Lotsa Spin Zone
According to "knowledgeable sources," The White House has ordered CIA director Porter Goss to purge the CIA of those who don't march in lockstep with the Bush party line of "Everything's A-OK, Everywhere, All The Time." These would be "leakers and liberal Democrats," according to a former CIA official quoted by Newsday's Knut Royce:

Tensions between the White House and the CIA have been the talk of the town for at least a year, especially as leaks about the mishandling of the Iraq war have dominated front pages.

Some of the most damaging leaks came from Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit, who wrote a book anonymously called "Imperial Hubris" that criticized what he said was the administration's lack of resolve in tracking down the al-Qaida chieftain and the reallocation of intelligence and military manpower from the war on terrorism to the war in Iraq. Scheuer announced Thursday that he was resigning from the agency.

Remember democracy? You might not remember it much longer. Every day, the news is peppered with evidence that it's on its way out -- like the disturbing purge above of any agents who aren't literally "right-thinking" -- and the pressure on Arlen Spector to march in toy-soldier lockstep with the Bush administration...or else. I'm sorry, but am I living in Santa Monica, CA, or Santa Monica, USSR?

Posted by aalkon at 03:54 PM | Comments (5)

November 14, 2004

Whatever Happened To The Muumuu?

Whatever Happened To The Muumuu?
(With emphasis on the Moooo! Moooo!)

the inscription at left, in case you can't read it, is "SexyMama"

This "pregnancy-positive" business has gone way too far. If you are pregnant, the world will thank you not to let it all hang out, big, round and distended, in some teeny-weenie little tee-shirt. No, it is not sexy. It is not even attractive, no matter what you'd like to believe.

Yesterday, Lena and I saw a woman at our local hippie haus of coffee whose huge abdomen seemed to be swelling and forming new stretch marks while she stood there talking to us. She apparently saw no reason to cover the offending swath of naked skin bloating out from what effectively was her baby-tee. "Sexy Mama"? Sure -- to the casting director for Roger Corman's next alien horror movie. The rest of us will just have to avert our eyes.

Posted by aalkon at 08:09 AM | Comments (21)

Somebody Else's Child Left Behind

Somebody Else's Child Left Behind
From The New York Times Magazine's Letters page, this woman has a point:

I loved the letter (Oct. 31), in response to Ron Suskind's Oct. 17 article from a writer who said that her vote goes to George Bush because he would "call out the Marines" in the war on terror, whereas John Kerry would seek world support and consensus, and she wants her kids to be safe. Clearly, she's counting on some other mother to supply those marines. Patricia Monger Hamilton, Ontario

Posted by aalkon at 07:19 AM | Comments (8)

November 13, 2004

Deeply Disturbed By Off-Color Jokes?

Deeply Disturbed By Off-Color Jokes?
Well, then don't take a job that involves hearing a lot of off-color jokes! Seems simple, huh? Except to Amaani Lyle, a former writer's assistant on Friends, who's looking to score some cash via her harrassment case now before the California Supreme Court. She did try to play the racism card, too, with zero proof that there actually was any, but that didn't fly:

After being told that she was fired for typing too slowly, Lyle filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Warner Bros. Television Productions Inc. and the producers and writers she had worked under for four months in 1999. She alleges that they created a hostile work environment.

The writers counter that they have the right � or even a need � to discuss personal sexual experiences as they search for compelling and often titillating plots.

The case, which is before the California Supreme Court, represents a collision of sexual harassment law and the 1st Amendment's protection of free speech.

The state's highest court must decide whether the suit can go to trial, and, in the process, answer a question that few appeals courts have tackled: Does an employee have a right not to be to subject to offensive sexual conversations and profanities at work even when the work involves writing for a show that deals with sexual material?

The court's ruling may determine whether laws designed to protect workers from sexual, racial and other kinds of discrimination in the workplace should be limited when the offensive conduct occurs during a creative process.

The entertainment industry and the media have lined up behind the writers, arguing that their controversial remarks were protected by the 1st Amendment.

The comments were not aimed directly at Lyle and were made while writing a show about sexually active young adults, they point out. And Lyle has acknowledged that she was warned before she was hired that she would be subjected to racy discussions.

"The show deals with sex and sexual references and anatomical references," said Adam Levin, a lawyer for Warner Bros. and the writers and producers they employed. "It is axiomatic that writers need to talk about sex, joke about sex and laugh about sex."

Women's legal groups, legal aid lawyers and employment attorneys are siding with Lyle. They fear the case could decimate anti-discrimination laws by limiting them in so-called communicative industries such as television, movies and newspapers.

"We are dealing with [the entertainment] industry, where I am sure there has been longtime sex discrimination," said Elizabeth Kristen, project director for the Legal Aid Society's Employment Law Center. "Do they think they should get a pass from age discrimination as well by saying they are making TV shows for a youthful audience?"

Some of the show's writers, in sworn depositions, admitted that they told stories of oral sex, simulated masturbation as a way of saying they were wasting time, talked about anal sex and altered an inspirational calendar to change the word "happiness" to "penis."

Lyle complained that one of the writers, Gregory Malins, often spoke of his fetish for blond cheerleaders, how he liked "young cheerleaders with pigtails and short skirts."

Ooh, the horror...the horror! I guess, as a woman, I'm supposed to be deeply disturbed -- wounded, even -- at hearing about Malins' alleged cheerleader fetish...but I'm not too sure why. What this suit should put a chill on, if Lyle wins, is not just free speech, but hiring women (who are more likely to be prissy -- or see the opportunity to get prissy for dollars).

Posted by aalkon at 01:30 PM | Comments (1)

November 12, 2004

Red State, Blue State

Red State, Blue State
A Blue Stater tells the Red Staters where to put it:

Let�s talk about those values for a fucking minute. You and your Southern values can bite my ass because the blue states got the values over you fucking Real Americans every day of the goddamn week. Which state do you think has the lowest divorce rate you marriage-hyping dickwads? Well? Can you guess? It�s fucking Massachusetts, the fucking center of the gay marriage universe. Yes, that�s right, the state you love to tie around the neck of anyone to the left of Strom Thurmond has the lowest divorce rate in the fucking nation. Think that�s just some aberration? How about this: 9 of the 10 lowest divorce rates are fucking blue states, asshole, and most are in the Northeast, where our values suck so bad. And where are the highest divorce rates? Care to fucking guess? 10 of the top 10 are fucking red-ass we're-so-fucking-moral states. And while Nevada is the worst, the Bible Belt is doing its fucking part.

But two guys making out is going to fucking ruin marriage for you? Yeah? Seems like you're ruining it pretty well on your own, you little bastards. Oh, but that's ok because you go to church, right? I mean you do, right? Cause we fucking get to hear about it every goddamn year at election time. Yes, we're fascinated by how you get up every Sunday morning and sing, and then you're fucking towers of moral superiority. Yeah, that's a workable formula. Maybe us fucking Northerners don't talk about religion as much as you because we're not so busy sinning, hmmm? Ever think of that, you self-righteous assholes? No, you're too busy erecting giant stone tablets of the Ten Commandments in buildings paid for by the fucking Northeast Liberal Elite. And who has the highest murder rates in the nation? It ain't us up here in the North, assholes.

Posted by aalkon at 08:56 AM | Comments (9)

November 11, 2004

Not Surprised

Not Surprised

It had to happen: notsorryeverybody.com, in response to sorryeverybody.com, the site created to apologize to the world for electing the cowboy fundamentalist yet again (or rather, for the first time). Here's the e-mail I sent to the twit who put up the "notsorry" site:

Great. Another guy standing up for killing people after taking over a sovereign nation and voting to deny people rights. Not everybody who didn't vote for Bush is a "liberal" -- a word which has come to mean turd. Fiscally, I'm just to the right of Genghis Khan -- a big Cato Institute, small government, free minds, free markets fan. I don't want government-subsidized NPR, and I think people with kids should pay for their own damn brats to go to school, not rely on property taxes of others. HOWEVER, I am a staunch libertarian, and I loathe the effect that fundamentalist, anti-science monkey-in-chief is having on civil liberties. Moreover, what kind of moron sees our country attacked by Osama and goes after Saddam? If it was a human rights kind of "nation-building," well, why aren't we in Sudan? Moreover, after being a proud and patriotic American all my life (I just thanked all the Veterans I saw at breakfast for fighting to protect our country) I'm ashamed to live in a country where primitive religious fanatics (anybody who believes in god or the easter bunny, sans any real proof of their existence) vote to deny other people rights based on their primitive religious beliefs. I'm sorry Bush was elected, and I'm sorrier still, that so many people are boneheaded and bigoted enough to vote for him. Read Andrew Gumbel's piece on why voting for Bush is like driving an SUV.-Amy Alkon

That Andrew Gumbel piece is posted below. P.S. I just heard on the news that TV stations are balking at showing Saving Private Ryan, out of concern for the FCC crackdowns on what can be shown on television. It's amazing how fast a formerly pretty modern nation can whoosh backward, huh?

Posted by aalkon at 09:56 AM | Comments (38)

Andrew Gumbel On The State Of It All

The SUV Vote
Great think piece by Andrew Gumbel on why voting for Bush is like driving an SUV:

In his book High and Mighty, denouncing the insanity and corporate glad-handing behind the rise of the SUV, Keith Bradsher tells the story of a North Carolina woman involved in a side-on collision between her Chevrolet Blazer and a Toyota Tercel.

The Tercel driver was rushed to hospital and died three days later, but the woman suffered no more than a minor shoulder injury thanks to the sturdiness of her vehicle. She might have felt a twinge of guilt at the other driver�s death, or reflected on the unintentional havoc that SUVs like hers wreak by causing smaller vehicles to crumple like tin foil on impact. But she did neither of these things. Instead, she went out and bought an even larger SUV, a Chevrolet Tahoe, so she would feel better protected next time.

Is it such a stretch to see this story as a microcosm of what just happened in the presidential election? We�ve heard a lot about the importance of moral values and religion to the rural and small-town voters who swung the race for President Bush. But really these were manifestations of the insecurity and fear that have run rampant through this country since September 11. People voted for Bush not because he has made them safer, but because he makes them feel safer. In this regard he truly is the SUV President: steadfast and sure in outward appearance and marketing strategy, even as he proves in reality to be unreliable, wasteful, over-dependent on Middle East oil, a creature of corporate influence, downright dangerous to those who cross his path and prone to catastrophic failure.

The predatory, reptilian streak that the Detroit marketing consultant Clotaire Rapaille has long sensed in American SUV consumers can also be detected in the country�s voters. As Rapaille told Bradsher, people do not tell themselves they want to live in a safer world. What they say is: �If there�s a crash, I want the other guy to die.� Bush�s doctrine of pre-emptive warfare is merely a more forthright, and more public, expression of the same sentiment.

There is a name for this impulse, especially in the context of a country whose soaring self-confidence has been shaken by a devastating and wholly unexpected attack on its soil. That name is nationalism -- the tendency not only to stand by one�s flag and one�s country in times of trouble, but also to rally around a chauvinistic, narrowly defined sense of national identity and lash out against anyone who appears to dilute it, deviate from it or threaten it head-on.

Posted by aalkon at 08:39 AM | Comments (4)

November 10, 2004

Abortion's Only Step One

Abortion's Only Step One
This woman couldn't get her birth-control prescription filled:

For a year, Julee Lacey stopped in a CVS pharmacy near her home in a Fort Worth suburb to get refills of her birth-control pills. Then one day last March, the pharmacist refused to fill Lacey's prescription because she did not believe in birth control.

"I was shocked," says Lacey, 33, who was not able to get her prescription until the next day and missed taking one of her pills. "Their job is not to regulate what people take or do. It's just to fill the prescription that was ordered by my physician."

Some pharmacists, however, disagree and refuse on moral grounds to fill prescriptions for contraceptives. And states from Rhode Island to Washington have proposed laws that would protect such decisions.

On one hand, it seems a free-market thing -- nobody should be forced to sell what they don't believe in. But, here's a what if: What if the fundamentalists recognize this, and start a big push to send people to pharmacy school? Don't laugh -- they spent years stocking up AM radio with Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, Savage, and the like. And what if the pharmacist "doesn't believe in" some drug you need?

Take me: I take Ritalin for ADHD -- have taken it for maybe five years. What if a pharmacist doesn't think people should be "medicated" to concentrate better? Or, what if they, like some religious nutcases, don't believe in messing with "god's will" at all -- and they see it as god's will that you should die from some dread disease instead of taking two pills a day to keep it from killing you?

I have a few right-wing friends who are rather blithe about the dangers of voting in fundamentalism by voting in George Bush -- and they really shouldn't be so blithe. And it's not just freedoms that are in jeopardy. Here are a few good points from BushFlash.com (sorry, no permalink to the piece):

IF YOU'RE A REPUBLICAN COMING HERE TO GLOAT...

...save your breath

Bush may have won...but YOU lost.

Here's why:

When overtime pay is eliminated, it won't just be terminated for liberals. You're going to lose yours, as well.

You're going to have to live in the same polluted America as the rest of us.

When the next terrorist attack hits us -- and it will -- the al-Qaeda isn't just going to target Democrats only.

When Social Security goes bankrupt, there won't be any exceptions made for Bush supporters.

The drug companies aren't going to cut Republican seniors any slack with the new Medicare prescription-drug plan either Your folks will also have their coverage changed arbitrarily whenever Merck, Pfizer, et al. feel like it.

( And they won't have any better access to cheaper pharmaceuticals from Canada than anyone else. )

Body armor and armored vehicles in Iraq are not going to doled on the basis of political leanings.

Bottom line, you're in the same leaky lifeboat as the rest of us -- you just don't know it yet.

Posted by aalkon at 08:55 AM | Comments (5)

November 09, 2004

Wisconsin Is For Morons

Wisconsin Is For Morons
A Wisconsin school district is going to teach creationism:

Members of Grantsburg's school board believed that a state law governing the teaching of evolution was too restrictive. The science curriculum "should not be totally inclusive of just one scientific theory," said Joni Burgin, superintendent of the district of 1,000 students in northwest Wisconsin.

No, it should not. And if anybody can come up with any other SCIENTIFIC theories, please feel free to teach them.

Posted by aalkon at 09:33 AM | Comments (6)

An Outline Of Intellectual Rubbish

An Outline Of Intellectual Rubbish
An old essay by Bertrand Russell. Sadly, it's quite timely. Here are a few choice excerpts:

Old-fashioned people still say "bless you" when one sneezes, but they have forgotten the reason for the custom. The reason was that people were thought to sneeze out their souls, and before their souls could get back lurking demons were apt to enter the unsouled body; but if any one said "God bless you," the demons were frightened off.

...Throughout the last 400 years, during which the growth of science had gradually shown men how to acquire knowledge of the ways of nature and mastery over natural forces, the clergy have fought a losing battle against science, in astronomy and geology, in anatomy and physiology, in biology and psychology and sociology. Ousted from one position, they have taken up another. After being worsted in astronomy, they did their best to prevent the rise of geology; they fought against Darwin in biology...

Make that fight against Darwin.

...Although we are taught the Copernican astronomy in our textbooks, it has not yet penetrated to our religion or our morals, and has not even succeeded in destroying belief in astrology. People still think that the Divine Plan has special reference to human beings, and that a special Providence not only looks after the good, but also punishes the wicked. I am sometimes shocked by the blasphemies of those who think themselves pious-for instance, the nuns who never take a bath without wearing a bathrobe all the time. When asked why, since no man can see them, they reply: "Oh, but you forget the good God." Apparently they conceive of the Deity as a Peeping Tom, whose omnipotence enables Him to see through bathroom walls, but who is foiled by bathrobes. This view strikes me as curious.

The whole conception of "Sin" is one which I find very puzzling, doubtless owing to my sinful nature. If "Sin" consisted in causing needless suffering, I could understand; but on the contrary, sin often consists in avoiding needless suffering. Some years ago, in the English House of Lords, a bill was introduced to legalize euthanasia in cases of painful and incurable disease. The patient's consent was to be necessary, as well as several medical certificates. To me, in my simplicity, it would seem natural to require the patient's consent, but the late Archbishop of Canterbury, the English official expert on Sin, explained the erroneousness of such a view. The patient's consent turns euthanasia into suicide, and suicide is sin. Their Lordships listened to the voice of authority, and rejected the bill. Consequently, to please the Archbishop-and his God, if he reports truly-victims of cancer still have to endure months of wholly useless agony, unless their doctors or nurses are sufficiently humane to risk a charge of murder. I find difficulty in the conception of a God who gets pleasure from contemplating such tortures; and if there were a God capable of such wanton cruelty, I should certainly not think Him worthy of worship. But that only proves how sunk I am in moral depravity.

...Modern morals are a mixture of two elements: on the one hand, rational precepta as to how to live together peaceably in a society, and on the other hand traditional taboos derived originally from some ancient superstition, but proximately from sacred books, Christian, Mohammedan, Hindu, or Buddhist. To some extent the two agree; the prohibition of murder and theft, for instance, is supported both by human reason and by Divine command. But the prohibition of pork or beef has only scriptural authority, and that only in certain religions. It is odd that modern men, who are aware of what science has done in the way of bringing new knowledge and altering the conditions of social life, should still be willing to accept the authority of texts embodying the outlook of very ancient and very ignorant pastoral or agricultural tribes. It is discouraging that many of the precepts whose sacred character is thus uncritically acknowledged should be such as to inflict much wholly unnecessary misery. If men's kindly impulses were stronger, they would find some way of explaining that these precepts are not to be taken literally, any more than the command to "sell all that thou hast and give to the poor."

...Belief in "nature" and what is "natural" is a source of many errors. It used to be, and to some extent still is, powerfully operative in medicine. The human body, left to itself, has a certain power of curing itself., small cuts usually heal, colds pass off, and even serious diseases sometimes disappear without medical treatment. But aids to nature are very desirable, even in these cases. Cuts may turn septic if not disinfected, colds may turn to pneumonia, and serious diseases are only left without treatment by explorers and travellers in remote regions, who have no option. Many practices which have come to seem "natural" were originally "unnatural," for instance clothing and washing. Before men adopted clothing they must have found it impossible to live in cold climates. Where there is not a modicum of cleanliness, populations suffer from various diseases, such as typhus, from which Western nations have become exempt. Vaccination was (and by some still is) objected to as "unnatural." But there is no consistency in such objections, for no one supposes that a broken bone can be mended by "natural" behavior. Eating cooked food is "unnatural"; so is heating our houses. The Chinese philosopher Lao-tse, whose traditional date is about 600 B.C., objected to roads and bridges and boats as "unnatural," and in his disgust at such mechanistic devices left China and went to live among the Western barbarians. Every advance in civilization has been denounced as unnatural while it was recent.

...I admire especially a certain prophetess who lived beside a lake in Northern New York State about the year 1820. She announced to her numerous followers that she possessed the power of walking on water, and that she proposed to do so at 11 o'clock on a certain morning. At the stated time, the faithful assembled in their thousands beside the lake. She spoke to them, saying: "Are you all entirely persuaded that I can walk on water?" With one voice they replied: "We are." "In that case," she announced, "there is not need for me to do so." And they all went home much edified.

Perhaps the world would lose some of its interest and variety if such beliefs were wholly replaced by cold science. Perhaps we may allow ourselves to be glad of the Abecedarians, who were so-called because, having rejected all profane learning, they thought it wicked to learn the ABC. And we may enjoy the perplexity of the South American Jesuit who wondered how the sloth could have traveled, since the Flood, all the way from Mount Ararat to Peru-a journey which its extreme tardiness of locomotion rendered almost incredible. A wise man will enjoy the goods of which there is a plentiful supply, and of intellectual rubbish he will find an abundant diet, in our own age as in every other.

Posted by aalkon at 08:41 AM | Comments (1)

November 08, 2004

Weho Hot Rod

WeHo Hot Rod
Sunday afternoon, Melrose and Fairfax, Los Angeles.

Posted by aalkon at 09:00 AM | Comments (10)

Voting Hacked? Evidence Mounts

Was The Vote Hacked?
Evidence mounts that it was writes Thom Hartmann at Common Dreams:

When I spoke with Jeff Fisher this morning (Saturday, November 06, 2004), the Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida's 16th District said he was waiting for the FBI to show up. Fisher has evidence, he says, not only that the Florida election was hacked, but of who hacked it and how. And not just this year, he said, but that these same people had previously hacked the Democratic primary race in 2002 so that Jeb Bush would not have to run against Janet Reno, who presented a real threat to Jeb, but instead against Bill McBride, who Jeb beat.

"It was practice for a national effort," Fisher told me.

And some believe evidence is accumulating that the national effort happened on November 2, 2004.

The State of Florida, for example, publishes a county-by-county record of votes cast and people registered to vote by party affiliation. Net denizen Kathy Dopp compiled the official state information into a table, available at http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm, and noticed something startling.

While the heavily scrutinized touch-screen voting machines seemed to produce results in which the registered Democrat/Republican ratios largely matched the Kerry/Bush vote, in Florida's counties using results from optically scanned paper ballots - fed into a central tabulator PC and thus vulnerable to hacking � the results seem to contain substantial anomalies.

In Baker County, for example, with 12,887 registered voters, 69.3% of them Democrats and 24.3% of them Republicans, the vote was only 2,180 for Kerry and 7,738 for Bush, the opposite of what is seen everywhere else in the country where registered Democrats largely voted for Kerry.

In Dixie County, with 9,676 registered voters, 77.5% of them Democrats and a mere 15% registered as Republicans, only 1,959 people voted for Kerry, but 4,433 voted for Bush.

The pattern repeats over and over again - but only in the counties where optical scanners were used. Franklin County, 77.3% registered Democrats, went 58.5% for Bush. Holmes County, 72.7% registered Democrats, went 77.25% for Bush.

Yet in the touch-screen counties, where investigators may have been more vigorously looking for such anomalies, high percentages of registered Democrats generally equaled high percentages of votes for Kerry. (I had earlier reported that county size was a variable � this turns out not to be the case. Just the use of touch-screens versus optical scanners.)

Good thing Olbermann says that "no Presidential candidate�s concession speech is legally binding. The only determinants of the outcome of election are the reports of the state returns boards and the vote of the Electoral College." I guess that's why they're counting the ballots in secret in Ohio, as Olbermann reports:

...County Commissioners confirmed that they were acting on the advice of their Emergency Services Director, Frank Young. Mr. Young had explained that he had been advised by the federal government to implement the measures for the sake of Homeland Security.

Gotcha. Tom Ridge thought Osama Bin Laden was planning to hit Caesar Creek State Park in Waynesville. During the vote count in Lebanon. Or maybe it was Kings Island Amusement Park that had gone Code-Orange without telling anybody. Al-Qaeda had selected Turtlecreek Township for its first foray into a Red State.

The State of Ohio confirms that of all of its 88 Counties, Warren alone decided such Homeland Security measures were necessary. Even in Butler County, reports the Enquirer, the media and others were permitted to watch through a window as ballot-checkers performed their duties. In Warren, the media was finally admitted to the lobby of the administration building, which may have been slightly less incommodious for the reporters, but which still managed to keep them two floors away from the venue of the actual count.

Nobody in Warren County seems to think they�ve done anything wrong. The newspaper quotes County Prosecutor Rachel Hurtzel as saying the Commissioners �were within their rights� to lock the building down, because having photographers or reporters present could have interfered with the count.

You bet, Rachel.

To think I joked that the U.N. should have shipped in observers from Chil� to make sure there were no hijinks on election day. Turns out we could've used the Chileans -- and a few from Cuba, too.

Posted by aalkon at 08:34 AM | Comments (4)

November 07, 2004

Beaten And Bruised But Still Kicking

Beaten And Bruised, But Still Kicking

It's a long story, but we upgraded my site software to MT 3.11, and MT Blacklist (the spam-fighting plug-in) refuses to install on a Win 2003 server.

Because I don't want to ask people to register to comment on my site, Gregg is installing a comments plug-in that will merely ask you, as you post a comment, to type in a series of four or five numbers that are visible to the naked eye, but not to spam-bots. Intalling this should get the CGI error that's currently showing up to go away. Or, so we hope!

This is just a note to say that there may be some glitches -- but we'll get them worked out as soon as we can (probably within hours or a day). Gregg doesn't anticipate problems -- but in the wild world of blog technology, anything can happen.

Posted by aalkon at 05:35 PM | Comments (4)

Welcome To The Primitive States of America

Welcome To The Primitive States of America
Are there many (or any) atheists, agnostics, or anti-theists out there, who are against allowing gays to marry? Doubtful. A NY Times letter to the editor from a man in New York named Richard Yoder made me realize something: Marriage, as it's currently practiced, is unconstitutional. Here's what Yoder wrote:

The proponents of same-sex marriage make the mistake of treating marriage as primarily a legal issue instead of a religious one. In a logical world, any government that aims for separation of church and state would concern itself solely with defining civil unions and the legal benefits that accompany them, and leave it entirely up to the religions to define "marriage" in any way they see fit. Perhaps proponents of same-sex marriage would be more successful if they worked diligently toward that end.

We should not have the state in the marriage business, but the civil unions business -- civil unions for whomever wants to legally formalize their relationship...whether it's two men, three men, a man and a woman, or an entire sorority. Marriage belongs in the church, synagogue, or other institution where people practice the irrational worship of god...when they aren't too busy worrying about how everybody else is having sex, and with whom.

Here's another excerpt from another New York Times letter, from Michael Lee Jacobs, in Rochester:

I am gay. More important, I am an American. As a patriot, I have grown up in a society where the ideals of freedom, equality and independence define our very existence. America's strength comes from the diversity of its people and the plurality of their beliefs, the rights to which are defended and codified by the federal and state constitutions.

I hold fast to the ideal that we as a people "hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" and that we are still endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. I do not accept that in order to be free and equal in the eyes of secular law, I need to emigrate to Canada.

Our values are indeed under attack by special interests with an agenda, and they have just enshrined discrimination into our constitutions.

Yes, but Saskatchewan just legalized gay marriage. It's the seventh Canadian jurisdiction to do it. Yeah, it's cold up there...but it's looking a lot more modern and civilized.

Posted by aalkon at 08:37 AM | Comments (29)

Thank George Bush For The High Price Of Broadband

Thank George Bush For The High Price Of Broadband
Squeezing out competition is what did it, according to a Consumers Union and Consumer Federation of America report:

�Allowing cable and telephone companies to squeeze out competition is a double-barreled failure,� said Mark Cooper, director of research for the Consumer Federation of America. �Americans pay ten to twenty times as much as consumers in Korea and Japan for broadband, and the U.S. has fallen from third to thirteenth in the world in the percentage of citizens with broadband service. Meanwhile, the percentage of households that have the Internet at home has stagnated at about 60 percent.�

Posted by aalkon at 07:07 AM | Comments (0)

November 06, 2004

Val Kilmer As Moses

Great Moments In Miscasting
I saw a billboard on Sunset and La Brea advertising "Val Kilmer As Moses!" Hello? Moses was a swarthy Jew. What's next, "Dick Van Patten As Arafat!"?

Posted by aalkon at 08:06 AM | Comments (4)

English As A Fourth Or Fifth Language - One Hopes

English As A Fourth Or Fifth Language -- One Hopes
From today's mail bag:

hello amy tomarrow is my boyfriend and i 2 year anniversary and i havent no clue is to what to get him canu help?

Posted by aalkon at 07:00 AM | Comments (4)

November 05, 2004

Your Apology Here

Your Apology Here
Let the world know all Americans aren't warmongering fundamentalists, at sorryeverybody.com

(via David Rensin)

Posted by aalkon at 01:09 PM | Comments (9)

My Problem With Halloween

My Problem With Halloween?
It only comes one day a year. Wouldn't the world be a better place, or, at least, seem like one, if your boss came to work dressed like Barney or a mean nurse (especially if your boss is a man)? Check out this guy:

As for me, I don't dress up in anything special on Halloween. Every day is Halloween for me.

Posted by aalkon at 08:57 AM | Comments (3)

Kerry Won Ohio?

Kerry Won Ohio?
Greg Palast talks about "spoilage" -- ballots voided because they're inconclusive. If you count "spoiled" and provisional ballots, did Kerry win Ohio? And a number of other states? It seems likely:

CNN said George Bush took New Mexico by 11,620 votes. Again, the network total added up to that miraculous, and non-existent, '100 percent' of ballots cast.

New Mexico reported in the last race a spoilage rate of 2.68 percent, votes lost almost entirely in Hispanic, Native American and poor precincts�Democratic turf. From Tuesday's vote, assuming the same ballot-loss rate, we can expect to see 18,000 ballots in the spoilage bin.

Spoilage has a very Democratic look in New Mexico. Hispanic voters in the Enchanted State, who voted more than two to one for Kerry, are five times as likely to have their vote spoil as a white voter. Counting these uncounted votes would easily overtake the Bush 'plurality.'

Already, the election-bending effects of spoilage are popping up in the election stats, exactly where we'd expect them: in heavily Hispanic areas controlled by Republican elections officials. Chaves County, in the "Little Texas" area of New Mexico, has a 44 percent Hispanic population, plus African Americans and Native Americans, yet George Bush "won" there 68 percent to 31 percent.

I spoke with Chaves' Republican county clerk before the election, and he told me that this huge spoilage rate among Hispanics simply indicated that such people simply can't make up their minds on the choice of candidate for president. Oddly, these brown people drive across the desert to register their indecision in a voting booth.

Now, let's add in the effect on the New Mexico tally of provisional ballots.

"They were handing them out like candy," Albuquerque journalist Renee Blake reported of provisional ballots. About 20,000 were given out. Who got them?

Santiago Juarez who ran the "Faithful Citizenship" program for the Catholic Archdiocese in New Mexico, told me that "his" voters, poor Hispanics, whom he identified as solid Kerry supporters, were handed the iffy provisional ballots. Hispanics were given provisional ballots, rather than the countable kind "almost religiously," he said, at polling stations when there was the least question about a voter's identification. Some voters, Santiago said, were simply turned away.

Your Kerry Victory Party

So we can call Ohio and New Mexico for John Kerry�if we count all the votes.

But that won't happen. Despite the Democratic Party's pledge, the leadership this time gave in to racial disenfranchisement once again. Why? No doubt, the Democrats know darn well that counting all the spoiled and provisional ballots will require the cooperation of Ohio's Secretary of State, Blackwell. He will ultimately decide which spoiled and provisional ballots get tallied. Blackwell, hankering to step into Kate Harris' political pumps, is unlikely to permit anything close to a full count. Also, Democratic leadership knows darn well the media would punish the party for demanding a full count.

What now? Kerry won, so hold your victory party. But make sure the shades are down: it may be become illegal to demand a full vote count under PATRIOT Act III.

Posted by aalkon at 06:38 AM | Comments (3)

November 04, 2004

I Brake For Genius - Auto Writer Dan Neil

I Brake For Genius

1959 Ford Thunderbird convertible photographed at the Rose Cafe

I love people who write like they�ve taken a lot of LSD. If every word in the LA Times was written by Dan Neil, I�d read the paper cover-to-cover -- twice. I try to do for advice writing what he does for copy about cars. Check out his take on the Ducati 999R:

If you enjoy the wide-open freedom of a motorcycle, the wind in your face, the carefree, horizon-chasing moment, then by all means avoid the 2005 Ducati 999R.

This thing is misery on two wheels, a wickedly disposed and temperamental exercise of sheer mechanical narcissism upon which you assume a posture like it's flashlight inspection day in prison. Its 150-hp V-twin motor runs on damned souls and is lubricated with the fat of unbaptized children. All this bike wants to do, all it dreams about at night, is catapulting you over the handlebars or pitching you backward onto the streaming concrete so you make one of those slo-mo, Evel-Knievel-at-Ceasars-Palace death rolls in your fancy Italian riding leathers.

So plan your day accordingly: After riding this bike, you will need some time to unwind. Go for a Polynesian fire walk, perhaps. Play some "Deer Hunter" roulette. Or, if so equipped, have a vasectomy.

I�m starting to feel about Dan the way I feel about Julie Andrews; namely, that if I saw her I�d tear off my top and ask her to autograph my breasts with a Sharpie. (Dan, I�m sure Colleen? Corine? in LA Times Legal can help you fill out the paperwork for a restraining order.) P.S. I did manage to listen to Julie speak without rushing the stage at a recent Walter Mirisch tribute. Then again, I was with my boyfriend, Gregg, who is very supportive of his batty, outspoken broad �- with only one caveat: I�m free to mouth off at anyone I want �- except when he�s at my side.

I can respect that. And usually I do. But once, when we were driving alongside an older woman with a �Marriage Is Between A Man And A Woman� bumper sticker, I did ask him to make an exception. �Can�t I just yell �Lesbian!� out the window at her?� Request denied. I do have to admit that Gregg was a very good sport about The Tampa Airport Incident -- the time when he got strip-searched because his overpacking clothes-horse of a girlfriend had given him a little desk set she'd bought, with a tiny stapler, tiny ruler, and tiny rounded-pronged scissors (oops!) to pack in his carry-on. (Of course, you could more easily wound somebody with one of the rock-like bagels they serve on Northwest.)

After I went through the metal detector, I finally spotted Gregg -- putting his belt and shoes back on while the TSA guy searched his bag. This was odd, I thought, because he�s a frequent traveler, and knows what to carry and not to carry. When the TSA guy mentioned that it was the tiny scissors that flagged Gregg for a search, I leapt onto my soapbox: �Do you know why we�re all inconvenienced at airports!? It�s because people believe in god!� Luckily, the agent either chose to ignore me or typically takes pity on men with mouthy broads -- or Gregg might now be sitting in a cell muttering to himself about the reason certain men are inconvenienced by jail terms.

Posted by aalkon at 09:31 AM | Comments (16)

Who Would Want To Kill The Village Idiot?

Who Would Want To Kill The Village Idiot?
The usual barbarians, that's who. When Dutch Filmmaker and provacateur Theo Van Gogh flippantly tossed around derogatory remarks about both Christians and Jews, both got pretty peeved at him, but they only used words to express their displeasure, as civilized people are wont to do. Then, he made a serious film about the abuse of Muslim women. When he received death threats from Muslim barbarians, he refused protection, insisting, "No one can seriously want to shoot the village idiot."

Big surprise: It was a Muslim fundamentalist who hunted him down, while he was riding his bicycle, then shot him as he begged for his life, slit his throat, and planted a note (in or) on the body (depending on which news report you read). This one below is by John Henley in The Guardian:

The Dutch justice minister, Piet Hein Donner, said yesterday that the suspect, captured after a shootout with police and currently in a prison hospital with gunshot wounds, "acted out of radical Islamic fundamentalist convictions" and had contacts with a fundamentalist group that was under surveillance by the Dutch secret service. Dutch media also reported that the suspect was a close friend of Samir Azzouz, an 18-year-old Muslim of Moroccan origin who is awaiting trial on charges of planning terrorist attacks on targets including a nuclear reactor and Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport.

The assassination has sparked a heartfelt national outcry in the traditionally tolerant Netherlands, sparking fears of a dangerous rise in racial tension in a country whose population of 16 million includes some one million Muslims, mainly of Turkish or North African origin. Fanning fears further, a recent government estimated that by 2010, several large Dutch cities like Rotterdam, Amsterdam, the Hague and Utrecht would have Muslim majorities.

Recent opinion polls show the Dutch to be increasingly hostile towards immigrants and fearful of Muslim extremism. Islam, immigration and integration have shot to the top of the political agenda since the rise of Pim Fortuyn, the populist anti-immigrant politician who was himself shot dead by an animal-rights activist in May 2002, and whose party finished second in general elections just days later. The centre-right Dutch government has only succeeded in fanning the flames by calling for greater integration of immigrants through language tests and citizenship classes, and recently fuelled even more controversy with plans to repatriate up to 26,000 failed asylum seekers.

In the midst of this tinderbox, insisting on their right to speak freely and with the support of many Dutch people, Hirsi Ali and Van Gogh scattered their sparks - a blistering critique of Islam - with magnificent disregard for the feelings they might be offending.

How long before this kind of violence -- personal attacks on individuals speaking out against the barbarians -- starts happening in America? By the way, don't be so sure there aren't a few atypical-looking converts to the barbarian point of view.

Posted by aalkon at 08:28 AM | Comments (6)

November 03, 2004

Obama's Speech

Obama Speaks
Read the whole thing here.

(via David "Tell Me Everything" Rensin)

Posted by aalkon at 01:33 PM | Comments (0)

The Outlook On 11/3

The Outlook On 11/3
As I ponder what it's going to be like to live in a fundamentalist nation (unofficially fundamentalist, perhaps, but increasingly fundamentalist in policy), where the national wildlife refuges are about to become gas stations and coal mines, where "a woman's right to choose" may soon mean between a coat hanger and an beaker of bleach, and all the rest that a Bush presidency will likely hold...I looked around for a little balance, and found some, posted by "Meteor Blades" on Daily Kos:

We lost on 11/2. Came in second place in a crucial battle whose damage may still be felt decades from now. The despicable record of our foes makes our defeat good reason for disappointment and fear. Even without a mandate over the past four years, they have behaved ruthlessly at home and abroad, failing to listen to objections even from members of their own party. With the mandate of a 3.6-million vote margin, one can only imagine how far their arrogance will take them in their efforts to dismantle 70 years of social legislation and 50+ years of diplomacy.

Still, Tuesday was only one round in the struggle. It�s only the end if we let it be. I am not speaking solely of challenging the votes in Ohio or elsewhere � indeed, I think even successful challenges are unlikely to change the ultimate outcome, which is not to say I don�t think the Democrats should make the attempt. And I�m not just talking about evaluating in depth what went wrong, then building on what was started in the Dean campaign to reinvigorate the grassroots of the Democratic Party, although I also think we must do that. I�m talking about the broader political realm, the realm outside of electoral politics that has always pushed America to live up to its best ideals and overcome its most grotesque contradictions.

Not a few people have spoken in the past few hours about an Americanist authoritarianism emerging out of the country�s current leadership. I think that�s not far-fetched. Fighting this requires that we stick together, not bashing each other, not fleeing or hiding or yielding to the temptation of behaving as if �what�s the use?�

It�s tough on the psyche to be beaten.Throughout our country�s history, abolitionists, suffragists, union organizers, anti-racists, antiwarriors, civil libertarians, feminists and gay rights activists have challenged the majority of Americans to take off their blinders. Each succeeded one way or another, but not overnight, and certainly not without serious setbacks.

After a decent interval of licking our wounds and pondering what might have been and where we went wrong, we need to spit out our despair and return � united - to battling those who have for the moment outmaneuvered us. Otherwise, we might just as well lie down in the street and let them flatten us with their schemes.

Posted by aalkon at 08:44 AM | Comments (41)

November 02, 2004

He's At Homo With It

He's At Homo With It...Kinda
MSNBC's Chris Matthews tells Ron Reagan, Jr., that he "respects" that he was "a dancer." Translation: "I'm not that comfortable that you're a homosexual, but I'll pretend to be."

Posted by aalkon at 09:32 PM | Comments (8)

Has Ralph Nader Had A Stroke?

Has Ralph Nader Had A Stroke?
We're watching him now on CNN, and it looks like the left half of his face is frozen.

Posted by aalkon at 08:24 PM | Comments (1)

Bloggermann Likes Zogby

Bloggermann Likes Zogby
And Zogby likes Kerry. Bloggermann is MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, and here's what he calls the "Redskin rule and Carter corollary," posted at 5:51 p.m. EST (sorry, wouldn't give me a permalink to the exact item):

John Zogby�s polling was generally considered the most accurate during the crazed 2000 election, and if he maintains that measure of reliability, you can go to sleep now.

Zogby�s final tracking poll, state by state, released at 5:30 EST, suggests the prospect of a Kerry win by a margin of 311 Electoral Votes to 213, with only Colorado and Nevada too close to call (and representing just fourteen votes between them).

Oh and by the way, he has Mr. Bush winning the popular vote, narrowly� an irony of biblical proportions that one Democratic pollster rated a one-in-three chance just last week.

It should be noted Zogby is doing a lot of extrapolating. In the two from Column A (Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania), two from Column B (Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin) states, he gives them all to Kerry. But Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are listed as �trending Kerry� based on exit polling. The smaller three states show Kerry up by 5-6%.

If he�s right, it upholds both the Redskin Rule (a bloody football team would be 18-0 predicting who gets to run the country) and the Carter Corollary (no incumbent is reelected nor defeated narrowly).

A lot of people remaining uncertain that he�s right.

Uncertain, but hopeful. With all the butterflies in my stomach right now, I could start an insect zoo.

Posted by aalkon at 05:11 PM | Comments (1)

Billionaires For Bush

Billionaires For Bush
Hilarious site:

Billionaires for Bush is a grassroots network of corporate lobbyists, decadent heiresses, Halliburton CEOs, and other winners under George W. Bush's economic policies. Headquartered in Wall Street and with over 60 chapters nationwide, we'll give whatever it takes to ensure four more years of putting profit over people. After all, we know a good president when we buy one.

Posted by aalkon at 02:13 PM | Comments (1)

Daddy Starbucks

Daddy Starbucks
Sunday's adventure in underparenting: I'm writing at my usual Starbucks, and a "dad" comes in with his two brats, a girl and a boy. Girl brat looks to be about five, boy brat, about six. They're both playing video games, and the boy's video game has the sound up. (Remember books? They develop more than eye-hand coordination, and they don't disturb adults with hangovers trying to read the newspaper in peace and quiet.)

Both brats are kicking the bottom of the table while dad is getting them food. I quietly tell them to stop, knowing I'd better sneak in a little disciplining before dad comes back to let them get their rotten on. Dad delivers food, brats complain: "It's too hot, it's too cold, I don't like it." Brats fight. Boy shoves girl. Dad is loud, brats are also loud. Neither dad nor brats notice the existence of any other patrons, a number of whom are looking pained at the noise. The Brat Family stays far too long.

The kids begin going through the toy ads from the paper, greedy little curs, behaving as greedy little curs will behave -- shouting their toy orders at Daddy. The finishing touch? The dad opts for bribery as a substitute for parenting, plaintively asking the little girl, "If I buy you this, will you sleep in your own bed?" The little girl, who clearly knows who's in charge, responded as expected: "NO!"

As I wrote in my column a few weeks ago, "I recognize that I'm self-involved, self-indulgent, and impulsive, and thus unfit to be a parent. There are others who are also self-involved, self-indulgent, and impulsive, but see no reason for that to stop them from accessorizing with a couple of children."

Posted by aalkon at 08:23 AM | Comments (0)

Presidential Priorities

Presidential Priorities
Straight from the terrorist's mouth:

Bin Laden also said that Bush's reaction toward the Sept. 11 attacks was slow which gave the hijackers the time they needed to carry out the attacks.

"It never occurred to us that the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would leave 50,000 of his citizens in the two towers to face these horrors alone," he said, referring to the number of people who worked at the World Trade Center.

"It appeared to him (Bush) that a little girl's talk about her goat and its butting was more important than the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers. That gave us three times the required time to carry out the operations, thank God," he said.

I think the best way to thank George for being "presidential" in the time of crisis would be a vote for Kerry...don't you?

Posted by aalkon at 07:02 AM | Comments (0)

November 01, 2004

Eeeeeeuw!

Eeeeeeuw!

"Ceci n'est pas une serviette." (This [New Orleans antique store bedspread] is not a napkin.) Apologies to R�n� Magritte.

A word to the wise and weak-of-stomach: Avoid all hotels where LA Times staff writer Brady MacDonald has stayed. It doesn't even seem to occur to Brady to keep his icky manners under wraps. Here's the offending paragraph from Brady's piece on New Orleans from Sunday's Travel section:

We ordered our po' boys to go. Back at the hotel, I gleefully assembled my roast beef po' boy with "debris" � the slow-cooked roast beef that falls into the gravy while cooking. Yes, that is roast beef with roast beef on top. I forked the debris, which came in an 8-ounce foam cup, onto the sandwich one bite at a time. After the euphoria of my first taste, I realized we'd forgotten napkins. I wiped my hands on the bedspread and plowed onward. (Italics, mine.)

GROSS! Double gross! Luckily, there's no need to guess which hotel to avoid, since Brady helpfully lists it below his piece:

Chateau Hotel, 1001 Rue Chartres; (504) 524-9636, http://www.chateauhotel.com. I stayed at this historic French Quarter hotel with 48 rooms and a courtyard; breakfast is included. Doubles from $79.

(Probably not including bedspread dry-cleaning. And let's just hope it wasn't just the po' boy theme that kept Brady from writing about peeing in the pool.)

Posted by aalkon at 08:53 AM | Comments (2)

The Wal-Fare State

The Wal-Fare State
Who pays for the health care of Wal-Mart's employees? We do, writes Reed Abelson in The New York Times:

A survey by Georgia officials found that more than 10,000 children of Wal-Mart employees were in the state's health program for children at an annual cost of nearly $10 million to taxpayers. A North Carolina hospital found that 31 percent of 1,900 patients who described themselves as Wal-Mart employees were on Medicaid, while an additional 16 percent had no insurance at all.

And backers of a measure that will be on California's ballot tomorrow, which would force big employers like Wal-Mart to either provide affordable health insurance to their workers or pay into a state insurance pool, say Wal-Mart employees without company insurance are costing California's state health care programs an estimated $32 million a year.

While I'm against forcing employers to cover employees, I'm even more against forcing the public to cover employees because employers pay such a low wage. Especially when the employers are already getting major handouts from the public. (To go to the PDF about the handouts, click the link under the word "tax dollars.")

Posted by aalkon at 07:25 AM | Comments (0)

October 31, 2004

Dog Day Halloween

Treat Or Treat?
Lucy doesn't like to leave anything to chance.

Posted by aalkon at 10:50 AM | Comments (2)

Bush Was Too Busy Nation-Building

Bush Was Too Busy Nation-Building
"We thought Bush was going to produce Bin Laden, but Al Jazeera produced Bin Laden."
--New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman on Real Time With Bill Maher

Posted by aalkon at 09:08 AM | Comments (0)

Sullivan Travels

Sullivan Travels
Andrew Sullivan makes his endorsement.

Posted by aalkon at 07:33 AM | Comments (0)

October 30, 2004

A Debutante Awaiting Her Costum

A Debutante Awaiting Her Costume
A dog-u-tante, that is, pre-Halloween.

Posted by aalkon at 08:38 AM | Comments (0)

Testicle Toss Anyone?

Testicle Toss Anyone?
A "secondary search" by the TSA of a San Diego woman turned out to be a demand to cop a feel. A government-approved demand, to boot. Jeff Ristine writes in the San Diego Union-Tribune that the TSA is now requiring their employees to feel beneath, between, and above women's breasts:

Now Ava Kingsford wants other women to know just how uncomfortable the "secondary screening" process can become.

Kingsford, 36, was traveling back to San Diego from Denver International Airport with her 3-month-old son when she was flagged for a pat-down search, possibly because of an expired driver's license.

She took the procedure in stride until the female Transportation Security Administration screener announced, "I'm going to feel your breasts now."

Kingsford, wearing a snug-fitting tank top, objected to what she considered an unduly invasive search. More security agents arrived, warned her that she couldn't board her flight without submitting to the final step of the search, and the situation escalated.

"I was crying; I was shaking," she said. And just after she tugged down the top of her shirt just a bit to show that she wasn't hiding anything, the agents told her she wasn't going anywhere. She ended up renting a car for a two-day drive home.

"It was unbelievable," Kingsford said. "I think there is a line they cannot cross."

But Transportation Security Administration officials say their screeners did nothing wrong and that Kingsford's experience reflects a brutal new reality in passenger checkpoint screening.

The agency announced the extra security measures Sept. 16, just a few weeks after two Russian jetliners exploded in midair, killing all aboard. Authorities believe two women smuggled explosives onto the aircraft, possibly in "torso packs" underneath their clothing.

The last thing I want is some big, ugly stranger at the airport grabbing my boobs. Gross! That said, I have less of a problem flashing them some tit in the name of national security. Look, don't touch, and please slip your dollar bill under my bra strap when you're done.

Hmmm...what's next? Body cavity search? They close down the dingy sex dens in downtown Manhattan and other urban areas across the country -- and reopen them in bright, fluorescent light at the airports? What will your response be when they ask to grab your balls (and surely they will, in the name of sexual fairness in bomb searches), or stick a flashlight "where the sun don't shine"?

(boob feel-up link via Reason's blog)

Posted by aalkon at 07:57 AM | Comments (8)

October 29, 2004

This Is A Fear Election

This Is A Fear Election
In an interview with the CBC's Carol Off, Bill Maher talks about what Americans will be voting for in the coming election:

This is an election that has been framed along the lines of � elect this guy or you'll die. Don't, don't vote for the wrong guy. Or you'll be dead. Johnny Jihad will drive a car bomb into your house if you elect a Democrat. So, I think the last polls showed that about 42 per cent of Americans still think that Saddam Hussein was directly involved with the attack on 9/11. You know, we're bad enough on domestic issues, ignorance-wise. When it comes to foreign affairs, I mean, forget it. But you know, that's the only thing Bush can run on. His domestic policy is praising Jesus and cutting Paris Hilton's taxes. So he's got to run on you know, be afraid, be very afraid.

(via Dullard)

Posted by aalkon at 09:59 AM | Comments (22)

Don't Think Of It As An Election

Don't Think Of It As An Election
Think of it as an I.Q. test. And guess which idiots, uh, voters, still believe WMD were found in Iraq...

(via Metafilter)

Posted by aalkon at 08:22 AM | Comments (0)

October 28, 2004

Why Do Fundamentalist Nutbags Drive Huge SUVs?

Why Do Fundamentalist Nutbags Drive Huge SUVs?

Reagan's first Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, was the first to let slip the religious fanatics' justification for anti-environmentalism, writes Glenn Scherer, in Grist magazine:

(He) told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. "God gave us these things to use. After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back," Watt said in public testimony that helped get him fired.

Today's Christian fundamentalist politicians are more politically savvy than Reagan's interior secretary was; you're unlikely to catch them overtly attributing public-policy decisions to private religious views. But their words and actions suggest that many share Watt's beliefs. Like him, many Christian fundamentalists feel that concern for the future of our planet is irrelevant, because it has no future. They believe we are living in the End Time, when the son of God will return, the righteous will enter heaven, and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire. They may also believe, along with millions of other Christian fundamentalists, that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed -- even hastened -- as a sign of the coming Apocalypse.

We are not talking about a handful of fringe lawmakers who hold or are beholden to these beliefs. The 231 legislators (all but five of them Republicans) who received an average 80 percent approval rating or higher from the leading religious-right organizations make up more than 40 percent of the U.S. Congress.

Yes, in the 21st Century, a bunch of people who are guided by some seriously nutty shit are making enormously important decisions about our lives and what becomes of the planet. Bill Maher sums up the mess we're in:

"It's like half this country wants to guide our ship of state by compass -- a compass, something that works by science and rationality, and empirical wisdom," quipped comedian Bill Maher on Larry King Live. "And half this country wants to kill a chicken and read the entrails like they used to do in the old Roman Empire."

What's a member of the non-chicken-entrail-reading rational minority to do? Scherer has a suggestion:

In the past, it was not deemed politically correct to ask probing questions about a lawmaker's intimate religious beliefs. But when those beliefs play a crucial role in shaping public policy, it becomes necessary for the people to know and understand them. It sounds startling, but the great unasked questions that need to be posed to the 231 U.S. legislators backed by the Christian right, and to President Bush himself, are not the kind of softballs about faith lobbed at the candidates during the recent presidential debates. They are, instead, tough, specific inquiries about the details of that faith: Do you believe we are in the End Time? Are the governmental policies you support based on your faith in the imminent Second Coming of Christ? It's not an exaggeration to say that the fate of our planet depends on our asking these questions, and on our ability to reshape environmental strategy in light of the answers.

(via Metafilter)

Posted by aalkon at 10:19 AM | Comments (19)

Still Buff At 90

Still Buff At 90
Read about Jack LaLanne's nutritional principles, from a very entertaining interview by Mark Edward Harris, in LA Times Magazine. The still-buff, pint-sized elder-hottie LaLanne gave up flour and sugar more than 70 years ago:

I'm a big believer in, if man makes it, don't eat it�cakes, pies, ice cream, fries, soda pop, that's what's killing people. Would you get your dog up in the morning and give him a cup of coffee, a cigarette and a doughnut? You've got to eat more natural foods in their natural state. And you've got to take supplements. Your canned stuff, your fried stuff, most of your vegetables are picked green, then stored. Most people bring them home, boil the stuff and put the water down the drain. They end up with a healthy drain.

His complaint about most old people? They sit around and overeat:

The only thing they think about is, "Ah, the good ol' days." The good old days are this second. Seize the moment.

You go, Jack!

Posted by aalkon at 09:58 AM | Comments (7)

October 27, 2004

Ovitz' Whiny Tale Of Woe

Ovitz' Whiny Tale Of Woe
Read Nikki Finke's hilarious observations of Mike Ovitz' testimony -- "verging perilously close to acute paranoia and utter mendacity" -- in the lawsuit brought by Disney shareholders about his hiring and firing as Disney president:

They were all out to get him, every last one of them. All that was missing from his Captain Queeg mimicry was spittle about the strawberries.

Click on the link above for further details. Well, except if you'd like to hear about the shareholders' interests. Clearly of no concern to Mad Mike.

Posted by aalkon at 11:54 AM | Comments (1)

George Bush: The President Who Never Met A Bill He Didn�t Like

George Bush: The President Who Never Met A Bill He Didn�t Like
�George W. Bush is a conservative in the same way Britney Spears is a virgin: only when it suits his marketing,� writes Quin Hillyer, a columnist for Alabama�s Mobile Register. Bush has yet to veto a single bill. Ever. He has all the hallmarks of being anything but a conservative. For example:

Within just the past few weeks, Bush�proposed a new policy on immigration that, whatever other bells and whistles it contains, amounts to yet another amnesty program that would reward those who already have broken the law to enter the United States. Even conservatives (myself included) who welcome some expansion of legal immigration are blanching at the thought of coddling illegal immigants.

As with almost every other domestic initiative of this president, this proposal is aimed at buying off another constituent group -- in this case, Hispanics. For the steelworkers, there were protective tariffs against steel imports. For the farmers, a new boondoggle of subsidies and pork that killed the last vestiges of free-market reform of agriculture policy. For supply-siders, to the president's credit, there were tax cuts. For social issue folks, he nominated (but won't fight for) good would-be judges. For big businesses, all sorts of new corporate incentives time after time after time. For corn farmers (again), ethanol subsidies in a horrendously bloated energy bill (now tied up by filibuster) -- but unfortunately, without Arctic drilling.

Last month's second snub of conservative sensibilities is the Bush call for a return to the moon, and then a mission to Mars. Actually, putting a man on Mars is a wonderful idea and a worthy long-term project. But not if it can't be paid for while we're fighting terrorists on Planet Earth. Is there anything at all, pray tell, to which this president will say no? This second President Bush might be far better, on foreign policy and on taxes, than his father was. He's certainly better than any of the Democratic alternatives. But when it comes to other domestic concerns, he's positively Johnsonian and Nixonian: Politics first, and all fiscal concerns blithely ignored in a quest for re-election. As Richard Nixon once told his Cabinet, so too does George W. Bush choose to operate: Whenever in doubt, "Go spend some money."

Posted by aalkon at 11:04 AM | Comments (5)

October 26, 2004

Health Insurance The Car Insurance Way

Health Insurance The Car Insurance Way

Science correspondent Ronald Bailey wrote a great piece for Reason about an idea I've favored for quite some time: mandatory private health insurance. You can't legally get behind the wheel without car insurance; why should you be able to go through life without health insurance -- since the alternative is most likely other people picking up the cost? Oh, sorry...then you won't be able go out and buy a plasma screen TV with the money you're being forced to put toward your health care? Tragic, simply tragic.

While we're on the topic of paying one's own way: If you have children, and you aren't dirt poor, how about you pay for their education? The state can soak us all to pay for the poor. It's a must, actually, so we'll have an educated populace to sweep up whatever shards of our democracy remain after the Bushies get done with it. But...but...the "right" to have children shouldn't be based on having money! Sure it should. Same as the "right" to live in Bel Air. Ladies, if you can't afford a child, or another child, board up your womb until you can.

And please: Don't any of you parents out there bother trotting out that old, tired argument about how your spawn are going to pay for my Social Security. Number one, it's highly likely Social Security will be gutted before I see a dime of it. Number two, if that's your overindulged brat, a few entries below, in the toy Hummer, I'm sure he'll be too busy cold-cocking me and stealing my handbag.

Posted by aalkon at 08:16 AM | Comments (13)

October 25, 2004

We Can Export Democracy To Iraq...

We Can Export Democracy To Iraq...
Whether we can hold fair elections in our own country, however, is dubious, writes Andrew Gumbel in The Independent:

Last week saw the start of early voting in Florida and a clutch of other states, and with it came a plethora of problems. In three heavily populated counties - around Tampa, Orlando and Fort Lauderdale - the network connection used to verify voter identifications broke down on the first day, creating hours of delay. In Jacksonville, where poor ballot design in 2000 knocked out the votes of 27,000 poor, predominantly black, predominantly Democratic voters, the county elections supervisor chose the first day of polling to resign, citing ill health. He had come under fire for failing to make early voting available in the city's African-American neighbourhoods - something his interim successor is now going some way to remedy.

Elsewhere, there were computer breakdowns during early voting in Memphis. Pre-election testing of electronic machines in Riverside County, California, and in Palm Beach County, Florida, led to multiple computer crashes. Elsewhere, machines have manifested problems handling basic addition - especially when asked to display instructions in a language other than English. Several county administrators have chosen simply to skip the non-English language part of the test.

In Nebraska, dead people were found to have applied for absentee ballots. In Ohio, a representative of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People was found to have offered crack cocaine to a known drug addict in exchange for completed voter registration forms, which he duly submitted in the names of Mary Poppins, Janet Jackson and Jeffrey Dahmer, the notorious cannibal serial killer.

...In Florida, Secretary of State Glenda Hood has been repeatedly accused of doing the political bidding of the man who appointed her - Governor Jeb Bush, the President's brother. Her more recent exploits include directing county supervisors to throw out registration forms where applicants have signed a statement declaring they are US citizens but have forgotten to check a citizenry box elsewhere on the form. This, too, is seen as a vote-suppressing mechanism. It, too, is now in the courts.

Secretary Hood has also been waging a months-long campaign to ban what limited manual recounts the electronic voting machines permit. Her initial ruling was struck down by the courts, but now she has come up with a staggeringly devious rewrite. The state will now permit analysis of the computerised machines' internal audit logs in the event of a close race, she said, but if there is any discrepancy the county supervisors are to go with the original count. In other words: we will do recounts, but if the recounts change the outcome we will disregard them.

Secretary Hood's actions illuminate the real attraction of the electronic voting machines in the states where they have been introduced. They may work no better than the old punch-card machines - studies suggest they fail to record as many votes as their predecessors. In the absence of an independent paper trail, how- ever, all evidence of problems is hidden away in the binary code of an electronic black box and is, to all intents and purposes, invisible.

This raises intriguing and troubling questions about what a post-election contest might look like. One can reasonably anticipate - based on past experience - an avalanche of stories about voters turned away from polling stations, told they are on a felons list even if they have no criminal record, or kept waiting for hours because of technical glitches. No doubt people will tell some of those thousands of lawyers how they pressed the screen for one candidate, only to have the other's name light up.

The problem is, even if lawyers for the losing candidate are able to prove that the system failed, they will find it very difficult to talk specific numbers and demonstrate that enough votes were lost to alter the outcome.

How the courts will react to this hypothetical state of affairs is anybody's guess. They could accept the given election results, however flawed. They could allow the arguments to rage until December, when the electoral college is supposed to meet, or even into the new year, when an undecided election would be thrown into the House of Representatives.

Or they could be trumped, once again, by the Supreme Court. The most disconcerting possibility is that the highest court in the land could remove the electoral process from the voters altogether and turn it over to the state legislatures. Technically, they can do this under Article II of the Constitution, which offers no automatic right to vote. We know from the deliberations in 2000 that two, possibly five, of the nine justices have doubts whether the people should be the ultimate arbiters of presidential elections - a strict, literal reading of the Constitution that no modern Supreme Court countenanced before the current crop of ultra-conservatives. "After granting the franchise in the special context of Article II," the majority declared in its Bush vs Gore ruling, "[the state] can take back the power to appoint electors."

Were this scenario to play out it would leave the fate of many of the electoral battlegrounds in the hands of Republican-controlled state legislatures (in Florida and Ohio, for starters), who would promptly hand the election to George Bush. Talk about a nightmare scenario - which is why every elections official and every "small d" democrat in the land is praying it won't get that close.

�

Posted by aalkon at 08:13 AM | Comments (0)

October 24, 2004

Ayn Rand's Trash Can

Ayn Rand's Trash Can
(Just kidding. It was a present from Lena...to ME!)

Posted by aalkon at 04:37 PM | Comments (1)

"Creationism In A Lab Coat"

"Creationism In A Lab Coat"
The primitive people are out in force in Ohio:

...140 years after Darwin published On the Origin of Species, 75 years after John Scopes taught natural selection to a biology class in Tennessee, and 15 years after the US Supreme Court ruled against a Louisiana law mandating equal time for creationism, the question of how to teach the theory of evolution was being reopened here in Ohio.

Big surprise, the "Intelligent Design" wingnuts say that biological life is so complex, there must be a god. Duh...because something is inexplicable to you doesn't mean you can drop god in as the explanation, totally without proof. I mean, why not Julie Andrews, Charlton Heston, Courtney Love, or Barney? And, guess what:

...Darwin's theories can account for complexity ... ID relies on misunderstandings of evolution and flimsy probability calculations, and ... it proposes no testable explanations.

As the Ohio debate revealed, however, the Discovery Institute doesn't need the favor of the scientific establishment to prevail in the public arena. Over the past decade, Discovery has gained ground in schools, op-ed pages, talk radio, and congressional resolutions as a "legitimate" alternative to evolution. ID is playing a central role in biology curricula and textbook controversies around the country. The institute and its supporters have taken the "teach the controversy" message to Alabama, Arizona, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, and Texas.

The ID movement's rhetorical strategy - better to appear scientific than holy - has turned the evolution debate upside down. ID proponents quote Darwin, cite the Scopes monkey trial, talk of "scientific objectivity," then in the same breath declare that extraterrestrials might have designed life on Earth. It may seem counterintuitive, but the strategy is meticulously premeditated, and it's working as planned. The debate over Darwin is back, and coming to a 10th-grade biology class near you.

One more reason to avoid voting for George Bush or anybody who parrots the fundamentalist party line. I say this as somebody who finds John Kerry, at best, an unfortunate choice for president, but finds George Bush an extremely terrifying one.

Posted by aalkon at 08:22 AM | Comments (6)

October 23, 2004

Early Onset Asshole

Early Onset Asshole

Posted by aalkon at 08:16 AM | Comments (20)

October 22, 2004

Bush World

Bush World
It's nice, even commendable, for a person to have a rich fantasy life...unless, of course, that person happens to bring it with him to work, where he's the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet. Bob Herbert takes Bush to task in The New York Times:

Does President Bush even tip his hat to reality as he goes breezing by?

He often behaves as if he sees - or is in touch with - things that are inaccessible to those who are grounded in the reality most of us have come to know. For example, with more than 1,000 American troops and more than 10,000 Iraqi civilians dead, many people see the ongoing war in Iraq as a disaster, if not a catastrophe. Mr. Bush sees freedom on the march.

Many thoughtful analysts see a fiscal disaster developing here at home, with the president's tax cuts being the primary contributor to the radical transformation of a $236 billion budget surplus into a $415 billion deficit. The president sees, incredibly, a need for still more tax cuts.

The United States was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The president responded by turning most of the nation's firepower on Saddam Hussein and Iraq. When Mr. Bush was asked by the journalist Bob Woodward if he had consulted with former President Bush about the decision to invade Iraq, the president replied: "He is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I appeal to."

Last week the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University said in a report:

"During the past year Iraq has become a major distraction from the global war on terrorism. Iraq has now become a convenient arena for jihad, which has helped Al Qaeda to recover from the setback it suffered as a result of the war in Afghanistan. With the growing phenomenon of suicide bombing, the U.S. presence in Iraq now demands more and more assets that might have otherwise been deployed against various dimensions of the global terrorist threat."

There are consequences, often powerful consequences, to turning one's back on reality. The president may believe that freedom's on the march, and that freedom is God's gift to every man and woman in the world, and perhaps even that he is the vessel through which that gift is transmitted. But when he is crafting policy decisions that put people by the hundreds of thousands into harm's way, he needs to rely on more than the perceived good wishes of the Almighty. He needs to submit those policy decisions to a good hard reality check.

Posted by aalkon at 09:02 AM | Comments (1)

Even Pat Robertson Is More Balanced Than Bush

Even Pat Robertson Is More Rational Than George Bush
Reportedly, when Robertson told Bush to prepare the nation for casualties, Bush replied, "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."

No, none at all! Give or take a thousand...so far.

Of course, there is that chance Robertson is fibbing. Then again, he's a Bush fan, isn't he?

Posted by aalkon at 08:42 AM | Comments (5)

October 21, 2004

Brothel, Bath, & Beyond

Brothel, Bath, & Beyond

Posted by aalkon at 10:54 AM | Comments (1)

Mary Cheney Is A Lesbian For A Living

Mary Cheney Is A Lesbian For A Living
She's what I call "professionally gay" -- employed as the gay and lesbian liason for Coors. In other words, her very job description centers around being out of the closet -- in the most public way. Frank Rich asks the right question:

So you have to wonder what motivated the Bush-Cheney brigade to go ballistic over Mr. Kerry's "outing" of Mary Cheney after it had ignored not just John Edwards's previous "outing" but also the earlier "outings" by Bush campaign allies like the Concerned Women for America and the Republican senatorial candidate Alan Keyes. Unlike the Democrats, who spoke respectfully of gay sexual orientation, these right-wing activists trashed the vice president's daughter for sowing anti-family values. But as Andrew Sullivan has pointed out, even when Mr. Keyes attacked Mary Cheney in August for practicing "selfish hedonism," the same Mrs. Cheney, who, "speaking as a mom," called Mr. Kerry "not a good man," spoke not at all.

To understand what strange game is playing out here, you must go back to the equally close 2000 election. In the campaign postmortems, Karl Rove famously attributed his candidate's shortfall in the popular vote to four million "fundamentalists and evangelicals" in the Republican base who didn't turn up on Election Day. A common theory among Bush operatives had it that these no-shows had been alienated by the pre-election revelation of Mr. Bush's arrest for drunk driving years earlier.

The current Bush-Cheney campaign clearly believes that for these voters, Mary Cheney's sexuality could be a last-minute turnoff equivalent to Mr. Bush's D.U.I. history. When Rich Lowry of National Review said on Fox that "millions and millions of people" were not aware that Mary Cheney was gay until Mr. Kerry brought it up, it was clear just which four million he was talking about. Mr. Kerry, his critics all speculate, was deliberately seeking to depress voter turnout among Mr. Rove's M.I.A. religious conservatives by broadcasting Mary Cheney's sexuality to them for the first time.

What was most telling for me, in Lynne Cheney's claws-bared response to Kerry's remark, was the fact that she clearly thinks being gay is something to be ashamed of -- some dirty secret about her he was (supposedly) letting out of the bag. Or, is it simply that she's a sleazy political operator, doing her part to help Karl Rove bring in the fundamentalist fruitcake vote? Or both?

Posted by aalkon at 09:50 AM | Comments (10)

Too Bad There's No Oil In Sudan

Too Bad There's No Oil In Sudan
Nicholas Kristof laments, in The New York Times, how little we're doing about the genocide in Sudan:

We in America could save kids like Abdelrahim and Muhammad. This wouldn't require troops, just a bit of gumption to declare a no-fly zone, to press our Western allies and nearby Arab and African states, to impose an arms embargo and other targeted sanctions, to push a meaningful U.N. resolution even at the risk of a Chinese veto, and to insist upon the deployment of a larger African force.

Instead, President Bush's policy is to chide Sudan and send aid. That's much better than nothing and has led Sudan to kill fewer children and to kill more humanely: Sudan now mostly allows kids in Darfur like Abdelrahim to die of starvation, instead of heaving them onto bonfires. But fundamentally, U.S. policy seems to be to "manage" the genocide rather than to act decisively to stop it.

The lackadaisical international response has already permitted the deaths of about 100,000 people in Darfur, and up to 10,000 more are dying each month. We should look Abdelrahim and Muhammad in the eye and feel deeply ashamed.

Posted by aalkon at 08:26 AM | Comments (1)

October 20, 2004

Why I No Longer Live In New York City

Why I No Longer Live In New York City
From Craig's List, NY.

(via Metafilter)

Posted by aalkon at 08:07 AM | Comments (4)

Free Martha!

Free Martha!
Harry Browne on why Martha was wrongfully convicted.

(via iFeminist)

Posted by aalkon at 07:07 AM | Comments (5)

"The Show Is Nothing But Sex, Sex, Sex..."

"The Show Is Nothing But Sex, Sex, Sex..."
Complains an American Family Assn. official. Good reason to watch Desperate Housewives, the Sunday night (8pm PST, on ABC) show whose advertisers all the fundamentalist groups are boycotting. Chances are, they're none-too-happy about the depiction of women living in suburban misery either.

Posted by aalkon at 06:20 AM | Comments (4)

Creative Science

Creative Science
The Bush Administration is tailoring science to meet their political goals, and scientists are speaking out -- including 48 Nobel laureates who signed a statement endorsing Kerry, writes Andrew C. Revkin in The New York Times:

Many career scientists and officials have expressed frustration and anger privately but were unwilling to be identified for fear of losing their jobs. But a few have stepped forward, including Dr. Hansen at NASA, who has been researching global warming and conveying its implications to Congress and the White House for two decades.

Dr. Hansen, who was invited to brief the Bush cabinet twice on climate and whose work has been cited by Mr. Bush, said he had decided to speak publicly about the situation because he was convinced global warming posed a serious threat and that further delays in addressing it would add to the risks.

"It's something that I've been worrying about for months," he said, describing his decision. "If I don't do something now I'll regret it.

"Under the Clinton-Gore administration, you did have occasions when Al Gore knew the answer he wanted, and he got annoyed if you presented something that wasn't consistent with that," Dr. Hansen said. "I got a little fed up with him, but it was not institutionalized the way it is now."

Under the Bush administration, he said, "they're picking and choosing information according to the answer that they want to get, and they've appointed so many people who are just focused on this that they really are having an impact on the day-to-day flow of information."

Posted by aalkon at 05:05 AM | Comments (1)

October 19, 2004

The President Vs. The Pill

Jagged Little Presidency
You probably know where George Bush stands on abortion. But do you know where he stands on birth control?

Posted by aalkon at 09:00 AM | Comments (1)

Creepy, Creepy Karl Rove

Creepy, Creepy Karl Rove
And his sleazy election tactics. From a story by Joshua Green in The Atlantic:

A typical instance occurred in the hard-fought 1996 race for a seat on the Alabama Supreme Court between Rove's client, Harold See, then a University of Alabama law professor, and the Democratic incumbent, Kenneth Ingram. According to someone who worked for him, Rove, dissatisfied with the campaign's progress, had flyers printed up�absent any trace of who was behind them�viciously attacking See and his family. "We were trying to craft a message to reach some of the blue-collar, lower-middle-class people," the staffer says. "You'd roll it up, put a rubber band around it, and paperboy it at houses late at night. I was told, 'Do not hand it to anybody, do not tell anybody who you're with, and if you can, borrow a car that doesn't have your tags.' So I borrowed a buddy's car [and drove] down the middle of the street � I had Hefty bags stuffed full of these rolled-up pamphlets, and I'd cruise the designated neighborhoods, throwing these things out with both hands and literally driving with my knees." The ploy left Rove's opponent at a loss. Ingram's staff realized that it would be fruitless to try to persuade the public that the See campaign was attacking its own candidate in order "to create a backlash against the Democrat," as Joe Perkins, who worked for Ingram, put it to me. Presumably the public would believe that Democrats were spreading terrible rumors about See and his family. "They just beat you down to your knees," Ingram said of being on the receiving end of Rove's attacks. See won the race.

Some of Rove's darker tactics cut even closer to the bone. One constant throughout his career is the prevalence of whisper campaigns against opponents. The 2000 primary campaign, for example, featured a widely disseminated rumor that John McCain, tortured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, had betrayed his country under interrogation and been rendered mentally unfit for office.

In the Alabama judicial campaign, Green writes that Rove used one of his "signature tactics" against Mark Kennedy -- "(attacking) an opponent on the very front that seems unassailable":

Some of Kennedy's campaign commercials touted his volunteer work, including one that showed him holding hands with children. "We were trying to counter the positives from that ad," a former Rove staffer told me, explaining that some within the See camp initiated a whisper campaign that Kennedy was a pedophile. "It was our standard practice to use the University of Alabama Law School to disseminate whisper-campaign information," the staffer went on. "That was a major device we used for the transmission of this stuff. The students at the law school are from all over the state, and that's one of the ways that Karl got the information out�he knew the law students would take it back to their home towns and it would get out." This would create the impression that the lie was in fact common knowledge across the state. "What Rove does," says Joe Perkins, "is try to make something so bad for a family that the candidate will not subject the family to the hardship. Mark is not your typical Alabama macho, beer-drinkin', tobacco-chewin', pickup-drivin' kind of guy. He is a small, well-groomed, well-educated family man, and what they tried to do was make him look like a homosexual pedophile. That was really, really hard to take."

Posted by aalkon at 08:11 AM | Comments (1)

October 18, 2004

"Save The Republicans, Vote For Kerry"

"Save The Republicans, Vote For Kerry"
From a letter to Andrew Sullvan, posted on his blog, "a classical conservative who feels completely abandoned in this campaign by the Republican platform" has a pretty good idea:

Have you ever thought a Kerry election might actually save the party from the Fundamentalist Idealism that plagues the current administration? I think a witty slogan on your site might be: Save the Republicans, Vote for Kerry. Maybe a Kerry election will force the Republican brass to see they can no longer win national elections catering to their bigoted and close minded base, and thereby force them to adopt a more Reaganite approach to economic policy as well as finally dismissing its attacks on certain groups to enrage and engage this base.

Posted by aalkon at 12:44 AM | Comments (1)

Bound For Gory

Bound For Gory
What a puzzle:

�The U.S. military runs about 250 convoys a day, involving up to 3,000 vehicles, to supply and equip its troops in Iraq and they are frequently attacked by insurgents.

...The U.S. army is investigating why the men refused to take their unarmored fuel tankers on a supply run from Tallil in southeastern Iraq to Baghdad last Wednesday.

Hmm, let's not spend too many dollars digging up the dirt on this one.

Posted by aalkon at 12:06 AM | Comments (0)

October 17, 2004

The Church of Hot Monkey Love

The Church Of Hot Monkey Love
"You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals/So let's do it like they do it on the Discovery Channel."
--Lyrics of "Bad Touch," by the Bloodhound Gang, included in testimony to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee a few years back by a frightened creationist. Spotted in Steven Pinker's brilliant book, The Blank Slate, The Modern Denial Of Human Nature. Highly recommended. The book and the hot monkey love.

Then again, I'd hate to be species-ist.

Posted by aalkon at 08:17 AM | Comments (0)

Government By The Fanatics, For The Fanatics

Government By The Fanatics, For The Fanatics
Ron Suskind's New York Times Magazine piece on how George Bush governs with god:

Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush, told me recently that ''if Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Republican Party starting on Nov. 3.'' The nature of that conflict, as Bartlett sees it? Essentially, the same as the one raging across much of the world: a battle between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion.

''Just in the past few months,'' Bartlett said, ''I think a light has gone off for people who've spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do.'' Bartlett, a 53-year-old columnist and self-described libertarian Republican who has lately been a champion for traditional Republicans concerned about Bush's governance, went on to say: ''This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them. . . "

''This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts,'' Bartlett went on to say. ''He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence.'' Bartlett paused, then said, ''But you can't run the world on faith.''

One of the dangers of people who believe in god entirely without reasonable proof -- ie, the proof they'd require if you told them you got carried off by a flying elephant on the way to work -- is that it's not that big a step to make them believe, entirely without proof, that god wants them to kill the infidel or discrminate against gays. Here's a scary example from Suskind's story of how the unthink of fundamentalists like Bush translates in the political arena:

In the Oval Office in December 2002, the president met with a few ranking senators and members of the House, both Republicans and Democrats. In those days, there were high hopes that the United States-sponsored ''road map'' for the Israelis and Palestinians would be a pathway to peace, and the discussion that wintry day was, in part, about countries providing peacekeeping forces in the region. The problem, everyone agreed, was that a number of European countries, like France and Germany, had armies that were not trusted by either the Israelis or Palestinians. One congressman -- the Hungarian-born Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California and the only Holocaust survivor in Congress -- mentioned that the Scandinavian countries were viewed more positively. Lantos went on to describe for the president how the Swedish Army might be an ideal candidate to anchor a small peacekeeping force on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Sweden has a well-trained force of about 25,000. The president looked at him appraisingly, several people in the room recall.

''I don't know why you're talking about Sweden,'' Bush said. ''They're the neutral one. They don't have an army.''

Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply: ''Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They're the ones that are historically neutral, without an army.'' Then Lantos mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion.

Bush held to his view. ''No, no, it's Sweden that has no army.''

The room went silent, until someone changed the subject.

A few weeks later, members of Congress and their spouses gathered with administration officials and other dignitaries for the White House Christmas party. The president saw Lantos and grabbed him by the shoulder. ''You were right,'' he said, with bonhomie. ''Sweden does have an army.''

Yeah, and The Oval Office is occupied by a naked guy, and no little boy to point out the obvious. Let's hope that doesn't last much longer.

Posted by aalkon at 07:53 AM | Comments (1)

October 16, 2004

Hung Like A Tic-Tac?

Hung Like A Tic-Tac?

Coming soon, my new campaign against SUVs. The cards are at Staples now, being printed. Link to the old one is here.

Posted by aalkon at 08:14 AM | Comments (23)

Tucker Carlson Is A Dick

Tucker Carlson Is A Dick
And John Stewart told him so, in an appearance on Carlson's "Crossfire." Here's a summary from Salon:

Jon Stewart: Crossfire "hurting America"

"I think you're a lot more fun on your show," said Tucker Carlson to "Crossfire" guest Jon Stewart this afternoon. "And I think you're as much of a dick on your show as on any other," Stewart shot back. It wasn't the faux avuncularity we've come to expect from Stewart on "The Daily Show" but there, of course, he's playing a role. Here he was himself -- and he wasn't buying any of it.

From the moment Stewart sat down he made no secret of how repugnant he found the show. In fact, he said to Carlson and co-host Paul Begala that he had been so hard on the show he felt it was his duty to come on and say to their faces what he has said to friends and in interviews. What he said was that their show was "hurting America," and he was being only slightly hyperbolic. Stewart told them that when America needed journalists to be journalists they had instead chosen to present theater.

Carlson, trying to affect an air of dry amusement that a comedian would presume to lecture him, important pundit that he is, but looking as if his bow-tie were about to start spinning, could barely contain his outrage. In an absolutely mind-boggling moment, Carlson tried to counter Stewart's criticism by pointing out that during John Kerry's recent appearance on "The Daily Show," Stewart asked the candidate softball questions. "If you want to measure yourself against a comedy show," Stewart said, "be my guest."

Paul Begala tried to put a more conciliatory face on things by pointing out that theirs was a "debate" show. Stewart was having none of it. "I would love to see a real debate show," he said. And went on to tell them that instead of holding politicians' feet to the fire by asking tough question, "you're part of their strategy. You're partisan -- what's the word? -- uh, hacks."

It's almost a cliche by now to talk about "The Daily Show" being more trusted than real newscasts, but Stewart showed why. He pointed out to Carlson that he had asked Kerry if he really were in Cambodia but "I don't care," and when Carlson asked him what he thought about the "Bill O'Reilly vibrator flap," Stewart said, "I don't." It was as concise a demonstration of the triviality of the media as you could hope for.

"I thought you were going to be funny," Carlson said toward the end of the interview. Stewart responded, "No, I'm not going to be your monkey." And that was what was so bracing.

Stewart's "Crossfire" appearance is going to generate talk about how prickly he was, how he wasn't "nice" like he is on "The Daily Show." But prickliness is just what was needed. If you've built your reputation as a satirist pointing out how the media falls down on the job, you're not going to make yourself a part of their charade.

I've heard people talk about "The Daily Show" as an oasis of sanity, a public service. I couldn't agree more. Stewart's appearance on "Crossfire" was another public service. He went on and acted as if the show's purpose really was to confront tough issues, instead of being the political equivalent of pro wrestling. Given a chance to say absolutely what he thought, Stewart took it. He accomplished what almost never happens on television anymore: He made the dots come alive.

Posted by aalkon at 07:01 AM | Comments (17)

The Bush Bulge

The Bush Bulge
A whole slide show of Bush bulge shots here...not all of them convincing...plus photos of earpieces, radio controls, and medical devices that could be under there.

(via Metafilter)

Posted by aalkon at 06:51 AM | Comments (3)

Distributing Dollars On Faith

Distributing Dollars On Faith
Faith-based care brought to you by our "compassionate" "conservative"-in-chief. Do note the quotes around "conservative." You'll see why they're there once you read Amy Sullivan's Washington Monthly piece on how George Bush shovels dollars at religious organizations -- which really have no better record than secular ones -- if you look at real data instead of anecdotal evidence. Here's an excerpt from her piece:

Bush alone is responsible for supporting the distribution of taxpayer dollars without requiring proof that the funding produces results, for establishing a new government bureaucracy to give special help to a "discriminated" community that has always been on equal footing with everyone else, and for encouraging religious organizations to rely on government funding instead of encouraging private donations. It turns out that a "compassionate conservative" is a different kind of Republican after all. Just not the kind we expected.

Posted by aalkon at 05:40 AM | Comments (0)

October 15, 2004

Death In Venice

Death In Venice
California, that is. Spotted by Lena Cuisina on a gallery on Abbot Kinney Boulevard (at Santa Clara).

Posted by aalkon at 10:35 AM | Comments (1)

Rough Love

Love Hurts
Literally. Check out this hilarious letter from today's mail bag:

I have been seeing this girl for about four months (I�m 40, she�s 32), and during sex she has very long orgasms where she is becoming more and more violent. She has ripped out chunks of my hair (by the roots), bitten me on the cheek leaving bruised teeth marks, slapped and punched me and left deep scratches on my face. She knocked out my tooth and cost me $400 at the dentist. I have repeatedly asked her to mellow out, be gentle, calm down, etc. And she promises not to get carried away every time before sex, but always loses control and beats me. Am I supposed to like this? She�s very nice and quiet and polite at all other times. What the heck is going on here?--Whipped In Memphis

Posted by aalkon at 07:39 AM | Comments (8)

The Mumbo Jumbo Of Excluding Gays

The Mumbo Jumbo Of Excluding Gays
Bush says he wants to �protect marriage as an institution�...�between a man and a woman.� Let me get this straight. An �institution� is what? An abstract way of referring to something more concrete? (ie, the purposes and practices of the couple who is married -- lifelong commitment, setting for raising children, and lots of other dull stuff.) Why would you want to protect �an institution�? And, come on: How could it possibly hurt any hetero married couples if gay people are allowed to share in the legal protections the state grants straight people (who partake of the delusion that committing to somebody for a lifetime makes sense)?

Maybe it has something (or everything) to do with the insitution of marriage being solidly based in religion. Promoting the viewpoint that gays shouldn�t be allowed to marry is the antithesis of separation of church and state.

And then there's all this "slippery slope" stuff. The fundamentalists gasp, "Well, what if people were allowed to...marry more than one person!?" Well, why shouldn�t they be allowed to? Why, in fact, shouldn�t consenting adults be allowed to do whatever they please, with whichever consenting adults they please?

By the way, like Bush's seemingly bizarre mention of Dred Scott during the last debate (which Slate's Timothy Noah suggested was fundamentalist code for Roe v. Wade), all this "protection of the institution of marriage" crap is code for another institution: continuing discrimination against gays by a bunch of primitives who are secretly inserting as much of their religion into the governing of this country as they can. Here are a few words from religious right powerhouse Paul Weyrich on how to turn the country into the fundamentalist nation:

1) Falsehoods are not only acceptable, they are a necessity. The corollary is: The masses will accept any lie if it is spoken with vigor, energy and dedication.

2) It is necessary to be cast under the cloak of �goodness� whereas all opponents and their ideas must be cast as �evil.�

3) Complete destruction of every opponent must be accomplished through unrelenting personal attacks.

4) The creation of the appearance of overwhelming power and brutality is necessary in order to destroy the will of opponents to launch opposition of any kind.

Sound familiar?

This week, while writing a column about "coming out" in the workplace (the girl wanted to bring her partner of five years to work functions just like everybody else), I learned something chilling:

�In�36 states,�it is legal to fire someone based on their sexual orientation.

Yes, it's hard to believe, but you can literally be fired for being gay.

Those who experience this form of discrimination have no recourse under current federal law or under the Constitution as it has been interpreted by the courts.

This is America? Be terrified. Be very, very terrified.

Posted by aalkon at 07:32 AM | Comments (14)

Presidential Arrest Record

The World's Shortest Blog Has A Question
"How many times have you been arrested, Mr. President?" They're offering a bounty, in dollars, to any person who asks the president this question in a public forum.

(via Romenesko letters)

Posted by aalkon at 05:40 AM | Comments (0)

Kevin Drum On Swift Boat Lies

Kevin Drum On Swift Boat Lies
How the Swift Boat vets went to Vietnam to dig up dirt on Kerry -- and how they didn't find any.

Case in point. In August the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth charged that John Kerry had lied about the events that led to his Silver Star. In order to figure out if the SBVT account was true, Nightline sent a crew to Vietnam, where they visited the hamlets of Tran Thoi and Nha Vi and interviewed the local villagers to get their recollections of what really happened 35 years ago. You can read the resulting story yourself, but it's summarized pretty easily: Kerry was right and SBVT honcho John O'Neill wasn't.

Posted by aalkon at 04:46 AM | Comments (0)

October 14, 2004

Von Bitch

Von The Money
I've always said I'll wear "Donna Karan" on my chest the day I see Donna marching around in an "Amy Alkon" shirt. For this one, however, I'd be tempted to make an exception.

Posted by aalkon at 09:06 AM | Comments (1)

O'Reilly Sued For Sexual Harrassment

Shut Up! Shut Up!
That's advice Bill O'Reilly probably should have given himself, if the allegations in Andrea Mackris' sexual harrassment suit against him are true. Smoking Gun urges you to pay special attention to the Caribbean Shower Fantasy section, in which Mr. Populist appears to go a bit ethnic, employing falafel as a sex toy.

Posted by aalkon at 08:46 AM | Comments (4)

The Problem With Daily Newspapers

The Problem With Daily Newspapers
The London Independent's Johann Hari knocks dailies for reader ass-kissing:

...it�s a misunderstanding of what a newspaper is to think that your job is simply to reflect the readers� prejudices. If the majority of readers think that asylum seekers eat swans or commit rape, the job of the newspaper is to report the facts even if � especially if - they contradict the readers� misconceptions. I think you�ve got to take what you do as a journalist very seriously. You have always got to test that what you write is consistent with your principles and consistent with reality. Public opinion has to be formed on the basis of fact, and if the media tell people a pack of lies, as they do about asylum, it�s very dangerous.

Posted by aalkon at 07:46 AM | Comments (2)

"Asexuality: it's not just for amoebas anymore"

"Asexuality: It's Not Just For Amoebas Anymore"
A new study says one in 100 people is asexual.

Posted by aalkon at 05:00 AM | Comments (2)

October 13, 2004

Olbermann Again Blogs The Debate

Olbermann Blogs The Debate
Keith Olbermann live-scores the "Tempest In Tempe":

10:16 p.m. ET Round seventeen: Kerry receives on further need of Affirmative Action. Kerry jabs saying it's still needed and Administration failed to lead fight on discrimination that could've obviated need for Affirmative Action. Kerry is straining, but says we have a long way to go. Kerry says there is still the stark resistance of racism. Says Bush is first President never to meet with NAACP. Point to Kerry, but truth squadding needed here. Bush says he met with Black Congressional Caucus, mumbles about quotas. Wobbling now, invokes Pell Grants again, hasn't answered question, now into Small Business Loans. Now Bush pounding podium. Round, Kerry 1-0.

10:12 p.m. ET
Round sixteen: Bush responds on why he didn't insure extension of the assault weapon ban. Says it wouldn't have passed. Fancy footwork towards prosecution of those who commit crimes with guns. Kerry turns neatly. "I'm a gun owner," endorses second amendment. Stunning point to Kerry as N-R-A cheers. Twice refers to hunting, says he heard a story of an AK-47 while hunting in Iowa. Neat footwork. Says terrorists can buy assault weapons in America. Point to Kerry. Says he wouldn't have settled for politics.
Round, Kerry 2-0.

Tonight's George-Bush-makes-me-toss phrase: the "armies of compassion" he's supposedly going to send out to "heal" the country. Excuse me, but aren't they all on stop-loss orders in Iraq?

Posted by aalkon at 07:23 PM | Comments (0)

Let Your Vagina Be Your Voting Booth?!

Let Your Vagina Be Your Voting Booth?!
Why is it that so many women's organizations seem like outpatient asylums for idiots? Check out the insulting voter registration campaign targeted at women, with embarrassing sayings like, "Step into your vaginas and get the vagina vote out!" and "Are there are any registered vaginas in the house?" (As opposed to all those renegade cooters crawling the streets at night?) Wendy McElroy addresses the idiotic idea that women vote as one great big pussy posse:

Looking at just one election issue -- abortion -- there is no consensus among women who seem to be split equally into pro-choice and pro-life camps. Only by demeaning pro-life women as being "unenlightened to their own vaginal interests" can the advocates of shared-identity politics explain this schism.

Women don't seem to vote on the basis of their genitalia. Instead, they vote for the candidate most closely aligned with their view of the world. Indeed, it seems bizarre for gender feminists to argue that a woman should think and vote as a sex organ. Whatever happened to their anger at the objectification and portrayal of women as body parts?

Nor is it obviously true that women's interests differ dramatically from those of men. For example, it is difficult to see how pivotal election issues such as gun control, Iraq, the price of oil, better schools or terrorism are more important to one sex than the other or have a significantly disparate impact on either one.

Ladies, if you must vote, please use the big organ you'll find directly above your shoulders -- I mean, if it hasn't gotten too dusty due to overattendance of NOW events.

Posted by aalkon at 08:41 AM | Comments (4)

Lazy Parsing Kerry and Bush Positions

Parsing Farce
In Romenesko letters, David Kiley bitch-slaps broadcast journalists for sound-biting the facts instead of adequately explaining them:

(Chris) Matthews is as lazy as most other broadcast journalists who have for months repeated a shorthand version of John Kerry�s Iraq position this way: "First, he voted for the war and then he voted against the funding for it." I don�t recall the RNC complaining that this shortchanged Kerry�s position. Am I the only journalist in America who thinks broadcast journalists of every alleged political stripe have short-changed Kerry on this by eliminating the context and details of the votes. I never needed any tortured clarification of these votes. He voted to authorize the President to invade Iraq. He did not VOTE FOR WAR. There is a difference. But figures like Matthews and NBC�s Tim Russert, as well as the predictable righty pundits, have continually called it "voting for the war." His vote against the $87 billion was very clearly a vote against how the spending was to be funded (adding to the deficit and not out of a rolled back tax cut) and because of the sweetheart contract to Halliburton. It was a protest vote. Yes, I know this is Kerry position. But it�s valid, and it deserves to be represented each and every time a non-partisan moderator brings it up. I don't expect Sean Hannity to voice the context. But I do expect it of Russert, Matthews, Greenfield, etc. To not do so is to merely carry water for the RNC and B-C campaign. The excuse not to, I imagine, is that it would take an additional eight to ten seconds of explanation. And broadcasters can�t be bothered with "wasted" seconds. Shep Smith, after all, keeps his pencil sharp to eliminate verbs from his copy. Just because a position can"t be put on a bumper sticker doesn"t give broadcast journalists or commentators a pass to only give as much time to explaining an issue as they would to reading a bumper-sticker.

Second: The most distressing aspect of this campaign is the sound-bite battleground. Everyone from the RNC to Tim Russert is in such a heated frenzy to get the "gotcha" contradictory sound-bite that context is lost more often than it is not. If I spent two weeks researching Bush�s sound-bites and strung them together like the Bush campaign does I could make GWB look like a gun hating, same-sex marriage loving, Texas BBQ hating, quiche eating candidate. But such a portrayal wouldn�t be accurate. Neither is it accurate to help paint Kerry as a flip flopper (a word right out of the Rove campaign that has been embraced by journalists writing about the campaign) because he voted for the $87 billion in committee but against it on a floor vote. If I were an editor overseeing political coverage, I wouldn�t allow the term "flip-flopper" to be used in objective copy as a descriptor unless it was in a quote that was on point. The Bush campaign chooses a buzz-word, "flip-flopper," so journalists start accepting it in their lexicon like it was a "Sopranos" reference?

Posted by aalkon at 07:00 AM | Comments (2)

October 12, 2004

Daughter In A Bottle

Daughter In A Bottle

Trade in your loud, underparented LA brat for a quieter, more well-behaved, life-sized model -- complete with the vacant look that will help her fit right in at school! Sold at Tuesday Morning, the discount store that helps people turn their vacuum cleaners into giant bunnies.

Posted by aalkon at 10:35 AM | Comments (4)

Reading Between The Lies

Reading Between The Lies
Terrific Matt Welch article in Reason on dissecting the truth from the political propaganda -- a responsibility the mainstream media tends to ignore:

"Never, in the best part of two decades, have I had to reject, throw away or send back for rewrite so many letters filled with so many frauds and character assassinations," wrote Tim White, editorial page editor of the Fayetteville, North Carolina, Observer, in an exasperated August 15 column. "I have as much respect for the attacks of the Swift Boat Veterans as I have for the barrages of Whoopi Goldberg and Michael Moore. None."

The reaction is tempting but wrong. Michael Moore, sloppy and propagandistic though he is, packages hundreds of facts in his polemic entertainments; he also bellows crucial populist oxygen into perfectly legitimate topics such as the cozy relationship between the Bush dynasty and the vile House of Saud. The Swift Boat Veterans, even while kicking off their campaign with an advertisement that centrist Slate columnist Jacob Weisberg decribed as "pack[ing] an impressive amount of deceit into 60 seconds," helped unearth one interesting and potentially important bit of real news: that John Kerry was not in Cambodia on Christmas of 1968, as he had claimed at least four times (on the floor of the U.S. Senate, among other places).

...In an unintentionally hilarious "9-point checklist" for "Swift Boat genre" stories, Aly Colon, "ethics group leader" of the hand-wringing Poynter Institute, wrote that the first four questions a newspaper should ask in such a situation are: "Who�s making the accusation/allegation? Why now? To whom are they connected? Where does the accuser�s funding come from?" All four just happen make the Swift Boat Veterans look sketchy. Colon left out a question that might be more pertinent: "Is it true?"

Posted by aalkon at 08:19 AM | Comments (1)

Hurry Up And Wait

Hurry Up And Wait
According to an LA Times front-pager by Mark Mazetti, major attacks on Iraqi strongholds won't be made until after the American election -- perhaps altering the dynamics of elections in Iraq:

The Bush administration plans to delay major assaults on rebel-held cities in Iraq until after U.S. elections in November, say administration officials, mindful that large-scale military offensives could affect the U.S. presidential race.

Although American commanders in Iraq have been buoyed by recent successes in insurgent-held towns such as Samarra and Tall Afar, administration and Pentagon officials say they will not try to retake cities such as Fallouja and Ramadi � where the insurgents' grip is strongest and U.S. military casualties could be the highest � until after Americans vote in what is likely to be an extremely close election.

"When this election's over, you'll see us move very vigorously," said one senior administration official involved in strategic planning, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"Once you're past the election, it changes the political ramifications" of a large-scale offensive, the official said. "We're not on hold right now. We're just not as aggressive."

Any delay in pacifying Iraq's most troublesome cities, however, could alter the dynamics of a different election � the one in January, when Iraqis are to elect members of a national assembly.

With less than four months remaining, U.S. commanders are scrambling to enable voting in as many Iraqi cities as possible to shore up the poll's legitimacy.

U.S. officials point out that there have been no direct orders to commanders to halt operations in the weeks before the November 2 U.S. election. Top administration officials in Washington are simply reluctant to sign off on a major offensive in Iraq at the height of the political season.

Posted by aalkon at 07:05 AM | Comments (0)

October 11, 2004

Decorating Twist(ed)

Decorating Twist(ed)

I must say, I do like the dress.

Posted by aalkon at 10:58 AM | Comments (3)

Children Of Gay Parents Come Out of The Closet

Children Of Gay Parents Come Out of The Closet
According to the 2000 Census, more than 150,000 same-sex couples have at least one kid under 18 in the home. And that doesn't account for kids with a gay parent living outside the home, says a Newsweek story by Dirk Johnson and Adam Piore -- which also draws on the research of my friend, Judy Stacey, now an NYU sociology professor:

For every child, adolescence can be exhilarating�and hellish. For kids of gays, the vast majority of them heterosexual (research shows that kids of gays are not more likely to be gay themselves), it can mean being caught between two worlds and feeling at odds with both. These are kids who love their parents and fear that bigots will hurt them, or that the courts will try to remove them from their homes. Beyond that they feel left out of the discussion. Bystanders in the culture wars, they are often reduced to caricatures: social conservatives tend to see them as damaged goods being reared by immoral pseudoparents; liberals are eager to cast them as comfortable and carefree�the Huxtables with a minor wrinkle. In fact, these kids often know isolation and fear of rejection from peers, as well as the shame and anger that come with lying about your family.

At first, Christine Bachman, a blond teen with a sunny disposition who lives in suburban Boston, found that hiding the truth was easy. Her father, who is gay, had gone to live in New York when Christine was little. She spent many weekends with him, but simply told friends her parents were divorced and that her dad lived elsewhere. Ultimately, though, she began to feel disloyal about making her dad invisible. She didn't know what to expect when, in the eighth grade, she screwed up her courage, and read a letter she wrote to her class. She spoke of the dad "I love so very much" being gay. Suddenly, a thunderous roar of approval swept the room. "They gave me a standing ovation," she says with glee. "I was very surprised."

The stress on these kids can come as much from within the home as outside it. Kids of gays say their parents often unwittingly, and with good intentions, place high demands on them to show that gay parents can raise children who live up to the all-American ideals of their straight counterparts. For Kyle, that pressure came from within herself�"so you can prove," she says, "your family's not so bad." In her bedroom, adorned with posters of the bands Simple Plan and Good Charlotte, she spends hours studying to earn top marks. She is on the school debate team. She runs the video camera for the cheerleading squad at Friday-night football games. She volunteers at an elementary school on Saturdays. She teaches dog training on Tuesdays. She did find time to attend her first homecoming dance with her boyfriend Anthony. Even as she soars, she feels the burden of having to be a model kid.

Studies have generally found few differences between children raised by gay parents and those reared by heterosexual ones. In one of the most widely cited reports, sociologists Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz in 2001 found that kids of gays have as much self-esteem as those of straights. But the former University of Southern California scholars also found, not surprisingly, that sons and daughters of gays tend not to be as rigid about traditional sex roles. The boys of lesbians�most of the research has centered on kids raised in female same-sex households�were found to be more nurturing than their counterparts, while the girls were a bit more aggressive. These girls were also a bit more sexually adventurous, the boys somewhat more restrained.

Elizabeth Wall, 15, of Lawrenceville, N.J., whose fathers just celebrated their 25th anniversary, says kids of gays are just like their peers, but have been taught to be more tolerant of differences. "We might be more open because we grew up taught to love everyone," says Elizabeth. It's not always easy. She recently organized a day of silence at her school to mark the deaths of people to homophobic violence. A dozen or so kids from a church group surrounded her and her friends, chanting "It's not OK! It's not OK!" Elizabeth tries to shrug it off. But she's just a teenager. "It's hard," she acknowledged. "You want people to like you."

People on both sides of the issue agree on one thing: the number of kids raised by same-sex parents will continue to climb.

Posted by aalkon at 09:25 AM | Comments (4)

Crawford, TX, Newspaper Endorses Kerry

Bush's Hometown Paper Makes Its Presidential Endorsement
For Kerry -- citing the war in Iraq, turning budget surpluses into record budget deficits, and Bush proposals on Social Security and Medicare. Snicker. Snicker.

Posted by aalkon at 08:13 AM | Comments (1)

October 10, 2004

Anti-Emoticon

Migrating Emoticons
This check, from a meal Gregg and I had yesterday, reminds me of a John Callahan cartoon: On the left panel, a New Yorker, shouting "Fuck you!" (Translation: "Have a nice day.") On the other side, an Angeleno, smiling and saying, "Have a nice day!" (Translation: "Fuck you!").

(He did leave a big tip.)

In case you're wondering (from the 5:57 time-stamp), we eat lunch at 6pm, and dinner at 10pm, making it somewhat hard to find open restaurants in Los Angeles. It's hardest to find them in the Valley, where everyone apparently goes to bed after drinking a glass of warm milk at 8:30pm.

We once went to a French restaurant on Ventura Boulevard at 9:30pm, and the maitresse d' told us we could only stay if we ordered immediately and were out by 10pm. Of course, we were out in about 30 seconds, and ate instead at Caf� Bizou, well-noted in Zagats by the customer reviewers (and perhaps friends and employees of the restaurant?)...because the cuisine was, at best, Wyandotte French. (The scary Wyandotte just downriver from Detroit, that is.) (corrected from "east side" thanks to Gregg)

Posted by aalkon at 10:34 AM | Comments (4)

Buy Crest

Buy Crest
And Bounty, Tide, Mr. Clean, Clairol, and Arm & Hammer. And all the other products Proctor & Gamble makes. Show your support for their support for gay rights -- and equal rights for all people -- in the face of a boycott from the religious fanatics seeking to take over our country and remake it according to their bible:

Conservative Christian political groups are calling for a boycott of Proctor and Gamble after the consumer products company urged its workers to support the repeal of an anti-gay charter amendment in Cincinnati.

In an open letter to all employees, the Cincinnati-based multi-national said "P&G joins a number of other major businesses, in the Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce, civic, religious and community leaders in supporting repeal."

The 1993 charter amendment made Cincinnati the only U.S. city to ban enactment or enforcement of laws based on sexual orientation, effectively tying the hands of the city council from enacting laws protecting gays and lesbians against discrimination.

Citizens to Restore Fairness an umbrella organization of mainly gay civil rights groups has forced a referendum on the charter article. The question of whether to scrap it will appear on the November ballot.

The letter to P&G workers was signed by Dick Antoine, Global Human Resources Officer, and Charlotte Otto, Global External Relations Officer.�

It says that the charter amendment "prevents Cincinnati from developing a reputation as an open and welcoming community."� The letter also says that it "negatively impacts the city and region�s image and therefore limits P&G�s ability to attract and retain the best talent to help build our business."

Both the American Family Association and Focus On The Family are promoting a boycott:

"P&G said they 'will not tolerate discrimination [against homosexuals] in any form, against anyone, for any reason.' To keep homosexuals from being legally married is discrimination for good reason, which P&G says they will not tolerate. Taking them at their word, P&G supports homosexual marriage," AFA said in its statement.

Focus on the Family founder and chairman Dr. James C. Dobson called the Proctor & Gamble letter "an affront to its customers."

"It's tough to make a dent, financially, in a corporate giant like Procter & Gamble," Dobson told millions of listeners to his Christian radio program. "But we can send a very strong message to the men and women in the corporate offices: 'Not only have you lost your moral compass, but you have lost our business. And you're not going to get it back until you stop insulting us and disregarding our values.' "

Proctor & Gamble has been a longtime supporter of the gay community.� It has one of the strongest workplace equality policies among American companies and is a frequent advertiser in the LGBT media, including 365Gay.com.

In addition to Tide and Crest, P&G makes dozens of consumer products including Bounce, Bounty, Cascade, Eukanuba dog food, Febreze, Folgers coffee, and Head & Shoulders.

Buy 'em all! And e-mail them and tell them you support them.

Posted by aalkon at 08:03 AM | Comments (6)

October 09, 2004

Correcting Cheney

Correcting Cheney
Kevin Drum runs down what Cheney said while debating Edwards, and, ahem, what he really must have meant.

(via RawkusCaucus)

Posted by aalkon at 08:14 AM | Comments (0)

October 08, 2004

Debate Scoring On The "Internets"

Olbermann Scores The Debate On One Of An Apparently Growing Number Of "Internets"
At one point in the debate, most hilariously, Bush referred to rumors of a draft that he's heard on the "Internets." Keith Olbermann does a terrific play-by-play, complete with scoring, on every round of the debate, including that one:

9:34 p.m. ET Round six: Bush receives from Robert Farley about prospects of a draft. Says he's heard rumors on the "internets." Bloggers can be heard howling over the multiple. Minus one point to Bush. Stumbles in claiming he's replacing troops with weapons and equipment and unmanned vehicles. They'll save "manpower and equipment." Veers back to say there'll be no draft. Kerry is on the ropes here, now lists the military leaders who support him. Sounds a little too much like thank yous at a Friars' Roast. Minus one point to Kerry. Now Kerry backs out of clinch and says there's already a backdoor draft and says his military policy will be like Reagan's and Eisenhower's. One point to Kerry. But Bush is off his stool before Gibson authorizes him to and he's yelling at the ref -- always a bad idea. Minus one point,. Bush. He also leaves himself open by invoking Poland as an ally when Poland is pulling out -- Kerry scores point by noting it. Round, Kerry +1 to -2.

Posted by aalkon at 08:11 PM | Comments (2)

Charlie McCarthy For President?

Charlie McCarthy For President?
Dave Lindorff of Salon stares at Bush's bulge -- the one visible underneath his suit, from the back, in Fox News' footage of the last debate. (You have to sit through a Salon commercial to see the photo.) Was the bulge the control portion of a secret radio-controlled mic/lifeline to Karl Rove? Or was it simply an official mic pack for the debate or the outline of a bullet-proof vest?

Bloggers stoke the conspiracy with the claim that the Bush administration insisted on a condition that no cameras be placed behind the candidates. An official for the Commission on Presidential Debates, which set up the lecterns and microphones on the Miami stage, said the condition was indeed real, the result of negotiations by both campaigns. Yet that didn't stop Fox from setting up cameras behind Bush and Kerry. The official said that "microphones were mounted on lecterns, and the commission put no electronic devices on the president or Senator Kerry." When asked about the bulge on Bush's back, the official said, "I don't know what that was."

So what was it? Jacob McKenna, a spyware expert and the owner of the Spy Store, a high-tech surveillance shop in Spokane, Wash., looked at the Bush image on his computer monitor. "There's certainly something on his back, and it appears to be electronic," he said. McKenna said that, given its shape, the bulge could be the inductor portion of a two-way push-to-talk system. McKenna noted that such a system makes use of a tiny microchip-based earplug radio that is pushed way down into the ear canal, where it is virtually invisible. He also said a weak signal could be scrambled and be undetected by another broadcaster.

What's your guess? Charlie McCarthy for president? Bullet-proof vest? Or does Bush simply have one extra-large, rectangular vertabra amongst all the others?

Posted by aalkon at 02:45 PM | Comments (4)

Michael Lacey On The Two Lame-Asses Running For President

Michael Lacey On The Two Lame-Asses Running For President
200 million people in this country, and we have these two losers running for head of state? Here's an excerpt from Lacey's take on it:

Every four years I endure a presidential campaign that leaves me estranged, feeling like an illegal, a mojado, in my own country. The choleric isolation is worse this year because of the choices and the consequences. Here stands the morbidly irresolute John Kerry. And over there is George W. Bush in all his bantam banality. In the corner wetting himself is the ascetic conspiratard, Ralph Nader.

These are not my countrymen.

When asked who I will vote for, I shake my head in disgust and reply, "Yo soy Mexicano."

Friends and colleagues expect me to vote for John Kerry. But they misjudge me. Kerry does not deserve to be president. In the weeks leading up to the first debate, he could not protect his own combat medals and Purple Hearts from the pranks of a draft-dodging college cheerleader and his allies on the Swift Boat controversy. How the hell will Kerry protect Americans from the razored tactics of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?

I do not feel that Kerry or Bush is competent to lead us through a religious war waged by terrorists.

With nearly 3,000 Americans dead in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C., I wanted Osama bin Laden's blood. With another 1,000 soldiers fallen in Iraq -- and the inevitable pictures of slaughtered innocent civilians -- I also longed for a vigorous, honest examination of how we got here. Instead, the president fought the 9/11 Commission tooth and claw. His opponent is no better. As a jibe, flip-flopping hardly captured the number of stiff-limbed sentiments Kerry expressed on Iraq. Kerry adopted so many positions on the war that when viewed side by side, the sheer number of clumsy policies gave one the same queasy feeling as looking at a photograph of Mia Farrow and her brood of Third World kids.

And in some ways we got the leadership we deserved. There is a willful ignorance amongst voters that is staggering in scope. In mid-September a poll found that 42 percent of Americans still believe, despite all of the contrary evidence, that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 attacks.

Lacey recommends digging into The 9/11 Commission Report ($8 at Amazon). He says it reads "like a noir thriller," and he's right. It's fascinating stuff. Lacey goes on to spill the beans on self-proclaimed friend of the working man, Michael Moore:

I met Michael Moore in 1980 when he stopped at the alternative press convention en route to his new job as editor of Mother Jones. He had yet to make a movie. But he was the same sleazy, self-absorbed liar that he is today.

He attacked the editors and publishers present for daring to publish Best Of guides to their cities. Moore considered Best Of issues a sellout. This is, of course, typical leftist dogma that goes something like this: Best Of issues are a wet kiss to businesses and advertisers when what you should be doing is showing how THE MAN is keeping poor people down.

The fact is that Best Of guides, when executed with integrity, act as a practical guide to a bewildering urban landscape. Yes, you identify your favorite Mexican food joint, and the owner of that establishment feels kindly toward the newspaper. Certainly. But the other 200 restaurants that sell burritos and that didn't get selected bear a grudge. And no matter what advertisers might think, it is the single most popular issue of the year with readers and represents less a sellout than a break from the other 51 issues of doom and gloom.

But Moore's simple-minded, clenched-fist rhetoric isn't what bothered me.

This clown had just folded his newspaper in Flint, Michigan. All of his writers, editors, salespeople, circulation staff and business support were left to fend for themselves without so much as a severance package to see them through while he dashed off to the job at Mother Jones in San Francisco (Mother Jones would show him the door before his cup of coffee had a chance to cool). Perhaps if he'd paid attention to the needs of his staff, took care of business and published the occasional Best Of, his paper would still be alive.

Instead, he begged money off liberals. He had musicians like Harry Chapin do fund-raising concerts. The problem was, his rag was never good enough journalistically to sustain the charity.

When he wore out his welcome in publishing, he turned to movies and proved himself a natural.

--

Every single fact that I state in Fahrenheit 9/11 is the absolute and irrefutable truth," claims Moore. "Do not let anyone say this or that isn't true. If they say that, they are lying."

In fact, Moore's movie begins with a forgery that would shame even Dan Rather. The film is so filled with lies, distortions and half-truths that sorting out the truth is a cottage industry on the Web.

At the start of the movie, Moore trots out the conspiracy theory that Bush stole the election in Florida. Never mind that a six-month-long probe by a consortium of media that included the New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN contradict Moore.

As the film opens, a newspaper from Bloomington, Illinois, the Pantagraph, is flashed on the screen. Dated December 19, 2000, the headline over the story reads: "Latest Florida Recount Shows Gore Won Election."

But there was no such story in the Pantagraph on December 19. There was no such story ever in the Pantagraph.

On December 5, there was a letter from a reader alleging that Gore won, and that letter had a headline, "Latest Florida Recount Shows Gore Won Election."

So Moore cut and pasted a headline on a letter to the editor. He blew up the letter's headline, then ran that headline under the newspaper's logo to make it appear as if it were the headline on a news story.

At least Dan Rather was duped by forged documents; he didn't create forged documents.

Moore's distortions are more clever than his lies.

Bush is infamously captured at a dinner of elegant swells telling the obviously idle rich, "I call you the haves and the have-mores. Some call you the elite; I call you my base."

One cannot help but think of Bush, what a smug puissant.

But this is just Moore's class warfare meant to seduce an audience whose members suspect that they have not been invited to the country club.

The film footage is, in fact, from a charity dinner with a tradition of having speakers mock themselves and the audience. Rather than breaking bread with robber barons, Bush was helping to raise more than a million dollars for the medically indigent. Al Gore attended the same dinner on October 19, 2000, and he also lampooned himself: "The Al Smith Dinner represents a hallowed and important tradition, which I actually did invent."

Instead of actually looking at the president's foolish tax policies, which purport to create jobs by giving refunds to the rich, Moore prefers to fuel the fantasies of the bobbleheads who thrill to his documentaries.

I think playing to the prejudices of boobs coarsens the discussion.

Standard election procedure, these days.

(via Romenesko)

Posted by aalkon at 08:23 AM | Comments (6)

October 07, 2004

Bitch Wear

If I Wore T-Shirts
I'd be wearing this one.

Posted by aalkon at 12:20 PM | Comments (7)

(Sort Of) Lowest Airfare

The (Sort Of) Lowest Airfare
Charlie Leoha slaps newspapers for letting readers think the "lowest fares" chart is much more than an airline ad:

We've all seen the tables of "lowest air fares" in the Sunday papers. I remember using them regularly. But I've never really examined them for accuracy. I always assumed they were a true listing of low fares.

Not so. They're often flat out wrong.

In fact, the charts I just examined in the Boston Globe (and many other newspapers) are often wrong and misleading.

Just after Independence Air began flying to Boston from Washington, I took a look at the "lowest round-trip air fares chart" in the Boston Globe. Strangely, Independence Air wasn't mentioned at all. And jetBlue wasn't mentioned anywhere as having the lowest air fares.

Then I noticed flights from Manchester, N.H., and flights from Providence, R.I., and noted that no Southwest flights were listed.

How can a Lowest Air Fare Chart not even mention these three airlines? Independent Air, jetBlue and Southwest are the epitome of low cost airlines and in most cases lead the low fare fray. Without them, we would still be paying $800+ for a walk-up fare to Philadelphia and thousands of dollars for transcontinental flights.

Upon closer examination, I noticed that the fine print at the bottom of the Lowest Round-trip Air Fares Chart said, "Air fare information is supplied by Orbitz on the internet at www.orbitz.com."

Ah ha!

Orbitz doesn't list Independence Air, jetBlue or Southwest. Hence the chart in the paper is a product of journalistic laziness. Heaven forbid, that a newspaper journalist research flight costs between various points by checking out more than one Web site.

Leoha's just one of the columnists on Ticked.com -- along with Chris Elliott, my favorite on the site. Lots of insider information on travel. And here's another one of my travel secrets -- BiddingForTravel.com -- to figure out how low you can go in bidding for Priceline and Expedia flights, hotels, and more.

Posted by aalkon at 08:07 AM | Comments (1)

Bye-Bye Abortion Rights

Bye-Bye Abortion Rights
Look, I'm no Kerry fan, but voting for Bush could very likely be voting to send ourselves back in time -- to a time when women were baby pods -- whether they liked it or not. Here's the Fox "News" link to the AP story:

Thirty states are poised to make abortion illegal within a year if the�Supreme Court (search)�reversed its 1973 ruling establishing a woman's legal right to an abortion, an advocacy group said Tuesday.

The pro-abortion�Center for Reproductive Rights said some states have old laws on the books that would be triggered by the overturning of the landmark�Roe v. Wade �decision. Others have language in their state constitutions or strongly anti-abortion legislatures that would act quickly if the federal protection for abortion was ended and the issue reverted to the states.

"The building blocks are already in place to recriminalize abortion," said Nancy Northup, the center's president.

The group's report comes less than a month before the presidential election, which those on both sides of the abortion issue say will be critical in determining the future of the Roe decision.

Currently, it is believed that five of the nine justices support�abortion rights (search), but that balance could be tipped if President Bush, in a second term, nominates a new justice who reflects his anti-abortion views. Democratic contender John Kerry is a strong supporter of abortion rights.

And I'm a strong supporter of Kerry. Get the government out of the hands of the fundamentalists. It's scary to think what they could accomplish in four more years.

Posted by aalkon at 07:33 AM | Comments (2)

October 06, 2004

Letters From Iraq

Letters From Iraq
Okay, so these letters went to Michael Moore (after Fahrenheit 9/11 was released). But, the letters sound for real, and some of them have first and last names on them -- names of disillusioned, war-weary, and enraged American soldiers over there. Compelling stuff. Here's one of them:

From: Michael W
Sent: Tuesday July 13 2004 12.28pm
Subject: Dude, Iraq sucks

My name is Michael W and I am a 30-year-old National Guard infantryman serving in southeast Baghdad. I have been in Iraq since March of 04 and will continue to serve here until March of 05.

In the few short months my unit has been in Iraq, we have already lost one man and have had many injured (including me) in combat operations. And for what? At the very least, the government could have made sure that each of our vehicles had the proper armament to protect us soldiers.

In the early morning hours of May 10, one month to the day from my 30th birthday, I and 12 other men were attacked in a well-executed roadside ambush in south-east Baghdad. We were attacked with small-arms fire, a rocket-propelled grenade, and two well-placed roadside bombs. These roadside bombs nearly destroyed one of our Hummers and riddled my friends with shrapnel, almost killing them. They would not have had a scratch if they had the "Up Armour" kits on them. So where was W on that one?

It's just so ridiculous, which leads me to my next point. A Blackwater contractor makes $15,000 a month for doing the same job as my pals and me. I make about $4,000 a month over here. What's up with that?

Beyond that, the government is calling up more and more troops from the reserves. For what? Man, there is a huge fucking scam going on here! There are civilian contractors crawling all over this country. Blackwater, Kellogg Brown & Root, Halliburton, on and on. These contractors are doing everything you can think of from security to catering lunch!

We are spending money out the ass for this shit, and very few of the projects are going to the Iraqi people. Someone's back is getting scratched here, and it ain't the Iraqis'!

My life is left to chance at this point. I just hope I come home alive.

Posted by aalkon at 08:40 AM | Comments (3)

October 05, 2004

Adrian Leeds' Sleazy Travel "Writer" Come-On

Adrian Leeds' Sleazy Travel "Writer" Come-On
For just $1,397, you can attend a workshop that promises to get you free travel, and maybe even a career as a travel writer. Here's Adrian Leeds' pitch:

All you have to do in exchange is take good notes about what you did and where you went and then recommend -- or discourage -- others from following in your footsteps. What's more, you'll earn a few hundred... maybe even a few thousand... dollars for your trouble.

Sound too good to be true?

Yes. Because it is. Generally speaking, in any legitimate travel publication, professional travel writers are not allowed to accept freebies. Daily newspapers, for example. Travel & Leisure, for example, which prints its policy here:

Neither editors nor contributors may accept free travel.

Here's a pretty clear statement of journalistic ethics from a story in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin:

For most media, free trips -- known as press junkets -- are generally unacceptable.

The Society of Professional Journalists has an ethics code that says journalists should "Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment" and "Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money."

The Radio-Television News Directors Association has a code of professional conduct that says journalists should vigorously resist undue influence from "outside forces, including advertisers, sources, story subjects, powerful individuals and special interest groups."

Nevertheless, Adrian Leeds, of International Living, an international real estate sales venue dressed up to seem like a travel magazine, is seeking a few good fools who can be parted from their money in her travel writing workshops. The way she puts it, pretty much anybody who wants to can become a paid travel writer (knowing that the non-journalist has no idea how little even those at the top of their game get paid), and get free travel by taking her course.

Now, there may be some gullible hotel or restaurant owners in the world who will comp people who stroll in and say they write for some travel newsletter that somebody photocopies in their living room. But, as a professional writer who's syndicated to over 100 newspapers and writes for magazines, let me tell you -- 1. It's not easy getting work, even for professional writers. 2. Writing, when you count the research and work time, doesn't pay well. 3. Again, I'd venture that there are almost zero legitimate travel publications that allow their writers to take free travel offers, as doing so completely delegitimizes any claim their writers might have to being objective in their assessments.

As for these workshop attendees Leeds brags about?

...Duane and Harlene aren't trained journalists. In fact, before the Ultimate Travel Writer's Workshop they attended in Paris, they were just ordinary retirees -- bored with golf and looking for a sideline to keep them busy. Neither one had ever penned an article. But now they are working travel writers... and not the only ones who turned this conference in Paris into a new career.

Yeah, right. Please -- all you professional writers who read this blog -- you must comment below on the apparent ease of establishing a writing career, sans experience, sans clips...and late in life, as a bored retiree! Here's more:

When Tim O'Rielly came to Paris, he'd never written an article in his life. But as a freelance photographer he has occasion to travel, and he was looking for a way to get more mileage (and more money) out of his journeys.

Already he has. As soon as he got home to California, he put the lessons he learned to the test and sat down to write. Two months later, his first full-length feature article about travels in the Mayan World appeared in Vision Magazine. Since then, he's written two more cover stories for that publication. He told me, "Your course really spurred me to take action and risk hearing a 'no' or a 'yes' from an editor."

Vision Magazine is a free rag out of San Diego that didn't seem to bother to even edit this piece of poor O'Rielly's -- a 1481-word article on Jerusalem, short on punctuation and writing skill:

In Hebrew Jerusalem is called Yerushalayim or �City Of Peace� and in Arabic it is called al-Quds or �The Holy,� yet Jerusalem, as one of the oldest and most sacred cities on Earth is still attempting to find peace within itself. Considered holy by the three great monotheistic religions of the world, Judaism, Islam and Christianity it has been conquered 37 times in its 5,000 year history by myriad empires and religious groups including King David, King Solomon, the Kings of Judah, the Babylonians, Macedonians, Egyptians, Seleucids, Greeks, Jewish Hasmoneans, Romans, Byzantines, Persians, Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids, Ayyubids, Crusaders, Mameluks, Ottoman Turks, British, and Jordanians. Historically within Jerusalem there has never been a separation between religion and warfare. In a land that has arguably been bestowed with divine and mystical force there is an equally harsh juxtaposition of reality. Until tolerance and compassion become more viable than violence and fear, both the Israelis and the Palestinians, two peoples struggling to find their mutual identities and security, will not find the true meaning of both of their faiths, shalom and salamaat, meaning peace.

Of course, being a writer and simply writing are two different things -- two things apparent to anyone who reads the article above. And, as for Leeds' contention that worshop attendees will earn "a few hundred" or "maybe even a few thousand (dollars)" -- a major daily in a chain of major dailies told me they pay freelance travel writers $100 for a 2,000-word travel article. That's all-too-typical. And only to professional writers, with a career behind them and solid clips (published articles they've written for noteworthy publications), who don't take freebies.

If Leeds' workshop attendees do get some comps, they're probably cheating the people they're getting them from, who surely aren't offering comps simply because they're benevolent, but because they're looking for a big upsurge in business. That said, there can't be a whole lot of innkeepers and restaurant owners who are stupid enough to toss a "writer" a free stay or a free dinner for a mention in a some rag that isn't exactly Cond� Nast Traveler. Of course, there is still that promise of a stellar career in travel writing. "Our Graduates Boast Extraordinary Successes," says Leeds' sales pitch:

Barbara Bode took our Paris program, too, and she sold two pieces she wrote during it to In Touch, an upscale membership magazine for a women's networking organization called Women of Washington/Los Angeles/Pasadena�now she writes a regular column for that publication. A recent transplant from Washington to Malta, Barbara sold a story about her new home to Transitions Abroad. Then, in the market for a refresher course -- and some fun -- Barbara joined our Travel Writer cruise down Mexico's Pacific coast. While on board, she wrote a piece about swimming with dolphins and has since sold it to another women's publication.

Perhaps that sounds big to an aspiring writer and freebie-seeker. Here's how it sounds to a professional writer: After one course, Barbara writes for a newsletter. Woohoo. I'm sure she's making a mint -- or enough to buy a pack or two of mints. After a second course, probably costing her another $1,000-plus, she sold a piece to a travel Web site. Did she get $35? If she's lucky, she did. Finally, she sold to another "women's publication." (I'm sure it's the Travel & Leisure of community newsletters.) Don't put the downpayment on that yacht just yet, Barbara. But wait, there's more from Leeds:

Recently, I received a note from Laura Gagnon in New York. A bass player in a band by trade, she travels the world on tour and was looking for a way to spend her daytime, off-the-stage hours more productively, so she came to Paris for a crash course in travel writing.

In her e-mail she says, "I have two restaurant/lounge reviews published on www.sheckys.com, which is an online guide to nightlife in New York and LA.�They were works-for-hire, so writers aren't credited for each review.�But there is a print edition of the guide coming out this fall, and in that I'll be listed as a contributor. The editor was great to work with, and they even paid promptly. Once again, the Paris writing course was fantastic.�If you ever do a 'Part 2' let me know!"

Gagnon's grand score -- writing a couple of unbylined blurbs for an online guide (what did they pay, $15 each?) -- is mentioned on one of International Living's sister sites. This is really sad. Please, all you writers (pros, I mean) who read this blog -- you have to weigh in. And any editors dropping in here, too -- especially features or travel editors -- please comment below.

**Here are more shenanigans from what appears to be a sister company of International Living -- called Agora -- selling "press" passes to those who have nothing to do with the press.

FYI to those who'd pay for such a thing: Unless you're a White House, Senate, etc., or metro reporter (credentialed by the NYPD, for example), or you're playing a reporter in a movie, you don't need a press pass to write a story or gain access to anyplace you should legitimately be. In fact, you'll look like an utter ass if you run around flashing one -- especially if anybody sees it's one you paid $300 bucks for to somebody who has no real authority to issue them.

Posted by aalkon at 08:16 AM | Comments (23)

October 04, 2004

When Good Housekeeping Goes A Little Too Far

When Good Housekeeping Goes A Little Too Far

I don't know about you, but I've never had the desire to turn my upright vacuum into a bunny or any other form of "decorative conversation piece." From time to time, I have felt the urge to turn my toaster oven into two raccoons humping each other -- but I can't seem to find that cover anywhere.

Posted by aalkon at 08:42 AM | Comments (6)

Is Your Orgy Government Approved?

Is Your Orgy Government Approved?
Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, who recently came out in favor of orgies for tension relief (I'm not making this up, either), tossed out a few other less amusing tidbits at Harvard, reports Naked Drinking Coffee:

�The Supreme Court�s recent decisions protecting abortion rights, upholding the legalization of assisted suicide and striking down anti-sodomy laws represent a �dangerous� trend, Justice Antonin Scalia told a Harvard audience last night.� (Quote from a Daniel J. Hemel article in The Crimson.)

I know I was pissed when women were given the right to choose. You give them an inch and they take a mile. Next thing you know women will want to be able to vote or they�ll want equal pay for equal work or some other hippy bullshit like that. Come on Scalia, let�s you and me keep them in the kitchen and the bedroom. Right where they belong.

And why should we have assisted suicide? 104 year olds with terminal cancer that are in severe pain every second of the day should just toughen up and stick it out. I mean that can�t have that much longer to go right?

And I say bring back anti-sodomy laws. What two consenting individuals over the age of majority do in their own bedroom on their own time should totally be dictated by the state. I�m waiting for the official �Government Approved Sexual Positions And Acts� to come out so that I know exactly what I can and cannot do in the bedroom. I need my sex to have the official government stamp of approval. The government can hire a �sex inspector� and come into the bedroom every time I have sex. That way, if I slip up and do something too freaky the government can be sure to let me know.

Posted by aalkon at 07:13 AM | Comments (0)

Draft=Slavery?

Draft=Slavery?
From a press release from the Ayn Rand Institute:

Once again a proposal to reinstate the draft is being floated by various politicians. �This would be one of the worst violations of individual rights since slavery,� says Dr. Andrew Bernstein, a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute, �because in fact involuntary conscription is a form of slavery.�

In the current proposal, the draftee could opt for community service instead of military service. �This choice exposes the truly hideous premise of the drafters: your life belongs to them, to the state, to the community--to anybody but you. Whether the government forces you to fight and die in Iraq or lets you �volunteer� to clean sewers doesn�t really matter to them--as long as you accept that your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are theirs for the taking.�

How is it possible, asks Dr. Bernstein, �228 years after the Declaration of Independence that the politicians of this country still have not understood or accepted the idea of inalienable individual rights? Those who propose to reinstate the draft do not deserve to be elected or re-elected to any office.�

Posted by aalkon at 05:46 AM | Comments (0)

October 03, 2004

Truth In Advertising

Truth In Advertising

They only had parts of dead freaks, actually, at this New Orleans store called Sideshow. They claimed to have Pancho Villa's trigger finger, preserved (but not all that well-preserved, in my opinion) in a glass box, and Blackbeard's booger, also under glass. Thankfully, nobody has yet to advertise more than Britney Spears' used chewing gum on eBay.

Posted by aalkon at 01:15 AM | Comments (3)

The Transformation Of Christopher Hitchens

The Transformation Of Christopher Hitchens
Why Christopher Hitchens left The Left, from an interview by Johann Hari:

He explains that he believes the moment the left's bankruptcy became clear was on 9/11. "The United States was attacked by theocratic fascists who represents all the most reactionary elements on earth. They stand for liquidating everything the left has fought for: women's rights, democracy? And how did much of the left respond? By affecting a kind of neutrality between America and the theocratic fascists." He cites the cover of one of Tariq Ali's books as the perfect example. It shows Bush and Bin Laden morphed into one on its cover. "It's explicitly saying they are equally bad. However bad the American Empire has been, it is not as bad as this. It is not the Taliban, and anybody - any movement - that cannot see the difference has lost all moral bearings."

Hitchens - who has just returned from Afghanistan - says, "The world these [al-Quadea and Taliban] fascists want to create is one of constant submission and servility. The individual only has value to them if they enter into a life of constant reaffirmation and prayer. It is pure totalitarianism, and one of the ugliest totalitarianisms we've seen. It's the irrational combined with the idea of a completely closed society. To stand equidistant between that and a war to remove it is?" He shakes his head. I have never seen Hitch grasping for words before.

Some people on the left tried to understand the origins of al-Quadea as really being about inequalities in wealth, or Israel's brutality towards the Palestinians, or other legitimate grievances. "Look: inequalities in wealth had nothing to do with Beslan or Bali or Madrid," Hitchens says. "The case for redistributing wealth is either good or it isn't - I think it is - but it's a different argument. If you care about wealth distribution, please understand, the Taliban and the al Quaeda murderers have less to say on this than even the most cold-hearted person on Wall Street. These jihadists actually prefer people to live in utter, dire poverty because they say it is purifying. Nor is it anti-imperialist: they explictly want to recreate the lost Caliphate, which was an Empire itself."

Posted by aalkon at 12:53 AM | Comments (13)

The Dentist Made Her Do It

The Dentist Made Her Do It
Ellen Fein, one of the authors of "The Rules" (which I like to subtitle "How To Erase Your Personality In Order To Trap A Wallet Attached To A Man's Body"), blames her divorce on "gigantic teeth" a cosmetic dentist gave her. Snicker, snicker. Sure, Ellen.

Posted by aalkon at 12:21 AM | Comments (2)

"Is Someone Controlling The President Like A Ventriloquist?"

"Is Someone Controlling The President Like A Ventriloquist"?
Here's the question from Metafilter:

Is George Bush being quietly coached while he's speaking in public? There's a weird moment during the debate (one of many) when George Bush says "let me finish" but wasn't being interrrupted. Indymedia has a post on it too, including an mp3 of the moment. So, is Bush being coached, even during the debates, and more to the point, how did he lose when he was being fed what to say?

Here and here are more links, suggesting George Bush wears an earpiece while "speaking."

Posted by aalkon at 12:20 AM | Comments (0)

October 02, 2004

Putting The Tart In Tartan

Putting The Tart In Tartan

store window, New Orleans

Posted by aalkon at 08:17 AM | Comments (0)

Leonard PItts, Jr.

"Politics Has Always Been A Contact Sport"
That's what Pulitzer-winning syndicated columnist, Leonard Pitts, Jr., said about politics in America when he spoke to a group of newspaper editors (and me) in New Orleans on Friday. He quoted a litany of political insults, including Teddy Roosevelt's referring to Taft as a "fathead" with "brains less than a guinea pig." I wish I could remember some of the others. His personal favorite was a takeoff, by LBJ's camp, on Goldwater's campaign line, "In your heart, you know he's right"...which became "In your guts you know he's nuts."

Pitts at the podium in the O'Hare Airport-like Riverside Hilton

So why is it, Pitts wondered, that people in America suddenly seem more politically divided than ever? He doesn't think the majority of people in America actually are hard right or hard left, drawing on then (?80s?) and now Gallup polls for comparison. (Most scary of these was the one where he noted the percentage of people who think gay sex should be legal. No, he wasn't even talking gay marriage, but people who, very generously, would allow other consenting adults the right to have sex with whichever other consenting adults they so desire. I can't remember the exact number he said, but maybe it was 52%? Boy, are we a backward, Puritanical nation.)

But, back to the environment of political divisiveness, which he blames on the "all news all the time" media, where you "have to shout to get attention," and noted that "it's impossible to shout and be heard at the same time." He was most peeved about the temptation to label everyone either "left" or "right"; an oversimplification he calls "bumper-sticker mentality." He attacked sleazy liars like Michael Moore and Ann Coulter, who appeal to the lowest common denominator by "painting a picture of the nation that is not the nation," and caricaturing an argument until it's not the argument at all, then attacking the caricature. It's "loud and simplistic extremism that sheds more heat than light." I'm with you all the way, Mr. Pitts.

Pitts talked about how Reagan used to have Democratic Speaker Of The House Tip O'Neill over for drinks. How civilized...and how hard to imagine now. I'm adding Pitts to my list of what I call "common-sense moderates" like Matt Welch and Cathy Young. I asked Pitts for other columnists he felt fit the same bill. David Broder, William Raspberry, Clarence Page, and Cathy Parker were the ones he named.

Posted by aalkon at 07:34 AM | Comments (1)

October 01, 2004

Orgy In The Court

Orgy In The Court
I kid you not, Supreme Court justice Scalia just spoke out in favor of orgies:

"I even take the position that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged."

Posted by aalkon at 02:20 PM | Comments (2)

September 30, 2004

Something's Rotten In The State Of Florida

The More Things Change...
Representative government? Not In Florida. All over again. I'm out of town, and not able to blog much, but you have to read this Andrew Gumbel story in The Independent, "Something's Rotten In The State Of Florida," about the election horrors again in store.

Posted by aalkon at 08:13 AM | Comments (1)

September 29, 2004

Security First, Journalism Second

Security First, Journalism Second
An inside look at writing the news from Baghdad, from Wall Street Journal reporter Farnaz Fassihi. Job number one? Staying alive:

Being a foreign correspondent in Baghdad these days is like being�under virtual house arrest. Forget about the reasons that lured me to�this job: a chance to see the world, explore the exotic, meet new�people in far away lands, discover their ways and tell stories that could make a difference.

Little by little, day-by-day, being based in Iraq has defied all those reasons. I am house bound. I leave when I have a very good reason to� and a scheduled interview. I avoid going to people's homes and never� walk in the streets. I can't go grocery shopping any more, can't eat�in restaurants, can't strike a conversation with strangers, can't look�for stories, can't drive in any thing but a full armored car, can't go to scenes of breaking news stories, can't be stuck in traffic, can't�speak English outside, can't take a road trip, can't say I'm an American, can't linger at checkpoints, can't be curious about what�people are saying, doing, feeling.�And can't and can't. There has been one too many close calls, including a car bomb so near�our house that it blew out all the windows. So now my most pressing�concern every day is not to write a kick-ass story but to stay alive�and make sure our Iraqi employees stay alive. In Baghdad I am a�security personnel first, a reporter second.

It's hard to pinpoint when the 'turning point' exactly began. Was it� April when the Fallujah fell out of the grasp of the Americans? Was it when Moqtada and Jish Mahdi declared war on the U.S. military?Was it�when Sadr City, home to ten percent of Iraq's population, became a nightly battlefield for the Americans? Or was it when the insurgency�began spreading from isolated pockets in the Sunni triangle to include most of Iraq? Despite President Bush's rosy assessments, Iraq remains�a disaster. If under Saddam it was a 'potential' threat, under the Americans it has been transformed to 'imminent and active threat,' a foreign policy failure bound to haunt the United States for decades to come.

Read the rest at the Romenesko link above.

Posted by aalkon at 04:43 PM | Comments (2)

September 28, 2004

Upgrade To MT 3.11

Under Construction
Gregg is upgrading my site to Movable Type 3.11, and the new software is causing a delay in comments actually going up on the site. This will probably continue for a few days. No, this isn't a sign that I've lost my fervor for freedom of speech. The software especially designed to deal with the huge volume of spam my site and all MT sites get. This comments reg issue that's causing the delay in comments actually going up after you click "post" (and other issues) will be corrected very soon. If you've already upgraded a site to MT 3.11, your observations would be appreciated.

Posted by aalkon at 12:25 AM | Comments (9)

September 26, 2004

The Worst Things In Life Are Free

"The Worst Things In Life Are Free"
Sebastian Horsley on the joys of paying for sex.

Posted by aalkon at 09:02 AM | Comments (5)

Flip-Flopper-In-Chief

Flip-Flopper-In-Chief
The site that shows what George Bush is really made of. Thanks, Patrick.

Posted by aalkon at 08:46 AM | Comments (1)

September 25, 2004

Everything In Its Place

Everything In Its Place

Corner of Melrose and Edinburgh, Los Angeles. Photo stolen from Gregg Sutter.

Posted by aalkon at 08:17 AM | Comments (4)

Regulated Writing The Regulations

The Regulated Get To Write The Regulations
Surprise, surprise. Once again, the language in EPA pollution regulations mirrors that found in industry memos. Julie Eilperin writes in The Washington Post:

Sen. James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.), ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and one of the senators who called for the probe last spring, said the revelation that the EPA adopted the same wording as an industry source "no longer comes as much of a surprise."

"The Bush administration continues to let industry write the rules on pollution, and this is just one more example of how they abuse the public trust," he said.

Yes, it seems the fox has turned the henhouse into a condominium.

Posted by aalkon at 07:32 AM | Comments (0)

September 24, 2004

New York State

"I'm In A New York State Of Mind"

I'm in New York for the publication of (and book party for) The Experts' Guide To 100 Things Everybody Should Know How To Do, for which I wrote a chapter.

Interestingly, I did not write love advice (those topics were already taken when, believe it or not, Heloise [as in "Hints From"] recommended me to Samantha Ettus, who put the book together). My chapter was "How To Be A Good Houseguest." That said, I realized, on my way to the party, that my houseguest advice dovetails quite nicely with my love advice. It's based on the principle that all people are annoying and smell bad. Operate accordingly as a houseguest and in your relationships and you're less likely to be evicted.

Here's a quote from the chapter I wrote: "A polite guest reciprocates by becoming a host. That said, if the person who just hosted you lives in Paris and you live in Akron, an invitation to be a guest at your place probably isn't the sincerest form of reciprocity."

Posted by aalkon at 09:56 AM | Comments (0)

September 23, 2004

Dinner For Five (Thousand)

Dinner For Five (Thousand)
That�s probably a close estimate of the number of Sunday dinner guests American expat-in-Paris Jim Haynes has every year.

Jim Haynes

Every Sunday night, he serves dinner in his 14th arrondissement loft for over 50 people. Each dinner is a mixed bag of Americans and Europeans; my guess is about 60 percent American, 40 percent French and other. Dinner is 20 euros, and worth every penny; although, if you're a poor little church-mouse, I think he might toss you some chow for free.

Haynes left America to serve in the army, got posted to Edinburgh, and went to college there �- and subsequently started the Edinburgh film festival. He knows everybody �- rock stars, poets, scientists, and fascinating nobodies �- but he�s one of the most friendly, welcoming, and unpretentious people you'll ever meet.

If you go to dinner there, chances are you�ll run into people you haven�t seen for 10 or 20 years. I saw docu filmmaker Maxie Cohen, enroute to the south of France for the opening of her exhibition of photos of ladies rooms around Europe. Last I talked with Maxie was in the early 90s, at a party at her Soho, NY, loft. Also at Haynes', I met French actor Georges Corraface, whom I last saw on stage at Brooklyn Academy Of Music when he starred in Peter Brook�s Mahabharata.

Met some pretty interesting new people, too, like Duc, a young American photographer, just out of photo school. Duc hitchhiked the entire route of Lance Armstrong�s race, and shot the whole thing, spending the night in wheat fields in his sleeping bag, and getting taken in by kindly strangers in the French countryside more often than not.

Surrounding Duc, it's (from left) my friends, Paris blogger Jason Stone, Eric Wahlgren, Nancy Rommelmann, her daughter, and Boubeker.

Posted by aalkon at 07:02 AM | Comments (0)

Major Comments Spam Attack

Major Comments Spam Attack!
If you have an MT Blog, and you're using MT Blacklist, do yourself a major favor, and put in these words right away: ifreepages and hap.heydo.com

I just looked at my MT log, and there were probably 1,000 comments denials (spam that couldn't get through) in the past four hours. Unfortunately, 200 did sneak through.

Pass this on to ANYBODY with an MT blog with comments enabled. PS I've also found it helpful to blacklist words like "poker," "pills," and the like. Sometimes, it might prohibit a comment from a legit URL, unfortunately. But the savings in agony for me...priceless.

Oh yeah -- and the next MT (3.1.1, I believe it is), allows for batch deleting of comments, making it easy to get rid of the bastards in one fell swoop.

Posted by aalkon at 04:10 AM | Comments (0)

Experts' Guide

The Experts' Guide To 100 Things Everybody Should Know How To Do
A book, in stores on Friday, September 24, with a chapter by yours truly -- on "How To Be A Good Houseguest." At this very moment, I'm a houseguest in NYC, staying with the producer of my Biography TV spots. And, yes, I'm told I get high marks!

Posted by aalkon at 01:18 AM | Comments (0)

September 22, 2004

Big Brother-Cam

Big Brother-Cam
No more public sex in Chicago. Hmm, or perhaps MORE public sex in Chicago! Because Big Brother (and a bunch of his colleagues) are watching you. Stephen Kinzer writes in The New York Times:

Police specialists here can already monitor live footage from about 2,000 surveillance cameras around the city, so the addition of 250 cameras under the mayor's new plan is not a great jump. The way these cameras will be used, however, is an extraordinary technological leap.

Sophisticated new computer programs will immediately alert the police whenever anyone viewed by any of the cameras placed at buildings and other structures considered terrorist targets wanders aimlessly in circles, lingers outside a public building, pulls a car onto the shoulder of a highway, or leaves a package and walks away from it. Images of those people will be highlighted in color at the city's central monitoring station, allowing dispatchers to send police officers to the scene immediately.

Officials here designed the system after studying the video surveillance network in London, which became a world leader in this technology during the period when Irish terrorists were active. The Chicago officials also studied systems used in Las Vegas casinos, as well as those used by Army combat units. The system they have devised, they say, will be the most sophisticated in the United States and perhaps the world.

"What we're doing is a totally new concept," said Ron Huberman, executive director of the city's office of emergency management and communications. "This is a very innovative way to harness the power of cameras. It's going to take us to a whole new level."

Yeah, a level where civil liberties are a thing of the past.

Posted by aalkon at 08:50 AM | Comments (1)

September 21, 2004

Shopasaurus

Shopasaurus

Dinosaur at the Third Street Promenade, Santa Monica

Posted by aalkon at 11:59 AM | Comments (0)

Show Tunes Me The Way

Show Tunes Me The Way
A girl gives the gay-hating religious nutbags on the train what they've got coming. Then again, it would have been even more perfect if she'd made them all spend the night in bed with human plastic surgery practice doll and Liza-leech, David Gest...but I guess you can't have it all.

Posted by aalkon at 08:56 AM | Comments (6)

The Difference Between Scientists And Fundamentalists

The Difference Between Scientists And Fundamentalists
Scientists admit when they're wrong. Religious fanatics are completely convinced they have all the answers, and refuse to even consider the prospect that they might not -- all the while entirely lacking in any evidence whatsoever for what they believe. Umberto Eco has their number...and perhaps, yours?

According to these people, all that there is to understand has already been understood by long-vanished ancient civilisations and it is only by humbly returning to that traditional and immutable treasure that we may reconcile ourselves with ourselves and with our destiny.

In the most overtly occultist versions of this school of thought, the truth was cultivated by civilisations we have lost touch with: Atlantis engulfed by the ocean, the Hyperboreans, 100% pure Aryans who lived on an eternally temperate polar icecap, the sages of ancient India and other amusing yarns that, being indemonstrable, allow third-rate philosophers and writers of potboilers to keep on churning out warmed-over versions of the same old hermetic hogwash for the amusement of summer vacationers.

Modern science does not hold that what is new is always right. On the contrary, it is based on the principle of "fallibilism" (enunciated by the American philosopher Charles Peirce, elaborated upon by Popper and many other theorists, and put into practice by scientists themselves) according to which science progresses by continually correcting itself, falsifying its hypotheses by trial and error, admitting its own mistakes - and by considering that an experiment that doesn't work out is not a failure but is worth as much as a successful one because it proves that a certain line of research was mistaken and it is necessary either to change direction or even to start over from scratch.

And this is what was proposed centuries ago in Italy by an institute of learning known as the Accademia del Cimento, whose motto was " provando e riprovando ". This would normally translate into English as "to try and try again", but here there is a subtle distinction. Whereas in Italian " riprovare " normally means to try again, here it means to "reprove" or "reject" that which cannot be maintained in the light of reason and experience.

This way of thinking is opposed, as I said before, to all forms of fundamentalism, to all literal interpretations of holy writ - which are also open to continuous reinterpretation - and to all dogmatic certainty in one's own ideas. This is that good "philosophy," in the everyday and Socratic sense of the term, which ought to be taught in schools.

What does the growth of fundamentalism (and all belief in god) say about our country? That, just as Europeans are becoming less and less religious, Americans are jumping at the opportunity to be intellectual sheep? If you believe in god, come on, show me actual proof that there is one -- and I don't mean "it says so in the bible," or "the man in the long black robe swears god's up there!"

If you, like the rest of the world, have no proof, well, maybe you could just adopt my religion: "Be kind, be ethical, live a rational life, and 'leave the campground better than you found it.'" Unlike standard religions, which make you all sorts of promises (all that salvation hoo-hah, for example) that they are unlikely to deliver on, my religion comes with a (no) money-back guarantee: I solemnly pledge, if you give me your money, I'll have a better life! First class plane tickets, champagne and caviar, and filet mignon, just for starters. Come on, isn't it time you converted to Amyism?!

Posted by aalkon at 06:58 AM | Comments (27)

September 20, 2004

Construction Issues

Construction Issues For People On Safari Browser
New blog entries for Monday are up, but my site menu (apparently, just for people on Safari) has dropped to the bottom of the page. If you're on Safari, scroll all the way down to the very bottom to access column links, front page, book links, etc. Please let me know if the left-side links are still there on your browser. Thanks...-Amy

Posted by aalkon at 10:08 AM | Comments (9)

Starbucks - Not Just For Blogging

Starbucks - Not Just For Blogging Anymore

This woman actually brought a mannequin and a bunch of clothes to photograph to the Main Street, Santa Monica Starbucks. When I left, she was laying a pair of women's pants on the floor so she could shoot them flat! Perhaps she posted her photos to eBay after I left -- a site that's apparently a source of great wealth for many Americans (those who aren't buying mansions with their take from bake sales and lemonade stands).

Yes, the era of the office-free empire is upon us! Unfortunately, it seems the vast majority of the new Wi-Fi-connected, latte-lapping magnates lack a battery of secretaries to hold their calls. Somebody at Starbucks is always shouting something really inane into their cell phone, like "Buy low! Sell high!" (Um, yeah...we all know you're dialing your answering machine and talking to your cat.)

Posted by aalkon at 08:17 AM | Comments (0)

George Bush Sings

Sing Along With Bush
He's not just The War President. He's a rock idol, too.

Posted by aalkon at 07:01 AM | Comments (0)

Chickens Are The New Ferrets

Chickens Are The New Ferrets
But it's probably a bad idea to get a rooster as a pet if you live within five miles of other human beings.

Posted by aalkon at 06:38 AM | Comments (1)

September 19, 2004

Cornel West

Real Pretentious On Real Time
Princeton prof and author Cornel West was violently pretentious last night on Real Time With Bill Maher; actually decrying Oprah's all-audience car giveaway to people in need as a..."fetishizing of commodities"!

He also had the nerve -- and what a vulgar, pretentious snob! -- to denigrate those in Oprah's audience who cried when they learned they'd gotten a free vehicle. Hmm, let's say you're a single mother who's fallen on hard times, and somebody gives you bright, shiny, new, free transportation, meaning you don't have to drag your ass to the bus stop in the freezing cold at 5am. "Fetishizing of commodities"? Damn straight. Lucky for him, I wasn't near the keyboard earlier, when he mumbled some mumbo-jumbo about assault weapons as a signifier of our cultural "phallo-centricism." I kid you not.

You know, at around age 21, I stopped feeling the need to be multi-syllabically obtuse in hopes of impressing people with my grand vocabulary and searching intellect. These days, I'm thrilled when I use my grammar-check on my computer, and the stats say I'm communicating for people who read at a 6th grade level (not often enough...but I'm working on the simplicity and clarity thing). And lucky me, I've topped my self-esteem off with enough psychological spinach that my favorite reader letters now are the ones that start "Dear Dumb Bitch," or with something equally respectful and laudatory.

How old, exactly, is Cornell Woolrich? When, exactly, will he start feeling secure enough to start actually communicating? Cast your prediction below!

Posted by aalkon at 08:46 AM | Comments (5)

The Poet Laureate Of Pessimism

The Poet Laureate Of Pessimism
In honor of Leonard Cohen's 70th birthday, 70 things you may or may not know about him.

Posted by aalkon at 07:31 AM | Comments (1)

The Case Against The Bush Administration

The Case Against The Bush Administration
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, Colin Powell, Karl Rove, and Condoleezza Rice. Hold them accountable, says a Fight Back Campaign-sponsored site:

...For the disastrous situation facing the United States in Iraq, which has already led to the tragic deaths of over a thousand U.S. soldiers, civilian contractors, and support staff.

By politicizing their decision-making, selectively presenting evidence for the war, ignoring the counsel of experts, attacking their critics as unpatriotic, making claims about the success of the war that do not appear to coincide with the facts on the ground, and -- most shamefully -- by exploiting the memory of the September 11th attacks for political gain, the President and the Bush Administration have done a grave disservice to America.

And -- the Administration's claims to the contrary notwithstanding -- there is broad and growing consensus among professional foreign policy experts that the choices President Bush and his advisors made about how to respond to Saddam Hussein, and the disastrous consequences, have left the United States more vulnerable to future terrorist attacks, not safer.

Fight Back Campaign lays out the case here.

Posted by aalkon at 06:35 AM | Comments (0)

September 18, 2004

Doesn't Anybody In The Government Read?!!

Doesn't Anybody In The Government Read?!!
It seems a bookmark is a foreign object to those "protecting" the annoying and unfriendly skies. The very pretty, very sweet-looking special-ed teacher, Kathryn Harrington, 52, was arrested for trying to carry an ordinary monogrammed leather bookmark through airport security, writes Jay Cridlin, in the St. Pete Times:

For the past month, Kathryn Harrington has stared down the possibility of a criminal trial, a $10,000 fine and the stigma of being deemed a security risk at Tampa International Airport.

The reason? She had a bookmark with her as she passed through airport security screening.

"It was a bookmark," Harrington said. "It's not a weapon. I could not understand why I was being handcuffed and put into a police car. I cried for hours."

See the photos within the link -- of Harrington and her "weapon." Apparently, even items that "could be considered dangerous" are illegal to bring on a plane. Hello? I could put your eye out with the heels of many of my boots. Should I go barefoot on the plane? Do you feel safer now?

Posted by aalkon at 08:02 AM | Comments (4)

September 17, 2004

Hippie-crite On Pico Blvd.

Hippie-crite On Pico Blvd
"No War For Oil." Yes, that is, indeed, what the bumper sticker on this nice new Ford Explorer says. Good morning, genius! What do you think your vehicle runs on, purple Kool Aid?

Regarding the bumper sticker on the other side, "Let Peace Begin With Me"...yeah...let it begin with you getting an Insight or a Prius, or at least a Jetta diesel station wagon or Ford Focus gas-powered station wagon. For those who are interested in doing as much as possible to drive something that doesn't ruin children's lungs, endanger everyone else on the road, and lead to needless deaths of American boys and girls, locate your hybrid here, at Dealernet.com. (Use "Advanced Search" so you can select your specific car.)

I can already tell you there isn't an Insight in all of California, but there are a whole bunch in New Jersey, and I know a great car salesman, Gil Tutone (I call him Gil Two-Tone, which he puts up with in pretty good humor), at Power Honda, Valencia, who can make the deal for you. Regarding any bright ideas you might have about buying an Insight out of state and driving it to California, there's an enormous cost to re-registering it in California. Best to find one as close as possible, so your shipping charges are lower, then make a deal to have a dealer here buy it from the other dealership so you can buy it from them as a California car.

Oh yeah, and on a small penis note, this this 7mpg monstrosity makes the Hummer look like a Tonka. (How long, do you think, before they're in the garage at CAA?)

Posted by aalkon at 08:19 AM | Comments (11)

Gay Marriage Legalized

Gay Marriage Legalized
In yet another province in Canada. America used to be revolutionary. Now we're the backward empire run by fundamentalists. Sad, huh?

Posted by aalkon at 07:19 AM | Comments (9)

September 16, 2004

My Baby's Coming

My Baby's Coming
No, I haven't lost my mind and decided to have a child. But, like adoptive parents who mail-order a child from China, mine's coming from Texas, and it's just daaaarling, and I know many people will breathe a lot easier once it's here. ETA for my little bundle of joy? September 21. Feel free to help me name my baby.

Posted by aalkon at 08:47 AM | Comments (15)

Wangling From High Places

Who's The Boss?
"I am angry that so many sons of the powerful and well-placed managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units," he wrote. "The policies determining who would be drafted and who would be deferred, who would serve and who would escape, who would die and who would live were an anti-democratic disgrace." --Colin Powell, My American Journey.

Indeed.

(via Robert Sam Anson, NY Observer)

Posted by aalkon at 08:45 AM | Comments (3)

14 Hours In Hell

14 Hours In Hell
Sitting next to somebody blathering away on a cell phone on a plane. Soon to be a reality? Hmm, how many hours do you think it would take me to swim from New York to Paris?

(via bilingual blogger Emmanuelle Richard)

Posted by aalkon at 05:58 AM | Comments (0)

September 15, 2004

Not Shoes

Memo To The Publicly Under-Attired

No, flip-flops do not count as shoes! Not for anybody not still glistening with pool-water. While they are usually an unattractive addition to any woman's outfit, I am especially uninterested in getting an involuntary peek at some man's hairy toes while I am eating in a restaurant or shopping for produce at Whole Foods. Surely, if you can afford to buy groceries there, you can afford a nice pair of loafers. At the moment, Mr. Flip-Flops, your feet are a powerful emetic, and I'd really like to keep my dinner, thank you!

Posted by aalkon at 09:51 AM | Comments (18)

Who's The Big-Spending Democrat?

Who's The Big-Spending Big Democrat?
Wrong! It's the guy who accepted the nomination at the Republican convention, writes Mike Allen in the Washington Post:

The expansive agenda President Bush laid out at the Republican National Convention was missing a price tag, but administration figures show the total is likely to be well in excess of $3 trillion over a decade.

A staple of Bush's stump speech is his claim that his Democratic challenger, John F. Kerry, has proposed $2 trillion in long-term spending, a figure the Massachusetts senator's campaign calls exaggerated. But the cost of the new tax breaks and spending outlined by Bush at the GOP convention far eclipses that of the Kerry plan.

Bush's pledge to make permanent his tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of 2010 or before, would reduce government revenue by about $1 trillion over 10 years, according to administration estimates. His proposed changes in Social Security to allow younger workers to invest part of their payroll taxes in stocks and bonds could cost the government $2 trillion over the coming decade, according to the calculations of independent domestic policy experts.

And Bush's agenda has many costs the administration has not publicly estimated. For instance, Bush said in his speech that he would continue to try to stabilize Iraq and wage war on terrorism. The war in Iraq alone costs $4 billion a month, but the president's annual budget does not reflect that cost.

Bush's platform highlights the challenge for both presidential candidates in trying to lure voters with attractive government initiatives at a time of mounting budget deficits. This year's federal budget deficit will reach a record $422 billion, and the government is expected to accumulate $2.3 trillion in new debt over the next 10 years, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported last week.

The president has had little to say about the deficit as he barnstorms across the country, which has prompted Democrats and some conservative groups to say Bush refuses to admit there will not be enough money in government coffers to pay for many of his plans.

As somebody TV showrunner Scott Kaufer jokingly called "to the right of Genghis Khan," thanks to my reply (to his hypocrisy-catcher question) that the government shouldn't pay for NPR, my contention that anybody middle-class and up should pay for their own damn kids' schooling (but we should all chip in for poor kids'), and more, I feel especially entitled to say: True conservatives don't vote for Bush!

P.S. In case you were wondering, I'm also for legalizing pot, prostitution, and nudity and profanity on the airwaves, and for keeping god out of government!

Posted by aalkon at 08:18 AM | Comments (5)

Who's The Flip-Flopper?

Who's The Flip-Flopper?
Too busy swallowing Republican spin to think for yourself? Perhaps you haven't noticed how busy Bush has been...flip-flopping. Tom Raum writes, for the Associated Press that, if Kerry is a flip-flopper, he has company...with the initials GWB:

-In 2000, Bush argued against new military entanglements and nation building. He's done both in Iraq.

-He opposed a Homeland Security Department, then embraced it.

-He opposed creation of an independent Sept. 11 commission, then supported it. He first refused to speak to its members, then agreed only if Vice President Dick Cheney came with him.

-Bush argued for free trade, then imposed three-year tariffs on steel imports in 2002, only to withdraw them after 21 months.

-Last month, he said he doubted the war on terror could be won, then reversed himself to say it could and would.

-A week after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush said he wanted Osama bin Laden "dead or alive.'' But he told reporters six months later, "I truly am not that concerned about him.'' He did not mention bin Laden in his hour-long convention acceptance speech.

"I'm a war president,'' Bush told NBC's "Meet the Press'' on Feb. 8. But in a July 20 speech in Iowa, he said: "Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president.''

Bush keeps revising his Iraq war rationale: The need to seize Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction until none were found; liberating the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator; fighting terrorists in Iraq not at home; spreading democracy throughout the Middle East. Now it's a safer America and a safer world.

"No matter how many times Senator Kerry flip-flops, we were right to make America safer by removing Saddam Hussein from power,'' he said last week in Missouri.

Bush has changed his positions on new Clean Air Act restrictions, protecting the Social Security surplus, tobacco subsidies, the level of assistance to help combat AIDs in Africa, campaign finance overhaul and whether to negotiate with North Korean officials.

But while Bush's policy shifts have been numerous and notable, Democrats haven't succeeded yet in tarring him as a flip flopper, said American University political scientist James Thurber.

"Kerry has made some statements about it, but he doesn't have a clear strategy for hammering back at the flip flops of the president,'' Thurber said.

Posted by aalkon at 07:26 AM | Comments (0)

September 14, 2004

Doggie Dearest

Doggie Dearest

"Don't fuck with me, boys!"

photo stolen from Gregg Sutter

Posted by aalkon at 11:53 AM | Comments (6)

Kitty Kelly Book Out Today

Kitty Kelly Book Out Today
And posting this a little after 5am PST, Salon has the most info on it I've seen yet. Like this little tidbit you probably won't read on the left and right shriek sites:

New Yorker writer Brendan Gill recalls roaming the Kennebunkport compound one night while staying there looking for a book to read -- the only title he could find was "The Fart Book."

Is there even a die-hard Bush defender out there who finds this a surprise?

Posted by aalkon at 09:13 AM | Comments (4)

What If Bush Wins

What If Bush Wins?
Sixteen writers predict the outcomes of a second term for President Bush.

Posted by aalkon at 08:43 AM | Comments (1)

September 13, 2004

Choices, Choices...

Choices, Choices...

Big sale come November --
too bad there's nobody worth buying.

Mark Helprin paints a bleak electoral picture in The Wall Street Journal:

We have watched the division of the country into two ineffective camps, something that is especially apparent in an electoral season. On the one hand is John Kerry, a humorless Boston scold, in appearance the love child of Abraham Lincoln and Bette Midler, who recites slogans that he understands but does not believe. And on the other is the president, proud of his aversion to making an argument for his own case, in appearance a denizen of the Pleistocene, who recites slogans that he believes but does not understand.

Which empty suit are you voting for?

(WSJ link via Reason's blog)

Posted by aalkon at 08:03 AM | Comments (6)

September 12, 2004

Jeff Jarvis Was There

Jeff Jarvis Was There
Jeff Jarvis arrived on the PATH train just after the first tower of the WTC was attacked on 9-11. Here's his audio account of that day.

Posted by aalkon at 11:53 AM | Comments (1)

September 11, 2004

Conservatives Against Bush

Conservatives Against Bush
Reaganite Doug Bandow votes no on Bush:

Quite simply, the president, despite his well-choreographed posturing, does not represent traditional conservatism -- a commitment to individual liberty, limited government, constitutional restraint and fiscal responsibility. Rather, Bush routinely puts power before principle. As Chris Vance, chairman of Washington state's Republican Party, told the Economist: "George Bush's record is not that conservative ... There's something there for everyone."

Even Bush's conservative sycophants have trouble finding policies to praise. Certainly it cannot be federal spending. In 2000 candidate Bush complained that Al Gore would "throw the budget out of balance." But the big-spending Bush administration and GOP Congress have turned a 10-year budget surplus once estimated at $5.6 trillion into an estimated $5 trillion flood of red ink. This year's deficit will run about $445 billion, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation reports that in 2003 "government spending exceeded $20,000 per household for the first time since World War II." There are few programs at which the president has not thrown money; he has supported massive farm subsidies, an expensive new Medicare drug benefit, thousands of pork barrel projects, dubious homeland security grants, an expansion of Bill Clinton's AmeriCorps, and new foreign aid programs. What's more, says former conservative Republican Rep. Bob Barr, "in the midst of the war on terror and $500 billion deficits, [Bush] proposes sending spaceships to Mars."

Unfortunately, even the official spending numbers understate the problem. The Bush administration is pushing military proposals that may understate defense costs by $500 billion over the coming decade. The administration lied about the likely cost of the Medicare drug benefit, which added $8 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Moreover, it declined to include in budget proposals any numbers for maintaining the occupation of Iraq or underwriting the war on terrorism. Those funds will come through supplemental appropriation bills. Never mind that Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz had promised that reconstruction of Iraq could be paid for with Iraqi resources. (Yet, despite the Bush administration's generosity, it could not find the money to expeditiously equip U.S. soldiers in Iraq with body armor.)

Nor would a second Bush term likely be different. Nothing in his convention speech suggested a new willingness by Bush to make tough choices. Indeed, when discussing their domestic agenda, administration officials complained that the media had ignored their proposals, such as $250 million in aid to community colleges for job training. Not mentioned was that Washington runs a plethora of job training programs, few of which have demonstrated lasting benefits. This is the hallmark of a limited-government conservative?

Jonah Goldberg, a regular contributor to NRO, one of Bush's strongest bastions, complains that the president has "asked for a major new commitment by the federal government to insert itself into everything from religious charities to marriage counseling." Indeed, Bush seems to aspire to be America's moralizer in chief. He would use the federal government to micromanage education, combat the scourge of steroid use, push drug testing of high school kids, encourage character education, promote marriage, hire mentors for children of prisoners and provide coaches for ex-cons.

Conservative pundit Andrew Sullivan worries that Bush "is fusing Big Government liberalism with religious right moralism. It's the nanny state with more cash."

Bandow's essay is anything but love letter to Kerry, whom Bandow calls "bad for the cause of individual liberty and limited government." But, a Bush victory, based on the results of his presidency? "Catastrophic."

Posted by aalkon at 08:04 AM | Comments (15)

September 10, 2004

Dear Idiot (aka Jeanne Phillips)

Dear Idiot (aka Jeanne Phillips)
Yesterday, Dear Abby (aka Jeanne Phillips) ran a letter from a distraught girl who'd discovered evidence her stepfather was a peeping pedophile:

GIRL FINDS STEPDAD'S CAMERA IN A PLACE IT DOESN'T BELONG

DEAR ABBY: A few years ago, I noticed some porn in my mom and stepdad's room. I didn't mention it to anyone. Later, my older sister accused my stepdad of window-peeping, but no one believed her. Last summer, I noticed him outside my window when I woke up one morning. I didn't say anything because I didn't want to cause a problem.

I have never liked my stepdad. He is verbally abusive. You wouldn't believe what I hear every single day.

I share a bathroom with one of my sisters. Last year when it was remodeled, we noticed a gap between the floor and the basement. (We covered it with towels when we were in there.)

Last week, I noticed what looked like a piece of wood in the gap, so I decided to give it a closer look. It looked like the lens of a camera. When I took a flashlight into the basement and checked it out, I found a cable running through the room and got close enough to see it said "camera" on the back. It faced the toilet.

I don't know who to tell, or if I should. My sister deserves the right to know -- but who else would believe me? I'm just a stupid 14-year-old girl. If I tell my mom, she will kick my stepdad out, and I'll have to go and live with my dad. I'll have to change schools. I'll lose my boyfriend, my friends, my life. Mom could lose the house because my stepdad mainly brings in all the money.

I should have said something when I saw the porn. I feel like this is all my fault. If I don't say anything and it keeps on, it could get worse -- and I'd probably commit suicide from the stress. And what if my friends come over? Please help me -- this is so important. -- DESPERATE IN INDIANA

Did Dear Abby advise her to call the police, pronto? Nope! She actually advised the girl to go out and buy a disposable camera!...photograph the video camera behind the toilet...wait to get the pictures developed...and be sure to get several sets of prints! After she gets the prints back, she's supposed to hand one copy to the dimwit mother who put her in danger in the first place, and refused to believe the girl's sister when she told her she caught the stepfather peeping. That should be highly effective! The girl's also supposed to drop another set in the mail to her father! (Let's hope she can get her hands on a Priority Mail stamp.) Next, she's supposed to cross her fingers that mom will leap into action to protect her -- and not simply ask step-pervo to please remove the photographic equipment behind the peephole in the girl and her sister's bathroom before he sits down to dinner! (And that's probably the best case scenario, judging from the girl's description of enabler-mom.) If mom does nothing, the girl is supposed to go give another set of prints to a "trusted teacher"! Phillips does add: "Your stepfather is sick and does not belong in a house with young women."

DUH!

Oh, and by the way: "Ideally, the police should be notified."

Yeah! Like the moment you got that letter. As an advice columnist, there are certain letters you get that you don't let sit around in the mail Matterhorn with all the mail from horny convicts; for example, those from people who seem seriously suicidal and those from distraught young girls living with pedophile stepfathers. If at all possible, (if you're me) you get that girl on the phone (surreptitiously, of course), and get her to call the cops immediately. What you don't do is make her wait three weeks for your lame-ass, wrong advice to run in the paper. Now, maybe Phillips did take steps to contact the girl. Where would you place your bet on that?

I was so disturbed after reading this column of hers, I came home from lunch and e-mailed the head of sales at her syndicator. Since I've heard nothing back from him -- not even a "got your note" -- I'm posting this here. If you're as disturbed as I am by this, and your local newspaper runs Dear Abby, please write and let them know how you feel. Here's my take on it:

Dear John, I know this is very out of the ordinary, but I've been disturbed about this since I read Dear Abby in the paper at lunch. I'm writing to you because I don't have Jeanne Phillips' e-mail or office address, but the advice of hers that ran in the LA Times today (about the pedophile peeping stepfather) was seriously, dangerously wrong. The girl needs to call the police IMMEDIATELY, not play girl detective and wait to do something "when the pictures are developed"! I hope you'll forward this to Jeanne Phillips -- who would, I hope, track the girl down and tell her to call the cops. I often disagree with Phillips' advice, and typically just roll my eyes and close the paper without another thought -- but advising a young girl to take matters into her own hands in a case like this...! Dangerously, irresponsibly wrong. -Amy Alkon

Posted by aalkon at 11:18 AM | Comments (9)

Spano Strikes Again!

Ce N'est Pas Une Pipe

This little rue St. Denis supermarch� probably isn't the best place to shop for salade mach�.

LA Times travel writer Susan Spano muses that the prostitutes by rue St. Martin and Boulevard Sebastopol are puzzlingly large and fleshy, but she can't manage to work her feeble brain around why that might be!

Still, Paris can surprise me. The other day I was walking from a yoga class in the northern part of the Marais to Art Deco Rex Cinema on the Boulevard de Bonne Nouvelle. (I especially like the intersection of Boulevard de Bonne Nouvelle and Rue Poissoniere, though I can't exactly say why.) Anyway, I veered onto Rue Blondel, a little street that runs east to west between Boulevard Sebastopol and Rue St.-Martin, just like any other really, with storefront shops selling cheap clothes. In almost every doorway was a prostitute talking to a man or silently smoking, in a skin-tight skirt, halter top, high heels, flashy jewelry. Of course I've seen hookers before, but the thing about the ones on Rue Blondel is that they're all gigantic and fleshy, like something out of a Fellini movie. I exchanged a polite bon jour with one of them, trying not to gawk, wondering what to think of her and what she thought of me.

Umm...she was probably wondering if you were staring at her gigantic Adam's apple.

These prositutes are MEN! They're MEN! They're MEN! Note the nearby rue St. Denis -- the homo porn capital of Paris! Look at the "girls'" big, ham-hock-like knuckles! The faint five o'clock shadow under the caked-on foundation! The manly thighs!

How the LA Times can send such a lamebrain to write about Paris is beyond me. (At least this time, she left out the breaking news from inside her refrigerator)!

Posted by aalkon at 10:39 AM | Comments (5)

What I Love About Cathy Seipp

What I Love About Cathy Seipp
But, first, the context. Cathy writes in National Review about her "testy relationship" with columnist Nikki Finke, whom she described as "semi-sane" in the media column she wrote for LA's old Buzz magazine in the early 90s:

She complained to my editor that she was offended because she'd written serious articles about the serious problem of schizophrenia, so as I recall we had to run an apology.

Now for the record, if anyone called me semi-sane in print, I wouldn't send a letter like that. I'd send a jagged piece of broken mirror in an envelope with "I AM NOT SEMI-SANE" scrawled on it in lipstick or blood, but I guess we all have our own style when it comes to handling these things.

Yes, and like Cathy, I happen to favor psycho-chic. I also like to put my hate mail in my promo pieces (to sell my column). We're doing a new one now, and one dissatisfied reader's "I'd like to shove a stiletto heel up your ass" will be right at the top.

Posted by aalkon at 08:46 AM | Comments (0)

September 09, 2004

What Am I Drinking?

What Is The Advice Columnist Drinking?
What else?

Posted by aalkon at 09:26 AM | Comments (9)

The War Against People In Pain

The War Against People In Pain
Millions of Americans are being undertreated for pain, writes Maia Szalavitz, in Reason, thanks to prescription painkillers becoming the new frontline in the drug war. Doctors are being treated as suspected drug dealers -- simply for treating their patients in pain as their training has them see medically fit:

Frank Fisher seems to have been targeted based on just this sort of suspicion. At his Northern California clinic, the Harvard Medical School graduate accepted patients on Medicaid and Medi-Cal (California's health insurance for the poor) that most other physicians refused, and he tried to treat their pain as aggressively as he would treat anyone else's. In February 1999 state law enforcement agents raided Fisher's clinic and arrested him for drug dealing, fraud and murder. His bail was set at $15 million. State prosecutors accused him of "creating a public health epidemic" of OxyContin abuse and death. They implied that he must be a drug dealer because he was the largest prescriber of the drug under Medi-Cal.

But in a context where fear of prosecution leads most doctors to under-prescribe, anyone who prescribes what is necessary for severe pain will be a top prescriber. Even Burke admits that prosecuting doctors has a chilling effect on their colleagues' treatment decisions.

"I know from lecturing thousands of physicians that there is no question but that it does," he says. "The thing we don't want to happen is that physicians don't prescribe appropriately because of these cases, but I know that it happens. I have to be honest." Burke also recognizes that there is no ceiling on opioid doses: When patients develop tolerance, they may need massive doses that would kill someone who had never taken the drug. "Physicians should not be targeted simply on volume," he says. "That can be a huge mistake."

The DEA insists physicians aren't targeted based on volume alone. But Fisher believes he was. While patients with moderate pain can be treated effectively with low doses of opioids, he explains, severe pain requires that the dose be adjusted ("titrated") to a level that maximizes pain relief and minimizes side effects. "To get a sense," he says, "I titrated about two dozen patients, and they ended up taking almost half of the OxyContin 80-milligram pills prescribed in California in 1998. What that tells you is that nobody else titrated."

Fisher was jailed for five months, during which time the prosecution's case began to evaporate. First, the murder charges were reduced to manslaughter by the judge, who saw no proof of intent. Then the truth about these "killings" came out. One death involved a passenger who died when her spine was severed in a van accident. Fisher was charged with her "murder" because she had high levels of OxyContin in her blood. Another "victim" had taken drugs stolen from a patient, while a third died of a self-administered overdose two weeks after Fisher was incarcerated.

During cross-examination in pretrial hearings, it was revealed that seven attempts by undercover agents to get drugs from Fisher had been rebuffed. "I had a screening process for those who tried to get controlled substances," he says. "I screened out 60 percent of those, and apparently the agents were amongst them."

In January 2003, four years after Fisher's arrest, a state judge dismissed all the charges against him because prosecutors had tried repeatedly to delay the trial. But this year prosecutors decided to pursue another set of charges against him. Instead of homicide, drug dealing, and felony fraud involving $2 million in Medi-Cal reimbursements, they charged him with eight misdemeanor counts of fraud. Prosecutors would not put a dollar value on the offenses, but Fisher said they added up to $150. The jury agreed with Fisher's expert, who said the billings in question didn't warrant civil penalties, let alone criminal charges, and he was acquitted of all counts in May. He still faces possible disciplinary action by the state medical board as well as civil suits by patients' relatives.

Fisher forwarded an e-mail message from a juror who wrote: "Now that I am home and can read about you on the Internet, my heart really goes out to you...I was upset that the prosecutor wasted my time and the court's time on such a weak case. But now that I know what you have really been through I feel embarrassed and selfish to be thinking about my own time. I hope you can reopen your clinic some day and get back to practicing medicine...Thanks for doing the job most doctors won't."

Typical to the current administration (Cheney takes babysteps to pay lip service to gay rights because he has a gay daughter), only when somebody in the immediate Bush/Cheney families suffers pain might others also have their suffering alleviated. Maybe then they'll let the doctors out of jail. Next on the agenda...the pot-heads! Excuse me, but it makes about as much sense to have a law against smoking pot as it would to have a law against drinking martinis. Oh wait...we did have a law against drinking martinis. And look how far we haven't come! Come on, it's been a few hundred years since the Puritans docked here...can't we move on?

Posted by aalkon at 08:22 AM | Comments (2)

September 08, 2004

Cell Phones In Stores

It's A Bird, It's A Plane...
It's Super-Rude! My sentiments, exactly, about in-store cell-phoning:

Posted by aalkon at 12:25 PM | Comments (0)

Underground Cinema

Underground Cinema
Literally. Beneath the streets of Paris, no less!

Posted by aalkon at 10:13 AM | Comments (0)

What Would Jesus Do

What Would Jesus Do?
Well, I don't really know, because, well, I KILLED JESUS. I know this because all these really nice Christian kids screamed that at me when I was six. But, Alan Keyes feels pretty sure Jesus would give Obama the big (stigmata-handed) thumbs down.

According to a list of quotes put out by the Democratic candidate, Keyes said in a radio interview at the Republican National Convention that Jesus would not vote for Obama. The quote was part of a list Obama sent reporters of Keyes' accusations and epithets about him since Keyes became a candidate, NBC5 political editor Dick Kay said.

Kay also reported that Keyes called Obama a "socialist and a liar" on a cable access news show on Monday. Obama said he wants to win big to give Keyes a spanking because Keyes wages a scorched earth campaign. Keyes then went into a very long analysis of the word "spanking" and suggested it might be related to slavery and insulting to African- Americans. He would not answer when asked directly if he was insulted.

Reporters also pointed out that Obama had said Bobby Rush had spanked Obama in the Congressional race when Obama ran against Rush in 2000. Obama said Tuesday night it was tongue-in-cheek and that everyone knows he wants to win the race for working people. He also said no one has run a more positive campaign than he.

Keyes, who has focused his campaign on abortion, said that his statement about whom Jesus would vote for was based on Obama's pro-choice votes in the Illinois Senate.

What's scary is how the world, in 2004, has suddenly started foaming with fundamentalism. We're back in the middle ages, with people running their lives, and this country, on belief in god. Oh, are we a secular country? Oh, please. With faith-based initiatives, prayer circles in the White House, Bush and company governing based on WWJD and being vocal about it, the fight to use stem cells without impediment from the fundamentalist fruitcakes (including the one in the Oval Office), and more?

If you don't think Bush will take this country even further away from separation of church and state than he already has -- like, by appointing Dr. David Hager to a reproductive health policy team (a doctor! who wrongly thinks the pill is an abortifacient) -- you're deluding yourself.

Quite frankly, I'm not a Kerry fan, nor am I a Democrat, but I'm for anybody but Bush, or any other religious fanatics. It's simply too dangerous to vote for them, no matter what your pocketbook-based argument might be, or how you rationalize responding to an attack by Osama by going after Saddam.

This race is not one between Republicans and Democrats, it's literally a fight for modernism against primitivism. What do you wanna bet Osama wants Bush in the White House -- with lots more of that crusade and god rhetoric to stir up the "infidels"?

(link via David "Tell Me Everything" Rensin)

Posted by aalkon at 08:51 AM | Comments (6)

September 07, 2004

Roger Webster

Venice As Usual
Roger Webster stops by to borrow a nail file.

Posted by aalkon at 09:39 AM | Comments (3)

Friends In High Places

Friends In High Places
That's what two of the 9-11 hijackers had, according to a new book by Senator Bob Graham. Frank Davies writes about it in the Miami Herald:

The discovery of the financial backing of the two hijackers ''would draw a direct line between the terrorists and the government of Saudi Arabia, and trigger an attempted coverup by the Bush administration,'' the Florida Democrat wrote.

And in Graham's book, Intelligence Matters, obtained by The Herald Saturday, he makes clear that some details of that financial support from Saudi Arabia were in the 27 pages of the congressional inquiry's final report that were blocked from release by the administration, despite the pleas of leaders of both parties on the House and Senate intelligence committees.

Graham also revealed that Gen. Tommy Franks told him on Feb. 19, 2002, just four months after the invasion of Afghanistan, that many important resources -- including the Predator drone aircraft crucial to the search for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda leaders -- were being shifted to prepare for a war against Iraq.

Graham recalled this conversation at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa with Franks, then head of Central Command, who was "looking troubled'':

"Senator, we are not engaged in a war in Afghanistan.''

''Excuse me?'' I asked.

''Military and intelligence personnel are being redeployed to prepare for an action in Iraq,'' he continued.

Graham, who was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee from June 2001 through the buildup to the Iraq war, voted against the war resolution in October 2002 because he saw Iraq as a diversion that would hinder the fight against al Qaeda terrorism.

He oversaw the Sept. 11 investigation on Capitol Hill with Rep. Porter Goss, nominated last month to be the next CIA director. According to Graham, the FBI and the White House blocked efforts to investigate the extent of official Saudi connections to two hijackers.

Graham wrote that the staff of the congressional inquiry concluded that two Saudis in the San Diego area, Omar al-Bayoumi and Osama Bassan, who gave significant financial support to two hijackers, were working for the Saudi government.

Al-Bayoumi received a monthly allowance from a contractor for Saudi Civil Aviation that jumped from $465 to $3,700 in March 2000, after he helped Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhdar -- two of the Sept. 11 hijackers -- find apartments and make contacts in San Diego, just before they began pilot training.

When the staff tried to conduct interviews in that investigation, and with an FBI informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who also helped the eventual hijackers, they were blocked by the FBI and the administration, Graham wrote.

The administration and CIA also insisted that the details about the Saudi support network that benefited two hijackers be left out of the final congressional report, Graham complained.

Bush had concluded that ''a nation-state that had aided the terrorists should not be held publicly to account,'' Graham wrote. ``It was as if the president's loyalty lay more with Saudi Arabia than with America's safety.''

Well, money is money, honey.

Posted by aalkon at 08:00 AM | Comments (0)

September 06, 2004

Luckily, It's Only Hurricane Season

Luckily, It's Only Hurricane Season
In Florida these days.

photo by Gregg Sutter

Posted by aalkon at 09:17 AM | Comments (1)

Who Pays, Who Profits?

Who Pays, Who Profits?
Reading a fantastic book, The Ecology Of Commerce, by Paul Hawken. Here are a few quotes:

Gasoline is cheap in the United States because its price does not reflect the cost of smog, acid rain, and their subsequent effects on health and the environment.

As a capitalist Advice Goddess, I object to subsidizing the gas companies with what amounts to involuntary socialism. The same goes for cigarette manufacturers.

...In an economic study of the costs associated with cigarette smoking borne by Californians, the University Of California at San Francisco identified $7.6 billion in yearly expenses, mainly in lost wages and higher health care costs. This was equivalent to $3.43 for every pack of cigarettes sold in the state. Even though individuals smoke, society shares the cost.

Thanks, but no thanks.

The problem is that these costs are shared unevenly, just as the profits from selling them are garnered disproportionately.

Harken points to a solution in the work of the late English economist A.C. Pigou:

Pigous argued that competitive marketplaces would not work if producers did not bear the full costs of production, including whatever pollution, sickness, or environmental damage they caused. Pigou's solution was to impose a "tax to correct maladjustments" on producers, a tax that would be comparable to the avoided cost or unborne expense. Pigou cited prematurely peeling paint on a house near a cole-fired mill as an example of an external cost that should be paid by the producer. He theorized that when the producer was forced to bear full costs, it would have incentives to reduce its negative impact, thus lowering those costs.

It comes down to this:

The measures we use to determine which companies get our money is completely removed from how those companies affect human and natural life. In fact, if there is a connection, it may be inverse. The more able a company is to externalize its cost of doing business and be ruthless in its practices, the greater return on capital it may achieve in the short term.

That's not capitalism. It's free-ride-ism.

Posted by aalkon at 08:35 AM | Comments (5)

Romenesko On Drugs

Romenesko On Drugs
Okay, okay, it's just caffeine. The man who brought us MediaGossip-turned-MediaNews (now Romenesko), and Obscure Store And Reading Room, is now blogging about Starbucks.

Posted by aalkon at 06:39 AM | Comments (0)

September 05, 2004

High-Definition TV

High-Definition TV
Liked this quote from Real Time last night, preceded by Bill Maher's observation that FDR didn't run on a Pearl Harbor platform, nor was Abraham Lincoln's presidency defined by theater security:

"9-11 wasn't a triumph of the human spirit. It was a fuckup of a guy on vacation." -Bill Maher

Posted by aalkon at 08:01 AM | Comments (1)

One Woman, One Vast Conspiracy

The Vast Right-Wing Con-Seipp-acy
There are frequent complaints about an alleged "vast right-wing conspiracy" in the LA Press Club. Sadly, the entire vast right wing seems to be comprised of one person: my friend Cathy Seipp. As Emmanuelle Richard and I are Cathy's monthly cohostesses for book parties, we are frequently lumped in as fellow vast right-wing conspirators -- despite the fact that we cheerfully consider Cathy politically, well, wrong!

Likewise, although Cathy says she doesn't remember this, she once referred to me (politically speaking) as "a wingnut." Despite our political differences, we always manage to find fun common ground -- hence, this month's writergirl breakfast at Hugo's (a restaurant my boyfriend likes to refer to as "Homo's" due to its smack-dab-in-West-Hollywood location).

Here's Cathy (with Harlow-hair), dangerously close to self-proclaimed liberals (novelist Ellen Slezak across the table from her), and liberaltarians (me, not pictured), and an emissary from afar: charming, raspberry-shirted Swiss journo Claudia Laffranchi. Heather King (in the back on the left) and Kerry Madden-Lunsford (back right) were undeclared at breakfast, but I'd guess they aren't exactly crowding Cathy's vast, one-woman right wing.

Politics as usual. Guess which person whose last name is Seipp put her .02 in in the form of two crossed fingers?

Posted by aalkon at 07:34 AM | Comments (3)

September 04, 2004

Bush By Numbers

Bush By Numbers
Graydon Carter counts the double standards. For example:

1983 The year in which Donald Rumsfeld, Ronald Reagan's special envoy to the Middle East, gave Saddam Hussein a pair of golden spurs as a gift.

2.5 Number of hours after Rumsfeld learnt that Osama bin Laden was a suspect in the 11 September attacks that he brought up reasons to "hit" Iraq.

237 Minimum number of misleading statements on Iraq made by top Bush administration officials between 2002 and January 2004, according to the California Representative Henry Waxman.

10m Estimated number of people worldwide who took to the streets on 21 February 2003, in opposition to the invasion of Iraq, the largest simultaneous protest in world history.

$2bn Estimated monthly cost of US military presence in Iraq projected by the White House in April 2003.

$4bn Actual monthly cost of the US military presence in Iraq according to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld in 2004.

$15m Amount of a contract awarded to an American firm to build a cement factory in Iraq.

$80,000 Amount an Iraqi firm spent (using Saddam's confiscated funds) to build the same factory, after delays prevented the American firm from starting it.

2000 Year that Cheney said his policy as CEO of Halliburton oil services company was "we wouldn't do anything in Iraq".

$4.7bn Total value of contracts awarded to Halliburton in Iraq and Afghanistan.

$680m Estimated value of Iraq reconstruction contracts awarded to Bechtel.

$2.8bnValue of Bechtel Corp contracts in Iraq.

$120bn Amount the war and its aftermath are projected to cost for the 2004 fiscal year.

35 Number of countries to which the United States suspended military assistance after they failed to sign agreements giving Americans immunity from prosecution before the International Criminal Court.

92 Percentage of Iraq's urban areas with access to potable water in late 2002.

60 Percentage of Iraq's urban areas with access to potable water in late 2003.

55 Percentage of the Iraqi workforce who were unemployed before the war.

80 Percentage of the Iraqi workforce who are unemployed a Year after the war.

0 Number of American combat deaths in Germany after the Nazi surrender in May 1945.

37 Death toll of US soldiers in Iraq in May 2003, the month combat operations "officially" ended.

0 Number of coffins of dead soldiers returning home that the Bush administration has permitted to be photographed.

0 Number of memorial services for the returned dead that Bush has attended since the beginning of the war.

And the list goes on, and on, and on.

Posted by aalkon at 08:24 AM | Comments (28)

Sullivan's Travels

Andrew Sullivan Returns
Back from his blog-vacation hiatus, and well worth a read. For example:

THE END OF CONSERVATISM: But conservatism as we have known it is now over. People like me who became conservatives because of the appeal of smaller government and more domestic freedom are now marginalized in a big-government party, bent on using the power of the state to direct people's lives, give them meaning and protect them from all dangers. Just remember all that Bush promised last night: an astonishingly expensive bid to spend much more money to help people in ways that conservatives once abjured. He pledged to provide record levels of education funding, colleges and healthcare centers in poor towns, more Pell grants, seven million more affordable homes, expensive new HSAs, and a phenomenally expensive bid to reform the social security system. I look forward to someone adding it all up, but it's easily in the trillions. And Bush's astonishing achievement is to make the case for all this new spending, at a time of chronic debt (created in large part by his profligate party), while pegging his opponent as the "tax-and-spend" candidate. The chutzpah is amazing. At this point, however, it isn't just chutzpah. It's deception. To propose all this knowing full well that we cannot even begin to afford it is irresponsible in the deepest degree. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the only difference between Republicans and Democrats now is that the Bush Republicans believe in Big Insolvent Government and the Kerry Democrats believe in Big Solvent Government. By any measure, that makes Kerry - especially as he has endorsed the critical pay-as-you-go rule on domestic spending - easily the choice for fiscal conservatives. It was also jaw-dropping to hear this president speak about tax reform. Bush? He has done more to lard up the tax code with special breaks and new loopholes than any recent president. On this issue - on which I couldn't agree more - I have to say I don't believe him. Tax reform goes against the grain of everything this president has done so far. Why would he change now?

Posted by aalkon at 07:49 AM | Comments (1)

September 03, 2004

Ape Joke

Ask The Atheist

When will I believe in god? When I can get the guy on the phone. The same goes for Santa and the Easter Bunny.

I'm going on TV as the "Ask The Atheist" guest on a show that's taping today, airing in December, called Faith Under Fire. In that spirit, I'll recommend (again), a FANTASTIC book, The End Of Faith: Religion, Terror, And The Future Of Reason, by Sam Harris. Also, here are two Web sites for the rational, skeptic.com and the-brights.net. And here is a thematic little joke:

One day, the zookeeper noticed that the orangutan was reading two books - the Bible and Darwin's Origin of Species. Surprised, he asked the ape, "Why are you reading both those books?"

"Well," said the orangutan, "I just wanted to know if
I was my brother's keeper or my keeper's brother."

And here's a quote from Harris' book:

Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him or that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him for all eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever.

And a question: Can any god-believers really say, as Harris puts it, that "religious faith is anything more sublime than a desperate marriage of hope and ignorance"?

Posted by aalkon at 05:01 PM | Comments (0)

Amy Goes Head To Head With The Ape

Amy Goes Head To Head With The Ape
Well, I must say my appearance on Faith Under Fire did not go well. The guest I was debating, via satellite hookup, was a guy named Frank Pastore, a former pitcher for the Cincinnati Reds, who apparently decided god exists because he experienced people praying for him in great earnestness.

What a rude man! In fact, he was so rude to me on the show that the host, Lee Strobel, and the exec producer, along with a gaggle of producers and other crew, all gathered around me after the show and repeatedly apologized for how he behaved.

The show started with Lee asking me a question: why I don't believe in god. "For the same reason I don't believe in Santa or the Easter bunny," I responded, "Because there's no proof any of them exist." Strobel then asked Pastore a question. Pastore responded -- uninterrupted by me, of course, since it would have been RUDE to break in. Strobel asked me a question. I began to answer when Pastore interrupted me and started talking over me. I politely asked that he let me talk. Again and again. He interrupted me again, and again, and again. And he just kept repeating the same long barrage about proof there is a god -- without ever actually offering any -- then berated me about what kind of proof I'd need, yet never let me respond. Every time Strobel would ask me a question, I could barely get a few words out when Pastore would cut in. What a bully. Equally disturbing, while I addressed my remarks to the topic of belief or lack of belief in god, Pastore made it personal, attacking me repeatedly -- down to sneering about my column name, The Advice Goddess. (It's a joke, dude.)

Twice, I said I was about to unhook my mic and walk out, and Strobel did his best to try to civilize the discussion each time -- but to no avail. Pastore's rudeness was really unfortunate, because this could have been an interesting discussion -- but there was no discussion whatsover -- just a bully shouting over me and making derogatory remarks about me instead of sticking to the topic.

Here's a copy of the e-mail I got from one of the producers after the show:

Thank you and...

I apologize again that the other guest was so aggressive and obnoxious. We had no idea that that was the way it was going to go down.

Meanwhile, you were able to maintain your composure with dignity and femininity in stark contrast to Frank�s demeanor during this segment.

I really appreciate you being such a good sport under the circumstances.

All the best,
Caroline

And here's my response:

Thanks -- I really appreciate that. You guys were all very nice and professional. Thanks for having me on. I'd be happy to come back some time for some intelligent debate -- with somebody capable of having one. Sadly, I could have had a very intelligent conversation, I think, with Lee -- who has a similar point of view as Frank, but was very gentile in his manner of disagreeing with me. All the best, -Amy

Posted by aalkon at 07:03 AM | Comments (8)

September 02, 2004

Give 'Em Snopes!

The Politics Of Internet Chain Letters
Apparently, part of Zell Miller's anti-Kerry rant was lifted from an Internet chain letter, debunked on Snopes.

(via Kevin Roderick/LAObserved, who should turn his comments back on!)

Posted by aalkon at 11:20 AM | Comments (3)

Swift Boat On Venice Boulevard

Swift Boat On Venice Boulevard

photo by Gregg Sutter

Posted by aalkon at 09:30 AM | Comments (0)

Joe Klein

Joe Klein On Dirty Politics
Joe Klein seeks the truth and finds:

...Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have turned out to be anything but�the only "lies" they've turned up are a mistaken date or a mild Kerry exaggeration about operating in Cambodia and a Purple Heart received for a minor wound�we are told their real gripe is that Kerry protested the war after he came home and sullied their service by testifying to atrocities committed by American troops in Vietnam.

These are heartfelt gripes, perhaps, but wrong on the merits. Kerry's protest was not only honorable, it was accurate. The war in Vietnam was an unnecessary disaster, entered into under false pretenses�the fabricated Gulf of Tonkin incident�and fought because of a mistaken intellectual theory: that the Vietnamese national liberation movement was part of an international communist conspiracy to overwhelm Asia. (The subsequent war between Vietnam and China put a crimp in that one.) And, yes, there were atrocities aplenty. I spent three years in the 1980s writing about a platoon of former Marines, men I consider heroes, and several unburdened themselves of awful memories before we were done: tossing a Vietnamese prisoner out of a helicopter, shooting an obviously innocent woman civilian in the back, collecting the ears of enemy dead. It was a meaningless, despicable war, and insane brutality was not an uncommon reaction.

But we're not really talking about Vietnam here, are we? We are talking about the politics of misdirection, about keeping John Kerry on the defensive by raising spurious questions about his "character."

We may also be talking about Iraq�and limiting Kerry's ability to question the President's decision to go to war. If so, the Swifties need not have bothered. Kerry hasn't shown much inclination to raise the real question about Iraq: Was it the right thing to do? And Bush hasn't shown much inclination to talk about the mixed, confusing effects of globalization on people like Elba Nieves. Which means there are nondebates on the two most important issues facing the nation. Not-So-Swift Columnists for Truth is appalled.

So are a few swift boat vets who had their names forged on the document decrying Kerry, writes Linda Halstead-Acharya:

Swift boat veteran Bob Anderson of Columbus is ticked.

It bothers him that Sen. John Kerry's swift boat history has become such a political hot potato. But he's even more irritated that his name was included - without his permission - on a letter used to discredit Kerry.

"I'm pretty nonpolitical," the 56-year-old Anderson said Tuesday. So, when he found out last week that his name was one of about 300 signed on a letter questioning Kerry's service, he was "flabbergasted."

"It's kind of like stealing my identity," said Anderson, who spent a year on a swift boat as an engine man and gunner.

Speaking of faking it, check out our award-wearing commander-in-chief. Only, it seems he didn't actually earn one of the military awards he's wearing.

Yoo-hoo, Swift Boat Veterans? Anybody home?

Posted by aalkon at 08:04 AM | Comments (2)

September 01, 2004

Bush Time

Seen and Herd At The Convention
Hordes of Republicans were chanting "Four More Years! Four More Years!" And Michael Moore:

"Two More Months! Two More Months!"

And from Democracy Now:

Peace activist and Code Pink founder Medea Benjamin was kicked off the floor of the Republican convention after she unfurled a pink banner that read Pro-Life: Stop the Killing in Iraq.

Silly Medea. Don't you know fundamentalists are only pro-life before the baby is born?

Here's Nick Gillespie on Dick Cheney:

...Cheney's speech--like much of the RNC--pivots on a highly debatable, indeed, the highly debatable point that "we're in a war we didn't start." That's only partly true: Al Qaeda attacked the U.S. and deserves to be killed to the last man for that; they started things. Yet no one--certainly no one in mainstream politics--is against blowing Al Qaeda to kingdom come. The questions most Americans have relate to the war in Iraq, a battle whose timing and shape was very much dictated by the White House.

Bracketing for the moment the large question of how the economy will affect votes, if the GOP is able to define the War on Terror and the war in Iraq as coterminous, they'll win in a walkover. If the Dems somehow manage to separate the two, it'll still be competitive.

New Yorkers Kristen Breitweiser and Monica Gabrielle write, in a letter to The New York Times:

As single mothers left to raise children whose fathers were killed on 9/11, we do not relish the thought of handing our daughters a future of never-ending war. Especially if that war has no credible link to 9/11 or to any real threat posed by weapons of mass destruction.

Posted by aalkon at 08:17 AM | Comments (11)

August 31, 2004

Spano In Paris...Still!

Paris Mismatch
You, Susan Spano, are in Paris, a city not exactly lacking in the compelling, bizarre, and hilarious.

You, Susan Spano, are writing about Paris in a "blog" for a major newspaper -- a job for which you are, most bizarrely (considering the banality of your observations), being paid. What thrilling revelation do you choose to write about this week? How quickly dairy products spoil in your refrigerator, bien sur!

I've noticed that lots of dairy products quickly go bad in my fridge: milk, fromage blanc, yogurt. I suspect it's because the French don't use as many preservatives as we do in America --not a bad idea, but stinky when you keep things too long.

You might say criticizing her stuff is like "shooting fish in a barrel," but I would say it's more like duct-taping TNT to a barrel and detonating it.

Posted by aalkon at 09:50 AM | Comments (12)

Bra Deal

"Tempest In A 'C' Cup"
There are a lot of boobs in Montana, and a number of them are employed by the Fish, Wildlife, and Parks department, according to this story by Eve Byron:

Talk about busted. About 20 bras recently were cut off a fence between Frank Cooper and Shirley Cleary's property and the Stickney Creek fishing access on the Missouri River, after Fish, Wildlife and Parks employees decided the "bra fence" posed an "attractive nuisance."

These state-employed humorless prudes cut down the bras from Cooper and Cleary's property, then threatened the Cooper/Cleary family with prosecution.

The Cooper/Cleary family didn't take this lightly, and what started as a tempest in a C cup evolved to a First Amendment free speech and property rights issue.

"With all the freedoms vanishing today and all the government regulations that are part of the Patriot Act, this just seemed like another aggressive move on the part of the government," Cooper said from his Helena home on Friday. "The government is infringing on our freedom of speech."

The flap over the bra fence began in July, when the Cooper/Cleary family decided to host a "Beer, Brat and Bra Bust" party at their Missouri River cabin. They got the idea of a bra fence when they were traveling in New Zealand and saw these colorful tourist attractions, some with up to 1,000 undergarments on them.

�They had everything from lingerie to panties to long johns on them," Cooper said. "We decided it would be fun to do that here in Montana."

The idea got a lot of support from their friends, and about 25-30 people showed up, with the women bringing red bras, flowered ones, and little black lacy things. Cooper even had three bras from New Zealand to dress up his barbed-wire fence.

"We're talking people 50 to 83 years old, all respectable citizens, like attorneys, social workers, retired professors," Cooper said. "We drank a little wine, ate a few brats and christened the bra fence.

"When we hung the bras � we had a friend who was like a town crier � I said �Hear ye, hear ye, let this be a sister memorial to the Cadrona bra fence on the plains of New Zealand. To all the participants that donated bras, and to their former contents, I would only suggest: Hang in there.'"

Here I am showing my support for their cause

photo by Gregg Sutter

Posted by aalkon at 08:00 AM | Comments (4)

August 30, 2004

Bad Manners Day At Starbucks

Bad Manners Day At Starbucks
I call it "Lunar Landing Behavior," as in, "Unless you made a lunar landing to get here, chances are, you're on earth, where there are a lot of other human beings -- who might be disturbed by your loud, rude, and/or slovenly obliviousness to their existence!"

The first practitioner of the day was the guy shouting about his money problems into his cell phone: "I SAID I'm sorry it bounced! The check'll be good by Wednesday!" Like me, the guys next to me turned to look and started laughing. Hmm, cash flow issues must be a real chick magnet, dude!

"Bounced check? What an aphrodisiac!"

No sooner did the debt megaphone depart than the place was crawling with loud, underparented kids -- two of them (who went over like five). Surprise, surprise, the task was left to me to eventually suggest to a four-year-old boy on the loose that I was working (writing on my laptop), and did not wish to engage in either a discussion or a staring contest with him. I politely avoided mention of his running, shrieking, and table manners -- "table manners" perhaps being a misnomer, considering his food consumption was largely a table-free affair. Yes, I was gentle about giving him the brush-off. It's not his fault he was born to crappy parents.

The woman who looked to be his birthing pod, in a flash of parental-style involvement, asked to know what I'd said. "That I want to be left alone," I muttered, glaring into my computer, chagrinned that "parent your damn brat!" cat-fight energy and deadlines don't mix. She repeated this to her husband in a tone typically accompanied by eye-rolling, "Oh, she wants to be left alone." That's right. Astonishingly, I am not charmed by the presence of loud, running, jumping children in establishments that do not include monkey bars. Her son, by the way, jumped scarily close to my hot coffee at one point, while [I'll be generous] "Mom" was discussing, most hilariously, the joys of owning remote property in farm country where one is left alone!

Her little girl, maybe two, rivaled her brother in having the run of the place, spending much of their visit marching around jamming a big muffin into her face and exploding crumbs everywhere. Perhaps it's just me, but isn't it mommy's job to cut kiddie's food into small, manageable pieces, then "suggest" that food is meant to be eaten at the table? To the father's credit, he did make a half-hearted attempt to clean up some of the crumbs on the floor. Of course, proportionally speaking, his effort compared to using a eye-shadow brush and a tiny silver shovel to sweep up after Hurricane Charley. When they all left, a veritable orgy of crumbs still remained -- on the chairs, the table, and the table and chairs up front, which the kids were climbing on -- and still a lot more on the floor, along with crumpled napkins and other items they'd knocked off another patron's table.

The next people to sit where they were -- well, that is, after getting napkins to clean up the crumb-littered table and chairs the previous occupants left -- were a father and his well-behaved little girl, who'd just turned three (so her father later told me when I asked). What a contrast. The little girl, neatly dressed in a darling bright pink dress and little pink fabric mary-janes, sat quietly in her chair while her father went to get their coffee and food. Setting the tone for the rest of their visit, when her father set down her cocoa and cookie, she chirped in a tiny voice, "Thank you, Daddy." Thank you, Daddy, indeed.

Posted by aalkon at 08:45 AM | Comments (3)

August 29, 2004

Bush Weasel In Wartime

Weaseling Out Of The War
Yes, I'm talking about our Weasel-In-Chief, who's been known to cut a rather cowboy-ish figure in a flight suit on an aircraft carrier -- just as long as there isn't a war on that he has to fight in.

Check out this video clip of Ben Barnes, former Speaker of The House of Texas -- the guy who helped George Bush scurry out of harm's way and into the Texas Air National Guard. The tape is apparently from a recent Kerry rally, writes blogger Josh Micah Marshall. Marshall doesn't know Barnes, but says two sources who do assure him it is, indeed, Barnes. Here's what Barnes says:

Let�s talk a minute about John Kerry and George Bush and I know them both. And I�m not name dropping to say I know �em both. I got a young man named George W. Bush in the National Guard when I was Lt. Gov. of Texas and I�m not necessarily proud of that. But I did it. And I got a lot of other people into the National Guard because I thought that was what people should do, when you're in office you helped a lot of rich people. And I walked through the Vietnam Memorial the other day and I looked at the names of the people that died in Vietnam and I became more ashamed of myself than I have ever been because it was the worst thing that I did was that I helped a lot of wealthy supporters and a lot of people who had family names of importance get into the National Guard and I�m very sorry about that and I�m very ashamed and I apologize to you as voters of Texas.

Puts kind of a different face on that gloater in the White House sending the kids mostly of poor or struggling families off to fight against the wrong enemy, huh? And thank you, George Bush, global nose-thumber: We've inflamed anti-Americanism in the Middle East with our "Oops!" of a war, alienating most of the rest of the world, leaving our troops pretty much going it alone against a bunch of fundamentalist barbarians.

As I read somewhere (but I can't remember where, exactly), the former cokehead in the Oval Office hasn't publically mentioned Osama for what...more than six months? Oh yeah...Osama! Yeah, the guy whose guys attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, leading us to pour our wrath out on...Saddam Hussein? Huh? I bet that knowledge makes all the parents with dead soldier kids feel much better.

Posted by aalkon at 09:38 AM | Comments (5)

Nuclear Winter

Is That A Nuclear Winter In Your Carry-On Bag...?
As George Will wisely points out, the major danger now is that of a nuclear attack -- not from an ICBM, but with a "holocaust in a suitcase":

A senior al Qaeda aide's proclaimed goal of killing 4 million Americans would require 1,400 Sept. 11s, or one 10-kiloton nuclear explosion -- from a softball-sized lump of fissionable material -- in each of four large American cities.

Of the 7 million seaborne cargo containers that arrive at U.S. ports each year, fewer than 5 percent are inspected. Less than 10 percent of arriving noncommercial private vessels are inspected. Given that 21,000 pounds of cocaine and marijuana are smuggled into the country each day, how hard would it be to smuggle a softball-sized lump of HEU on one of the 30,000 trucks, 6,500 rail cars or 50,000 cargo containers that arrive every day?

President Bush recently said that Democratic critics of rapid development of ballistic missile defenses are "living in the past." Perhaps. Some missile defense is feasible and, leaving aside costs, desirable. But costs cannot be left aside. Kerry, were he politically daring and intellectually nimble, might respond:

"The president is living in 1983, when Ronald Reagan proposed missile defenses to counter thousands of Soviet ICBMs. A nuclear weapon is much less likely to come to America on a rogue nation's ICBM -- which would have a return address -- than in a shipping container, truck, suitcase, backpack or other ubiquitous thing. So allocating vast amounts of scarce financial and scientific resources to missile defenses rather than other security measures is imprudent."

On the other hand, Allison argues that any hope for preventing, by diplomacy, nuclear terrorism depends on "readiness to use covert and overt military force if necessary" against two potential sources of fissile material -- Iran and North Korea. But the candidate Allison is advising has opposed virtually every use of U.S. force in his adult lifetime.

Intelligent people can differ about all that Allison says. But campaign time is becoming scarce for intelligent differing about how to prevent some American Ground Zero from becoming so poisoned by radiation that no one will be able to come within four miles of it.

Posted by aalkon at 08:48 AM | Comments (1)

Impeach The Electoral College

Impeach The Electoral College
A New York Times editorial has it right -- the Electoral College should be abolished:

The main problem with the Electoral College is that it builds into every election the possibility, which has been a reality three times since the Civil War, that the president will be a candidate who lost the popular vote. This shocks people in other nations who have been taught to look upon the United States as the world's oldest democracy. The Electoral College also heavily favors small states. The fact that every one gets three automatic electors - one for each senator and a House member - means states that by population might be entitled to only one or two electoral votes wind up with three, four or five.

The majority does not rule and every vote is not equal - those are reasons enough for scrapping the system. But there are other consequences as well. This election has been making clear how the Electoral College distorts presidential campaigns. A few swing states take on oversized importance, leading the candidates to focus their attention, money and promises on a small slice of the electorate. We are hearing far more this year about the issue of storing hazardous waste at Yucca Mountain, an important one for Nevada's 2.2 million residents, than about securing ports against terrorism, a vital concern for 19.2 million New Yorkers. The political concerns of Cuban-Americans, who are concentrated in the swing state of Florida, are of enormous interest to the candidates. The interests of people from Puerto Rico scarcely come up at all, since they are mainly settled in areas already conceded as Kerry territory. The emphasis on swing states removes the incentive for a large part of the population to follow the campaign, or even to vote.

Those are the problems we have already experienced. The arcane rules governing the Electoral College have the potential to create havoc if things go wrong. Electors are not required to vote for the candidates they are pledged to, and if the vote is close in the Electoral College, a losing candidate might well be able to persuade a small number of electors to switch sides. Because there are an even number of electors - one for every senator and House member of the states, and three for the District of Columbia - the Electoral College vote can end in a tie. There are several plausible situations in which a 269-269 tie could occur this year. In the case of a tie, the election goes to the House of Representatives, where each state delegation gets one vote - one for Wyoming's 500,000 residents and one for California's 35.5 million.

The Electoral College's supporters argue that it plays an important role in balancing relations among the states, and protecting the interests of small states. A few years ago, this page was moved by these concerns to support the Electoral College. But we were wrong. The small states are already significantly overrepresented in the Senate, which more than looks out for their interests. And there is no interest higher than making every vote count.

Posted by aalkon at 08:09 AM | Comments (1)

August 28, 2004

Deserter Storm

Deserter Storm
A quote from an LA Weekly story about deserters; words spoken by a soldier who took off to Canada:

�But if I�m going to commit to killing people, there had better be a good reason. Not for the right of someone to drive an SUV with cheap gas.�

Posted by aalkon at 09:46 AM | Comments (4)

Who's Paying For The War?

Who's Paying For The War?
Well, in part, soldiers and the families of the soldiers fighting it, writes Patt Morrison in the LA Times:

The price of war � the White House budget office figures that for the Iraq conflict it's $175 billion and counting. But it's the little numbers right here in California that really get to Mike Ryan.

Ryan is a respiratory therapist who lives in West L.A., and he didn't even own a cellphone until his son Rick went to Iraq in March as an Army combat medic. Enter the phone bills: $120, $140 a month, a hundred or two more put on the plastic to "charge up" Rick's phone card. A single call just after Rick landed in Iraq ran $130.

Then there's the food and the cost of sending it. Rick's not keen on Army cooking (who is?). "We brought him up eating well," said his father. So twice a month, a package leaves the Ryan house for Iraq � Trader Joe's fruits and nuts, protein drinks, canned salmon. Sixty or 70 bucks' worth of food, times two, plus $25 for postage, times two again. Almost $200 a month more.

As the war warmed up, stories abounded about how much it was costing military families to keep reaching out to touch their loved ones. There were tales of disconnection notices because of unpaid bills. A Massachusetts soldier racked up a $7,600 phone bill; his entire savings account paid just half. Arizona Sen. John McCain sponsored a bill that gives those in combat access to a free monthly calling card worth $40. Which goes only so far, as Ryan can attest. Last October, in Colorado, a soldier's wife was applauded when she stood up at a town hall meeting and asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld about the ruinous cost of phone calls. "As enlisted soldiers," she said, "we can't afford this."

For a while, Mike Ryan worked overtime to pay his overseas phone bills. Then, his cousin, an Army Reserve coordinator, put him on to a military website selling phone cards.

It's run by the same people who've been selling goods to the military for 109 years, through PXs and now websites. They buy phone cards wholesale from AT&T, which holds the contract, and sell them to soldiers with a "small margin to cover costs and overhead."

It works out to $39 for 139 minutes, which has helped, said Ryan. But for families that don't know about the website and may be calling soldiers via other means (different companies' phone cards, for example), the phone bills are likely to be much bigger.

Not that the Mike Ryans of the world begrudge their kids the cost. "I would have paid 10 bucks a minute," he said.

But those bills, those relentless bills, and for families living on a military paycheck of $2,000 or $3,000 a month. The soldiers weren't drafted, of course; they signed up by choice, and they and their families will make do.

With his own hard bills to pay, Mike Ryan can't help but think about that other figure, the one in the billions of dollars. It makes him wonder about the profits being made on phone cards or on feeding his son in Iraq.

It leaves him thinking it's soldiers' families that are paying to subsidize this war, a couple of hundred dollars and a care package at a time: "When you think of Halliburton and Bechtel and how they've pretty much opened [Iraq] up to free enterprise �. [Can] American companies come in there and profiteer off the soldiers?"

Sure they can! Because our cowboy president only pretends to care about the common man. Pretend concern only goes so far.

Posted by aalkon at 08:30 AM | Comments (4)

August 27, 2004

Doggie Doing It

Who Let The Dogs Out?

When you're selling your house, it pays to show the interior on the real estate agent's Web site. It also pays to lock up the dogs before you take the photos. Check out the third photo down. Be sure you look out the window. (Thanks to Stu, link has been fixed.)

(via Metafilter)

Posted by aalkon at 08:37 AM | Comments (7)

I'm Jealous

Cathy Seipp's Stalker
I admit it. I'm jealous. I have no stalker; only convicts writing me from prison, and only the dumbest convicts, because they're all asking me to be their pen-pal. (Hello? You're asking somebody who answers mail for a living to sit down in her non-existent free time and dash off a few words to you? No wonder you're in jail.)

Well, Cathy Seipp has, not just a stalker, but a blog-stalker of her very own. The guy writes long entries about Cathy! Cathy! Cathy!...filled with amusingly dull-edged little digs, and lots of links to her work -- which is actually quite thoughtful of him. (Hadn't read the Robin Abcarian piece from Salon -- really appreciate the heads-up, dude.) Read his latest blog-stalk/tribute to Cathy here.

And, please, somebody do blog-stalk me. I'm feeling terribly under-loathed.

Posted by aalkon at 08:02 AM | Comments (3)

Science Happens

Science Happens
The Fundamentalist-In-Chief and his anti-science cohorts finally conceded that recent global warming has human causes. From a New York Times editorial:

This tardy acceptance of what mainstream scientists have been saying for years does not mean that the administration is prepared to deal seriously with the problem - by, for instance, supporting mandatory caps on emissions of carbon dioxide. But at least nobody is trying to hide the evidence.

The administration's views are contained in a report to Congress accompanied by a letter signed by the secretaries of energy and commerce and the president's science adviser. It asserts that natural causes cannot explain significant warming since 1970 and says that man-made emissions from smokestacks and tailpipes are the likely cause.

White House officials, who did not go out of their way to publicize the report, clearly do not mean it to be interpreted as a campaign-year change in President Bush's position on global warming or as a precursor to more aggressive legislative and administrative measures. But they did not brush it off, as happened in 2002 when Mr. Bush dismissed a serious internal study written by his own experts. Nor did they attempt to suppress it, as happened later that year with a report on air pollution from the Environmental Protection Agency.

So this is progress, of a sort. But it won't mean much unless Mr. Bush gets serious about remedies. His program of research and voluntary initiatives has generated modest enthusiasm in industry but inspires little confidence that the warming trends will be arrested, much less reversed, in the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, there are several initiatives awaiting attention on Capitol Hill that could begin to restrict greenhouse gas emissions. But they have no chance of approval unless Mr. Bush gives the nod to the Republican leadership.

A nod out the window of one of those huge SUVs you always see the guy riding in?

Posted by aalkon at 07:15 AM | Comments (2)

August 26, 2004

Beauty Is The Beast

Beauty Is The Beast
Lucy, nude, except for a small pink bow, after her bath.

Posted by aalkon at 12:26 PM | Comments (4)

The Obvious

White House Announces Earth Is Probably Round
And emissions are the only likely explanation for climate changes in the past three decades. There's no mention of whether James R. Mahoney, the administration official who presented this report to Congress, motored over in a big-ass SUV.

Posted by aalkon at 12:15 PM | Comments (0)

It's The Economy, Stupid

Poor And Poorer
It's the economy, stupid. Bush's tax cuts for the rich seem a little slow to trickle down, according to census figures showing 1.3 million more people living in poverty in 2003 than there were in 2002.

(via Metafilter)

Posted by aalkon at 09:12 AM | Comments (2)

Cheney Panders To Gay Voters/

Cheney Panders To Gay Voters
I know I'm a bit late on this story, but I've been a bit swamped this week. How nice that Cheney suddenly appears to discover a spine, of sorts, in his back, vis a vis giving everybody in America the same rights, no matter who they have sex with. Of course, it takes having a gay daughter for him to pull back from the fundamentalist party line, although he does conveniently weasel in the "states rights" issue. That didn't seem to work too well back in Civil War days: "Oh, we'll have slaves down here in the south, and you northerners keep your damn mouths shut!" Wouldn't it be nice if the small minds currently in power were able to make policy without the "some of my best friends are..." example staring them in the face -- and at the dinner table, at that?

Posted by aalkon at 08:44 AM | Comments (11)

August 25, 2004

Living A Double Life

Blogging A Double Life
I'm late to meet Lena at our local Hippie Haus Of Coffee, and Cathy went to the same party I did last night, so go read what she had to say about it. Afterward, I went with faaaabulous Swiss journalist Claudia LaFranchi to AOC, the French-ish restaurant of very small, very, very tasty portions. The girl bartender at the cheese bar does a great job of explaining wines. Sadly, I forget her name. But, for a good time, sit there.

Posted by aalkon at 11:37 AM | Comments (5)

Bitch On Wheels

Bitch On Wheels
Gotta get the hairball with legs to the groomer before 10am. More blog items later!

"Don't hate me because I'm beautiful.
Hate me because I need a bath."

Posted by aalkon at 08:09 AM | Comments (2)

August 24, 2004

Ben And Jerry's

Fuel For Love (Advice)

As I was coming back from the liquor store near my house with a pint of Ben and Jerry's and a bag of potato chips, my boyfriend (via cell phone) observed about my dietary leanings that I'm "like a crack addict without the crack." Indeed, I am, but mainly because I haven't been in a grocery store since...I think Lyndon Johnson might have been president at the time...and I need the calories.

I do like that somebody on Emmanuelle's photo blog disparaged me as looking "thin as a rail." I'm just looking forward to the day when people sneer about how rich I am, and how disgusting it is that I have an apartment in Paris. (Soon, please.)

Anyway, this is a roundabout way of complaining about Ben & Jerry's -- the mystery meat of ice cream. What is wrong with those guys...too much LSD during the 60s...70s, 80s, 90s, etc? I like that their ice cream cows aren't all shot up with steroids and stuff, but just about all of their ice cream has way too much crap in it...pretzels, lost wallets, marshmallows, Cracker Jack prizes, you name it. I'm waiting to discover a rare Buffalo nickel, or maybe a new washer-dryer.

Well, after staring forlornly into the liquor store's freezer at the likes of "cookie dough and kitchen sink with Jerry Garcia's wallhanging clippings" I ended up getting the most minimalist flavor I could find: "Chocolate Brownie Mix," which purports to have chocolate brownie dough stirred into it -- an apparent homage to all the girls of my generation who suffered from bulimia their freshman year of college.

I'm home now, mainlining ice cream...in rainbow VW bus form. Come on Ben, Jerry, and whatever monolithic corporation now owns you...producing a pint or two of virgin chocolate gelato wouldn't kill you, now would it?

Posted by aalkon at 08:46 AM | Comments (7)

Dad Wrong

Dad Wrong
Imagine being accused of sticking up a bank you didn't actually stick up. Imagine proving that you were nowhere near the bank at the time of the robbery. Imagine going to jail for robbing the bank anyway. That's the kind of "justice" being advocated for men who didn't father children, but were fingered anyway for child support. Cheryl Wetzstein writes in the Washington Times:

A child-support agency is asking the California Supreme Court to stop a ruling in which DNA tests voided a man's obligation to pay child support from becoming a legal precedent.

Fathers' rights groups cheered a state appeals court ruling for Manuel Navarro as a victory for "paternity fraud" victims, but their celebrations may be short-lived. The Los Angeles County child-support agency has asked for the appellate court ruling to be "depublished," or omitted from official records, so no other man can use it to overturn his child-support order.

The child-support agency says the June 30 appellate ruling is "creating confusion" in trial courts and that is why it should be decertified.

Santa Ana lawyer Linda S. Ferrer, who represents Mr. Navarro, says the agency wants the ruling off the books because it stands to lose a lot of money if more men use it to get their child-support orders overturned.

"That's the only thought � money," said Ms. Ferrer, whose client had been ordered in 1996 to pay $247 a month in child support for two boys.

The Navarro case has broad implications because the California Court of Appeal for the 2nd District was so blunt in its ruling.

Mr. Navarro said he was never properly served child-support papers and was assigned child support in absentia. He recently underwent a DNA test that proved he was not the father of the boys.

When he went to court with his proof, however, the trial court ruled that Mr. Navarro still had to pay the child support because he did not protest it in time.

Mr. Navarro appealed and, on June 30, the appellate court handed him a victory, reversing the trial court decision and declaring that Los Angeles County "should not enforce child-support judgments it knows to be unfounded."

There's more.

Child-support orders, once established, are not easily overturned. Advances in DNA testing, however, have exposed cases in which mothers � intentionally or accidentally � have named the wrong men as the fathers of their children for purposes of child support.

Yet many child-support officials are not sympathetic to the men, contending that losing a putative father's support is likely to be detrimental to the children. "At what point should the truth about genetic parentage outweigh the consequences of leaving a child fatherless?" Paula Roberts of the Center for Law and Social Policy asked in a 2003 paper.

How about we declare you the father, Paula, of the next "fatherless" child who passes through your center? It's about as just -- and makes just as much sense.

Posted by aalkon at 06:01 AM | Comments (5)

August 23, 2004

Fast Xenophobia

Food For Xenophobes

I just saw a disgusting Jack-In-The-Box commercial. In a corny, split-screen "interview," some ham-bone actor playing a French newsguy interviews the Jack-In-The-Box character about "natural-cut fries" -- which is what Jack-In-The-Box is renaming French fries.

The dialogue in the commercial made something very clear: The churlish people running Jack-In-The-Box saw a golden opportunity to capitalize on the tendency, by a certain small-minded, jingoistic segment of America, to hate and fear "furr-iners." Contrast that to what I heard in France, every time I asked (and I asked often) about the feelings of French people toward Americans, vis a vis our Iraq policy and other bones of contention. Almost everybody I asked said something along these lines: "We are not anti-American; we are just anti-Booosh." (Yeah, well, you're not exactly alone -- and let me add that I say that as somebody who has an affinity for France, yet disagrees with a good deal of French policy.)

It's one thing for some rube on the street to extemporaneously say something anti-other, but for corporations to air premeditated, heavily funded attempts to feed on and promote hateful, xenophobic thought? Ick. To say the least. And, no matter what anybody else says or doesn't say -- couldn't we please, please, be bigger than that?

I'm guessing most people reading here aren't frequent fast-food consumers, but if you do have the urge to suck down some overprocessed, chemical-filled crap -- please try to see it isn't that of Jack-In-The-Box. Pass it on.

Posted by aalkon at 08:26 AM | Comments (33)

Your Daily Darwin

Your Daily Darwin
Evolutionary Psychology, Public Policy and Personal Decisions, despite its title, is an extremely interesting book, with an ambitious goal: Real-world application of the work of evolutionary psychologists. A number of the chapters were talks in a lecture series, which editors Charles Crawford and Catherine Salmon later compiled into a book. Judging from the three chapters I read, it�s as accessible to the average person as David Buss� Evolution Of Desire � despite its cover design, which gives it the look of some dry text you were made to read in college at gunpoint. Highly recommended.

Posted by aalkon at 07:39 AM | Comments (1)

August 22, 2004

Kerry Swift Boat

The War Against Kerry
Here's fellow swift boat commander William Rood's account of what really happened -- corroborating Kerry's record.

(via Kausfiles)

Posted by aalkon at 01:54 PM | Comments (1)

Luke Ford

Brainy Thugs And Sex Fiends Gather To Celebrate Publication Of Luke Ford's New Books
The location was spectacular -- the rooftop pool of the West Hollywood Wyndham Bel Age Hotel, complete with a view of all of Los Angeles at sunset, and tasty complimentary hors d'oeuvres.

Cathy Seipp, Emmanuelle Richard, and I threw the party in honor of Luke's recently published XXX-Communicated: A Rebel Without A Shul and The Producers: Profiles in Frustration.

Over 100 undesirables, mostly members of the press, stood around drinking and looking tough. In a sad statement on the youth of today, even the 15-year-olds (blogger Cecile DuBois) don't look like anyone you'd want to meet in any dark alleys.

On the left, that's Feral House publisher, Adam Parfrey. Next, my cohostess, Cathy Seipp (whose "Luke-O-Rama" chronicle of the party is here), her daughter, Cecile, and Luke Y. Thompson, whose head always reminds me that it's been too long since I've had a Slurpee. But, come in for a closer look at my intelli-thug friends:

Cathy Seipp's tattoo Luke Y. Thompson's tattoo

Here's renowned self-esteem expert Nathaniel Branden being sexually molested. Poor dear.

Here's our guest of honor, trying to convert all the porn stars to Judaism.

And here I am with LA Weekly's Deb Vankin and her friend Holly (thanks, LYT), looking embarrassingly unscurrilous.

In my defense, I was later cited by Emmanuelle Richard for cheese smuggling.

Posted by aalkon at 10:25 AM | Comments (15)

August 21, 2004

Explain And Simple

Explanation Around The Collar
Here's a label from clothing produced by an American company that's sold in France:

TRANSLATION:
Hand wash in lukewarm water
Gentle soap
Lay out to dry
Don't bleach
Don't dry in the machine
Don't iron
We are sorry that our president is an idiot
We did not vote for him

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. Not that I'm a big Kerry fan. It's question of who's the lesser of two idiots. Um, er...or, something like that. Or...maybe that's the problem. In a country of, what, 200 million people, we can't find two citizens with some smarts and a modicum of integrity to run for president?

Speaking of integrity, it's too bad John McCain won't be on the ballot, since he appears to have a good supply of it -- and seems to speak his mind more than so many of the bought-and-paid-fors in the House and Senate. I don't agree with McCain's stand on abortion; then again, I'm no fan of The Governator's Hummers, and I voted for him. If McCain were running, I have to say -- I'd run naked to the polls to vote for him.

Who's your dream candidate?

Posted by aalkon at 08:09 AM | Comments (29)

August 20, 2004

Crack In NYC

It's Easier To Buy Crack Than Wine in NYC
Supermarkets aren't allowed to sell wine; only liquor stores can (and they're closed on Sundays, thank you very much). Hello? This is New York City. You can score crack easier than you can a bottle of Merlot.

Speaking of wine, here's a terrific (and fun) wine review site, winestooge.com. I love the way he sums up the wine, too -- with one, two, or three Advils:

The better the wine, the more you drink, the bigger the headache, the more Advil it earns. May Bacchus pity a wine with no headache.

(NYC prohibition link via Reason's blog)

Posted by aalkon at 09:52 AM | Comments (3)

Smells Like A Small Penis

Smells Like A Small Penis
Emmanuelle has the latest in Hummer news. The vehicle, not the act, you gutterbrains!

Posted by aalkon at 08:59 AM | Comments (2)

Bureaucracy Now

Bureaucracy Now
Cathy Young writes in Reason about dumb "advances" in visa requirements for foreign travelers to the U.S. that do little to enhance our homeland security:

For instance: In many countries, such as England, underage children currently travel abroad on their parents' passports. Now, the Department of Homeland Security has decided that every person entering the United States must have a separate passport regardless of age, starting on October 26. Travel agents in Europe are concerned that many travelers with children, unaware of the new rules, may fly to the United States only to be turned away at the border.

Can anyone explain what this requirement�which, in addition to the inconvenience, will impose extra financial costs on travelers�has to do with fighting terrorism? Has there been a rash of cases of middle-class British couples smuggling in Al Qaeda operatives disguised as their 12-year-old children? Can we all sleep easier now that we know we're safe from terrorist toddlers? What next? Special screening for terrorist pets?

Watch out, Osama bin Yorkie!

Posted by aalkon at 08:57 AM | Comments (2)

August 19, 2004

Honda Insight

Like Driving A Slinky Dress
My opinion of the Honda Insight my boyfriend rented me.

photo by Gregg Sutter

A brilliant idea of his, renting me an Insight, to keep the creepy car salesmen out of my test-drive experience. Also, having it for a few days (as opposed to taking a mere half-hour test drive) will give me the chance to drive it at night, in the Hollywood Hills, and on the freak-way. So far, though, I'm charmed. And not just because it's the highest mileage car on the road.

Posted by aalkon at 09:33 AM | Comments (3)

Don't Fuck With Finke

Don't Fuck With Finke
I was over at Cathy Seipp's blog, when I spotted her heads-up about this bitch-slapping LA Weekly's Nikki Finke gives some poor GQ editor. Cathy was previously a target for Nikki's ire, thanks to this piece on her blog. I must say...being a girl who screamed "environment-hogging vulgarian!" into the open window of an enormo SUV last night, then discovered, to my embarrassment, that the driver was not the owner, but the sweet little valet guy at Hal's Bar & Grill...I do enjoy a woman who can dish out a good measure of written or verbal psychosis. A soft spot for over-caffeinated nuts, what can I say?

Posted by aalkon at 06:58 AM | Comments (0)

No Stove, Radio

The Modern Girl Has A Heart, Just Not A Stove

photo by Lena Cuisina

Well, I do have a stove -- and someday I'll turn it on. The last time it got fired up was years ago, on a home-invasion date. (This is my term for when a guy tells you he's cooking you dinner, but informs you at the last minute, when you ask what wine you should bring, that he's cooking it at your house.)

Having not turned my oven on since I'd moved in in the late 90s, this caused my entire house to smell very "what died in here," which led very naturally into the headache excuse that sent the loser home. By the way, not only did he come over and turn on my stove, sending thousands of dust particles I'd been keeping as pets to their death, he sucked down two bottles of my wine -- including a special, pricey bottle of Pouilly Fuiss� I'd bought to serve my French friend Nathalie, which he chose to open without asking. Now, I'm a [post-]Jewish drinker...about a glass and a half has me under the table. If you're an alcoholic, maybe you should bring a bottle instead of sucking down two of mine!

Getting back to the point, my best friend, Lena, came down with some sort of typhoid fever the other day, so there I was, coming to the rescue -- with a box of Organic Chicken Broth. I must add that I saw nothing amusing or out of the ordinary about this until Lena pointed out the complete lack of chicken, vegetables, boiled water, and cauldron in my life that went into this gesture.

Posted by aalkon at 05:51 AM | Comments (3)

August 18, 2004

Republicans For Kerry

Republicans For Kerry
Ken Layne, finally back after a much-too-long blog-vacation, nyah-nyahs Bush-worshipper Tim Blair:

"And you guys, you formerly cynical guys who now worship the incompetent Bush simply because you were told to do so, you're only making it easier for the Kerry people to win."

Blair, too drunk to follow the entire convoluted sentence, caught on at the end and whimpered, "How so?"

"Look at you people with this Vietnam boat nonsense. Every day, you're pounding home the fact that Kerry fought in Vietnam. You idiots started this stuff so early -- with the "Oh he protested the war" and the Jane Fonda photoshops -- that the Kerry people turned the whole Democratic convention into celebration of the Vietnam War. Nobody even remembers being against Vietnam anymore. The next Vietnam movie will be a buddy comedy starring Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt, and all they're going to do is kill Charlie and win medals and dance with beautiful girls. It'll make $300 million on the opening weekend. They're going to tear down that bummer memorial in Washington and put up a 1,000-foot statue of a smiling American soldier proudly standing on a stack of golden skulls. You morons have made Vietnam the Democrats' favorite memory and greatest victory. Then you scream hooray when a gang of addled old Nixon bagmen show up in a teevee commercial to bitch about Kerry fighting in Vietnam, and once again the normal people with lives only remember, again, that Kerry fought in Vietnam and the Bush campaign is upset about it."

"But," Tim sputtered, "He clearly claimed he was in Cambodia several days before he was in Cambodia. It was seared--"

"Stop that," I said, poking his neck with the corkscrew worm. "Listen to yourself. What are you doing, again? That's right, you're reminding people that the other guy fought in Vietnam. Have you become so brain dead that you think this helps your girly boy Bush? Do you honestly believe the coward boy can beat the War Monster?"

Blair tried to shake the confusion from his head. Then his eyes brightened for a moment and he said, "Four months! Kerry was only in Vietnam for four months!"

"See? You did it again. You people can't stop reminding everybody that Kerry was in Vietnam, taking lives like your boy eats cookies. Killing people, saving people, holding Life & Death in his hands like a savage gift. He kills the Viet Cong or anybody else he chooses, he saves a U.S. sailor who fell out of the boat, he walks the halls of the Senate deciding who he'll kill or who he'll save. In Vietnam, Kerry is a death's head of gruesome power, while your Bush hides in Alabama, a scared little girl. And what did little Bush do in Texas?"

Well, he did chortle a little when Carla Faye Tucker went to the chair.

Posted by aalkon at 08:26 AM | Comments (6)

Born Borderline-Retarded In The USA

Political Stupid-cide
Apparently, the would-be U.S. senator from New York hasn't met many Springsteen fans in her lifetime. New York Conservative party candidate Marilyn O'Grady, who fails to understand that the term "die-hard Springsteen fan" is redundant, is the half-wit behind a "Boycott The Boss" television commercial:

"He thinks making millions with a song-and-dance routine allows him to tell you how to vote," Marilyn O'Grady says in the 30-second spot. "Here's my vote: Boycott the Boss. If you don't buy his politics, don't buy his music."

In a statement, O'Grady said Springsteen "has a right to say what he thinks, but we have an equal right to speak. Now that he's moved onto the political stage to bash my president, it is entirely fair to respond."

Springsteen was among more than 20 prominent musicians who announced Aug. 4 that they would hold a series of anti-Bush fund-raising concerts under the Vote for Change banner in 28 cities in October.

"I feel this is one of the most critical elections in my lifetime," Springsteen told The Associated Press at the time.

Springsteen's "No Surrender" has become an anthem for Democratic Senator John Kerry's presidential campaign.

A spokesman for O'Grady, Howard Lim, would not say how much the Long Island's ophthalmologist's campaign was spending on the commercial, in which she says, "I stand with President Bush and it's time to tame the liberal elite."

With what? That towering intellect you've been showing off in boycotting Bruce? As my friend Lena put it, "O'Grady might as well give up campaigning right now. The entire eastern seaboard lives for Springsteen."

Posted by aalkon at 07:53 AM | Comments (2)

Doggie Mag/

Dressed To The Canines
Two Irishmen came up with the brilliant idea of starting a "lifestyle" magazine for self-involved, princessy, prissy dog-obsessed women...like me! Brian Lavery writes in The New York Times about The New York Dog, a glossy scheduled to start publishing in autumn, and intended to nuzzle up on newsstand shelves to Vogue and Cosmopolitan:

"Instead of talking about women's fashion, we're talking about dogs' fashion," said Mr. O'Doherty in an interview from his office. Following the lead of other magazines, The New York Dog will feature dog horoscopes and obituaries, dog dieting tips and pop psychology advice for dogs.

In the interest of fairness, the magazine also expects to have an alternative view on its subject. The longtime New York journalist Jimmy Breslin, who does not like dogs, will write a column to be titled "The Back Yard."

Allow me to propose a candidate for cover girl. For every cover. What kind of dog is she? Why, an attention hound, of course.

Lucy, pouting, with bed-head

Posted by aalkon at 06:11 AM | Comments (0)

August 17, 2004

Primal Time Live

"Sometimes You Feel Like A Nut..."

Posted by aalkon at 09:21 AM | Comments (1)

Cheney Hating/

Cheney-Hating
It's under-satisfying, writes Nick Gillespie in Reason.

Posted by aalkon at 06:16 AM | Comments (1)

August 16, 2004

Religion Kills/

The Religious Wrong
Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, wrote an eloquent and well-reasoned op-ed piece for Sunday's Los Angeles Times on the irrational thought (and, in turn, despicable consequences) promoted by certain religions:

President Bush and the Republicans in the Senate have failed � for the moment � to bring the Constitution into conformity with Judeo-Christian teachings. But even if they had passed a bill calling for a constitutional ban on gay marriage, that would have been only a beginning. Leviticus 20:13 and the New Testament book of Romans reveal that the God of the Bible doesn't merely disapprove of homosexuality; he specifically says homosexuals should be killed: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death."

God also instructs us to murder people who work on the Sabbath, along with adulterers and children who curse their parents. While they're at it, members of Congress might want to reconsider the 13th Amendment, because it turns out that God approves of slavery � unless a master beats his slave so severely that he loses an eye or teeth, in which case Exodus 21 tells us he must be freed.

What should we conclude from all this? That whatever their import to people of faith, ancient religious texts shouldn't form the basis of social policy in the 21st century. The Bible was written at a time when people thought the Earth was flat, when the wheelbarrow was high tech. Are its teachings applicable to the challenges we now face as a global civilization?

Maybe morality means driving a car, if you can afford it, that does the least amount of damage to the planet and the people on it who have an affinity for breathing.

Consider the subject of stem-cell research. Many religious people, drawing from what they've heard from the pulpit, believe that 3-day-old embryos � which are microscopic collections of 150 cells the size of a pinhead � are fully endowed with human souls and, therefore, must be protected as people. But if we know anything at all about the neurology of sensory perception, we know that there is no reason to believe that embryos at this stage of development have the capacity to sense pain, to suffer or to experience death in any way at all. (There are, for comparison's sake, 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly.)

These facts notwithstanding, our president and our leaders in Congress, many of them citing religious teachings, have decided to put the rights of undifferentiated cells before those of men and women suffering from spinal cord injuries, full-body burns, diabetes and Parkinson's disease.

Of course, the Bible is not the only ancient text that casts a shadow over the present. A social policy based on the Koran poses even greater dangers. Koran 9:123 tells us it is the duty of every Muslim man to "make war on the infidels who dwell around you." Osama bin Laden may be despicable, but it is hard to argue that he isn't acting in accord with at least some of the teachings of the Koran. It is true that most Muslims seem inclined to ignore the Koran's solicitations to martyrdom and jihad, but we cannot overlook the fact that some are not so inclined and that some of them murder innocent people for religious reasons.

He goes on to make a very good point:

Religious faith is always, and everywhere, exonerated. It is now taboo in every corner of our culture to criticize a person's religious beliefs. Consequently, we are unable to even name, much less oppose, one of the most pervasive causes of human conflict. And the fact that there are very real and consequential differences between the major religious traditions is simply never discussed.

Anyone who thinks that terrestrial concerns are the principal source of Muslim violence must explain why there are no Palestinian Christian suicide bombers. They too suffer the daily indignity of the Israeli occupation. Where, for that matter, are the Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers? The Tibetans have suffered an occupation far more brutal. Where are the throngs of Tibetans ready to perpetrate suicidal atrocities against the Chinese? They do not exist. What is the difference that makes the difference? The difference lies in the specific tenets of Islam versus those of Buddhism and Christianity.

There are now more people in our country who believe that the universe was created in six solar days than there were in Europe in the 14th century. In the eyes of most of the civilized world, the United States is now a rogue power � imperialist, inarticulate and retrograde in its religiosity. Our erstwhile allies are right not to trust our judgment. We elect leaders who squander time and money on issues like gay marriage, Janet Jackson's anatomy, Howard Stern's obscenities, marijuana use and a dozen other trifles lying at the heart of the Christian social agenda, while potentially catastrophic problems like nuclear proliferation and climate change go unresolved.

We elected a president who believes the jury is still out on evolution and who rejects sound, scientific judgments on the environment, on medical research, on family planning and on HIV/AIDS prevention in the developing world. The consequence, as we saw in recent elections in Spain, is that people who feel misled and entrapped by our dogmatic and peremptory approach to foreign policy will be unable to recognize a common enemy, even when that enemy massacres hundreds of people in their nation's capital.

It is time we recognize that religious beliefs have consequences. As a man believes, so he will act. Believe that you are a member of a chosen people, awash in the salacious exports of an evil culture that is turning your children away from God, believe that you will be rewarded with an eternity of unimaginable delights by dealing death to these infidels � and flying a plane into a building is only a matter of being asked to do it. Believe that "life starts at the moment of conception" and you will happily stand in the way of medical research that could alleviate the suffering of millions of your fellow human beings. Believe that there is a God who sees and knows all things, and yet remains so provincial a creature as to be scandalized by certain sexual acts between consenting adults, and you will think it ethical to punish people for engaging in private behavior that harms no one.

Now that our elected leaders have grown entranced by pseudo-problems like gay marriage, even while the genuine enemies of civilization hurl themselves at our gates, perhaps it is time we subjected our religious beliefs to the same standards of evidence we require in every other sphere of our lives. Perhaps it is time for us to realize, at the dawn of this perilous century, that we are paying too high a price to maintain the iconography of our ignorance.

If you're religious, come on, look at the clock: it's the 21st century. Isn't it time to stop basing your life on irrationality and embrace reason? It's completely possible to be an ethical person without believing, without a shred of proof, that there's some big thumb in the sky...or god, or whatever you want to call it. Believing in and worshipping god, sans proof, makes no more sense than believing in and worshipping the Easter bunny...or my left shoe...now, does it? And as Harris' article points out -- the price of ignorance is just too high.

Sam Harris' Web site is here.

Posted by aalkon at 08:53 AM | Comments (13)

August 15, 2004

Don't Fuck Me Pumps

You've Heard Of "Fuck-Me Pumps"?
Well, this is what I call a "Don't Fuck Me Pump," for sale in the store next to Hal's Bar & Grill, on Abbot Kinney Boulevard, Venice, CA.

We have more impressive fashion here, too, like this elegant Pamela Barish coat:

And don't forget my friend Kevin Simon's designs. Ms. Kevin Simon, that is.

Posted by aalkon at 08:12 AM | Comments (9)

Spinsanity/

All The President's Spin
The Spinsanity.org boys deconstruct the Bush administration's tactics of media manipulation. Read the excerpt here at Mediabistro:

During the 2000 presidential campaign, then-Governor Bush liked to tell the story of a hypothetical waitress who would benefit from his tax cut plan. "Under current tax law," he said, "a single waitress supporting two children on an income of $22,000 faces a higher marginal tax rate than a lawyer making $220,000," adding, "Under my plan, she will pay no income tax at all."

This wasn't much of a feat. What Bush failed to mention was that his hypothetical waitress probably already paid no federal income tax.

In August 2001, President Bush announced a new policy on the use of stem cells in federally funded medical research. "More than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist," he told the nation in a televised address, concluding, "We should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines."

Researchers eager to obtain access to these "existing" lines were quickly disappointed, however, when Tommy Thompson, Bush's Secretary of Health and Human Services, admitted that only 24 or 25 lines were actually "fully developed." Although 60 lines did exist, it was uncertain whether many of them would ever become available to researchers.

In late 2001, Bush began pointing back to a statement he claimed to have made during the 2000 campaign. As he put it in May 2002, "when I was running for president, in Chicago, somebody said, would you ever have deficit spending? I said, only if we were at war, or only if we had a recession, or only if we had a national emergency. Never did I dream we'd get the trifecta."

It was a good story, but there's no evidence that the President ever made such a statement in Chicago or elsewhere. In fact, Vice President Al Gore was the candidate who had listed the exceptions in 1998 (though Bush advisor Lawrence Lindsey said at the time that they would apply to the Texas governor as well). Was this an innocent mistake? The answer is almost certainly no�Bush continued to repeat the "trifecta" story for months after it had been debunked.

Then, in a televised address to the nation in October 2002, Bush declared, "We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy�the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America."

Each of these statements was true, but Bush's words were carefully constructed to leave a false impression. Without ever stating that there was a direct connection between Iraq, al Qaeda, and September 11, the President artfully linked them together with a series of carefully chosen phrases. After the war, Bush told an interviewer from Polish television that "We found the weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. But he was not reporting the discovery of drums of chemical weapons or artillery shells filled with anthrax. Rather, Bush was referring to a pair of trailers that some analysts thought might have been used to produce biological weapons. While experts debated the purpose of the trailers, the President of the United States was falsely claiming that WMD had been found.

These examples might not be so troubling if the press had consistently called attention to them. But on most issues, with the possible exception of stem cells and the aftermath of the war in Iraq, he got away with little more than a slap on the wrist. Journalists deserve much of the blame for this, but one of the chief reasons these examples received so little attention is that many were based on a partial truth about a complex policy issue; after all, the waitress did end up with no federal income tax, there were 60 "existing" stem cell lines, and Iraq had some fragmentary connections to Al Qaeda . . . sort of.

Bush's record raises a number of questions. Just how often did the President deceive us? How did he do it? And why didn't anyone put a stop to it?

The answers are disturbing. George W. Bush has done serious damage to our political system. His deceptions span nearly all of his major policies, were achieved using some of the most advanced tactics from public relations, and were designed to exploit the failings of the modern media. In the process, Bush has made it even more difficult for citizens to understand and take part in democratic debate.

These deceptions are worthy of close attention for more than the insight they give us into the President himself. He is simply the highest profile carrier of a virus infecting our political system. Its symptoms are misleading public statements, a disregard for the value of honest discussion, and treating policy debates as little more than marketing challenges�a devastating combination for democracy.

Buy their book here. And, for consistently solid, non-partisan exposure and deconstructions of lies and distortions in politics, point your browser to Spinsanity.org. These guys -- Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer, and Brendan Nyhan -- do great and very important work, and I don't link to them enough.

Posted by aalkon at 07:31 AM | Comments (3)

August 14, 2004

Julia Child/

One Of My Favorite Saucy Wenches Kicks Off At Age 91
Julia Child, when asked by a radio interviewer what her ultimate meal would be, said: "Red meat and a bottle of gin." My kinda woman. FYI, I've never met a piece of tofu I liked, and I order my meat, not just "rare," but "still mooing." No, I'm not kidding, either. For any of you vegetarians gasping out there, Fran Lebowitz said it best: "My favorite animal is steak."

Of course, in times of hardship, one must sometimes make
do with a grilled cheese sandwich and a square of apple pie

This reminds me of a question crime writer Elmore Leonard asked me a few months ago: If you were on a desert island for the rest of your life, and you could take only five foods, what would they be? As I have a mind like a steel sieve, I can't remember what Elmore said; but, for me, the list is (in no particular order):

1. steak 2. bacon 3. white Burgundy 4. donuts 5. coffee

(Of course, I'm assuming this is a desert island with a produce section.) What's in your desert island grocery bag?

Posted by aalkon at 06:32 PM | Comments (15)

August 13, 2004

Nuclear Power/

Know Nukes?
Nuclear power is...good for you?

Posted by aalkon at 10:14 AM | Comments (1)

Reuters Outsourcing/

These Executives Were Made For Walking

animation stolen, with permission, from Gregg Sutter

Reuters, in a bid to save some bucks, recently announced that they'll be firing 20 editorial staffers in America and Europe, and replacing them with 60 new hires in India. Now, anyone who knows any "editorial staffers" know that they don't tend to be terribly well-compensated, say, compared to plumbers (or migrant workers, for that matter), so this is not exactly the brightest of ideas.

Luckily, David Cay Johnston figures out how Reuters can save some real money: "If Indian executives can be hired at the same wage discount ratio as Indian journalists then Reuters could expand its top level executive suite from four to 12 and still save $968,000," he writes. "That's more than four times what could be saved by outsourcing journalists."

Where's our first executive volunteer?!

Posted by aalkon at 09:48 AM | Comments (4)

They're Back!

Ils Sont Revenuuuuus!
(They're baaaack!) Americans in Paris, that is.

(via Jason Stone's entertaining and informative Paris blog)

Posted by aalkon at 08:03 AM | Comments (1)

Cecile DuBois

Cecile's Back, Too
After Russian camp, with a groovy new blog look.

Posted by aalkon at 04:10 AM | Comments (0)

August 12, 2004

Cathy's Alternate Universe

Cathy's Alternate Universe
Cathy's found Jesus! No, not Cathy Seipp. (I don't think she knew the guy was lost.) She does, however, look rather fetching in Blessed Virgin-wear.

"Cathy's World" is the name of my friend Cathy Seipp's blog, which happens to be the top blog on Journalspace (although another favorite of mine, A Fly On The Wall, does give her a run for her bandwidth). PS She's wrong about gay marriage and George Bush, but she's, nevertheless, always an entertaining read.

Well, it has come to my attention that Cathy Seipp's Silverlake-based "Cathy's World" isn't the only "Cathy's World" on the planet. Just minutes away, in Simi Valley, CA, there's another Cathy with a "Cathy's World" of her own -- quite different from our Miss Seipp's. (Be sure you keep your sound on so you don't miss the music!)

Posted by aalkon at 08:51 AM | Comments (3)

Fundamental Problems

A Vote For Bush
...is a vote against science and modernity. From a Charlie Savage story in The Boston Globe:

''I worry about a culture that devalues life and believe, as your president, I have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world," Bush said Aug. 9, 2001, calling life ''a sacred gift from our creator."

He's worried? I'm terrified that the most powerful nation on the planet is being run by a guy who bases policy on his belief, based on zero evidence, that there's a god.

Luckily, he's had plenty of experience with devaluing life. Check out this bit from Common Dreams:

Bush was a governor in love with the death penalty. He executed 152 prisoners, more than any other governor in US history.

One was Carla Faye Tucker, for whose death Bush became justly infamous. Tucker was convicted of murder, but in prison underwent a dramatic conversion to the kind of fundamentalist Christianity Bush claims to embrace. She became an astute observer of the prison system, and asked Bush for a meeting. He refused.

After Bush had her killed, he sadistically mocked Carla Faye Tucker on a conservative talk show. Asked what she might have said had he met with her, Bush assumed a scornful whine and imitated a woman pleading for her life. Governor Bush apparently found this as funny as his recent presidential search under a table for the Weapons of Mass Destruction that never were found in Iraq.

As governor, Bush also executed an immigrant who was denied access to representatives of his home country, as required by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The US was a party to that convention. But Bush explained that "Texas did not sign the Vienna Convention, so why should we be subject to it?"

In that spirit Bush scorned the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child by joining Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan and Yemen in executing minors. More than 90 percent of the children held on Bush's death row were non-whites.

Because Bush slashed Texas mental health programs, his prisons were full of psychologically impaired victims, whom he also held eligible for execution.

Pro-life president? Where?

Posted by aalkon at 07:10 AM | Comments (7)

August 10, 2004

An Elizabeth Cady Stanton Feminist

Undoing The Ruin Feminism Has Done To Relationships
It's been a mission of mine as of late, with columns like this one I just posted on my site. I've taken to calling myself "an Elizabeth Cady Stanton feminist," meaning, I think women should have the vote and get equal pay for equal work, but I am absolutely clear on the fact that women and men are not the same. No, not due to culture, but due to biology (which is where culture comes from, contrary to popular feminist belief). Men and women had what evolutionary psychologist David Buss refers to as "different adaptative problems over human evolutionary history." Simply put, women get knocked up and have to raise kids, men don't, and men and women evolved to be physically and psychologically different because of that.

Unfortunately, that's not what feminists will tell you -- or even a lot of regular people will tell you -- thanks to an unfortunate trickle-down to the masses of the work of pathetic dementos like Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon. (Clearly, they and their hairy-legged, "patriarchy"-blaming cohorts were too busy looking for bra burnings to make it to biology class.) The way I see it, much of the misery people are going through on the dating scene traces back to their crazy talk -- all the younger women who think they're "empowering" themselves by dressing like they're on their way to repair your septic tank, and all the younger men who act like neutered kittens when they're around women.

Lucy, in a tight sweater,
pandering to the male gaze

Tell me something: If Andrea Dworkin wasn't so scary looking -- would she still be clinging, like a rat on driftwood, to this scientificially untenable feminist party line? By the way, the link above (on "scary") is Andrea's story of being "raped" in Paris. We'll never know the truth of the story. But, contrary to the (wrong) rape propaganda of Susan Brownmiller, Dworkin, and others, most rapists don't look to just any woman to rape, but to young, fertile ones. It's, again, biology -- as Randy Thornhill and others who write from data, not knee-jerk reaction and professional victimhood, prove again and again. I'm sorry...but does anybody think any man looks at a woman who looks like Andrea Dworkin and think "Rape!" -- or does the word "RUN!" come immediately to mind?

Posted by aalkon at 10:28 PM | Comments (7)

Mise En Seine

Mise En Seine

photo by Gregg Sutter

Posted by aalkon at 08:02 AM | Comments (5)

Walmart

The High Cost Of Saving Money At Walmart
A UC Berkeley study says California taxpayers are forking over $86 million a year to subsidize Walmart's low-wage workers. Walmart, of course, disputes the findings:

The study indicates that Wal-Mart workers in California rely on the state for about $32 million annually in health-related services, and $54 million a year in other assistance such as subsidized school lunches, food stamps and subsidized housing.

"When workers do not earn enough to support themselves and their families through their own jobs, they rely on public safety net programs to make ends meet," said the report by Arindrajit Dube of UC Berkeley's Institute for Industrial Relations, and Ken Jacobs of the campus's Center for Labor Research and Education.

The researchers said they conservatively estimate that the approximately 44,000 workers at 143 Wal-Mart and its sister Sam's Club stores in California earn about 31 percent less than workers in large retail as a whole, and that 23 percent fewer Wal-Mart/Sam's Club workers generally are covered by employer-sponsored health insurance than workers in large retail.

There is an array of reasons for the low rates of coverage, said the researchers. They include higher employee turnover, eligibility issues, employee costs for health plans and plan quality.

In the end, Wal-Mart essentially "is shifting part of its labor costs onto the public," the report said.

A very expensive "bargain." How about you Walmart afficionados shop at worker-friendly Costco, like me -- so the $2 you save on a laundry basket doesn't end up costing me $12?

UPDATE: This remark from Lena, in the comments section below, deserves to be seen, so I'll post it here:

I just came across this quote today, from a 1937 Supreme Court decision, in Cass Sunstein's new book, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR'S Unifinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever:

"The exploitation of a class of workers who are in an unequal position with respect to bargaining power and are thus relatively defenseless against the denial of a living wage... casts a direct burden for their support upon the community. What these workers lose in wages, the taxpayers are called upon to pay... The community is not bound to provide what is in effect a subsidy for unconscionable employers."

Chief Justice Charles Evan Hughes

Posted by aalkon at 07:37 AM | Comments (13)

Getting Felt Up By Strangers

Getting Felt Up By Strangers
On purpose? Eeeeeeeuw! (Isn't riding a crowded F train punishment enough?)

Posted by aalkon at 06:17 AM | Comments (1)

August 09, 2004

Hostile Legal Arena

Why Sitcoms Shouldn't Hire Women, Except As Actresses
A female assistant on "Friends" who was fired for typing too slowly had the bright idea of trying to collect a few bucks by alleging, first, racism (that one was nixed by the court), and then, sexual harrassment -- merely because she was in earshot of off-color banter! -- turning the writer's room on sitcoms into a hostile legal arena.

My employment suggestion for sitcom
assistants who can't take off-color banter

photo by Gregg Sutter

Harvey A. Silverglate (a director of a foundation which signed an amicus brief in the case) explains in The Wall Street Journal, how cases like this "allow punishment even of workplace discussion that's central to the professional mission of an enterprise" -- something I find personally and professionally terrifying. So...why did the court allow her to sue for sexual harrassment? According to Silverglate:

Because she had to attend sessions at which writers tossed around "lewd, crude, vulgar jokes and comments in the writers' room" as part of the creative process of scripting "a show about the lives of young sexually active adults" (as the court characterized "Friends").

The trial judge had dismissed her claim because the offensive speech was not directed at her personally and was geared to create an atmosphere conducive to producing script ideas. Not so, said the Court of Appeal that reinstated her claim. "A woman may be the victim of sexual harassment if she is forced to work in an atmosphere of hostility or degradation of her gender." If she has to work in an atmosphere that "sufficiently offends" her "so as to disrupt her emotional tranquility in the workplace," that's the equivalent of depriving her of her opportunity to work. Ms. Lyle "was a captive audience." In other words, by performing the very job for which she'd applied, she was unwillingly exposing herself to the offensive atmosphere that constituted gender discrimination.

The California Supreme Court gave civil libertarians hope when, last month, it agreed to review the decision. If it fails to reverse, the workplace will join the college campus as a place where some are entitled to the comfort of not having their sensibilities challenged, while others suffer arbitrary censorship.

The writers pointed out that they shouldn't be penalized where they felt required to tell colorful jokes "as part of the creative process." The court disagreed and ruled that the jurors would decide "whether defendants' conduct was indeed necessary to the performance of their jobs." How is the jury to do this? By deciding whether the writers had "no alternative to these sexual brainstorming sessions." After all, noted the court, the creative necessity defense would not justify writers' assistants being "kissed, fondled or caressed in the interests of developing a 'love scene' between the characters."

So, banter is akin to sexual assault. What's more, the burden is on the writers "to convince a jury the artistic process for producing . . . 'Friends' necessitates conduct which might be unacceptable in other contexts." They'd have to convince jurors that "the recounting of sexual exploits, real and imagined, the making of lewd gestures and the displaying of crude pictures denigrating women was within 'the scope of necessary job performance' and not engaged in for purely personal gratification or out of meanness or bigotry or other personal motives."

It was a frighteningly simple step for harassment law to go from punishing actions to punishing words. Here, we glimpse the next plateau -- punishing bad thoughts. Stay tuned.

Nobody writes really great (or even borderline adequate) humor in an environment rife with propriety and decorum. You need a sense of play to crack stuff out of the muse (that bitch!). For me, at least, this takes batting a bit of vulgarity around -- something I make clear to any potential assistant I'm interviewing.

Tools Of The Trade
I also point out the porn films from my friend Walt lazily piled on top of my stack of videos, noting that I'm a girl who has porn films lying around in the open; ie, if this troubles you, perhaps the church choir is hiring.

Let's review this week's vulgar Advice Goddess verbiage: There was that one rather mildly Puritan-peeving line, "Yeah, this is going to happen -- and Mommy and Daddy are going to have a threesome with the Easter Bunny" -- which actually got nixed for the cleaner, and, I thought, funnier option: "Yeah, this is going to happen -- and your grandma�s going to rob the corner liquor store, buy crack with the money, and sell it to schoolchildren."

Truth be told, I'm actually having a hard time coming up with good smut examples after the fact...although, again, on the extremely mild side, there was that question of whether somebody should be described as "the love child of Danny DeVito and The Swamp Thing," or whether DeVito would best be replaced with one of a number of other Swamp Thing guy-wife candidates.

Hmm, I guess that's still a distressingly unshocking example, since The Swamp Thing isn't really classifiable as an animal, thus eliminating any potential charges of beastiality banter at the office. Then again...there was that goat bit I like to retread from time to time: "Well, if the goat is consenting, I really don't have a problem with that." Shit! I'm screwed. (Oops, I mean..."Poopy! Gee whiz, I'm in trouble!")

Luckily, I'm an underfunded hostile workplace.

Posted by aalkon at 08:45 AM | Comments (4)

August 08, 2004

Spano Dimwits It Again/

La Spano Dimwits It Again
Parlez-vous "feeble-minded twit"? Susan Spano, the LA Times Travel section's fountain of wit, searing prose, and insight, now "blogging" from Paris, lost her keys the other day. Stuff like this happens -- to anyone. But, Spano, being a "faint auntie" type (not my first choice if I'm hiring a travel writer, but what do I know?) responds like so:

There's a marvelous little tea shop near me, Les Nuits du Tea, where I go so often they've gotten to know me. So I used their phone to call the two people who have copies of my key. Neither was there. Then the owner of the shop suggested calling a locksmith.

Big mistake. I should have gone to a movie and tried to reach the key-holders afterward.

When the locksmith arrived, he said it would be necessary to drill a hole to get in and then replace the lock, a Picard, one of the most secure you can buy in France. I knew it would be expensive, but I never dreamed what it would cost. The locksmith drilled the hole before telling me the price of the lock replacement, so I was stuck. The tab: 1,000 euros, about $1,200. The locksmith said my landlord could get the money back from homeowner's insurance, which is obligatory in France. I'm doubtful. And then the locksmith said he didn't take credit cards, so we had to go to a cash machine. I felt those 1,000 Euros draining out of my account like blood from a vein.

It's only money, I tell myself. And frankly, I'm getting taken simply by living here, because of the weak dollar-euro exchange rate. But what a way to go.

The way of a woman who, at best, belongs in a kitchen in the Valley poring over the Hamburger Helper directions, not in Paris all by herself -- much as I will admit to enjoying the occasional laugh at her dull and error-ridden dispatches. (I've been meaning to post one about her July 28th entry...soon, soon.) Somebody do this lady a favor and put her on a plane back to the States immediately, where she won't have to force down all that troublingly sublime French food in lieu of the cheeseburgers she so craves.

Getting back to the nut of this deal: Somebody tells you it's $1200 cash to replace the lock, and you totter to the bank machine and fork it over? You don't think to ask first? You don't think to wait? You don't think to tell the person "I'm not sure about this charge, and let's go down to this caf� where I know people because I want a second opinion?" And even wilder, you have just spent, what, four months in France, and you are merely "doubtful" when the guy tells you the landlord is going to put in for a claim to his insurance company and give you back your money? I am in tears laughing.

And I'm telling you, anybody who's ever seen a Picard lock on a French door (hers is probably the super-secure one you have to turn a few times to open) knows it screams "WAIT!" (if you can). Especially when you have not one, but two people who have keys...albeit, not immediately at your beck and call.

Please.

I am not cheap, but I didn't make an extra key to the Paris apartment for my boyfriend last month because it was 20 eu, and we figured we'd mostly be together (I spent July there, but he only came for ten days). Forgive my ever-present vulgarity, but if I'm going to bend over and shit money, Spano-style, I'm getting designer clothes out of the deal!

P.S. Susan, I realize you work for the LA Times and aren't held to the same standards of accuracy as those of us who toil independently in our living rooms, but I would guess that tea place you're talking about is "Les Nuits des Th�s."

Posted by aalkon at 02:10 PM | Comments (4)

Cathy Seipp/

Cathy's Right
Cathy Seipp weighs in, exactly right, on the Mary Kay Letournau case (the schoolteacher who, at 34, had sex with her 12-year-old student):

I agree the gender reversal does make things rather different, but still not OK. This is real life, not a soft focus European art house film.

Posted by aalkon at 11:36 AM | Comments (3)

L.A.�s Channel 2 �News�

L.A.�s Channel 2 �News�
Some publicity person is putting their lips to the right behind at KCBS-TV news.

There was a foot race, in Hershey, PA, of Hershey employees dressed up as Hershey candy mascots. I know this because I accidentally had L.A.�s Channel 2 news on -- the 11 o�clock program -- when newscaster Linda Alvarez (who conspicuously pronounces Alvarez like she�s talking head-ing on Mexican TV) announced this stunning international development. Regarding my getting peeved at her "Look at me, I'm ethnic!" pronunciation, you don't hear Ben Stein calling himself "Ben Schtein," do you?...or pronouncing words of German origin like he's back in the old country? Please. How do you say "Help me, I'm affected!" in Spanish?!

Getting back to the original topic; accompanying Alvarez' report, KCBS aired footage of the five or so poor schlubs in chocolate costumes wobbling around a chalk-lined track. Like, wow, huh? Like, amusing? Sadly, no.

Nevertheless, I know you must be holding your breath for the results...so here they are: Yes, probably much to the chagrin of the person dressed up as a Hershey�s Kiss, and the one decked out as a Hershey Bar...the Reese�s Pieces person tottered to the finish line first. Yeah, I know...the suspense nearly killed me, too. But, wait -- there's more!

As Channel 2 bragged in the news promo spot I heard, they have a "new attitude, and aggressive new spirit!" "Breaking news is our new priority and nobody has more reporters assigned to cover it!" They mentioned something, too, about "a new level of coverage and commitment!"

Yes, coming up (in the next few days), teased the voiceover after the news: �How some people can be addicted to tanning!!� Wowee...I wonder if they put Seemowah Hoysh on that one?

**Now-aging photo props for this blog entry provided by political columnist Jill Stewart, who pawned them off on me after Nancy Rommelmann's going-away poker party.

Posted by aalkon at 08:05 AM | Comments (6)

August 07, 2004

Monsieur Marcel/

No Use Crying Over Yesterday's Foie Gras
Friday, 4:57pm, the counter at Monsieur Marcel at The Farmer's Market at Third and Fairfax, Los Angeles. Gregg and I had the soft cheese plate (the St. Andr�, and a bleu, and one other I don't remember the name of), some Pouilly Fuiss�, then some foie gras...the remains of which you see here. We tried to send it back, but the waiter gently pointed out that we'd already licked the plate clean. Hmm, fair enough!

Posted by aalkon at 09:49 AM | Comments (2)

Harper's Index

The War Against Really Heavy Black Eyeliner
I'm just getting around to reading all the magazines that came while I was away. From Harper's Index, June:

State grant awarded a Missouri police department's Youth Outreach Unit two years ago to battle Goth culture: $273,000

Amount the Unit returned to the state in April after no Goth-influenced youth could be found to aid: $132,000

Posted by aalkon at 09:12 AM | Comments (0)

August 06, 2004

Your SUV Is Illegal/

Get Your Wide Load Off My Street
Guess what, you massive SUV-driving, environment-hogging vulgarians? You're breaking the law by driving your monstrosity on my street.

Yes, if you drive one of the numerous U.S.S. Nimitz-sized overcompensations-on-wheels like the Escalade, Range Rover, Suburban, certain Mercedes M Class, the Land Cruiser, the Sequoia (oh, there's a telling name for a small penis subsitute if I ever heard one), and the Dodge Ram 1500, you're banned from my residential southern California neighborhood...and a lot of other So-Cal neighborhoods, too. So reports clever Andy Bowers in Slate:

Cities throughout California�the nation's largest car market�prohibit the heaviest SUVs on many of their residential roads. The problem is, they don't seem to know they've done it.

I discovered this secret ban after noticing the signs at both ends of my narrow Los Angeles-area street (a favorite cut-through route for drivers hoping to avoid tie-ups on bigger roads). The signs clearly prohibit vehicles over 6,000 pounds.

I knew a 6K pound limit ruled out a lot of the larger trucks that routinely rumble by my house, unpursued by traffic cops. But then I got to thinking: Could some of those bigger SUVs exceed 3 tons? So I did some research, and I hit the mother lode.

It turns out every big SUV and pickup is too heavy for my street.

And mine, too. But, why? Andy writes:

It's no accident the automakers churn out so many SUVs that break the 6K barrier. By doing so, these "trucks" (and that's how they're classified by the U.S. Department of Transportation) qualify for a huge federal tax break. If you claim you use a 3-ton truck exclusively for work, you can write it off immediately. All of it. Up to $100,000 (in fact, Congress raised the limit from $25,000 just last year). Heavy SUVs qualify for similar state tax breaks in California (up to $25,000) and elsewhere. These vehicles are also exempt from the federal "gas guzzler tax" because they're trucks. (And you probably know that many SUVs are exempt from the tougher gas mileage and safety standards of cars because they're classified as trucks, but that's another story.)

Tax advisers actually warn their clients to make sure they buy vehicles that are heavy enough to qualify for the tax breaks. Some offer helpful lists of which SUVs will tip the IRS's scales.

Here's what few people seem to realize: By weighing in at more than 6,000 pounds, big SUVs are prohibited on thousands of miles of road in California. Cities across the state�including San Francisco, Los Angeles, Pasadena, and Santa Monica�use the 3-ton cutoff for many or nearly all of their residential streets. State law gives them the ability to do this for very straightforward reasons: The heavier the vehicle, the more it chews up the roads, endangers pedestrians and smaller vehicles, and makes noise.

This isn't an arbitrary weight limit. 6,000 pounds has long been a recognized dividing line between light and heavy trucks. (For example, the Clean Air Act defines "heavy duty vehicle" as a truck with a gross vehicle weight "in excess of six thousand pounds.")

Clean Air Act? Oh, that silly thing for those stupid granola types who care more about their need to breathe than SUV afficionados' need to look cool?

On a related note: I could never understand the disconnect between bible-thumpers' professed love of god's planet, all god's creations, blah, blah, blah, and their, well, their enthusiasm, for fouling the air and the water, among other things.

Then, somebody told me about "The Rapture" -- the fundamentalist notion that the world will end with Armageddon, and all the "believers" will fly up out of their pajamas to heaven, and everybody else will meet some terrible fate. You know what? I think these flagrantly anti-environmental types think the (ridiculous fairy tale) end is near, and that's why they don't care about chewing up the planet. Why else would it be?

Posted by aalkon at 08:44 AM | Comments (7)

August 05, 2004

"Amy Is Annoyed" Week Continues

"Amy Is Annoyed" Week Continues
Here's the piece I wrote for my friend Hillary Johnson, who edits the Ventura County Reporter, on irritating people shouting into their cell phones in public:

The North American Peace And Quiet Initiative: Amy Alkon takes on loud bores on cell phones

Thanks, but I'll pass on breaking stories of your raging yeast infection, your cat's irritable bowel syndrome, and live updates on your current location: "I'm walking down Third Street. I'm still walking down Third Street. Yep, still on Third Street."

Everywhere I go, someone on a cell phone is shouting something breathtakingly dull or unpleasant or both. I used to frequent this serene cafe, where you'd just barely hear the murmur of conversation under the classical music. I still go there, only it's no longer serene, because I'm usually sandwiched between two people having dueling high-decibel cell phone conversations. It's for them I'm having this card printed:

IF YOU CAN READ THIS CARD YOU ARE TOO LOUD

Just because you have a self doesn't mean you should express it. Apparently, you are under the impression that the world will be a better place once you broadcast the news that you've changed laxatives or forgotten to floss. Perhaps you call this "freedom of speech." I call it "bad breeding." Kindly save your loud, dull conversations for the privacy of your home. Thank you! --AmyAlkon@aol.com

A few restaurants and coffee bars responded to the cellular din by putting up "no cell phones" signs. Can't people mind their manners without printed instruction? Most people in public places do manage "no nose-picking," "no toenail clipping," and "please don't urinate on the foyer rug." With cellular rudeness, it has to be intentional disregard. I mean, come on: Unless they've got one hand on their Leader Dog and the other on their cell, they can see all those other people around -- people who would surely prefer to have their thoughts go unpierced by the shrill and uninteresting.

I do make exceptions for emergencies. Gotta tell the babysitter that Johnny isn't allowed to smoke crack before dinner, or warn the fire department that something's burning? Well, I'm a big girl -- I'll deal. In all other cases, here are my personal guidelines for cell phoning etiquette:

1. Calls are fine as long as one is talking at a decibel level just this side of a whisper.
2. Otherwise, one shouldn't use a cell phone anywhere one wouldn't feel perfectly comfortable passing a big cloud of gas.

One day, I was in a coffee bar where just about every table was occupied by somebody reading, writing, or talking quietly. A woman -- she looked like a young grandmother -- burst into the place with a swarm of (you guessed it -- loud) children. They all ended up at a small table across the coffee bar from me. I was wearing headphones with Aimee Mann up full blast as I wrote -- no impediment whatsoever to my hearing every word Granny shouted into her phone. She made five calls -- each the same as the last -- giving detailed directions to a birthday party at her house, as well as the time, and her home phone number. At the call number four mark, customers started spilling out of the place, glaring at her as they left. I was too far behind in my writing to leave or even to get up and say something to her (as I often do, as a small-time vigilante), but I scribbled her number down and called her when I got home:

"Carol, Carol, Carol...the microphone on a cell phone is actually quite sensitive. There's no need to yell. You look like a nice woman. You probably didn't realize that your repeated shouting into your cell phone drove a number of people out of the coffee bar today. Beyond that, you might consider that I'm just one of about 20 people who know that you live at "555 Ferngrove" Street, a half-block off Sunset, three houses from the end on the right side, and that you're having a bunch of six-year-olds over at 3 p.m. on Saturday. Now, I'm just a newspaper columnist, not a pedophile, but it's kind of an unnecessary security risk you're taking, huh? Just a little something to think about the next time you're shouting on your cell phone in a coffee bar. Bye!"

It's time for more people to speak up to those who force their dull lives on the rest of us. But how? Do you get right in the cellular narcissist's face and shout disparaging remarks into your own cell phone about those who lack consideration for others' right to peace, quiet, and ignorance of the icky medical issues of strangers? That seems rather hypocritical. Plus, there's that wise notion that a whisper makes a much bigger impact on an audience than a shout -- which leads me to a socially unacceptable but extremely tempting solution: Back up really close to the offender and set a strong but silent example -- the kind eighth graders refer to as "silent but deadly." Although your "You have some nerve!" gas probably won't physically incapacitate them, showing these screaming bores the stinking error of their ways should at least make them tremble a little before dialing in the future.

For anyone who isn't the flatulent sort -- you have my permission to print up my anti-cell phone card, complete with my email address, and dispense it to any high-volume banal person on a cell phone way too near you.

(c)2003, Amy Alkon, all rights reserved. Reprint rights available. Contact adviceamy@aol.com

Posted by aalkon at 08:58 AM | Comments (8)

About Last Night

About Last Night
Gregg surprised me with a new digital camera. He gave me the Canon digital Elph SD110, which is about the size of makeup, and supremely stylish. But, enough about my equipment; here are the first few pictures...from last night. Richard Rushfield (of Vanity Fair writerhood and a new and very entertaining blog) hosted the Susannah Breslin Memorial Hacks Lounge at Club Tee Yee in Glendale.

Note: Don't be fooled by the "Memorial" in the name. It's the Hack's Lounge they're memorializing, not its namesake. Who is Susannah Breslin? Well, in the words of Xeni Jardin:

It is because of Susannah Breslin that the terms "bukkake," "Osteogenesis Imperfecta Fetish," and "stumpfucking" have become part of my vocabulary.

Her fiction and online pornopunditry examine the dirty fringes of media life, exploring sex in the age of Google with singularly snarky sensibility and a taste for erotic shock.

If porn were a studded black leather belt, and America a bare, pink ass, Susannah's work would trace the intricate rows of embossed welts left behind. She is neither a Pollyanna, nor a prude: she doesn't celebrate adult entertainment as an inherently freeing phenomenon, nor does she condemn its impact. She pens prose about porking with a poker face. It simply is--and it is as central and lasting a part of American identity as soft-serve ice cream, carpool lanes, strip malls, and prom night.

Susannah, whom I met when we appeared on Candace Bergen together, is not dead; she's merely moved to Seattle (ie, she's sleeping). Richard says she likes to move every few years, to shake things up. Well, Glendale is shaky enough for me; getting there from my place by the beach should, by law, require a sherpa guide (one with his own helicopter to fly you over the mess on the 110 by downtown LA).

Nevertheless, it was worth the trip. Met Janelle Brown, who's now writing for The New York Times, whose work I was a fan of when she ran on Salon; a fun girl named Evangelynne Heath who's writing for a reality show on ABC family (but not a sleazy one); and Susan Leibowitz, a producer for Dateline NBC, who has interviewed (correction: chatted with) our friend Luke Ford about the porn industry (Luke was recently, and most hilariously, paired with a nude Chabad girl on one of my favorite blogs, A Fly On The Wall).

After Tee Yee-ing for a few hours, Gregg was hungry, so we went to Canter's, which has some pretty nice vintage night signage of its own:

UPDATE: Here's my boyfriend's version, which he e-mailed to me a few moments ago...

Tell The Truth!

Amy by Amy:
After Tee Yee-ing for a few hours, Gregg was hungry, so we went to Canter's, which has some pretty nice vintage night signage of its own.

Amy by Gregg:
After Tee Yee-ing for a few hours, Gregg was ready to scream and maim something. Sensing this, I raised my oh-so-trim ass off the stool and beat a retreat because I didn't fancy the idea of walking home from Glendale in my Ralph Kemp jacket, so we went to Canter's, where Gregg spilled Cole Slaw juice on his shirt as an homage to Joe Loop, from Be Cool. I then proceeded to eat the diva's share of his grilled cheese and tomato because he always orders better.

Hmmm, I'd say that's pretty accurate!

Posted by aalkon at 07:26 AM | Comments (0)

August 04, 2004

Bob Morris On Pryers

Pry, Pry Again
Bob Morris takes on nosy people in The New York Times:

The guy behind the counter at the household and gardening supplies store in Kingston, N.Y., was being very friendly. I had a question about lawn sprinklers. He had one for me, too, when Ira, my boyfriend, came over to join me. "Hey, are you two brothers?" he asked. Other than salt and pepper hair, we don't look much alike. But since we have been asked before, Ira had a ready answer. "Of a sort," he said, hoping that would end it.

No such luck. "Hey, don't these guys look like brothers?" the man said to a colleague. "You two really aren't brothers?" he asked.

You would think that in a world of "Will and Grace" and "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," he might have been able to do the math. Or maybe he had and was toying with us. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt and a direct answer, too. But I'm sorry � I didn't feel liking getting into Gay Politics 101.

But then, who doesn't face intrusive questions from strangers in summer, when city folk meander out to the greener boonies, and all kinds of Americans traipse around Europe, upgrading their cultural experiences?

"You're American?" I was asked more than once while visiting Spain. I should have said, "Of a sort," but instead quietly answered that I was. Then I was interrogated about my country's role in Iraq and Israel and my feelings about the Bush administration.

Not that things are much better even in cosmopolitan New York. Kate Spade, who recently wrote a book about manners, often faces New Yorkers trying to guess where she is from. "When I tell them Kansas City," she said with her subtle twang, "they ask me what in the world I did there" � as if nothing Midwestern could possibly engage a New Yorker's interest.

Inquiring minds also want to know: Have you had work done? Do you rent or own? Why don't you have children? What kind of surgery was it, exactly? Did he suffer long?

Tama Janowitz, the writer, has a daughter who was born in China. "People have asked if it was me or my husband who couldn't have a baby," she said ruefully.

So many probing questions in innocent drag. In Victorian times, which were perhaps too well mannered, arbiters suggested that questions be avoided in conversation entirely. Instead of putting someone on the spot by asking, "How is your sister?" you would say, "I trust your sister is well," leaving it up to the other person to run with the topic.

Bob rounds out his piece by quoting PJ Forni, whose book, Choosing Civility (given to me by Lena), is quite good. Speaking of which, my latest pet peeve is total strangers who come up to me in a caf� and paw my iBook, the lid of which I've covered with a groovy Macskinz.com zebra print pattern. (Macskinz doesn't have iBook covers now, but scroll down here to see my zebra print cover on the iPod, and the hot pink leopard print next to it.)

I'm always especially shocked when people reach over and grab one of the top corners of my screen while I'm typing feverishly, with headphones on, clearly extremely engaged in what I'm doing. It never seems to occur to them to wait until I take a break to come over and get grabby; nor, perish forbid, to ask before touching.

Once, when I was sitting at neighborhood coffee joint, deep in conversation with Lena, I was so startled by a guy who grabbed my screen with his big dirty fingers that I reflexively shot back "Barbarian!" (Hmmm...perhaps this is why Lena bought me Forni's book?)

At the recent alternative newspaper conference, a news photographer grabbed my screen without feeling compelled to ask. I shooed his hand away (more politely than he deserved), asking him if he would be comfortable if some total stranger just reached over and felt up his Hasselblad. "Um, no," he muttered. "Good point." Please, somebody tell me: Why is it that this would be a strange and difficult thing for anybody to conceive of on their own?

Posted by aalkon at 08:54 AM | Comments (3)

August 03, 2004

Where Brats Come From/

"Mommy, Where Do Brats Come From?"
In Toward A Psychology Of Being, Abraham H. Maslowe writes:

Much disturbance in children and adolescents can be understood as a consequence of the uncertainty of adults about their values. As a consequence, many youngsters in the United States live not by adult values but by adolescent values, which of course are immature, ignorant and heavily determined by confused, adolescent needs.

Yeah, heavily determined by the confused, adolescent needs of their confused, adolescent "parents." I, on the other hand, was raised in Michigan by grownup parents who can best be described as �loving fascists.� When I was about eight, I thought I could fly, but the idea that I would be loud in an adult place or kick the back of somebody�s seat did not exist in the universe as I understood it.

I talked to my parents on the phone on Sunday, prior to posting this entry about an underparented brat on a recent flight I took, and asked my dad if my two sisters and I ever threw screaming fits as children. He said no, �not after you were little babies,� and added, �We always talked to you girls as adults, and expected you to act like adults when we took you to restaurants or other adult places. You were children, so you didn�t always do the right thing. But, we�d say girls, �that�s not done here,� and you�d listen.�

Apply my dad's words on parenting to the relatively recent controversy about medicating boys out of misbehavior with Ritalin. Now, I take Ritalin as an adult (�concentration vitamins,� I call my little yellow pills, which help me keep my Jack Russell terrier of a brain on a short leash to my deadline). But, what I want to know is, how come we suddenly have hordes of wild boys swinging from the classroom ceiling tiles? Or, rather, why didn�t we have them when I was growing up? Just a guess, but the culprit isn�t something in the water, or everybody�s favorite cultural punching bag, too much television, but, simply, too little parenting.

P.S. We weren�t allowed to watch TV growing up, save the Wonderful World Of Disney (and then there was the occasional Get Smart we snuck when my mom ran out to the store), but all the other kids watched a whole lot of TV, and not one boy I went to school with ever acted, in class, like something that escaped from the monkey house at the zoo.

No...surprise, surprise...boys I grew up with didn�t get out of line because they knew the remedy for it wasn�t a tiny paper cup of juice and a handful of pills, but getting drop-kicked to Saturn and/or grounded for all eternity. (Just picture yourself at age 45, coming home after work to sit sullenly in your room in your parents' house while everybody else is living it up at the bar.) When presented with these alternatives, shutting the hell up and listening to your teacher suddenly seems a very wise idea.

Posted by aalkon at 06:17 AM | Comments (4)

August 02, 2004

Another Bratty Child/

Underparented At 30,000 Feet
(Written July 1, 2004, enroute to France.)
I�m flying Swiss Air from L.A. to Paris with my Yorkshire terrier Lucy in a leopard-print and black patent leather Sherpa bag under the seat. Yes, I actually bought my dog a $211 round-trip ticket to Paris, which seems a bit ridiculous since she�s 2.5 pounds, smaller than a lot of pigeons.

Before 9-11, and the ensuing secondary security checks, I used to smuggle her on planes constantly, in a ferret case about the size of a loaf of bread, which I stowed in my carry-on. Nobody was ever the wiser because she�s quiet and well-behaved and about as obtrusive as my wallet -- which is more than I can say for the kid across the aisle.

As the plane was taking off, �Way to go, Hunter!� ripped through the seven-row cabin I was seated in. Heads turned. A boy, about 9, in a row with his mother, father, and his sister, about 7, was shouting at the Gameboy thingie he was playing. Ah, but boys will be boys, right? Sometimes, the imagination gets the best of them...right? �Hunter,� his mother cut in, "Do you want your�" (the rest was drowned out by his shout of �Yeah, Hunter!�) Scary. The kid was his own personal cheerleading section -- belting out his own name every time he scored.

Meanwhile, the little old lady next to me wants me to find her a movie on the screen in front of her seat. �Classic or new releases?� I ask her. She can�t hear me. Neither can I. I turn to the shouting boy, whose mother has disappeared. Instead of seething what�s on my mind, �Shut up, you underparented cur!� I opt for a calmly-voiced �Could you please keep it down a bit? It�s very distracting.�

I go back to helping the old lady. 30 seconds later, the kid is bellowing again -- this time, to a boy who�s taken his mother�s seat next to him. (The mother is still nowhere to be seen.) I turn and give the kid's father a purposeful look, put my finger to my lips and make a �Shhhh� sound. Now dad can take charge. Dad? Dad? It seems Dad finds Newsweek extremely compelling.

I finally get �Cold Mountain� to play, in English, on the little old lady�s screen. Just then, Mom comes back. Apparently, Hunter tells her I asked him to cut the shouting. Mom is outraged. At me. She demands an explanation. I am incredulous. "Well," I say, "Your child was shouting, and it�s disturbing, because we�re in (look around you, dimwit!) rather close quarters!�

Is she horrified? She is. By me. She turns to her Precious, and, caresssing his cheek!, coos, �Don�t listen to her, Hunter�don�t you listen to her.� Caressing his cheek!

Hunter�s birthing unit then seeks to try me in a court of two -� her opinion and that of the Swiss lady on the aisle kitty-corner behind her. (I�ll refrain from calling the woman who gave birth to him his "mom" since she clearly favors the �I�m my kid�s best friend� style of �parenting.�) The Swiss lady replies that she wasn�t disturbed (are they still performing lobotomies in the EU?), and her word was enough for his birthing unit. She leaned my way and spat out a few words about what a miserable (translation: barren) and pathetic person I was, and suggested that I move to another seat if I was so bothered. (Where, maybe that nice open spot out there on the wing?)

Now, it�s true, I could have gotten a flight attendant to do the dirty work, but they were racing around the cabin trying to wine and dine everyone, and I know most people are not as comfy as I am coming off as a child-loathing bitch.

I told the birthing unit I�d ring for a flight attendant the next time the kid got loud, and sniped that she was "a terrible mother," but I decided to bow out of what could become a cross-aisle catfight lest she and I become a bigger disturbance than her brat. I turned up my movie head phones until I drowned out most of the noise -- and probably took out a bit of my hearing. Suddenly, our meals came. Is it any surprise that Hunter�s dinner act consisted of refusing to eat, and "Dad" (Hunter's "sperm donor unit") coming over to the aisle by his seat and begging him to do it?! The little old lady and I looked at each other, shook our heads and laughed.

It took about an hour before the Swiss guy kitty-corner up the aisle from the little old lady and me took off his headphones, rolled his eyes, and commiserated aloud, �This noise is just incredible! Intolerable!� I nodded and muttered something about sad state of parenting in America.

Later, when the kid started making noise again (his birthing unit was again absent) I turned and squinted at him. Maintaining my eye contact with him, I sighed to the little old lady, �How sad...that kid�s going to grow up to be a heroin addict lying in the gutter with no teeth.� Heartless, yes...but effective!�for about 20 minutes of shout-free bliss.

I think I finally got my point across to his birthing unit, too. Later, on my way back from the bathroom, I noticed her sleeping in Hunter�s former seat on the aisle. I bent down and barked into her ear, �Don�t you hate when rude people make a lot of noise and wake you up on the plane!?�

She shot awake, flew out of her seat, and scurried to the back of the plane -- I thought, to report me to a flight attendant. No flight attendant ever came. And whaddya know, I didn�t hear a peep out of her or her little rehab shoo-in for the rest of the flight. Lucy, of course, slept through the whole deal.

Posted by aalkon at 08:24 AM | Comments (36)

August 01, 2004

The Writing Process

The Writing Process by Pamela Anderson
Silly James Joyce and F. Scott Fitzgerald, driving themselves to drink, and ruining their eyesight to boot, by actually writing their own novels. America's silicone sweetheart, Pamela Anderson, who just published a novel, lifts and separates herself from her fiction-writing predecessors by having a ghostwriter handle the tiresome business of transforming her spoken pearls into printed words. And it's a good thing she does, according to Entertainment Weekly's interview with our newest literary lioness:

"Well, there are things I don�t really know about, like sentence structure, a beginning, a middle, and an end. All those hard things."

Such ridiculous impediments to getting one's international breast tour -- uh, book tour -- underway.

(link accessible to AOL/EW subscribers only)

Posted by aalkon at 04:33 PM | Comments (5)

Luke Thompson

Luke Y. Thompson Claims To Turn 30
Disbelieving friends gathered last night at The International Museum Of Action Figures...

...also known as the Hollywood apartment of movie critic and up-and-coming Hollywood (Boulevard?) star Luke Y. Thompson, to celebrate his alleged proximity to adulthood.

Party guest Cathy Seipp puts plastic women to shame

For the record, regarding that Hollywood Boulevard crack above, Luke is not gay. No, Luke is a girl magnet.

Luke's birthday present from me

There were several catfights for Luke's attention last night, but Cathy Seipp, who is looking quite buff these days, broke them up singlehandedly. Quite frankly, they were all quite dull compared to the mudwrestling match between Cathy and Jill Stewart, which reportedly started when Cathy sucker-punched Jill with a naked plastic woman, allegedly muttering the words, �Take that, you liberal in moderate�s clothing!�

Luckily, Luke is secure enough in his steamy, alpha-male heterosexuality to appear in this soon-to-be-released international blockbuster:

Yeah, yeah...I know what you're thinking. Sorry...you know what they say: "Only his hairdresser knows for sure!"

UPDATE: For Miss Seipp's take on our night in Luke's lair (and a teaser about a soon-to-be-posted Amy vs. The Underparented blog item) click here.

Posted by aalkon at 11:38 AM | Comments (2)

Doobie Doobie Doo/

The War On Potheads
We aren't doing so well in The War On Terror, thanks to our little detour into Saddam country. But, thanks to The Patriot Act, we're rounding up a bunch of doobie dealers and charging them up the wazoo! Maureen O'Hagan writes in The Seattle Times about how the U.S. Attorney in Seattle dragged The Patriot Act into a drug money laundering case against 15 people:

The 15 each were charged under the Patriot Act with one count of bulk-cash smuggling. Nine others were charged earlier with international money laundering and marijuana trafficking under a separate law.

It has long been illegal to take more than $10,000 out of the country without reporting it. But the Patriot Act strengthened that law and "took it out of just being a reporting violation to be a smuggling, trafficking type of offense," Greenberg said. The crime carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and the forfeiture of the illegally transported money.

Sure, you've got that free-floating anxiety about where Osama and Co. will strike next, but I bet you're feeling plenty safe from wafting pot smoke! Send in Special Forces! Launch the Navy Seals! Because all know what happens if these evil-doers aren't stopped. Yes, that's right. Then, the potheads win. Scary, huh?!

(via Reason's blog)

Posted by aalkon at 08:00 AM | Comments (0)

Deconstructing AA

Deconstructing Alcoholics Anonymous
The Orange Papers. Banned by Yahoo! Now back online.

(via Metafilter)

Posted by aalkon at 07:28 AM | Comments (3)

July 31, 2004

Pen Pal Fever/

Write Here! Write Now!
Why is it that people write to me, a person who answers piles and piles of mail for a living, thinking I will be their pen pal? I get about 20 letters a week from convicts who think that's a good idea. And here�s an e-mail I received yesterday from a non-con.

The guy wrote me a list of ten statements, each of which he preceded by an irritate-i-con (those little pictures 8-year-old girls cute-ify their e-mails with). I guess he expected me to drop whatever I was doing and give him a mini-dissertation on each one of them:

Advice Goddess: Do you consider the following to be true or false?

*Life's too short to date homely people.

*Many beautiful women often go dateless because men are afraid to approach them.

*Gynecologists are less likely to objectify or fear women.

*Guys that treat their girlfriends like dirt do so because they fear being themselves.

*Girls judge men based on their interactions with other men.

*Hugh Grant's style in movies is a shining example of how not to approach women in real life.

*Women are often more insecure about their genitalia than men are.

*Women run from angry men, but with angry women, all men (who are otherwise attracted) want to do is calm the woman down long enough to get her into bed.

*$ Women who marry for money usually end up earning it.

*Well-endowed men are more likely to succeed in business.

I write back:

Sorry, but I'm in Paris packing to come back to LA, and I don't have time to answer a quiz.

He writes back:

Sorry, not into the abuse thing.� You must have me mistaken for a fan.

And I write back to him:

"Abuse thing"? Because I don't have time to be your pen pal and answer a bunch of questions when I could have been out running around Paris instead? What you want, when you want it...and if you can't get it, send a snippy little note? Narcissisme, c'est toi. In English: You're an asshole.

Now, sometimes, I actually do write back, and sometimes at length, to people who write asking for my opinion on some issue. One issue at a time, thank you very much, will do. I don't have a homework fetish -- do you?

Most of this guy's points are too boring or obvious or obviously wrong to address. The suppositions about brave gynocologists and female genital insecurity were simply weird. Regarding the Hugh Grant remark, here's what I wrote in my column a few weeks back (I'll paste in the last two paragraphs of that particular column):

Chatting up a woman is like crashing a party. Act as if you belong, and you might escape getting drop-kicked to the Rottweilers. That said, unless people commonly address you as �Hey, Supreme Being,� why worry that you�ll come off as oafish and say something stupid? It�s the human condition. You might even use it to your advantage, a la Hugh Grant in his typical onscreen persona; i.e., �I�m completely bumbling and shy, and normally, I would never approach a woman in frozen foods (not even in the potato chips aisle)...but in your case, I had to say something.�

Your assignment? Get in touch with your spine (it isn�t just Tupperware for spinal fluid anymore!), glue some hair on your chest, and embarrass your way to a better life. Make yourself make moves on 20 women every week � until the prospect becomes more tedious than terrifying. Don�t fixate on the outcome, as this tends to cause lockjaw midway through �hello.� Your goal should simply be having fun. When a woman doesn�t seem up to the task, take it as a sign � a big, flashing arrow pointed at the woman behind her, and away from your previously scheduled lifetime of Saturday nights lying quietly on your couch impersonating mold.

Or writing me indignant e-mails when I won't respond to your demands.

Posted by aalkon at 08:04 AM | Comments (3)

July 30, 2004

Absentee Ballots For US Residents Living Overseas

Steal This Blog Entry
Absentee Ballots For US Residents Living Overseas:

The form is here. And state-by-state mail-to instructions are here, in a link on the lefthand side of the page.

A public service from your patriotically minded Advice Goddess. Please pass this link to any Americans you know living overseas, and put the information on your blog as well.

Posted by aalkon at 11:19 AM | Comments (0)

Left Coast/

From The Right Bank To The Left Coast
I'm home. We went for drinks at Shutters Hotel on the beach in Santa Monica so I wouldn't suffer too terribly from what Gregg referred to as "Left Bank Disease." I did, somehow, manage to enjoy myself.

Still, "Left Bank Disease" (which I would define, not as homesickness, � la Gregg -- but a tendency to bury one's head in a plate of foie gras so as to avoid shopping one's way to bankruptcy in twenty minutes) is preferable to the alternative here:

Luckily, we are not entirely lacking in chic French girls.

Or other merits.

Yes, I think I'll manage.

photos by Gregg Sutter (except the one of chic Emmanuelle at the Figueroa Hotel, which I took)

Posted by aalkon at 08:50 AM | Comments (5)

July 29, 2004

Switzerland

Switzerland
Lucy and I just arrived in Zurich for our flight to Los Angeles. We're trying to find some discreet spot to pee on the floor...maybe drop a few Tootsie Roll-sized poops. (Thanks, I used the ladies room, but there's no access for doggies to outdoors here like there is in transfer areas at Dulles and other airports. Oops!)

More blog items tomorrow!

UPDATE: Lucy is so polite. I put down a newspaper for her on the floor in the bathroom, and then, in a dark corner, and she refused to go. She waited all the way to Los Angeles. 11 hours!

Naturally, there was a screaming baby on our flight -- actually, scratch that, make that a screaming 5-year-old. Unshutuppable for about 10 minutes at the end of the flight. (I'm sorry, but at what age is this tantrum nonsense supposed to end?)

Compare her behavior with Lucy's: She hid on my lap, completely quiet, completely still, under my shawl, for much of the 11 hours. What's pretty wild is that Lucy seems to "get it" -- to know when she has to be quiet and hide. She's actually quite the "conspiratrice," I told the very impressed French lady next to me on the plane, thanks to American health regulations forbidding dogs in restaurants...which haven't stopped Lucy from going to them...not even once!

Posted by aalkon at 02:37 AM | Comments (2)

July 28, 2004

Smart Cars/Honda Insight/

"Smart" Is Relative
Here's a 60 mpg "Smart" car on the streets of Paris.

Not so smart on the streets of Los Angeles, where too many people drive stupid cars:

While I would drive a Smart car in a minute -- if people where I live didn't make it totally unsafe with their stupid cars -- I do have to admit, it's kind of like driving a car radio.

That said, I'm planning on getting a 66mpg Honda Insight when I'm back. (According to an Insight owner I know, it gets about 55mpg in real life,...but that's pretty okay, I think, vis a vis the 10-12 mpg the Hummer driver gets -- at best -- while endangering everybody else on the road.)

UPDATE: Apparently, the Smart car gets 60 mpg, corrected above from the earlier 36 mpg rating I got off some Smart car British Web site. The Advice Goddess regrets the error.

Posted by aalkon at 08:19 AM | Comments (6)

July 27, 2004

He Makes

He Makes Euro-CNN Fun
European CNN anchor/reporter Richard Quest: The world's most adorable anchorperson.

Posted by aalkon at 09:26 AM | Comments (5)

Don't Cry

"Don't Cry Fat Baby...
You Are At The Fabulous Charcuterie Noblet."

My pal Mark Gaito, who lives nearby, and sees Paris as his own personal giant food orgy, says it's a pretty amazing one.

Gaito Dreaming Of His Next Plate Of Foie Gras

If you're hungry for a little pied de cochon or the like, it's at the Alesia metro, next to the caf� La Bouquet, where you'll find Gaito dining every Friday, and where I always join him for a New York reunion lunch with my friend Emily when I'm in Paris. Also nearby, at the Porte de Vanves, on Saturdays and Sundays, is the flea market I like best (although they've gotten wise to the desirability, by Americans, of little old tin boxes that I used to pay 50 cents for).

A funny Gaito story: Mark, who has always been a foodie, and can tell you the name of the little ring on your knife in French, went to take a test to take French classes. He came home with a Ph.D.-level book, and his wife Chantal said, "No, no, no...this is wrong, this is much to hard for you." It turns out the test they gave him was about food in France! He went back, took a test about crossing the street or something, and was promptly sent back to linguistic kindergarten.

Blog-wise, I'm not saying much else at the moment because I'm on deadline, and also off to see Nancy Rommelmann and her daughter for breakfast at Caf� de Flore. For a girl "Leaving Los Angeles" (the name of her now-defunct blog) Nancy manages to take in some pretty rarified air!

Yesterday At Flore

Posted by aalkon at 08:00 AM | Comments (5)

July 26, 2004

Seipp On Today's Dad

Renting Space In Cathy's World
Some pithy and hilarious stuff in a MensNewsDaily interview with my friend Cathy Seipp. Links are live in the piece, but not here (on deadline and on dialup on France Telecom...on a phone line circa 1612, it seems...have a little sympathy):

BC: In an article you wrote last month about a group of stay-at-home yuppie fathers in the area around where you live, whom you dub �Silver Lake Dads,� you make an interesting statement about men and parenting. You wrote: �By now it's something of a clich� that men often feel they deserve a medal for what women do as a matter of course.� Yet, could we not make a similar statement about women and the workplace? Men have accepted their role as bread winners for thousands of years yet now the politics surrounding the modern work environment is dominated by concerns about sexual harassment, paid maternity leave, and arguments over whether birth control should be covered by insurance companies. What happened to the old notion that when one goes to work one simply works?

CS: Excellent observation, because it's one I thought of after I wrote the article, as a matter of fact, and plan to bring it up Sunday when I'm on this KMPC radio show called "His Side with Glenn Sacks" talking about that piece. I have nothing against involved dads; it's the earnest, self-congratulation that gets to me. And yes, women who make a big "I Am Woman" fuss about being a WORKING woman, in the WORKPLACE, with its glass ceilings, etc., are equally obnoxious.

I was brought up not to make a big fuss about these sorts of rules but just go ahead and break them. My mother, for instance, told me when I was young that when she was looking for an entry level job after graduating college, she noticed the most interesting, better paying jobs were always under "Men Wanted" instead of "Women Wanted," which is how jobs used to be advertised. So she just went ahead and applied for the "Men Wanted" jobs and usually got them. And most of the time the men who interviewed her were not outraged that she'd applied but quite nice; they just said it hadn't occurred to them that a woman might want the job. Which is how it is with most situations, I think; people aren't usually out to oppress you, they're just unimaginative.

BC: There was another intriguing matter you brought up in that same article which concerned the beards (�what is it with these guys and facial hair?�) which are so much a part of the SNAG�sensitive, New Age, guy� costume. I laughed out loud after reading it because I agree with you. The beard used to be a symbol of rustic masculinity as was the case with brave men like Ulysses S. Grant or Stonewall Jackson. Could a case be made that these SNAG fellows ritually grow beards as a way to compensate for their lack of masculinity? Perhaps they fear that if they did not possess beards people would be unsure of how to address them.

CS: I don't mind closely trimmed short beards. But those long, scraggly beards on men are like underarm hair on women. In both cases the tacit message is: "In case you were wondering what my pubic hair looks like, wonder no longer, because now you know."

BC: When thinking about the topic of stay-at-home dads, a bigger question must be asked and it is reflective of the black underbelly found in most radical social engineering projects. Is it possible for a woman to respect, and find attractive, a man who does not work or contribute materially to their family�s well-being?

CS: No.

Posted by aalkon at 08:54 AM | Comments (2)

July 25, 2004

Gabbing About Flab

The Fat Subsidizing The Obese
Jacob Sullum digs into the flabby thought about the recent Medicare decision to pay for obesity treatments. An interesting point for any best friend/epidemiologists who happen to be in the neighborhood (and we do miss you from our current Parisian neighborhood, despite its other obvious merits). Oh yes...on to that point:

We don't really know whether taxpayer costs are higher, on balance, than they would be if everyone were thin.

In the case of smokers, economic analyses indicate that taxpayer savings from less health care in old age and fewer Social Security payments (because of shorter life expectancies) outweigh the costs of treating tobacco-related diseases. Something similar could be true of obesity.

And then, this:

Even if the government starts to treat the condition of being overweight as a disease, it does not mean the behavior that makes people overweight is a disease as well. Gonorrhea is a disease, but promiscuous, unprotected sex is not.

At the anthropology and evolution conference I attended, J. Dee Higley, of the NIH Animal Center/Nat'l Institute Of Alcohol and Alcoholism, presented alcoholism as a disease, and links it to low levels of serotonin. His talk was fascinating -- and explained why impulsitivity caused by low serotonin might have had evolutionary payoffs. Some of the potential reasons, as Higley saw them:

*Calories � in times of famine, if you're impulsive, you�re more likely to try some new food.
*Increased Resources � impulsivity might lead you to migrate earlier, potentially staving off starvation in a played-out locale.
*Sex � impulsive types are more promiscuous -- and thus more likely to pass on their genes.

While I have no reason (and not much ability in the covariate/regression analysis department) to dispute Higley's findings on serotonin, I do dispute his "alcoholism is a disease" contention.

Sure, somebody might have a biological propensity toward alcoholism, but is addiction really a disease -- or, as Stanton Peele believes -- a choice, for short-term gratification over long-term goals? Higley refused to consider the question when I asked it after his discussion (presenting it as "Stanton Peele's approach"), and he simply resummarized his findings about serotonin levels in the primates he studied -- which I understood the first time around, thank you very much.

I wasn't surprised at his total unwillingness to investigate another point of view -- or so much as acknowledge the existence and work of Stanton Peele. That's one thing that's really frustrating about hanging around people of a particular academic discipline; for example, sociologists (who tend to think the evolutionary psychologists are morons for insisting that the differences between men and women are biological, not cultural -- despite a mountain of data screaming "biology!" as well as obvious physical differences visible to anyone who is not legally blind).

Unfortunately, there's an almost feverish push, amongst many university profs and researchers, to keep away any thoughts other than the most catholic in one's own field. There's also an unfortunate tendency to turn up one's nose at practical application of research data -- like these examples of evolutionary psychology and anthropology data applied to regular people's lives:

*by me, in my column, using Devendra Singh's waist-to-hip ratio findings to advise women to always wear clothes that show off their waist (or give the illusion that they have one), and referring to research by Buss, Shackelford, and others to advise men to stop behaving like neutered kittens, per the deluded feminists.
*by Albert Ellis-trained psychologist Nando Pelusi, who sometimes applies evolutionary psychology to help his patients understand the biological reasons behind their problems; ie, if you understand that you have a biological propensity to drink, you might not feel so ashamed about it...which doesn't mean you still don't need to reorient yourself to long-term goals over your propensity to impusively call any time "Miller Time."

Gee, you, as a university researcher, might make a difference in a regular person's life with your research? How intellectually down-market!

Silly, huh?!

UPDATE: Stanton sent me this link to a page on his Web site (which wasn't working yesterday). Here's an excerpt:

Change is natural. You no doubt act very differently in many areas of your life now compared with how you did when you were a teenager. Likewise, over time you will probably overcome or ameliorate certain behaviors: a short temper, crippling insecurity.

For some reason, we exempt addiction from our beliefs about change. In both popular and scientific models, addiction is seen as locking you into an inescapable pattern of behavior. Both folk wisdom, as represented by Alcoholics Anonymous, and modern neuroscience regard addiction as a virtually permanent brain disease. No matter how many years ago your uncle Joe had his last drink, he is still considered an alcoholic. The very word addict confers an identity that admits no other possibilities. It incorporates the assumption that you can�t, or won�t, change.

But this fatalistic thinking about addiction doesn�t jibe with the facts. More people overcome addictions than do not. And the vast majority do so without therapy. Quitting may take several tries, and people may not stop smoking, drinking or using drugs altogether. But eventually they succeed in shaking dependence.

Kicking these habits constitutes a dramatic change, but the change need not occur in a dramatic way. So when it comes to addiction treatment, the most effective approaches rely on the counterintuitive principle that less is often more. Successful treatment places the responsibility for change squarely on the individual and acknowledges that positive events in other realms may jump-start change.

Including, perhaps, irrational belief that there's a god, and that god is helping keep you away from the drinkie. As Stanton notes, however, AA doesn't work for everyone. I actually think it's not such a good thing, except for people who'd be in a steel drawer at the morgue without it, because it focuses on the sympton ("Whatever you do, don't drink!"), not the underlying issue leading you to overdrink.

Posted by aalkon at 08:33 AM | Comments (3)

July 24, 2004

Germany

What's Missing In Germany?
I finally figured it out what they're missing here, and why I feel terrible -- weighted down, tired, just not myself: I haven't seen a green vegetable since I've been here! (And I got here Wednesday afternoon.) Upon realizing this, I was desperate to eat something green. And no, those Janitor-In-A-Drum-colored donuts don't count.

I went to the surly-market, sorry, the supermarket, next to the hotel. (Just reliving my experience with frau checkout-lady.) I thought I'd buy some nice, dark green watercress (plentiful in France) and some vinaigrette to put on it. I thought wrong.

They had about five selections of green things not pickled or mixed with mayonnaise (and I'm actually being very vegetable-inclusive here, considering that my count includes cucumbers and slightly greenish-in-hue iceberg lettuce). They also had mixed salad in packages, but it appeared to have been left over from The War, so I opted for two cans of peas instead. Like so:

Compare in coloration to last night's dinner on the boat. (The napkin does not count.)

Thanks to my boyfriend, who plays international Sally Struthers to my starving Ethiopian child...(okay, so I just never get around to getting to the grocery store)...there's a refrigerator full of food waiting for me back in Paris. I CANNOT WAIT TO GO HOME AND EAT IT!

That said, today, I interviewed Julian Paul Keenan, a fascinating cognitive neuroscientist, for this coming week's column -- so at least I got food for thought out of this Berlin thingie. Much, actually. Started writing up some bits of it, which I will post here soon.

Posted by aalkon at 11:29 AM | Comments (3)

Final Solution

Fresh Air And Final Solutions

Final Solution Haus
How nice that the Nazis could enjoy fresh air and a pretty stretch of water while they were going over the details of The Final Solution at this villa for those who would carry it out, arranging:

for Jews to be transported from all over German-occupied Europe to SS-operated "extermination" camps in Poland. Not one of the men present at Wannsee objected to the announced policy. Never before had a modern state committed itself to the murder of an entire people.

We passed this while on a boat tour ("we" being the people from the Human Behavior & Evolution Society conference at the Frie University of Berlin). I really have too much imagination to be in this city. I keep picturing the Jews hiding behind the bushes every time I walk past a house that looks like it could have been around in WWII.

Posted by aalkon at 08:34 AM | Comments (0)

"Fathers"

"Fathers" Get Screwed
Scary stuff. A sperm donor is forced to pay child support -- despite a (poorly drafted, it sounds) agreement that he wouldn't be compelled to do so.

Posted by aalkon at 06:18 AM | Comments (1)

July 23, 2004

From Bad To Wurst

From Very, Very Bad To Wurst
The flavors are slightly different over here, at what I call "Dunkin Ze Donuts." Will you be having the "Himbeer Vanille" or the "Pistazien Frosted"?...hard to pass up, I'm sure, in that mouth-watering shade of Janitor-In-A-Drum green.

Why did I have a Dunkin Donut, of all things, for breakfast today? Well, because I'm in Berlin, to attend the Human Behavior & Evolution Society conference, where anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists from around the world are presenting their work.

A Poster On Retribution Against Cheaters By Altruists

But, enough about the conference. Let's talk about my stomach. The food here in Berlin is beyond dreadful -- especially considering that I've just spent the prior part of July in Paris, the capitol of "The Three F's," as my New-Yorker-turned-neo-Parisian friend Mark Gaito puts it: "Food, Fashion, and Fucking."

As one's food choices here are largely greasy, tasteless, and/or very similar in consistency to either limestone or a handful of wet cement, I've decided the best bet here is the wurst -- fatty and protein-filled, so you can eat as little of it as possible. Back to Paris on Sunday to reconnect with civilization. More on the conference soon!

Posted by aalkon at 10:23 AM | Comments (1)

Flipper

The Flip-Flopper Running For President
No, silly, it's not Kerry. Arianna writes:

The list of Bush major policy U-turns is as audacious as it is long. Among the whiplash-inducing lowlights:

In September 2001, Bush said capturing bin Laden was �our number one priority.� By March 2002, he was claiming, �I don�t know where he is. I have no idea and I really don�t care. It�s not that important.�

In October 2001, he was dead-set against the need for a Department of Homeland Security. Seven months later, he thought it was a great idea.

In May 2002, he opposed the creation of the 9/11 Commission. Four months later, he supported it.

During the 2000 campaign, he said that gay marriage was a states� rights issue: �The states can do what they want to do.� During the 2004 campaign, he called for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Dizzy yet? No? OK:

Bush supported CO2 caps, then opposed them. He opposed trade tariffs, then he didn�t. Then he did again. He was against nation building, then he was OK with it. We�d found WMD, then we hadn�t. Saddam was linked to Osama, then he wasn�t. Then he was � sorta. Chalabi was in, then he was out. Way out.

In fact, Bush�s entire Iraq misadventure has been one big costly, deadly flip-flop:

We didn�t need more troops, then we did. We didn�t need more money, then we did. Preemption was a great idea � on to Syria, Iran and North Korea! Then it wasn�t � hello, diplomacy! Baathists were the bad guys, then Baathists were our buds. We didn�t need the U.N., then we did.

And all this from a man who, once upon a time, made �credibility� a key to his appeal.

Now, God knows, I have no problem with changing your mind � so long as you admit that you have and can explain why. But Bush steadfastly � almost comically � refuses to admit that there�s been a change, even when the entire world can plainly see otherwise. He�s got his story and he�s sticking to it. But that darn Kerry, he keeps shifting his positions!

Of course, the potential flaw in this may be assuming that Bush is doing any thinking at all, and isn't just standing still enough that Cheney and Co. can pull the strings. Clearly, they thought Bush could be puppeteer-free during an elementary school visit a few years back. The minutes Bush spent sitting bewildered, listening to "My Pet Goat," after learning the country was under attack, were particularly chilling.

(via Sheryl Evans)

Posted by aalkon at 08:38 AM | Comments (0)

July 22, 2004

Customs

Willkommen, Osama And Friends!
I came from Paris to Berlin, via Air France, with my micro-dog Lucy. Before I left America, I lined up a pile of shots and health certificates. Because I'd be in Germany, Switzerland, and France, I had to have one translated into German and another translated into French -- and have the entire schmedeal stamped by the USDA -- which means going to the USDA, just past LAX, and paying $24. (We won't even get into the veterinary costs.)

I paid $211 for my dog to fly on Swiss Air, round-trip from LA. Just ridiculous. Now, I understand paying if the airline actually has to do something, or handle her in some way -- like if she's a German Shepherd that has to go under the plane as baggage -- but this dog, at 2.5 pounds, is no more trouble for anybody than my wallet. I decided to smuggle my dog on the plane to Berlin -- which I did, nobody being the wiser about what was in my carry-on. I, of course, planned to declare her upon entering Germany (thanks to visions of spending the conference in Spandau prison for dog-smuggling dancing before my eyes).

Before 9-11, I smuggled my dog on planes all the time -- as well as into restaurants and the movies in the USA. I've trained her well to be completely quiet and lie still in my lap. (I wish I could say the same for most people's children -- well, except for the lying in my lap stuff.) Oh, and on a side note, I have, in my possession, a picture of a child in a cage, taken by my boyfriend at a picnic for his mother's birthday in Michigan. Unfortunately, I will get in major trouble for posting it -- so I won't. Suffice it to say, that's how I prefer most children -- until they show they're as well-behaved as my dog-let.

When people hear about my dog-smuggling exploits, they're always incredulous, and ask how I get her through the x-ray machine. Well, duh, I'm not going to put my dog through; first, because it would probably be very unhealthy for her, and second, because it's a really idiotic idea to think even some of the numbskulls working the TSA wouldn't notice her.

The best way to conceal anything is to hide it in plain sight. Hence, when I'm going through the metal detector, I take off all Lucy's metal -- her "diamond" hair clip and her little doggie collar -- put her on my shoulder like a parrot, and stroll right through.

I immediately put her back in her case and into my carry-on. I also make sure I'm through the search process early enough that I don't run into any flight attendants -- who generally don't want to bust you for having a doggie anyway, I came to realize. (What they don't know won't hurt you.)

How hard was it to enter Germany with my dog? They have tighter security at Ross Dress For Less. (Somebody I spoke to at the conference told me they think that's become the deal with a lot of intra-Europe flights.)

I got off the plane expecting "passport control," like they have in France. Or somebody. Or something. There was a little booth for customs agents just beyond the jetway, but it was empty. Some travelers sort of weaved in front of it, bewildered, then tottered off beyond it to baggage claim. (These totterers were probably from the US.) Experienced European travelers just marched past -- like it's business as usual.

I waited by the baggage conveyer to claim my bag. I let Lucy out of doggie jail in my carry-on (the ferret case I bought for her, years ago, in the well-stocked pet department at the French department store Samaritaine), since I fully intended to declare her and show her health certificates and travel documents. There was even a sign, in English, on the carousel denoting which items one had to declare -- and dogs and cats were among them.

The problem was, to whom would I declare her? After my bag came, I put it on the luggage cart (free in Europe, unlike in the USA where they're about $3), and wheeled it out of baggage claim...and out of the airport. I kept waiting for somebody to chase me, to tell me I'd missed some line or customs agent somewhere, but nobody even blinked as I strolled into Germany. One of the odder traveling experiences I've ever had. And, in light of the times, one of the scarier ones.

Posted by aalkon at 09:41 AM | Comments (2)

Emmanuelle's Back!

Emmanuelle's Back
Emmanuelle Richard is blogging again, in French and English. Allons-y!

Posted by aalkon at 08:44 AM | Comments (1)

July 21, 2004

BERLIN

Berlin
I'm off to Berlin, for the 2004 conference of the Human Behavior & Evolution Society, July 21st through 25th, in the Henry Ford Building of the Free University of Berlin.�Quoting from their Web site:

The Human Behavior and Evolution Society (HBES) is an interdisciplinary, international society of researchers, primarily from the social and biological sciences, who use modern evolutionary theory to help to discover human nature - including evolved emotional, cognitive and sexual adaptations.

At the conference, anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists from around the world will present their latest work. I go there to hear about studies that relate to my column -- so I can refer to them, and thus use solid data in my column to dispel the mistaken notions of poor, miserable, social Ted Kaczynskis like this guy:

This is the first responding to your or any column but suffice it to say I am the afore mentioned man. Call it what you want but I would never ask any woman for her phone number any where any time. Yes, as a "social ingrown toenail" and since I am "as forward as a coat rack" the indication is that maybe men like me are tired of having to do all the work. Where is the equality in that? And as for the beautiful women you they are like bee hives with those MEN falling all over themselves to get a sniff. All they think we are here for is to changer their tires and fix things around the house because they are too lazy or just do not have the guts to do it themselves. Needless to say my experience is to LEAVE THEM ALONE. That is what they want unless it is for money, to fix something or just to gripe about the fact that they do put their pants on sometimes.

No I will live alone before going into that jungle again. Clean your own pools and get equal. Why should we be the ones getting kicked in the teeth all the time after you get tired of us trying to make intelligent conversation and you don't have the vocabulary or know anything about any subject. Oh but you look good with all that make up and twisting your hair, and flirting like a barracuda ready to tear that prey apart..
Not happening.
W.A.

And here's my response I e-mailed him:

(Quoting W.A., quoting me): "Yes, as a 'social ingrown toenail' and since I am 'as forward as a coat rack' the indication is that maybe men like me are tired of having to do all the work. Where is the equality in that?"

(And now my response): No, it's not "equal." Like life, dating is not "fair." And contrary to what feminists say, men and women are not the same. You can whine about how unfair this is, or you can ask women out. One ensures you'll be home wanking off for the rest of your life, one substantially decreases the possibility. I'm in France now, where men are amazed when I tell them about American men who behave as you do: "like neutered kittens" ("comme les petits chats qui sont coup�es!"...complete with scisssors handmotion). Here, if men like you, they approach you; maybe you turn them down, maybe you don't. They don't take it personally.

Luckily, I have a real-man American boyfriend, who asked me out when I flirted with him (the woman's job -- to let a man know it's safe by giving him signals that she's into him)...we went out for coffee moments later...talked for three hours, then he walked me to my car, grabbed me and kissed me, and got on a plane to Detroit, and that was all there was of me.

If he hadn't been guy-guy enough to kiss me, it might not have been kicked up into romance...maybe I would have met somebody else that week...etc. But all I could think of was him until he got back and we had our first date. Well, actually, we never had a first date, because we never got out of my house. That only works for girls who aren't feminists, and for men who are secure in being men. Try it sometime. Or stay home whining about how tragically unfair the world is. Your choice!
Big kiss, --Amy The Flirting Barracuda

Posted by aalkon at 08:49 AM | Comments (0)

July 20, 2004

American Express vs. Mastercard

Master The Impossibilities
�Membership has its privileges,� American Express says. Yeah, like that the people who work for them aren�t borderline retarded. But, more on that in a moment.

I�m in Paris, a place I go every three or four months. I was last here at the end of March. At that time, I bought two pair of pants, not cheap, but well worth it, at my favorite young Paris designer, Ralph Kemp (scroll down for a few tiny photos of designs, some quotes within the article).

Yesterday, after slaving over a hot computer much of the day, I dropped in at Kemp-ville, 81 rue de Seine, in the 6th arrondisement, where his lovely sister Yael helped me into some outrageously gorgeous clothes, and helped my bank account (via my MasterCard that I used at their store twice before) out of a sum that looks a little more like rent than wardrobe money.

Still, I would have been sorry later if I'd left any of it behind...a black sparkly jacket...very rock-star, a white sculptural jacket -- brilliant design, sexy fit...wild, amazing black and white wide pants with patches of black beading sewn in, and two sexy, sexy little sleeveless summer blouses...all of it machine-washable, believe it or not!...like all of Ralph's clothes.

It was all on sale, plus I get the "detaxe" ($85 euros back at the border), but thanks to the mere fumes of value left in the dollar...well, let's just say I won't be shopping for clothes in the United States anytime soon.

Amy In Ralph KempHere I am in my previously purchased Ralph Kemp jacket, in my new masthead photo, taken by Joshua Gates-Weinberg. While this jacket looks like leather, it's actually 90 percent cotton, and 10 percent polyurethane...machine-washable like all of Ralph's clothes. Geniale!...as they say in these parts.

I�m back at the apartment now, and I just finished interviewing my brilliant friend Gary Taubes for my column. I�ve linked to his work here before. He�s the award-winning investigative science journalist who wrote the piece, �What If It�s All Been A Big Fat Lie?�, the New York Times article that launched the low-carb craze.

As long as I still had my cheapo-international call France Telecom calling card in hand, I phoned my machine in Los Angeles. What I heard made me boil. It was Direct Merchant�s Bank, calling about my MasterCard, expressing �concern� that my card was lost or stolen due to the usage they�d seen of it (and despite my ravings above, the sum was not exactly princessly � 660 eu). Then they added that �there may be a block on your card,� and suggested I call them �on Monday� to clear things up. Finally, they most helpfully left me a 1-800 number IN THE STATES! to call to do just that.

Well, guess what? Maybe if the card is being used in Paris�maybe, just maybe�I�m IN Paris, where you can�t get through to 1-800 numbers in the USA! Leaping losers! Instead of going through Gary�s quotes for my column, I spent far too much time tracking down the �free� number that actually costs you .15 a minute to call, got put through to MasterCard in Europe, who put me through to my bank, where I had a five minute wait�still at .15 a minute, plus complimentary high blood pressure.

I told the woman at my MasterCard company I was in Paris, I�m always in Paris, take the damn block off. Moreover, I�d be in Berlin on Wednesday (for the Human Behavior & Evolution Society Conference), and Zurich on the way home, and did I really have to call my damn credit card company to chat with them about my whereabouts every time I ventured out of Santa Monica? �I always do when I travel, otherwise they block your card� said the woman. �You probably should, too.�

Silly me, I thought I could just pay my bill and expect reasonably intelligent service. As they say in the old American Express commercials: �Don�t leave home without it.� (They mean, without leaving your Direct Merchant�s MasterCard on your bureau.)

Posted by aalkon at 08:01 AM | Comments (6)

July 19, 2004

Ban Marriage Today!

Ban Marriage Today!
Not gay marriage. Marriage for anybody -- in its current form, as a series of state-dispensed entitlements. I'm with Rishawn Biddle, who writes:

Traditionally, heterosexual married couples have never been entitled to special treatment by governments. But now they're as much a burden on single taxpayers as welfare mothers and corporations on the dole. Why should married couples get special tax privileges or force businesses to extend health care benefits?

Then consider the social havoc heterosexual marriages have wreaked upon society, including the damage to children that comes from infidelity and custody battles. Or how it affects one's right to dole out property upon death.

It's time to put marriage back in its place in the private realm, where it belongs. It would also be nice for anti-gay marriage types to admit their real problem is with the very existence of homosexuality itself, which they consider an abomination. The candor would be refreshing.

He's right. To see a particularly hateful bit of spew on this, check out the comments section under a blog entry from last week (scroll down for an author posted by Jesse McKay). I'm reposting this here because I think it's better to put this hateful and backward thinking out in the open so it can be disputed.

Oh, and to counter just a bit of Jesse's ugliness before I get back to my deadline, I know a few gay parents, and their lives are just as boring, pedestrian, and undersexed as all the hetero parents I know. (So sorry to disappoint those like Jesse, who think they're leaving the kids home with the dog and running up and down the boulevards of West Hollywood in leather shorts and spiked dog collars.)

Finally, here's a rational argument that echoes Rishawn's from the blogger USS Clueless -- a non-fundamentalist, non-homophobe with a pretty good brain cuddled up in his skull:

I am a "Conservative" because I am a classical liberal. I believe in liberating people from unnecessary limits imposed by government or society. My basic view of law is strongly oriented towards the principle of "law of right" over "law of good". I oppose laws which try to enforce "good", and I oppose laws which meddle just for the sake of meddling. We choose to make some kinds of decisions collectively, and we choose to let individuals make other decisions for themselves. Liberals favor letting individuals make such decisions, and only favor collective decisions if the benefit is strong enough to offset the axiomatic harm of reducing liberty for individuals.

I argue that in this case we should not collectively decide whether gays should be permitted to marry other gays. I argue that the choice of whom to marry is one we should permit each adult to make for themselves.

We as a society, have reached consensus that it is none of society's business what sexual practices consenting adults engage in behind closed doors, and I assume Rich agrees with that. I claim that gay marriage is no different. (I consider it unimportant that government clerks issue the marriage licenses.)

The true measure of civil liberties is the extent to which each of us can scandalize our neighbors without landing in prison. In other words, in general the more ability we have to make decisions for ourselves without concern for how others will react, the more free we are. (See above about "generalizations" and "exceptions".)

Prudence Prim would certainly be scandalized if she knew what Gary Gay-and-Proud and Quincy Queer do with each other when they get horny, but we as a society pretty much have reached a consensus that it isn't any of her business as long as they keep it behind closed doors. Her discomfort is the price she pays for her liberty. She chows down on a big steak every Sunday night, and in turn doesn't have to worry about how Vegans Gary and Quincy feel about that.

Prudence would also be scandalized if Gary and Quincy got married. But I don't consider that sufficient justification for forbidding their marriage. Nor have I found any other arguments about consequences sufficiently compelling to justify abridging their liberty in this regard.

Where can we get more like this guy?

Posted by aalkon at 09:34 AM | Comments (2)

Pierre

Pierre Then And Now
Pierre grew up during the war, so he was sent from Paris to live at his grandm�re's in the country, where she caught rabbits for their dinner and knit him socks. There are no pictures of him as a child -- save this famous one, by Robert Doisneau, often seen as a poster or postcard. Here's another link to it, small, in case the first one doesn't work for those on dial-up. (He's the boy on the left, climbing the fountain at the square St. Sulpice.)

Pierre worked as an eboniste (master cabinetmaker, and points out woodwork he's done all over Paris when I walk around with him and my friend Emily), but now he's retired and living on a small state pension. He spends about $10 on his shirts at the budget men's store Yves Dorsay, and probably half that on his ties. Nevertheless, he never goes out without looking completely put together (even dashing) -- as so many Parisian men do -- even as he marches my friend Emily around the sights of Paris, up and down the subway steps and through the gardens at Bagatelle, the Cemeti�re Des Animaux, and other sights you probably won't find in the guidebooks.

Pierre In Repose

Pierre Laughing With Emily
I think it's pretty clear, from this picture, that Pierre got an extra helping of the sense of mirth so many French people have -- which comes out even in conversation about something so mundane as housecleaning.

Not too long ago, I asked Pierre, "Pierre, when I go to a store, but I'm not ready to buy something yet, do I tell them 'Je reviens' or 'Je retourne'?" His response: "Neither. All the salespeople speak English." Typical jokester Pierre. P.S. It's "Je reviens."

Posted by aalkon at 08:09 AM | Comments (4)

July 18, 2004

Frog Snot

Frog Snot
Do the Parisians treat you like something they scraped off the bottom of their shoe? Well, maybe it's because you dress and act accordingly.

I had drinks yesterday at classic poor artist hangout Caf� La Palette, in Paris' 6th arrondisement (district), with Jason Stone and his boyfriend Eric, who just recently took the courageous and exciting step of moving to Paris. Eric's writing for Business Week, but Jason, who's a biz school grad in search of a real job, is looking to be hired by an American company...hint hint.

Jason writes a Paris blog -- one that's much more interesting than that of poor LA Times travel writer Susan Spano, who could possibly be the most boring person ever to write about Paris. (My version of her version goes something like this: "Today I saw dog poop. There is much dog poop here.") Every time I'm tempted to send her hate mail for being so boring, I feel too sorry for her...yes, a moment of restraint on my part...it happens. (Here's AG's parody of what it would be like if somebody wrote about Los Angeles from Spano's perspective.)

Getting back to Jason; unfortunately, Jason isn't half the mean bitch I am (ie, he only threatens to post photos of the offenders below)...but, after laughing over drinks with him and Eric for a few hours, I suspect that it's only a temporary condition, due to his job search. Here's his message to American travelers in Paris:

Note to American visitors

Dear American travellers to Paris,
First, I hope you have a great time visiting Paris and where ever else your travels may take you.

Second, please don't think that coming to Paris gives you license to wear that outfit you bought, but have never had the nerve to wear in your own home town. If there is a reason you have not worn it at home, then it is probably the same reason you should not wear it in Paris.

I saw some of you at the Hotel Lutetia last night as I was waiting to meet a friend for a drink. I know you thought you were getting away with it, but unfortunately, I had to witness your gaffe.

The pants that you thought were too tight are even tighter now after you have been eating all of that butter and drinking all of that wine since you have been in Paris. The rainbow tube top made you look like a person covered in Certs� and it added about 15 lbs. And those gold leather slingbacks made you look like you stepped out of the cast of Saturday Night Fever.

I am all for expressing your individuality and letting people be who they want to be, but the above was just too much, even for me. Wear those things to your next Halloween Party or to the Folsom Street Fair.

If this behavior continues, I may be forced to photograph you and post it on my blog. You have been warned.

Sincerely,
Jason

As a service, to you, my readers, I will try to photo a few Ugly Americans In Paris so you can get a sense of the horror. I tried the other day, but I was too afraid to get my ass kicked, American-style, to unabashedly photograph the best (ie, worst) of them. Please try to to make do with this rather mildly awful example -- a photo of buttscratcher girl and her boyfriend, Hulk Hogan II:

Now, this is a very formal city. Are these people going on a Navy Seals mission or to Muscle Beach or are they going to the Louvre? They don't have to ask anybody to speak English. Their look screams TOURIST! TOURIST! (And that's putting it politely.) What, the guy doesn't own a pair of khakis and a real pair of shoes? Dressing like this in Paris is like wearing a bikini to church. PS It's still pretty damn ugly wherever they're from, too.

Back to my original point: Sure, there are rude people here -- there are rude people everywhere. But, for the most part, if you smile and make an effort, and you don't dress for dinner like you're enroute to a mudwrestling contest at the sports bar, you'll mostly be treated well. Oh, and if you don't shout loudly in English instead of simply speaking to the person you're with. They have a bit of decorum here. Try it sometime; other human beings will thank you.

Here I am being treated nicely at the grocery store:

And here I am being treated nicely at the patisserie (Stohrer, on rue Montorgueil, which has been around since 1730)!

these two photos of me are by Gregg Sutter

What's funny, too, is the wardrobe-based resentment directed at me that I sometimes pick up from Americans. Enroute to dinner on Gregg's last night, some hideously dressed American woman gave me a glare that I'm sure translated into: "French bitch." I smiled at her, attempting to telegraph back my correction: "No, American bitch!

American Bitch In Repose Chez Emily Tarr

photo by Emily Tarr

American Bitch Laughing It Up With Pierre and Gaito on Bastille Day

photo set up by Emily Tarr but taken by Gregg Sutter

Anyway, I'm writing much of this entry at La Coupole, a legendary brasserie in the 14th arrondisement (Montparnasse). I've been sitting here since 10am, eating and drinking up a hint of humidity (as opposed to a storm), and using their complimentary Wifi. I have my little dog in my lap, although she's just sleeping, because she's used to remaining under cover in restaurants, thanks to the stupid "health" restrictions against dogs in restaurants in the United States.

Serge Duquesnoy, the Directeur Adjout (associate honcho) of the place, who's been walking past me and smiling at me for hours (and no, not because he's on the make, all you cynics)...just came over, introduced himself, suffered my attempts to communicate in French with more friendly smiles and encouragement, and told me to please stay as long as I like and please come back often.

Again, for all you Paris detractors, I've been sitting here since 10am, and it's now 3:27pm. I've only ordered a croisssant and jam (for breakfast) and a sandwich for lunch. (Okay, so I had three separate orders of caffeine.) But this place serves raw oysters and champagne and fine food -- I'm not exactly girl high roller of the day. I am, however, very friendly (which goes far in extending one's pathetic attempts at communicating in French), and I smile a lot, and I greet the people here as if they actually exist. That's something I've learned from France. Not that I've ever been stuck up, but the person-to-person culture is different here, and I've adopted their way as my way...when I'm here, and back in the USA.

People here have relationships with each other, even in passing. It's a culture of relationships. They talk to a waiter as if he's actually a person, not just an irritating cog in a food delivery system. They greet the salesgirl when they walk into a store, and say goodbye when they leave. They look the cashier in the eye when she's ringing them up as if she actually has value as a human being. They say "bonjour" or "bon soir" when they encounter a stranger in the courtyard of their building. Yes, the French are "ferkockedta" commies (as my Bronx-born neo-Parisian pal Mark Gaito would say)...but we could actually learn a thing or two from them about civility and how to treat people.

Posted by aalkon at 08:36 AM | Comments (11)

July 17, 2004

Air Dorko

Dorking To Keep America Safe
How do you spot an air marshal on your flight? Just look for the guy turkey-trussed up in nerd-wear -- a suit, tie, and dress shoes (even on the hottest day of summer). Brian Wingfield writes in The New York Times about the dumb air marshal dress code, imposed by the Department Of Homeland Stupidity:

Beards are out. So are jeans and athletic shoes. Suit coats are in, even on the steamiest summer days.

That dress code, imposed by the Department of Homeland Security, makes federal air marshals uneasy � and not just because casual clothes are more comfortable in cramped airline seats. The marshals fear that their appearance makes it easier for terrorists to identify them, according to a professional group representing more than 1,300 air marshals.

"If a 12-year-old can pick them out, a trained terrorist has no problem picking them out," said John D. Amat, a spokesman for the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.

Documents and memos issued by the Department of Homeland Security and field offices of the Federal Air Marshal Service say marshals must "present a professional image" and "blend unnoticed into their environment." Some air marshals have argued that the two requirements are contradictory.

Duh!

Dave Adams, a spokesman for the service, said that groups who have publicized the dress code are "endangering the lives of our general workforce." Mr. Adams said a dress code was put in place in April 2002, after the airline industry complained that air marshals' attire was too casual. He said some marshals had worn shorts, blue jeans, sandals and T-shirts while on duty.

"In order to gain respect in a situation, you must be attired to gain respect," Mr. Adams said in an interview. If air marshals were allowed to be too casual in their dress, he added, "they probably would not gain the respect of passengers if a situation were to occur."

One air marshal, who said he is frequently spotted by passengers, and who spoke on condition of anonymity, said, "Professionalism isn't deemed by your dress; it's by your attitude and demeanor.

Maybe Mr. Adams hasn't really looked too closely at the air marshals. These are physically and psychologically imposing guys. I don't think a pair of khaki pants, a day's growth, and a Rams t-shirt are going to impair their ability to hold a gun and the respect of other passengers during a terrorist attack. In fact, who would you respect more, a guy who looks like my description above, or some sweaty, uncomfortable-looking, JC Penney-suited Dudley Doright?

Posted by aalkon at 09:05 AM | Comments (2)

Puritanism USA

The Alternative To Puritanism
Look! A naked woman in an ad stuck on somebody�s windshield, and nobody�s running around howling about the terrible damage an exposed nipple in plain sight is doing to the children. In fact, before I took the photo, three boys walked past it and paid it no mind, because nudity�s everywhere in France, so no biggie.

Posted by aalkon at 08:14 AM | Comments (3)

July 16, 2004

Practicing Viola Or Practicing Terrorists

Practicing Viola Or Practicing Terrorists
Is this a terrorist dry run this woman witnessed on her Detroit/Los Angeles flight?

(via Metafilter)

Nope.

Posted by aalkon at 08:15 AM | Comments (3)

Garbo Encore

Garbo Comes Back To Life To Walk The Dog...
...In Paris' 1st arrondisement (district), across from Samaritaine (department store), where Lucy got her new collar...a cat collar with a bell (quelle humiliation!) because there's no dog collar small enough for her furry little neck!

Lucy, Inconsolable, At Not Being The Center Of The Universe At All Times

Posted by aalkon at 07:26 AM | Comments (2)

July 15, 2004

Crappy And Crappier

Crappy And Crappier
Our choices in the current presidential election, that is. Jesse Walker writes in Reason of "Ten Reasons To Fire George W. Bush, and nine reasons why Kerry won't be much better." For example:

1. The war in Iraq. Over a thousand soldiers and counting have died to subdue a country that was never a threat to the United States. Now we're trapped in an open-ended conflict against a hydra-headed enemy, while terrorism around the world actually increases.

One of the silliest arguments for the invasion held that our presence in Iraq was a "flypaper" attracting the world's terrorists to one distant spot. At this point, it's pretty clear that if there's a flypaper in Baghdad, the biggest bug that's stuck to it is the U.S.A.

4. The culture of secrecy. The Bush administration has nearly doubled the number of classified documents. It has urged agencies, in effect, to refuse as many Freedom of Information Act requests as possible, has invoked executive privilege whenever it can, and has been very free with the redactor's black marker when it does release some information. Obviously, it's impossible to tell how often the data being concealed is genuinely relevant to national security and how often it has more to do with covering a bureaucrat's behind. But there's obviously a lot of ass-covering going on.

And even when security is a real issue, all this secrecy doesn't make sense. Earlier this year, the Transportation Security Administration tried to retroactively restrict two pages of public congressional testimony that had revealed how its undercover agents managed to smuggle some guns past screeners. Presumably they were afraid a terrorist would read about it and try the method himself�but it would have made a lot more sense to seek some outsiders' input on how to resolve the putative problem than to try to hide it from our prying eyes. Especially when the information had already been sitting in the public record.

The administration has been quick to enforce its code of silence, regularly retaliating against those within its ranks who try to offer an independent perspective on its policies. While the most infamous examples of this involve international affairs, the purest episode may be the case of chief Medicare actuary Richard Foster, who apparently was threatened with dismissal if he told Congress the real projected cost of Bush's Medicare bill. Even if the White House didn't know about the threat�and I strongly suspect that it did�it created the organizational culture that allows such bullying to thrive.

Sad that McCain, who does have his faults, but at least seems to have integrity, isn't running.

Posted by aalkon at 08:42 AM | Comments (1)

Paris Under Attack

Paris Under Attack

Okay, call me na�ve. It was July 13. I was sitting here, in the apartment we rented on the top floor of a building in the first arrondisement (district) in Paris, when there was a huge foundation-shaking rumble. Planes � three military planes in formation � flew really, really low overhead. This is weird, since you don�t usually see planes low over Paris, and you certainly don�t feel them.

I figured some foreign dignitary�s jet was being escorted out of French airspace. Then more planes, and more planes flew low over the buildings; one of which looked like a passenger plane flanked by a small fighter plane � so close to the passenger plane�s wing that it looked like the fighter pilot could reach out and get cr�me for his coffee. �Oh no,� I thought. �Hijacking! Or maybe we�re under attack!� My boyfriend was out gettting wine, so I would have to find any remaing bomb shelters all by myself. Hmm, maybe a bit of investigation was in order before getting in a total panic. I turned on CNN. A soccer match. Hmm. Obviously, they hadn�t heard the news yet. I turned to a few French stations. A cooking show, a game show, and a French intellectual arguing about the usual retrograde topics (the relevance of Marxism in feminism today). I called my old New York friend, Mark Gaito, who lives across Paris. �Amy,� he laughed, �We aren�t under attack. It�s Bastille day hoo ha, starting a day early.� Right. Of course. Okay, I feel stupid.

Posted by aalkon at 07:49 AM | Comments (1)

July 14, 2004

Amy Alkon, Linguistic Parasite

Amy Alkon, Linguistic Parasite
I try to yank a new word or two (or five, if I can) out of every French-speaking stranger I talk with: �Oui, oui...and...oh, sorry, how do you say �me neither�? �Moi, non plus�? Gee, merci! Of course, this goes over best if you make it seem you're doing it to further their comprehension of your end of the conversation, not trying to use them as a walking Le Robert (dictionary).

That said, perhaps because I looked kind of French today, I was asked, in French, five times!! for directions. A new record. (And I do know my way around Paris, so I can actually give them.) My favorite requesters were two Australian ladies (d'une certaine age), who started painstakingly putting together their request in French out of a mini Berlitz book��Est-ce que vous pouvez noooose deeerectay�� Me: Oui, je peux, Madame�but I�d also be happy to tell you in pretty passable English, if that would work for you.

Posted by aalkon at 08:01 AM | Comments (2)

There Are Dumbass Performance Artists In Every City

There Are Dumbass Performance Artists In Every City
Gregg says, �That guy must have seen The Seventh Seal one too many times.� This guy just stood there, with his head hanging, doing nothing else, separating dumb rubes from their money, on Saint-Germain-Des-Pr�s. (That�s me on the left, ignoring him while passing by.)

Posted by aalkon at 07:14 AM | Comments (7)

July 13, 2004

"For The Children"

"For The Children"
Is there any better cover to get around the new soft money regulations? Tom DeLay doesn't think so, writes Michael Slackman in The New York Times:

It is an unusual charity brochure: a 13-page document, complete with pictures of fireworks and a golf course, that invites potential donors to give as much as $500,000 to spend time with Tom DeLay during the Republican convention in New York City next summer - and to have part of the money go to help abused and neglected children.

Representative DeLay, who has both done work for troubled children and drawn criticism for his aggressive political fund-raising in his career in Congress, said through his staff that the entire effort was fundamentally intended to help children. But aides to Mr. DeLay, the House majority leader from Texas, acknowledged that part of the money would go to pay for late-night convention parties, a luxury suite during President Bush's speech at Madison Square Garden and yacht cruises.

And so campaign finance watchdogs say Mr. DeLay's effort can be seen as, above all, a creative maneuver around the recently enacted law meant to limit the ability of federal officials to raise large donations known as soft money.

"They are using the idea of helping children as a blatant cover for financing activities in connection with a convention with huge unlimited, undisclosed, unregulated contributions," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a Washington group that helped push through the recent overhaul of the campaign finance laws. Other lawmakers may well follow Mr. DeLay's lead. Already Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, is planning to hold a concert and a reception in conjunction with the convention as a way of raising money for AIDS charities.

Mr. DeLay's charity, Celebrations for Children Inc., was set up in September and has no track record of work. Mr. DeLay is not a formal official of the charity, but its managers are Mr. DeLay's daughter, Dani DeLay Ferro; Craig Richardson, a longtime adviser; and Rob Jennings, a Republican fund-raiser. Mr. Richardson said the managers would be paid by the new charity.

Mr. Richardson said the goal was to give 75 percent of the money it raised to children's charities, including some in the New York area. He said the charity also planned to hold other events at the Super Bowl.

But because the money collected will go into a nonprofit organization, donors get a tax break. And Mr. DeLay will never have to account publicly for who contributed, which campaign finance experts say shields those who may be trying to win favor with one of the most powerful lawmakers in Washington.

The "for the children" excuse is getting more than a little tired. Then again, the Puritans in our government seem to think it works just fine for preventing adults from listening to Howard Stern. I prefer the "turn the dial" if you don't like it solution in that case, and in this one, turn Tom DeLay out on his big, sleazy...ear!

(via metafilter)

Posted by aalkon at 08:24 AM | Comments (1)

War And Piece

War And Piece
Here I am with Emily, looking at the incredible photo exposition outside le Jardin du Luxembourg, to celebrate the 60th year of the liberation of France by the American troops. Here are a few of the (approximately 100 large-scale prints of the) photos, but the best ones -- like the lady putting a glass of cider on the ground beside an American soldier gunning around the corner of a building -- weren't shown on the Senat's Web site. (The French Senat, which put on the exposition, is located in the main building at le Jardin.)

War

(And Around The Corner), Piece
At my favorite patissier, Gerard Mulot. Incredible pizza there, by the way, in case you're in the neighborhood.

Posted by aalkon at 07:56 AM | Comments (4)

July 12, 2004

Um...Um...

Um...Um...
These are the words now on the lips of those trying to explain why we're in Iraq. Okay, I'll give you "murderous dictator," but Saddam wasn't the only one on the planet, and probably wasn't the most murderous, body for body.

It (gasp!) turns out, writes Michael Isikoff (who has rapidly redeemed himself for his recent piece on Michael Moore), that we knew the case was lame from the start -- we were just determined to go to war no matter what:

The more he read, the more uneasy (Colin Powell) became. In early February 2003 Colin Powell was putting the finishing touches on his speech to the United Nations spelling out the case for war in Iraq. Across the Potomac River, a Pentagon intelligence analyst going over the facts in the speech was alarmed at how shaky that case was. Powell's presentation relied heavily on the claims of one especially dubious Iraqi defector, dubbed "Curve Ball" inside the intel community. A self-proclaimed chemical engineer who was the brother of a top aide to Iraqi National Congress chief Ahmad Chalabi, Curve Ball had told the German intelligence service that Iraq had a fleet of seven mobile labs used to manufacture deadly biological weapons. But nobody inside the U.S. government had ever actually spoken to the informant�except the Pentagon analyst, who concluded the man was an alcoholic and utterly useless as a source. He recalled that Curve Ball had shown up for their only meeting nursing a "terrible hangover."

After reading Powell's speech, the analyst decided he had to speak up, according to a devastating report from the Senate intelligence committee, released last week, on intelligence failures leading up to the Iraq war. He wrote an urgent e-mail to a top CIA official warning that there were even questions about whether Curve Ball "was who he said he was." Could Powell really rely on such an informant as the "backbone" for the U.S. government's claims that Iraq had a continuing biological-weapons program? The CIA official quickly responded: "Let's keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curve Ball said or didn't say," he wrote. "The Powers That Be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curve Ball knows what he's talking about."

The saga of Curve Ball is just one of many wince-inducing moments to be found in the 500-page Senate report, which lays out how the U.S. intelligence community utterly failed to accurately assess the state of Saddam Hussein's programs for weapons of mass destruction�and how White House and Pentagon officials, intent on taking the country to war, unquestioningly embraced the flawed conclusions. In startling detail, the bipartisan report concludes that the CIA and other agencies consistently "overstated" the evidence that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons, and was actively reconstituting its nuclear-weapons program. Hampered by a "group think" dynamic that caused them to view all Iraqi actions in the harshest possible light, the committee found, U.S. intelligence officials repeatedly embellished fragmentary and ambiguous pieces of evidence, making the danger posed by Iraq appear far more urgent than it actually was.

How come we're hot to impeach presidents for lying about their penis, and not about lying about sending poor people's sons and daughters to their death for a cause that wasn't? Elect George Bush? Yes, elect him to a seat in his truck in Crawford, TX.

IN RELATED NEWS: I heard Kerry yesterday on CNN, talking about his wife, Theresa. He referred to her as "smart as a whip." Is there anybody who would refer to Laura Bush that way? And is there any real likelihood that a president who, after learning the country was under attack, sat dumbfounded, listening to "My Pet Goat" while he waited for one of his handlers to come pull his strings, would marry a woman "smart as a whip"? Then again, she was, at least, plucky enough to drag him to detox (or stay with him while he dragged himself there), and probably managed to keep his tiny little mind from dwelling on all his failed businesses.

While Arnold Schwarzenegger, whom I voted for for California governor, is the American success story (as a poor Austrian who becomes the biggest movie star in the world, then an American political leader), George Bush has to be the most successful man ever at failing upward.

Posted by aalkon at 08:04 AM | Comments (7)

July 10, 2004

Gay Is The New Black

The United States Of Discrimination
How modern are we? We are actually considering an amendment to The Constitution because superstitious, irrational people believe, totally sans proof, that there's a god and that that god said it's wrong for two men or two women to have sex? Clearly, gay is the new black. And clearly, nobody proposing this amendment feels an ounce of shame in that. Scary. I don't care if gay sex makes you uncomfortable, or if, as a friend of mine told me, it's "weird" that two men would marry. I find it weird and very uncomfortable to see women with big guts falling out of their too-small hiphuggers and baby tees. Yes, I'm tempted to write a law banning them from leaving the house without throwing on burkhas -- but somehow, I restrain myself. Live and let live. And if you're a gay American or an American who support full rights for all people -- the mere existence of this movement toward official gay discrimination might suddenly make you consider living someplace else.

Posted by aalkon at 08:06 AM | Comments (9)

July 09, 2004

Dog Day Apres-Midi

Dog Day Apres-Midi
Unlike in the USA, dogs are not shut out of life in Paris. I bring Lucy to caf�s, the grocery store -- everywhere but museums. Well, unless I hide her in my purse. Yesterday, the butcher gave her a piece of steak about the size of her head as a treat. Before anybody starts mewling about how awful it is that she's in the grocery store, note that she's better behaved (and probably cleaner) than most people's children. Hmmm...maybe they're the ones who should be left outside grocery stores and restaurants, chained to a post!

photo par mon amour Gregg Sutter

Posted by aalkon at 08:05 AM | Comments (22)

July 08, 2004

Moore Distortions?

Moore Distortions?
How many mistakes can Michael make? No, not Michael Moore. Newsweek's Michael Isikoff, recently on the rampage against Fahrenheit 9/11. Craig Unger lays them out...for example:

Isikoff erroneously dismisses the relationship between the Bushes and the House of Saud at the Carlyle Group as a distant one. "Six degrees of separation" is the term he uses. Yet according to a December 4, 2003 email from Carlyle's Chris Ullman, James Baker and George H. W. Bush made four trips to Saudi Arabia on Carlyle's behalf, and that does not include meetings they had with Saudis that took place in the U.S. During the course of these trips, Ullman says, former president Bush sometimes met privately with members of the Saudi Binladen Group. At times, Carlyle officials have characterized these meetings as "ceremonial." But in fact, at least $80 million in investments came from the House of Saud and allies such as the bin Laden family. It would be unseemly-- and unnecessary-- for former president Bush or James Baker to actually ask for money from the Saudis at such meetings. Instead, David Rubenstein's team did that after Bush and Baker spoke. For a more complete account of this, see Chapter Ten in House of Bush, House of Saud.

7) In the same article, Isikoff tries to pit me against Michael Moore by asserting that my book, unlike the movie, concludes that the role of James Bath, a Texas businessman who represented Saudis and was close to George W. Bush, was not terribly significant. Isikoff writes, "The movie�which relied heavily on Unger�s book�fails to note the author�s conclusion about what to make of the supposed Bin Laden-Bath-Bush nexus: that it may not mean anything."

Isikoff is wrong again. It is true that no conclusive evidence has yet answered the specific question of whether or not bin Laden money actually went from the bin Ladens to Bath and then into George W. Bush's first oil company, Arbusto. But beyond that unresolved issue, the bin Laden-Bath-Bush nexus is crucial to the birth of the Bush-Saudi relationship. Even if bin Laden money did not go into Arbusto, Bath introduced Salem bin Laden and his good friend Khalid bin Mahfouz to Texas. A host of contacts between them and the House of Bush ensued. Bin Mahfouz shared financial interests with James Baker. His associates bailed out Harken Energy, where George W. Bush made his first fortune. Money from both the bin Ladens and the bin Mahfouzes ended up in Carlyle. This relationship is what House of Bush is about. Isikoff cherry-picks information that suits his agenda and leaves out the rest.

Selective presentation of the facts? Isn't that what he's accusing the other Michael of?

Posted by aalkon at 08:22 AM | Comments (7)

July 06, 2004

Buckley Talks Sense

William F. Buckley Talks Sense
Sensemillia, that is, and why it should be legal:

Conservatives pride themselves on resisting change, which is as it should be. But intelligent deference to tradition and stability can evolve into intellectual sloth and moral fanaticism, as when conservatives simply decline to look up from dogma because the effort to raise their heads and reconsider is too great. The laws aren't exactly indefensible, because practically nothing is, and the thunderers who tell us to stay the course can always find one man or woman who, having taken marijuana, moved on to severe mental disorder. But that argument, to quote myself, is on the order of saying that every rapist began by masturbating. General rules based on individual victims are unwise. And although there is a perfectly respectable case against using marijuana, the penalties imposed on those who reject that case, or who give way to weakness of resolution, are very difficult to defend. If all our laws were paradigmatic, imagine what we would do to anyone caught lighting a cigarette, or drinking a beer. Or � exulting in life in the paradigm � committing adultery. Send them all to Guantanamo?

Legal practices should be informed by realities. These are enlightening, in the matter of marijuana. There are approximately 700,000 marijuana-related arrests made very year. Most of these � 87 percent � involve nothing more than mere possession of small amounts of marijuana. This exercise in scrupulosity costs us $10-15 billion per year in direct expenditures alone. Most transgressors caught using marijuana aren't packed away to jail, but some are, and in Alabama, if you are convicted three times of marijuana possession, they'll lock you up for 15 years to life. Professor Ethan Nadelmann, of the Drug Policy Alliance, writing in National Review, estimates at 100,000 the number of Americans currently behind bars for one or another marijuana offense.

Personallly, if you're going to get a buzz on, I'd rather you had a joint than a gin and tonic -- considering the propensity for some gin and tonic drinkers to get behind the wheel, vs. the propensity for many pot smokers to lie in a bean bag chair gnawing their way through a pan of brownies.

Posted by aalkon at 08:03 AM | Comments (5)

July 05, 2004

Patients

Patients
And other blog regulars. Don't get your bed restraints in a knot, I'll be posting regularly again in the next day or so. In France, on deadline, trying to pry my head out of a plate of foie gras. That was for Richard Bennett, our alimentary populist. For Cathy Seipp, more stories of me bitchslapping deserving young brats. Bient�t! (Soon, soon!)

Posted by aalkon at 08:08 AM | Comments (1)

July 04, 2004

La Coupole

La Coupole
Okay, all you Paris detractors, it doesn't get much better than this. I'm at the famous old Montparnasse brasserie, La Coupole, enjoying the free Wifi in the caf� section. Lucy, mon chien miniscule (my microscopic dog) is curled up asleep in my lap. The waiters treat her like she's the second coming of Coco Chanel, which doesn't hurt my seating arrangements, I must add. (Also, it helps that I don't dress in plumber clothes and big white tennis shoes, like so many American tourists here.) Today, I'm wearing a vintage rose-pink boucl� jacket, a frothy rose-pink shawl, and a long black skirt. But enough about me; let's talk about yet another food-gasm: I just had a plate of paper-thin veal carpaccio, about the color of my jacket, topped with pine nuts and a small pile of greens, with spring vegetables on the side. I'd wanted tuna carpaccio, but they were out of it, whispered the waiter, state-secret-imparting-style. He went away, then came back. They were also out of my next choice, carpaccio de magret (duck), he discreetly informed me. Why, you ask, are they out of half the four carpaccios on the menu at noon, before more than a few customers have even arrived? Of course, because everything's fresh here, and if it isn't fresh, it isn't served.

P.S. More about bratty children soon -- this time, on airplanes for 12 hours. Not to worry...in lieu of parental intervention (I mean, beyond parents intervening against me for asking the brat to cut the crap)...I (sort of indirectly) warned the kid he'd end up strung out on drugs. It put the fear of something-or-other into him...for all of five minutes, I believe.

Posted by aalkon at 08:26 AM | Comments (18)

Gregg Sutter

Mon Petit Ami
That's the French term for "my boyfriend," and there happens to be a huge article about him in the French newspaper, Liberation, by the LA-based French journo, Philippe Garnier. His name (Gregg Sutter) was on the front page, above the masthead, on Thursday. His photo, a very Chandleresque shot, taken at Swingers in LA, was the cover of the books section. Oh l� l�! Unfortunately, the link has text only. Speaking of words, unfortunately, you won't understand a word of the article unless you speak French...but have a look anyway...it's very cool: "L'oiel de Leonard."

L'auteur de polars Elmore Leonard a un homme de main. Rencontre � Los Angeles avec le �researcher� Gregg Sutter, fournisseur en faits divers, enqu�tes et filatures.

In other words, he's Elmore Leonard's researcher...and the last guy-guy in LA, lucky me!

Posted by aalkon at 07:00 AM | Comments (2)

July 03, 2004

Marlon

Marlon
Marlon Brando was my friend. He was exceptionally kind, generous, a great friend, a lifelong eight-year-old, a huge prankster, and an inventor. He read everything, loved science and truth, singing, poetry, and beautiful music, was one of the funniest people I knew, and believed in me before I really believed in myself. He was a great actor because he was a great human being.

Posted by aalkon at 09:44 AM | Comments (3)

Tony Pierce Votes His Conscience

Tony Pierce Votes His Conscience
There are too few common-sense-voting non-partisans out there. I can count three bloggers that I know: Tony Pierce, and Matt Welch, and me. See this Tony Pierce link in particular. Most of the rest are complete apologists for one side or another (meaning, they rubber-stamp anything their "side," Dem or Republican, or other does, as if elections are merely more wizened versions of the eighth grade soccer finals). Very disturbing.

(Tony link via Sean Bonner)

Posted by aalkon at 08:50 AM | Comments (20)

July 02, 2004

Impeach Melba

Impeach Melba
The White House is leaking, writes William Greider, and from high up:

Whatever their intentions, the leakers have now raised the stakes for the country-posing grave implications that cannot be easily brushed aside. While Bush tries to explain away prisoner abuse in Iraq with the "few bad apples" argument, the White House, Pentagon and Justice Department memos justifying torture establish an official predicate for scandalous government actions that are more than embarrassing. Fundamentally, these are crimes-violations both of US law and of the Geneva Conventions, according to many legal experts. The President himself did not express alarm at these revelations. He turned aside questions as casually as his lieutenants dismissed the Constitution. Thus, an ominous warning light is now flashing for the Republic: the potential for criminal charges running far up the military chain of command, and for the lodging of impeachment charges against this President and for an international tribunal to examine American war crimes. The connecting facts are not yet visible to support these accusations, but a plausible outline for how they may be connected is well exposed. These matters, in other words, could lead to a constitutional crisis as momentous as Watergate, maybe more serious because the offenses are far more fundamental.

Did the President authorize illegal acts? Bad advice from his lawyers is not a defense. Did his Cabinet officers construct rationales to disobey long-settled law and common morality? We will not learn the answers unless responsible, independent investigations are initiated. Very few Americans may wish to go down that road, but the consequences of ignoring the warning light are far worse. The precedent of accepting lawless government and a corrupted constitutional order will lead inevitably to more of both.

Posted by aalkon at 08:40 AM | Comments (0)

July 01, 2004

The Top Ten Conservative Idiots

The Top Ten Conservative Idiots
Funny, and a lot of truth in these -- even for a non-Democrat like me. And yes, there are Democratic Idiots, too. And Ralph Nader gets an Idiot list of his very own, with numbers one to 10 reserved just for him.

(via Reason's blog)

Posted by aalkon at 08:54 AM | Comments (6)

June 30, 2004

The Reagan Legacy

The Reagan Legacy
Oh, you mean like arming Saddam?

Posted by aalkon at 08:14 AM | Comments (15)

The O'Really? Factor

The O'Really? Factor
New York Daily News TV critic Jack Matthews on, shall we say, "'fair' and biased."

UPDATE: And here's more of the same. Okay, forget which "side," Democrat or Republican, you're on -- how can you not read stuff like this and say, "Gee whiz, the guy's a lying sleazebag"? (both bits via Romenesko)

Posted by aalkon at 06:29 AM | Comments (1)

June 29, 2004

Religion As A Campaign Weapon

Religion As A Campaign Weapon
Andrew Sullivan quotes Bill Clinton's remark last week, "What separates us is that we haven't tried to have our politics driven by religion." (I assume Clinton means what separates us from the barbarians in the Middle East.)

Wait. Politics not driven by religion? Where's Clinton been? Like me, Sullivan sees an "uncomfortably sectarian cast to this election":

There is strong Republican pressure on the Catholic bishops meeting last week to criticize John Kerry for his permissive stand on abortion. The Catholic bishops in Massachusetts have sent letters to all parishioners urging them not to vote for state legislators who support marriage rights for gay couples. Various Catholic bishops have said they will not give communion to politicians who support the right to an abortion - forcing the governor of New Jersey, for one, to withdraw from the Communion rail. Some bishops have even said that communion should not be given to lay Catholics who vote for such politicians - ruling out a whole swathe of the Democratic party from the Catholic church.

Last week, president Bush addressed by satellite the annual convention of the Southern Baptists, the same week they pulled out of the international Baptist organization because they feared it was becoming too liberal. They returned the favor by promising to rally support for the president's proposed Constitutional amendment to deny gay couples any legal protections for their relationships. The Texas Republican party recently passed a platform making it a felony for anyone to perform a same-sex marriage in the state and were addressed by a pastor who said, "Give us Christians in America who are more wholehearted, more committed and more militant for you and your kingdom than any fanatical Islamic terrorists are for death and destruction." Virginia recently passed a law invalidating even private contracts between two people of the same-sex - an attempt to strip gay couples of even the most basic protections for their relationships. And the National Catholic Reporter informed its readers last week that George Bush, in his recent meeting with the Pope, had complained that some American Catholic bishops were "not with me" on social issues. By that he was understood to mean that they had not sufficiently condemned Kerry for being a bad Catholic for his support of legal abortion.

...In the recent Bob Woodward book, Bush famously denied that his own father was a source of political advice. What mattered was the advice of his "Heavenly father." Bush knows not to push this too far: "The best way for faith to operate in somebody is, as I said, to let the light shine as opposed to trying to defend or alter or get my job mixed up with a preacher's job. And the only way you can do that is just be yourself, without crossing any lines of politics and religion. Separation of church and state [is] important in America. And by that I mean the people of faith should participate in the state, and there's a difference." That difference may not be so apparent in the White House itself. The former speech-writer, David Frum, observed that one of the first things he was asked when he got his job was whether he was going to Bible study.�He's Jewish.

How can it be, in the 21st Century, that the guy running our country is not only open, but brags about, having frequent chats with an extremely well-placed imaginary friend, and we keep him as president instead of keeping him in a padded room?

Posted by aalkon at 08:09 AM | Comments (9)

Link To The State Or Federal Pen

Link To The State Or Federal Pen
A Fly On The Wall sneers at the going away present Republicans and Democrats alike are giving "doddering thug" and retiring movieland mouthpiece Jack Valenti:

Under a measure sponsored by Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein of California and Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas, which sailed through the Senate unanimously last Friday, you could be sent to jail if you're caught with a camera in a movie theater.

Yes, you may just have it in your purse to take photos at a birthday party later. No matter, it's three years in jail for you.

Oh yeah...and be sure to toss that camera phone in the wastebasket on your way in, or it's into the slammer for you...whether or not you're the next William Link. (See Link's famous photo taken at the drive-in over there in Fly-land.)

Posted by aalkon at 12:27 AM | Comments (0)

June 28, 2004

Signs Of Unintelligent Life

Signs Of Unintelligent Life
Dr. Bruce Grant reviews Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross' book, Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge Of Intelligent Design, starting with a quote from the philosopher who actually coined the term "survival of the fittest":

�Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all.�

�Herbert Spencer, 1820-1903

Posted by aalkon at 08:25 AM | Comments (9)

June 27, 2004

The High Price Of Taking Out Saddam

The High Price Of Taking Out Saddam
Osama Bin Ladin's boys take out the WTC, and we respond by putting our all into going after...Saddam! According to an article by Julian Borger in The Guardian, the Iraq war will cost each US family $3,415...not including funeral costs if you're one of the underclass with a kid who joined the military to pay for college.

Posted by aalkon at 04:27 PM | Comments (11)

June 26, 2004

INDUCE Vomiting Now

INDUCE Vomiting Now
Orrin Hatch has a brand new bill -- the INDUCE act -- supposedly "for the children," that magic term that's supposed to make all of humankind melt and suspend all logic. (What a load of crap.) What it does, as Metafilter points out, is introduce "broad, vague" parameters on who can be sued for copyright infringement. Watch out iPod owners (like me)! Be sure to check down Ernest Miller's hilarious breakdown and comments on what Hatch says, and what he really means.

Posted by aalkon at 08:10 AM | Comments (10)

June 25, 2004

The Nudity Police State

The Nudity Police State
At what point do people who think of themselves as real conservatives start getting worried about the government becoming the police dog of everything? The Senate agreed on Tuesday to fine broadcasters as much as $3 million a day for airing "indecent entertainment":

Faced with public uproar stoked by Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake�s �wardrobe malfunction� at this year�s Super Bowl, the Senate rushed the bill through on a 99-1 vote without floor debate.

GOP Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas said the issue has been debated enough. Lawmakers have continually criticized broadcasters for airing what they say is increasingly coarse programming that can be seen or heard by children.

You know what? If you have a child, how about you parent it instead of expecting the government to do it? Didn't anybody else grow up with the iron fist of mom guarding the on-off button on the TV (keeping it in the off position except when "The Wonderful World Of Disney" was on)? Maybe your kids should watch a lot less television, via a whole lot more parenting, and maybe we should have a whole lot less government, huh?

Posted by aalkon at 08:00 AM | Comments (13)

June 23, 2004

A Few Words About Jack Ryan

A Few Words About Jack Ryan
Get to know the Illinois Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate:

You have a chance to vote for a Republican who represents your Christian values in key moral issues like protecting our unborn babies and defending the traditional family by opposing abortion and gay marriage. And, you have an opportunity to vote for a Republican who represents real progressive change in the Black community, having actually become part of the community as a teacher at an all-black high school. That Republican is Jack Ryan.

And now, a few more words about Jack Ryan, from The Smoking Gun:

In what may prove a crippling blow to his U.S. Senate campaign, divorce records reveal that Illinois Republican Jack Ryan was accused by his former wife, actress Jeri Ryan, of pressuring her to have sex at swinger's clubs in New York, Paris, and New Orleans while other patrons watched. The bombshell allegation is contained amidst nearly 400 pages of records ordered released yesterday by a Los Angeles Superior Court judge who ruled on media requests to unseal documents from the Ryan case. The salacious charge leveled at the politician was made by Jeri Ryan, who has starred in TV's "Star Trek: Voyager" and "Boston Public," in a court filing in connection with child custody proceedings (you'll find a portion of that heavily redacted September 2000 document below). The performer alleged that she refused Ryan's requests for public sex during the excursions, which included a trip to a New York club "with cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling." While Ryan confirmed the trips with the actress, he described them simply as "romantic getaways," denying her claims that he sought public sex. The politician has repeatedly claimed that his divorce file--portions of which were sealed in 2000 and 2001--contained no embarrassing information that would harm his chances against Democratic nominee Barack Obama. The Ryans were married in 1991 and, in November 1998, Jeri Ryan filed for divorce citing "irreconcilable differences."

Excuse me, but why is it always the guys trying to force their wives into public sex in a variety of international dungeons who rail against how two guys hanging up his and his dishtowels will be the end of society as we know it?

Posted by aalkon at 09:28 AM | Comments (18)

The Rest Of The Story

The Rest Of The Story
The Associated Press sues to get the copy of Bush's National Guard service record released by Texas, in hopes in seeing if there are a few pages missing in the one they already have:

Controversy surrounds Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard because it is unclear from the record what duties he performed for the military when he was working on the political campaign of a U.S. Senate candidate in Alabama.

There are questions as to whether the file provided to the news media earlier this year is complete, says the lawsuit, adding that these questions could possibly be answered by reviewing a copy of the microfilm of Bush's personnel file in the Texas archives.

The Air National Guard of the United States, a federal entity, has control of the microfilm, which should be disclosed in its entirety under the Freedom of Information Act, the lawsuit says.

Not a problem! They'll have it to the AP by, say...November 5?

Posted by aalkon at 08:12 AM | Comments (0)

June 22, 2004

Military Homo-noia Hits Hard

Military Homo-noia Hits Hard
In case you forgot, we are actually so backward as a country that we are continuing to dump military talent who happen to be gay:

A week after the Senate authorized adding 20,000 new soldiers to sustain military operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, a new study published Monday has analyzed one place where the military keeps losing men and women -- the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

One of the soldiers discharged, Brian Muller, 25, was an Army bomb squad team leader who served on a security detail for President Bush. In an Associated Press report, he explained why he told his commander he's gay.

"I didn't do it to get out of a war -- I already served in a war," Muller, 25, said in an interview published by the AP. "After putting my life on the line in the war, the idea that I was fighting for the freedoms of so many other people that I couldn't myself enjoy was almost unbearable."

Among those discharged are 90 nuclear power engineers, 150 rocket and missile specialists, 49 warfare specialists, and 88 linguists (including at least seven Arab language specialists). Genius.

Posted by aalkon at 08:34 AM | Comments (15)

June 21, 2004

Girls Gone Child

Girls Gone Child
This time it's Demi. As usual, A Fly On The (I.M. Pei-designed) Wall had it first.

Posted by aalkon at 09:36 PM | Comments (5)

Fahrenheit 911-dering

Fahrenheit 911-dering
Philip Shenon, in The New York Times, wonders if Michael Moore's facts will check out:

Mr. Moore is on firm ground in arguing that the Bushes, like many prominent Texas families with oil interests, have profited handsomely from their relationships with prominent Saudis, including members of the royal family and of the large and fabulously wealthy bin Laden clan, which has insisted it long ago disowned Osama. Mr. Moore spends several minutes in the film documenting ties between the president and James R. Bath, a financial advisor to a prominent member of the bin Laden family who was an original investor in Mr. Bush's Arbusto energy company and who served with the future president in the Air National Guard in the early 1970's. The Bath friendship, which indirectly links Mr. Bush to the family of the world's most notorious terrorist, has received less attention from national news organization than it has from reporters in Texas, but it has been well documented.

Mr. Moore charges that President Bush and his aides paid too little attention to warnings in the summer of 2001 that Al Qaeda was about to attack, including a detailed Aug. 6, 2001, C.I.A. briefing that warned of terrorism within the country's borders. In its final report next month, the Sept. 11 commission can be expected to offer support to this assertion. Mr. Moore says that instead of focusing on Al Qaeda, the president spent 42 percent of his first eight months in office on vacation; the figure came not from a conspiracy-hungry Web site but from a calculation by The Washington Post.

The most valid criticisms of the film are likely to involve the artful way that Mr. Moore connects the facts, and whether he has left out others that might undermine his scalding attack. A great many statistics fly by in the movie � such as assertions that 6 percent to 7 percent of the United States is owned by Saudi Arabians, and that Saudi companies have paid more than $1.4 billion to Bush family interests. But Mr. Moore doesn't explain how he arrived at them, or what these vague interests comprise. Mr. Moore and his team say they have news reports and other evidence to back up the numbers and that it will be posted on his Web site (www.michaelmoore.com) after the film's release.

Mr. Moore may also be criticized for the way he portrays the evacuation of the extended bin Laden family from the United States after Sept. 11. As the Sept. 11 commission has found, the Saudi government was able to pull strings at senior levels of the Bush administration to help the bin Ladens leave the United States. But while the film clearly suggests that the flights occurred at a time when all air traffic was grounded immediately after the attacks ("Even Ricky Martin couldn't fly," Mr. Moore says over video of the singer wandering in an airport lobby), the Sept. 11 commission said in a report this April that there was "no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace" and that the F.B.I. had concluded that no one aboard the flights was involved in Sept. 11.

In conversation, Mr. Moore defended the scene, saying his goal was to show how the White House was eager to bend and break the rules for Saudi friends � in this case, the extended family of the terrorist who had just brought down the twin towers and attacked the Pentagon. And as reporters have found, the White House still refuses to document fully how the flights were arranged.

Moore shoots himself (and those of us who support the removal of the fundamentalist, anti-science George Bush from office) in the foot if he includes distortions and apparent lies like he was shown to in previous pictures.

Then again, you can't beat footage like this -- the president really showing his presidential stuff. (I guess Cheney and Co. weren't close by enough to pull the strings.) In Shenon's words:

For the White House, the most devastating segment of "Fahrenheit 9/11" may be the video of a befuddled-looking President Bush staying put for nearly seven minutes at a Florida elementary school on the morning of Sept. 11, continuing to read a copy of "My Pet Goat" to schoolchildren even after an aide has told him that a second plane has struck the twin towers. Mr. Bush's slow, hesitant reaction to the disastrous news has never been a secret. But seeing the actual footage, with the minutes ticking by, may prove more damaging to the White House than all the statistics in the world.

Posted by aalkon at 08:43 AM | Comments (15)

June 20, 2004

Beautiful Corps

Beautiful Corps
Bill Moyers critiques government by the (rich) people for the (rich) people:

The middle class and working poor are told that what's happening to them is the consequence of Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand." This is a lie. What's happening to them is the direct consequence of corporate activism, intellectual propaganda, the rise of a religious orthodoxy that in its hunger for government subsidies has made an idol of power, and a string of political decisions favoring the powerful and the privileged who bought the political system right out from under us.

To create the intellectual framework for this takeover of public policy they funded conservative think tanks -- The Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institution, and the American Enterprise Institute -- that churned out study after study advocating their agenda.

To put political muscle behind these ideas they created a formidable political machine. One of the few journalists to cover the issues of class -- Thomas Edsall of The Washington Post -- wrote: "During the 1970s, business refined its ability to act as a class, submerging competitive instincts in favor of joint, cooperate action in the legislative area." Big business political action committees flooded the political arena with a deluge of dollars. And they built alliances with the religious right -- Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority and Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition -- who mounted a cultural war providing a smokescreen for the class war, hiding the economic plunder of the very people who were enlisted as foot soldiers in the cause of privilege.

In a book to be published this summer, Daniel Altman describes what he calls the "neo-economy -- a place without taxes, without a social safety net, where rich and poor live in different financial worlds -- and [said Altman] it's coming to America." He's a little late. It's here. Says Warren Buffett, the savviest investor of them all: "My class won."

Look at the spoils of victory:

Over the past three years, they've pushed through $2 trillion dollars in tax cuts -- almost all tilted towards the wealthiest people in the country.

Cuts in taxes on the largest incomes.

Cuts in taxes on investment income.

And cuts in taxes on huge inheritances.

More than half of the benefits are going to the wealthiest one percent. You could call it trickle-down economics, except that the only thing that trickled down was a sea of red ink in our state and local governments, forcing them to cut services for and raise taxes on middle class working America.

Now the Congressional Budget Office forecasts deficits totaling $2.75 trillion over the next ten years.

These deficits have been part of their strategy. Some of you will remember that Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan tried to warn us 20 years ago, when he predicted that President Ronald Reagan's real strategy was to force the government to cut domestic social programs by fostering federal deficits of historic dimensions. Reagan's own budget director, David Stockman, admitted as such. Now the leading rightwing political strategist, Grover Norquist, says the goal is to "starve the beast" -- with trillions of dollars in deficits resulting from trillions of dollars in tax cuts, until the United States Government is so anemic and anorexic it can be drowned in the bathtub.

There's no question about it: The corporate conservatives and their allies in the political and religious right are achieving a vast transformation of American life that only they understand because they are its advocates, its architects, and its beneficiaries. In creating the greatest economic inequality in the advanced world, they have saddled our nation, our states, and our cities and counties with structural deficits that will last until our children's children are ready for retirement, and they are systematically stripping government of all its functions except rewarding the rich and waging war.

And they are proud of what they have done to our economy and our society. If instead of practicing journalism I was writing for Saturday Night Live, I couldn't have made up the things that this crew have been saying. The president's chief economic adviser says shipping technical and professional jobs overseas is good for the economy. The president's Council of Economic Advisers report that hamburger chefs in fast food restaurants can be considered manufacturing workers. The president's Federal Reserve Chairman says that the tax cuts may force cutbacks in social security - but hey, we should make the tax cuts permanent anyway. The president's Labor Secretary says it doesn't matter if job growth has stalled because "the stock market is the ultimate arbiter."

You just can't make this stuff up. You have to hear it to believe it. This may be the first class war in history where the victims will die laughing.

Posted by aalkon at 08:31 AM | Comments (3)

June 19, 2004

A Complete 9-11 Timeline

A Complete 9-11 Timeline
It starts December 26, 1999:

Soviet forces invade Afghanistan. They will withdraw in 1989 after a brutal 10-year war. It has been commonly believed that the invasion was unprovoked. But in a 1998 interview, Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's National Security Adviser, reveals that the CIA began destabilizing the pro-Soviet Afghan government six months earlier, in a deliberate attempt to get the Soviets to invade and have their own Vietnam-type costly war: �What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?� [Le Nouvel Observateur 1/98; Mirror 1/29/02] The US and Saudi Arabia give a huge amount of money (estimates range up to $40 billion total for the war) to support the mujaheddin guerrilla fighters opposing the Russians. Most of the money is managed by the ISI, Pakistan's intelligence agency. [Nation 2/15/99]

It continues...on, and on, and on. Fascinating. Could eat your entire Saturday afternoon. (Don't say I didn't warn you!)

Posted by aalkon at 08:47 AM | Comments (0)

June 18, 2004

Pickup Line Of The Day

Pickup Line Of The Day
"Can I impregnate you with my demon spawn?"

Heard any good ones lately? Comment below!

Posted by aalkon at 03:21 PM | Comments (2)

Did Cheney Lie?

Did Cheney Lie?
Sure looks like it. And Halliburton got a sweetheart of sweetheart deals.

Posted by aalkon at 08:52 AM | Comments (1)

June 17, 2004

Free Speech, Who Cares?

"Free Speech?...Yeah, Whatever."
Reason's Matt Welch slaps the blas� journalists who aren't all that worried about current and impending curbs on freedom of speech.

Posted by aalkon at 03:39 PM | Comments (6)

June 16, 2004

Cough, Cough, NAFTA

North American Free Breathing
NAFTA means smog for Californians, write Jody Freeman and Kal Raustiala, in the LA Times:

The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling last week allowing Mexican trucks into the United States has inflamed environmental groups. The diesel exhaust from these trucks is a major public health threat, and many of them will have difficulty meeting U.S. safety requirements.

But the case is not notable simply because the court once again ruled against environmental interests. The case is also significant as the most recent and vivid example of national policies � on trade, homeland security, immigration and drug policy � that burden California disproportionately even as they benefit the nation as a whole.

The North American Free Trade Agreement, for instance, which requires that the U.S. allow the Mexican trucks to operate here, may on balance be good for the U.S., but it is not good for California's air quality. The same is true of homeland security requirements that, though necessary, impose huge costs on states like California, with major ports, borders and cities to keep safe. It's also true of national drug policies, which have stemmed trafficking in Florida, only to shift it to California.

Despite these unequal burdens, California often receives fewer per capita federal dollars than less-burdened states. California's Sen. Dianne Feinstein noted, for example, that the state, with its "target-rich" environment, receives only $1.33 per capita for homeland security, but Wyoming, with no high-profile targets, gets $9.78 per capita.

If we, in California, are going to have to suck all the black smoke from Mexican trucks, maybe the other states should at least have to pay us some pollution credits. That said, I still don't understand how North American Free Trade means North American free to ignore our state laws against pollution. If you drive a car that's pumping out a lot of smelly smog, the police can pull you over and cite you. Why doesn't the same go for a truck of watermelons coming across our border?

Posted by aalkon at 01:27 PM | Comments (5)

June 15, 2004

Love Knows No Boundaries

Love Knows No Boundaries
(Provided you aren't gay.) If you're an American man in love with a Canadian man, you've got problems, writes Ben Smith in Reason:

One of the reasons we�re supposed to care less about gay marriage than about black civil rights is that the stakes are so much lower today. Then it was about what might be called basic freedoms to live and work. Now it�s about secondary rights such as inheritance and health care, things that can be addressed by contract law. As Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said in a February presidential debate, at the center of the gay marriage debate is "terminology."

Tell that to David Kloss. In the summer of 2001, the 54-year-old oil exploration manager made a terrible mistake: He fell in love with a Canadian. Soon, he faced a choice shared by thousands of American citizens: Leave the man he loved, or leave the country.

The source of the dilemma is federal immigration law, which is based on the seemingly innocuous principle of "family reunification." Kloss� partner, Remi Collette, 35, moved to San Francisco to join him. But Collette was officially a tourist. He couldn�t work legally, and he couldn�t stay indefinitely. If Kloss and Collette had been a straight couple, they would have counted as a "family." Getting papers and eventually citizenship would have been a routine, bureaucratic process. As gays, they faced a stark choice: break the law with illegal work or a sham heterosexual marriage, or join the diaspora of self-described "love exiles."

"You go through life, you think you�re American, you think you�re in the land of the free," Kloss says. "Then suddenly I come to a situation where Remi couldn�t stay, and my country says you either have to give up the man you love or get out."

A group that represents cross-border gay and lesbian couples, Immigration Equality, estimates that there are more than 25,000 such couples in the United States. Many break the law. They place advertisements like this one in The Washington Blade, a gay paper: "Marriage-Minded GWM/GAM couple (1 American, 1 foreign), seeks lesbian couple (1 American, 1 foreign) for marriages of mutual interests."

That�s a risky move, however, one that carries penalties of imprisonment and deportation. So in 2002 Kloss sold his beloved house in the center of San Francisco, with its view of the Marin headlands, and moved with Collette to Toronto. Last year they were married under Canadian law, which allows gays to bring in partners.

Kloss was lucky to have even that choice. If the partner doesn�t hail from one of the countries with such a policy (which also include the United Kingdom, Israel, and several European states), gay couples find themselves perpetual tourists, insecure and unemployable.

Representative Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) has introduced a bill, called The Permanent Partners Immigration Act, to remedy the situation. In our current neo-Puritan landscape, I think saying it has a snowball's chance in hell of passing -- is exceedingly generous.

Posted by aalkon at 08:08 AM | Comments (2)

Dance In Your Pants?

Dance In Your Pants?
Support a good cause, says my science-writer friend Gary Taubes:

This is my friend Robyn's website: cityballetofla.org. She is having a jazz cabaret ballet Saturday and Sunday at the Henry Fonda Theater on Hollywood Boulevard. It's a sexy ballet and Robyn could use the help. She runs a not-for-profit ballet school and company for underprivileged kids in Korea Town and she needs the attendance and the money. It's a wonderful cause and I was wondering if perhaps you could either go or, better yet, pass the word around to everyone in Los Angeles. It couldn't hurt. It would support the arts in LA. I know it's not writerly but it's there and it's cool.

Posted by aalkon at 06:18 AM | Comments (0)

June 14, 2004

Vice Squad

Vice Squad
Check out this new libertarian blog, Vice Squad, railing against all the nanny-state-ists, and their drug and prostitution wars.

(via Andrew Sullivan)

Posted by aalkon at 10:18 AM | Comments (0)

Just Say No To Drug War Policy

Just Say No To Drug War Policy
A gift from the Reagans. TalkLeft looks at where it got us:

Did the law nab Pablo Escobar? No. The law's first conquest was David Ronald Chandler, known as "Ronnie." Ronnie grew marijuana in a small town in rural, northeast Alabama. About 300 pounds a year. Ronnie was sentenced to death for supposedly hiring someone to kill his brother-in-law. The witness against him later recanted. Clinton commuted Chandler's death sentence to life. (Source: NPR, 4/2/01, available on Lexis.com)

...As a result of these flawed drug policies inititiated by then President Reagan, (and continued by Bush I, Clinton and Bush II,) the number of those imprisoned in America has quadrupled to over 2 million. These are legacies we are still fighting today. You can help. Support FAMM, Families Against Mandatory Minimums. Even George Shultz, Ronald Reagan's former secretary of state, acknowleged in 2001 that the War on Drugs is a flop. (MacLeans, 5/7/01, available on Lexis.com)

In Smoke and Mirrors, Dan Baum, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, provides a detailed account of the politics surrounding Reagan's war on drugs. From the Atlantic Monthly, April, 1997 (available on Lexis.com)

Conservative parents' groups opposed to marijuana had helped to ignite the Reagan Revolution. Marijuana symbolized the weakness and permissiveness of a liberal society; it was held responsible for the slovenly appearance of teenagers and their lack of motivation. Carlton Turner, Reagan's first drug czar, believed that marijuana use was inextricably linked to "the present young-adult generation's involvement in anti-military, anti-nuclear power, anti-big business, anti-authority demonstrations." A public-health approach to drug control was replaced by an emphasis on law enforcement. Drug abuse was no longer considered a form of illness; all drug use was deemed immoral, and punishing drug offenders was thought to be more important than getting them off drugs. The drug war soon became a bipartisan effort, supported by liberals and conservatives alike. Nothing was to be gained politically by defending drug abusers from excessive punishment.

Drug-control legislation was proposed, almost like clockwork, during every congressional-election year in the 1980s. Election years have continued to inspire bold new drug-control schemes. On September 25 of last year Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich introduced legislation demanding either a life sentence or the death penalty for anyone caught bringing more than two ounces of marijuana into the United States. Gingrich's bill attracted twenty-six co-sponsors, though it failed to reach the House floor. A few months earlier Senator Phil Gramm had proposed denying federal welfare benefits, including food stamps, to anyone convicted of a drug crime, even a misdemeanor. Gramm's proposal was endorsed by a wide variety of senators-including liberals such as Barbara Boxer, Tom Harkin, Patrick Leahy, and Paul Wellstone. A revised version of the amendment, limiting the punishment to people convicted of a drug felony, was incorporated into the welfare bill signed by President Clinton during the presidential campaign. Possessing a few ounces of marijuana is a felony in most states, as is growing a single marijuana plant. As a result, Americans convicted of a marijuana felony, even if they are disabled, may no longer receive federal welfare or food stamps. Convicted murderers, rapists, and child molesters, however, will continue to receive these benefits.

Moreover, kids with even a marijuana conviction are denied federal college loans and grants, and have been since 1998, when a provision was added to the Higher Education Act. Brilliant. Let's sentence them to a lifetime of missed opportunities. As Pat Ford-Roegner, Executive Director of NAADAC--The Association for Addiction Professionals said, "If we want to help these young people become productive members of society, hindering their access to a college education is foolish -- in fact it increases the likelihood that their drug misuse will continue."

(Of course, Pat makes the mistake here in assuming all drug use is abuse -- or, perhaps, plays devil's advocate in service of her cause.)

Posted by aalkon at 09:36 AM | Comments (1)

June 13, 2004

Tax The Church

Tax The Church
If The Pope is going to turn into a de facto cheerleader for Bush, let's yank the church's non-profit status and use the ensuing tax money we get to pay down the national debt!

Posted by aalkon at 08:59 AM | Comments (6)

June 12, 2004

America: Land Of The Insulted

America: Land Of The Insulted
When did we, as a country, get so ragingly earnest and utterly unable to take a joke? We the nation of no mirth, return the slightest jab with a call for bans and witch-burnings of the jabber; in this case, Jimmy Kimmel, who made an amusing offhand remark in reference to the Pistons/Lakers basketball rivalry, and the practice by some, in my hometown of Detroit, of setting cars on fire the night before Halloween:

Kimmel was talking to ABC sportscaster Mike Tirico during halftime of Tuesday's game when he said, "They're going to burn the city of Detroit down if the Pistons win, and it's not worth it." Tirico, an Ann Arbor resident, immediately objected, telling him to be careful about making fun of Detroit.

ABC made the decision to pull Wednesday night's "Jimmy Kimmel Live" from affiliates nationwide shortly after the program was taped that night in California.

Grace Gilchrist, general manager of Detroit ABC affiliate WXYZ, said the taped show featured more disparaging remarks about the city.

"Frankly, we were shocked. We thought it was uncalled for," Andrea Parquet-Taylor, WXYZ's news director, said of Kimmel's remarks.

Wait, Andrea...are you from the Motor City or Oversensitivity City? Better go out on the Walter Reuther expressway and see what the signs say, huh!?

Kimmel was forced to play along with the weenies, actually writing an apology!, probably in order to not follow in the ABC-deported Bill Maher's footsteps:

"What I said about Pistons fans during halftime was a joke, nothing more. If I offended anyone, I'm sorry," he said. "Clearly, over the past 10 years, we in L.A. have taken a commanding lead in post-game riots. If the Lakers win, I plan to overturn my own car."

ABC publicity manager Jennifer De La Rosa issued another apology from the comedian Thursday: "It was never my intention to cause anyone pain. I was trying to make a joke and I'm sorry it resulted in anything other than laughter."

Why shows use laugh tracks is suddenly pretty obvious: for people who are too stupid or indignant to know when to laugh all by themselves.

Posted by aalkon at 08:23 AM | Comments (3)

Mobile Savages

Mobile Savages
Anybody had any luck using a cell phone to connect a laptop to the Internet? Specifically, a Mac, using Cingular? I just found this software, Mobile High Speed For Mac OS, via Nova Media. Sounds pretty good. Before, Cingular insisted that it was simple to connect using a Sony-Erriccson t68i and WAP. WRONG! I don't know a single person who's tried that who's had success. And my boyfriend, who put this blog and a number of Web sites together, and could build his own computer out of a plastic fork and two rubber bands and a few other household elements, spent several painful hours on the phone with Cingular's tech "support" people, and we both concluded afterward that the notion you could use a Cingular phone to connect to the 'net was a baldfaced lie! PS Apparently, the Wifi card for my Palm Tungsten T2 will be out by November. Ish. You know how solid those tech release predictions are. Or you don't -- which makes you one of the lucky Luddites, now doesn't it?

Posted by aalkon at 07:56 AM | Comments (2)

June 11, 2004

Instepping Out

Instepping Out
Yes, the newest hyphenate in Hollywood is "actor/shoemaker." John Malkovich, following in the footsteps of Oscar-winning weirdo Daniel Day Lewis, is going into the shoe biz. So says A Fly On The Wall, who has become the 7-11 of tasty Hollywood scoops:

It used to be you heard Hollywood people say, "but what I really want to do is direct."

Now the mantra may soon be, "but what I really want to do is make lace-up oxfords."

(Unfortunately, the Malkovich shoe pictured over at Fly's place is urgently in need of a Brazilian bikini wax.)

Posted by aalkon at 08:04 AM | Comments (1)

June 10, 2004

Rip Me A Prude One

Rip Me A Prude One
Leading the "unfortunate metaphor" category is the new language adopted in the Republican party platform in Texas this past week:

"The practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society."

(butt tip to Lena for this one)

Posted by aalkon at 08:39 AM | Comments (6)

Au Revoir, SUVS!

Au Revoir, SUVS!
Paris has passed a resolution to get the rue-hogging smogmobiles off the streets:

"Our idea is to limit the circulation of the most polluting vehicles," he said. "That means SUVs and lots of other vehicles that don't meet European pollution standards."

Plane include banning 4x4s from Paris city centre during peak pollution periods, and denying their owners residents' parking permits. Off-roaders could also be banned from protected areas like the Bois de Boulogne and the banks of the river Seine.

The proposal, certain to be opposed by motoring groups, follows similar remarks by the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, who in May month described SUVs as "bad for London -- completely unnecessary" and called their owners "complete idiots."

Britain's Guardian newspaper reported a survey showing that just one in eight 4x4 drivers had driven their car off-road, and six in 10 never take it out of town.

The Guardian added that France caught on late to the vogue for SUVs, mainly because Renault, Peugeot and Citroen have not so far offered them.

But with luxury carmakers like Mercedes-Benz, BMW and Porsche selling plush leather-upholstered 4x4s, the vehicles are an increasingly common sight in Paris's wealthier quarters. Sales surged by 11 percent in France last year.

If it gets any harder to breathe there in July, I'll have to grow a nozzle and carry around an oxygen tank. I just wish New York would do the same, and maybe even make a street (like Madison Avenue) bikes only.

Posted by aalkon at 07:21 AM | Comments (12)

Killed

All The News That's Too Hot To Print
My very good friend, journalist David Wallis, put together a collection of the best journalism that was killed before it could hit the printed page:

Killed: Great Journalism Too Hot To Print (Nation Books) resurrects remarkable articles that publications like Harper's, Vanity Fair and The New Yorker assigned to renowned writers, then discarded--not for reasons of quality but because of their potential for unwanted controversy. Skittish editors feared that publishing these provocative pieces about politics, sex, corruption and culture might upset their pals, enrage readers or offend advertisers.

This ground-breaking book, which Joe Conason of The New York Observer called "a public service and a work of art," pries open the inner-sanctum of the editor's office to give readers a rare glimpse at the sometimes sordid business that goes on within. Here, for the first time, read Betty Friedan's powerful essay imploring young women to take college seriously; in 1958 this article so unnerved the man who ran McCall's that he refused to run the revolutionary work, inspiring Friedan to write The Feminine Mystique. Among the other important stories in these pages: Larry Doyle's scathing satire of control-freak Hollywood publicists that struck too close to home for editors at US; Mike Sager's gripping account of life in a Palestinian refugee camp that The Washington Post inexplicably spiked; Jon Entine's devastating investigation of The Body Shop's questionable marketing practices that Vanity Fair kept you from reading-until now.

Killed also anthologizes under-published stories that were initially rejected by editors, including a censored book review by George Orwell (with a new introduction by Christopher Hitchens) that London's Observer deemed unpatriotic during wartime.

More here on David's site.

UPDATE: Here's an IWantMedia interview of David about the book.

Posted by aalkon at 06:11 AM | Comments (2)

June 09, 2004

What We Said And What We Meant

What We Said And What We Meant
Molly Ivins on the Bush administration's difficulties in getting word and deed to match:

Just before Memorial Day, Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi said, "Our active military respond better to Republicans" because of "the tremendous support that President Bush has provided for our military and our veterans." The same day, the White House announced plans for massive cuts in veterans' health care for 2006.

Last January, Bush praised veterans during a visit to Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The same day, 164,000 veterans were told the White House was "immediately cutting off their access to the VA health care system."

My favorite in this category was the short-lived plan to charge soldiers wounded in Iraq for their meals when they got to American military hospitals. The plan mercifully died aborning after it hit the newspapers.

In January 2003, just before the war, Bush said, "I want to make sure that our soldiers have the best possible pay." A few months later, the White House announced it would roll back increases in "imminent danger" pay (from $225 to $150) and family separation allowance (from $250 to $100).

In October 2003, the president told troops, "I want to thank you for your willingness to heed the important call, and I want to thank your families." Two weeks later, the White House announced it opposed a proposal to give National Guard and Reserve members access to the Pentagon's health insurance system, even though a recent General Accounting Office report estimated that one out of every five Guard members has no health insurance. What a nice thank you note.

Sure, the Bush administation supports our troops! (wink, wink)

UPDATE: We're winning the war on terror! Well, that is, if you don't count all the acts of terror. Check out the funny math at The State Department, reported by our pal in Washington, LA Times' Josh Meyers.

Posted by aalkon at 08:07 AM | Comments (7)

Amy Alkon, Godless Harlot

Amy Alkon, Godless Harlot
Another entertaining angry letter from an OC Register reader:

Amy-----I read your column which I seldom do----and my daughter tells me you always give advice with terrible morals--------Your border on pornography. In Monday's paper you advised "Failed Flirt" how to get a guy to take her to bed. First of all if you had any morals you would tell a young lady who goes to a bar hoping to get someone to take her to bed that she is a slut, immoral and playing with danger. No wonder everyone has HIV and diseases, and illegitimate children. Thank God in another part of the paper Dear Abby had wonderful advice for a young lady telling her to get married and then worry about having children. I will keep reading your column and if this continues with no moral or values I will lead a brigade to get you to some slut paper------or better yet unemployed as an advice person. I am not "old-fashioned"----I just have a regard for my faith and know what is best for this world. Hard to believe a column like yours is read in a decent paper. M.S.

What I want to know is which papers are the "slut papers," because I must subscribe!

Posted by aalkon at 07:47 AM | Comments (13)

Coyote Elmore

A Coyote's In The House
Elmore Leonard's editor used to complain that every time he'd put an animal in one of his crime novels he'd write about it from the animal's point of view:

Like, if there's an alligator in somebody's yard, I would tell you what the alligator's thinking, and my editor was always taking that stuff out. `How can you know what the alligator's thinking?' So my agent said, 'Write a kid's book with animals in it.'

That book is A Coyote's In The House, and the bits here are from a Miami Herald review/Elmore interview by Sue Corbett:

His first attempt focused on a dog who, retired from a film career, spent his days wistfully watching his wild canine cousins race through the hills above his palatial Hollywood home.

"I wrote three or four pages of that and I was as bored as the dog. Then I realized, I'm writing from the wrong point-of-view. I gotta get a coyote. So I did, and then I said, `Let me run with him for a while and see what happens.'''

Thus sprang Antwan, a wise-cracking, jive-talking coyote who meets Buddy, a German Shepard, when he's rooting through the trash, dining on takeout sushi Buddy's family had thrown out. Buddy, longing for excitement, invites Antwan in -- through the doggy door. Antwan follows, curious about how the other half lives. He sniffs out a plate of peanut butter cookies on the counter and eats all of them.

''Homes, can't you smell?'' Antwan asks Buddy.

"Of course I can smell.''

"You know cookies are sitting here and you don't eat none?''

''We're not allowed cookies,'' Buddy confesses.

There's also a love interest, Miss Betty, a ''show bitch poodle,'' who lives with Buddy and who looks, in Antwan's estimation, ''like a wedding cake with a black nose.'' Buddy and Miss Betty may be best-in-show types, but Antwan stars in this story.

''I've had Antwan in books before,'' Leonard said, referring to a character type he frequently relies on to tell his stories of shysters and shylocks seeking second chances or comebacks -- human animals involved in salacious hustles.

Leonard undoubtedly writes the hippest street slang of any great-grandfather around.

Corbett notes that Elmore got Coyote around to all the major Hollywood animation studios, but they all said it wasn't sappy enough for them, so Elmore's got an animator and screenwriter on the job on his own dime. He sees Albert Brooks doing Buddy, and Chris Rock as Antwan.

More on Elmore here, at ElmoreLeonard.com.

Posted by aalkon at 06:49 AM | Comments (1)

June 08, 2004

Reagan Rewritten

Reagan Rewritten
When notable leaders die, the press often "forgets history" sliding into sentiment rather than sticking to the facts. Editor & Publisher's Joe Strupp looks at the recent flood of Ronald Reagan stories:

Reagan's death, especially following the tragedy and torture of Alzheimer's disease, likely struck editors and reporters with a responsibility to go easy on the former president. Few, after all, protested the sacking of the CBS television movie about Reagan a few months back.

And the man did win two presidential elections, the second by a landslide, and led a rebirth of a Republican party that had been rocked by Watergate and other scandals. But let's not forget, however, that the often-mocked Bill Clinton accomplished much the same for his party, and despite the Lewinsky disgrace, left office with approval ratings that beat Reagan's (and no federal budget deficit, to boot).

So the overwhelming praise for a president who plunged the nation into its worst deficit ever, ignored and cut public money for the poor, while also ignoring the AIDS crisis, is a bit tough to take. During my years at Brooklyn College, between 1984 and 1988, countless classmates had to drop out or find other ways to pay for school because of Reagan's policies, which included slashing federal grants for poor students and cutting survivor benefits for families of the disabled.

Not to mention the Iran-contra scandal, failed 'supply-side economics,' the ludicrous invasion of Grenada, 241 dead Marines in Lebanon, and a costly military buildup that may have contributed to the breakup of the Soviet Union (there were plenty of other reasons too) but also kept us closer to nuclear war than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis, besides leaving us billions of dollars in debt.

And should we even mention the many senior Reagan officials, including ex-White House aide Michael Deaver and national security adviser Robert McFarlane, convicted of various offenses? What about Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger indicted but later pardoned by the first President Bush?

In the end, notes Strupp, much of the press went easy on Reagan:

In Reagan's case, his genial public persona, and Alzheimer's end, may have made it more difficult to knock down a popular leader, despite the fact that some argue Iran-Contra was a more impeachable offense than Watergate.

Maybe it's to be expected that the press, when covering a leader's death, will take a kinder, gentler approach. But in the interests of fair, accurate journalism -- something that has become a leading issue in the media today -- no former leader should be above a frank, complete, and balanced assessment.

Especially not the one currently in office, who has the entire right wing "journalism" contingent playing intellectual contortionist to defend him.

Posted by aalkon at 09:13 AM | Comments (22)

LAObserved Needs You

LAObserved Needs You
It's the first site I turn to when I wake up: Kevin Roderick's LAObserved. (Next, I go to Romenesko, then to what's happening in the real world.) Well, Kevin's losing his funding, so if you like his site, please go to this link, read what's going on, and toss him some bucks. I did.

Posted by aalkon at 08:49 AM | Comments (1)

June 07, 2004

The Dirty Words Police Are On Vacation

The Dirty Words Police Are On Vacation
Jacques Steinberg reports in The New York Times that the prudery advocates' prospects for sending "decency" legislation to President Bush's desk are a bit slimmer than they were a few months and a naked nipple ago. Unfortunately, broadcasters are in a panic to guess what's considered too racy for prudish American ears:

In response to the Stern and Bono decisions, some broadcasters have hewed to such a narrow line in recent weeks - tossing songs like "The Bitch is Back'' by Elton John off the radio, and carefully editing programs like the critically acclaimed "Prime Suspect'' by PBS - that fresh concerns have been raised, by civil rights groups among others, that self-censorship has gone too far.

What ever happened to use of the channel changer or the on-off button? Is all of America so obese that they can no longer get their giant, swollen fingers around the remote?

Posted by aalkon at 12:34 PM | Comments (0)

June 06, 2004

Prude Awakening

Prude Awakening
At institutions funded by government money, teachers have to preach "abstinence only." The problem is, writes Jane Brody:

Experts who have spent decades studying teenage sexual activity have gathered ample evidence to refute the basic premise of abstinence-only sex education. They say this approach is not adequate to protect youngsters from unwanted pregnancies and disease.

"There is nothing in any peer-reviewed scientific journal to suggest that teaching abstinence-only is effective in getting teens to delay sexual activity," said one expert, Cynthia Dailard, a lawyer and senior public policy associate at the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization devoted to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights.

In contrast, Ms. Dailard has reported, considerable evidence shows that sex education promoting abstinence, but also providing information on the benefits of contraception for those who do not remain abstinent, does delay the start of sexual activity. Such programs also reduce the incidence of teenage pregnancies and S.T.D.'s, she has found.

Furthermore, she and others who have reviewed the findings of many carefully done studies are worried about the effects of the abstinence-only approach on teenagers who do become sexually active. If teenagers are given no information about birth control, or only negative information, the studies indicate that they are less likely to use any method of protection, and are thus more likely to become pregnant or contract a sexually transmitted disease than are teenagers who are well informed about condoms and other contraceptive options.

One national study, published in 2001 in The American Journal of Sociology, found that while some teenagers who promised to remain abstinent until marriage delayed sexual activity by an average of 18 months, they were more likely to have unprotected sex when they broke their pledge than those who had never pledged virginity in the first place.

The problem, too, is the idea, taken as a given by far too many people, that sex is a terrible, horrible thing for teenagers. Sure, if you're a religious fanatic, you'll probably feel some guilt. But, the French, for example, don't seem to be suffering from rutting wildly in their teen years. Then again, they have ready access to contraception and information about using it correctly, and they can walk into any pharmacy and get the morning-after pill if there's an accident (along with a lecture from the pharmacist on the dangers of using it as regular birth control).

Knowledge is power. Power to protect oneself from pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. Unfortunately, we don't give our teens power. No, we give them a long lecture on the merits of prudery instead. Now, maybe this makes the god squad feel all squishy inside, but Brody writes that "about one-half of unplanned teenage pregnancies result from failures to use any contraception, researchers find, and the other half from ineffective contraceptive use." Yes, thanks, in large part to the fundamentalists among us, American kids are sexually ignorant and may be in for HIV, an unplanned pregnancy, and/or a nasty case of chlamydia, syphillis, or the clap.

Posted by aalkon at 08:02 AM | Comments (4)

June 05, 2004

This Is Your Brain On Legalized Crack

This Is Your Brain On Legalized Crack
Nobody talks drugs like William F. Buckley. Scroll down (the interview is near the bottom of the page) for a pro-legalization discussion between Buckley and the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. I especially Buckley's use of the word "crimogenic" to refer to thieving crackheads!

BUCKLEY: It is said that the drug crack is substantively different from its parent drug, cocaine, in that it is, to use the term of Professor van den Haag, "crimogenic." In other words a certain (unspecified) percentage of those who take crack are prompted to�well, to go out and commit mayhem of some kind. Is that correct?

GAZZANIGA: No, not in the way you put it. What you are asking is: Is there something about how crack acts on the brain that makes people who take it likelier to commit crime?

Let's begin by making it clear what crack is. It is simply cocaine that has been mixed with baking soda, water, and then boiled. What this procedure does is to permit cocaine to be smoked. Now any drug ingested in that way�i.e., absorbed by the lungs�goes more efficiently to the brain, and the result is a quicker, more intense experience. That is what crack gives the consumer. But its impact on the brain is the same as with plain cocaine and, as a matter of fact, amphetamines. No one has ever maintained that these drugs are "crimogenic."

The only study I know about that inquires into the question of crack breeding crime reports that most homicides involving crack were the result not of the use of crack, but of dealer disputes. Crack did not induce users to commit crimes. Do some crack users commit crimes? Of course. After all, involvement in proscribed drug traffic is dangerous. Moreover, people who commit crimes tend to use drugs at a high rate, though which drug they prefer varies from one year to the next.

BUCKLEY: You are telling us that an increase in the use of crack would not mean an increase in crime?

GAZZANIGA: I am saying that what increase there would be in crime would not be simply the result of the pharmacology of that drug. Look, let's say there are 200,000 users/abusers of crack in New York City�a number that reflects one of the current estimates. If so, and if the drug produced violent tendencies in all crack users, the health-care system would have to come to a screeching halt. It hasn't. In fact, in 1988 the hospitals in New York City (the crack capital of the world) averaged only seven crack-related admissions, city-wide, a day. The perception of crack-based misbehavior is exaggerated because it is the cases that show up in the emergency rooms that receive public notice, and the whole picture begins to look very bleak. All of this is to say: when considering any aspect of the drug problem, keep in mind the matter of selection of the evidence.

(via Metafilter)

Posted by aalkon at 08:56 AM | Comments (6)

June 04, 2004

Gore Or Less

Gore Or Less
"You know, back in 2000, a Republican friend of mine warned me that if I voted for Al Gore and he won, the stock market would tank, we'd lose millions of jobs, and our military would be totally overstretched. You know what? I did vote for Al Gore, he did win, and I'll be damned if all those things didn't come true."

--JAMES CARVILLE

Posted by aalkon at 09:54 AM | Comments (3)

Angry Reader Of The Day

Angry Reader Of The Day
The best letters are always from the people who don't like me. This guy reads me in the Orange County Register:

Dear Amy, YOU ARE IDIOT.

Name omitted to protect me from being sued by the semi-coherent/semi-literate.

UPDATE: He sent another message this morning:

YOU ARE IDIOT AND ASS-HOLE.

Posted by aalkon at 08:50 AM | Comments (8)

June 03, 2004

Freedom To Pander To The Religious

Freedom To Pander To The Religious
What separation between church and state? The Bush campaign is making a bid for the votes of churchgoers, getting churches to distribute campaign materials and enlist voters:

...Even some officials of some conservative religious groups said they were troubled by the notion that a parishioner might distribute campaign information within a church or at a church service.

"If I were a pastor, I would not be comfortable doing that," said Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. "I would say to my church members, we are going to talk about the issues and we are going to take information from the platforms of the two parties about where they stand on the issues. I would tell them to vote and to vote their conscience, and the Lord alone is the Lord of the conscience."

The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of the liberal Americans United for Separation of Church and State, argued that any form of distributing campaign literature through a church would compromise its tax-exempt status. He called the effort "an absolutely breathtakingly large undertaking," saying, "I never thought anyone could so attempt to meld a political party with a network of religious organizations."

In a statement, Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, a liberal group, called the effort "an astonishing abuse of religion" and "the rawest form of manipulation of religion for partisan gain." He urged the president to repudiate the effort.

In a statement, Mara Vanderslice, director of religious outreach for the Kerry campaign, said the effort "shows nothing but disrespect for the religious community." Ms. Vanderslice continued: "Although the Kerry campaign actively welcomes the participation of religious voices in our campaign, we will never court religious voters in a way that would jeopardize the sanctity of their very houses of worship."

How many congregations or worshippers will choose to cooperate remains to be seen. In an interview yesterday, the Rev. Ronald Fowlkes, pastor of the Victoria Baptist Church in Springfield, Pa., said he had not seen the e-mail message but did not think much of the idea.

"We encourage people to get out and vote," Mr. Fowlkes said, but as far as distributing information through church, "If it were focused on one party or person, that would be too much."

Yes, it would.

Posted by aalkon at 11:22 AM | Comments (4)

Sex Spells

Can You Hoor Me Now?
11-year-old Ella Gunderson has become the "media darling" of modesty after writing a complaint letter to Nordstrom execs about all the slutty clothes they sell to young girls:

"I see all of these girls who walk around with pants that show their belly button and underwear," she wrote. "Your clearks (sic) sugjest (sic) that there is only one look. If that is true, then girls are suppost (sic) to walk around half naked."

Nordstrom executives wrote back and promised Ella the company would try to provide a variety of fashions for youngsters.

I don't know about you, but I think little Ella should be a little more concerned with the fact that she can't spell than with whether other girls look like little hookers.

Posted by aalkon at 10:19 AM | Comments (38)

Ass-vertising. Really.

Can You Rear Me Now?
Ass-vertising. Really! Put your best cheek forward.

(via fellow freedom-of-speecher Jeff Jarvis)

Posted by aalkon at 09:00 AM | Comments (0)

Faux Real

Faux Real
More fine frolic (uh, news) from Fox:

"Osama Bin Laden is a pussy."

--Fox News analyst �Major� Bob Bevelacqua

(via Kevin Roderick's LA Observed)

Posted by aalkon at 08:08 AM | Comments (7)

Gates Of Zero Innovation

Microsoft On Innovation
Why a former Microsoft Exec went Mac:

Why are Microsoft products so endlessly frustrating to use? Even techno-geeks like me get annoyed by Windows. I�m tired of spending the first 10 minutes of my day rebooting just so I can get to work. Microsoft Outlook 2003, the latest version of the company�s e-mail and calendar software, hangs for me about once a day, requiring me to restart my PC. I also have a problem with Word 2003: Whenever I bullet a line of text, every line in the document gets a bullet. Asking Windows to shut down is more of a request than a command�it might, it might not. And recently, Internet Explorer stopped opening for me.

I know I�m not alone. If you�re like me, you�ve invested in technology to become more efficient and productive but mutter about the many frustrations of the digital lifestyle. Technology is my hobby as well as my job, so I regularly ponder why software giant Microsoft Corp., which has more than $56 billion in cash, hasn�t solved more of these problems.

I began using Microsoft products 23 years ago, at age 11, and I worked for Microsoft from 1991 to 1999 as a technology manager. For many years, I was a Microsoft loyalist. While aware of Microsoft�s shortcomings, I always believed that the Soft did its best to improve products over time, as it did with Windows XP. But recently, I�ve had a crisis of faith. Perhaps I�ve rebooted Windows one too many times.

Over the past year, my frustration with Windows grew, as did my envy of Apple�s cool new products. Finally, last month I went out and bought an Apple Macintosh G5 and began using the new Mac operating system, OS X. It had been years since I�d used a Macintosh. Until recently, I dismissed those who did as impractical, elitist hipsters, and I mocked the Mac �switch� ads on TV.

But in the first five minutes on my new Mac, I was surfing the Internet, sending e-mail, and ripping a CD. OS X has been a breath of badly needed fresh air after Windows.

This made me wonder about Microsoft�s willingness to innovate and compete. Why are Microsoft products still so difficult to use and so unreliable? Why is the company improving them so slowly? Is Microsoft losing its competitive edge? Has the company seen its best days?

I wouldn't know. This blog item was written on an eMac, while listening to iTunes.

Posted by aalkon at 07:30 AM | Comments (3)

June 02, 2004

Enron Scum

Singing While California Burns
The Enron Tapes.

Posted by aalkon at 08:46 AM | Comments (0)

June 01, 2004

Sludge Match

Sludge Match
Alexandra Polier, the woman falsely accused of having an affair with John Kerry, sets the record straight.

Posted by aalkon at 11:03 AM | Comments (2)

The Advice Goddess Blog-iversary

The Advice Goddess Blog-iversary
It's the one-year anniversary of my blog. From this time last year to this time this year, I've had over 300,000 visitors to my site, according to my Web stats. And counting! I'm now getting over 30,000 visitors per month -- over 1,000 visitors a day.

Posted by aalkon at 07:25 AM | Comments (2)

Stem Cell Research

The False Controversy Of Stem Cells
Kinsley explains, "If you think it through, the case for embryonic research is an easy one":

An embryo used in stem-cell research (and fertility treatments) is three to five days past conception. It consists of a few dozen cells that together are too small to be seen without a microscope. It has no consciousness, no self-awareness, no ability to feel love or pain. The smallest insect is far more human in every respect except potential.

Is destroying that microscopic dot the exact moral equivalent of driving a knife through the heart of an innocent 6-year-old girl? Some stem-cell enthusiasts think that even antiabortion absolutists can support stem-cell research, since it uses surplus embryos that are doomed anyhow. But that logic would justify Nazi experiments on doomed Jews in the concentration camps. If the microscopic dot is a human being with full human rights, the answer is easy: no stem-cell research.

But you don't have to be an abortion-rights advocate to reach the opposite conclusion. In fact, for abortion opponents whose views fall anywhere short of fanatical absolutism, the answer ought to be easy as well: full speed ahead. To the nonabsolutist, it ought to matter a lot that restricting stem-cell research doesn't actually spare the lives of any embryos. That means the lives of real people desperately awaiting the fruits of stem-cell research are being weighed against a purely symbolic message.

It also ought to matter to the nonfanatic that embryos are needed only to start the research process. Most of the research and all the treatments that come out of it will use so-called lines developed out of a few initial stem cells in the laboratory. That makes the stem-cell issue different from � and easier than � the one about fetal tissues a few years ago. Fetal-tissue treatments use brain tissue from several aborted fetuses for each patient. An embryo used in stem-cell research has nothing resembling a brain.

A difficult issue is one in which you hold two or more conflicting values. Stem cells are not a difficult issue: either you think a microscopic embryo has the same human rights as you and I, or you don't. Do you believe that a woman who gets an abortion should be prosecuted for murder, just like a mother who hires a professional killer to off her teenage son? Are you picketing around fertility clinics, which kill hundreds of thousands of unborn children � if that's what you believe a 5-day-old embryo to be � just like abortion clinics do? If so, you are entitled to oppose stem-cell research. If not, please get out of the way.

Yes, Mr. Bush, do step aside. I think there are a few people out there who'd rather not suffer or and die from diabetes, Parkinson's, and a host of other diseases just because you take marching orders from the Christian fundamentalists. It's still a secular country. Or was -- last time I looked.

Posted by aalkon at 06:43 AM | Comments (3)

Keitel Cleans Up

Keitel Cleans Up
Dead bodies littering your foyer? Call Harvey Keitel. Keitel, who starred as a "cleaner" in Pulp Fiction, is now in the business in real life -- at least financially speaking -- of tidying up human remains after death scene investigations.

(via Metafilter)

Posted by aalkon at 05:35 AM | Comments (0)

May 31, 2004

Thank The FDA For Your Skin Cancer

Thank The FDA For Your Skin Cancer
They're "protecting" you from protecting your skin with the best sunblocks out there -- like Photoderm Max 100 SPF that I get in France. Anthelios 60 SPF has Mexoryl, but both Anthelios and Photoderm Max are heads and tails above US sunblocks in the protection they offer from both UVA and UVB, and in photostability (meaning the sun doesn't make them break down like US-available sunblocks!). Here's a bit from John Mackenzie's ABC News story on why "is the Best Available Sunscreen Illegal In The U.S.?"

This summer tens of millions of Americans will apply creams and lotions to protect themselves from the harmful effects of the sun. What most do not realize is that most of the sunscreens available in the United States are inferior to those available almost everywhere else in the world.

In Europe, Asia, South America, Canada, Mexico and Australia, people are using the newest, most effective sunscreens. What makes them superior is an ingredient called Mexoryl.

"It produces a product which gives us almost perfect protection against sunshine, or at least as good as we can get at this time," Dr. Vincent Deleo, chairman of the dermatology department at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York, told ABC News.

Sunscreens contain a combination of ingredients such as oxybenzone, Parsol 1789 or titanium oxide. But adding mexoryl takes sun protection to a whole new level, according to Dr. Darrell Rigel, a clinical professor of dermatology at New York University and a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology.

"Mexoryl is over two times better than any other combination of ingredients that currently exist, in terms of protecting from ultraviolet A radiation," said Rigel.

The sun's ultraviolet A radiation, which can penetrate glass, causes wrinkles and sagging skin, contributes to skin cancer, and weakens the immune system.

While most sunscreens are effective at blocking UVB rays responsible most sunburns, few lotions have provided broad UVA protection until the arrival of Mexoryl.

Mexoryl has been available around the world for the past several years, but it has yet to be approved for use in the United States. Officials from the Food and Drug Administration declined to say whether it's even under consideration.

European studies have shown the compound is both safe and effective, which leaves many American doctors increasingly frustrated it is not sold in the United States.

I pay about 12 Euros for a 1.4 oz Photoderm Max at Samaritaine department store in France. In the USA, Zitomer Pharmacy, in Manhattan, is selling that same size tube -- against FDA regulations -- for $39! For that price, you should probably just stay home and hide under your bed. We'll let you know when the FDA has stopped protecting you from protecting yourself from the sun, so you can come out, apply some really good sunblock, and go to the beach.

Posted by aalkon at 10:47 AM | Comments (11)

Leaving The Law

Ash Bridges
Some entertaining bridge-burning from a now former member of the legal profession, via Gawker. Here's an excerpt from his exit letter:

While I have a high degree of personal respect for PHJW as a law firm, and I have made wonderful friendships during my time here, I am no longer comfortable working for a group largely populated by gossips, backstabbers and Napoleonic personalities. In fact, I dare say that I would rather be dressed up like a pinata and beaten than remain with this group any longer. I wish you continued success in your goals to turn vibrant, productive, dedicated associates into an aimless, shambling group of dry, lifeless husks.

Posted by aalkon at 08:02 AM | Comments (0)

May 30, 2004

Mini-Mo Enroute

Mini-Mo Enroute
J-Mo, my Venice, CA, neighbor, otherwise known as Julia Roberts, is preggers, reports A Fly On The (CAA) Wall.

UPDATE: Then again, in the words of Defamer, "Nothing in Hollywood is official until a publicist denies it."

Posted by aalkon at 09:09 PM | Comments (2)

May 29, 2004

Live From American Film Institute

Live From American Film Institute
Cathy Seipp is hosting an event with Hollywood and blogger speakers and I'm blogging from it...LIVE!...at this very moment. We're at AFI in the hills of Hollywood. The evening is titled "The Inside Story: Hollywood And The Media Deconstructed." Emmanuelle Richard and I are her co-hosts, as always, but this time, all we had to do was e-mail out Cathy's invite, then a warning about getting frisked due to the presence of Charles Johnson from Little Green Footballs. Panel One -- the Hollywood part -- is Andrew Breitbart, co-author of Hollywood Interrupted; Mike Sullivan, former head of programming at UPN and still creating programming at Paulist Prodns; Allan Mayer (described below), and Rob Long, TV producer/showrunner who was the young, co-showrunner of Cheers.

I'll post whatever tidbits I can type fast enough to paraphrase and quote. PS This may turn out to be real crap, because it's terribly hard to listen and type and blog and get it right, so I may end up being a bit boring, omitting, and/or confusing in the name of correctly quoting people:

Cathy asked Mike Sullivan to talk about how some of the freshest shows on TV have been created by and/or star(red) "middle-aged has-beens"...from B-movie actress Lucy Arnaz, to Carroll O'Connor to David Chase ("The Sopranos"). Sullivan said the idea of network execs is that we know how "this old hack" will do, and "maybe this young hack will be better." Rob Long later pointed out that Ricky and Lucy wouldn't have been thought to have an inter-racial marriage back in the day.

"There's a cluelessness in the news business..." commented Alan Mayer, former editor of Buzz Magazine; now head of the entertainment division at Sitrick, a crisis PR firm. "We don't want to deal with the substance of anything," said Mayer. People just want to examine the motive -- not what happened, but why it happened, he explained. He feels there's a blurring of the lines between entertainment journalism and political journalism and other kinds of journalism. He noted that he was amused at the way the Schwartzenegger administration is dealing with the flood of foreign press requests by setting up a press junket, patterned on Hollywood press junkets.

Rob Long said just told...I think he said it was The New York Times...that the sitcom was dead.

Former UPN head Mike Sullivan breaks in: "Again?"

According to Rob, Hollywood sitcom execs are the meddling-est suits of all, constantly looking over the show-runner's shoulder. Oh yeah -- Sullivan used to be a censor. So he really knows all sides of the biz.

Rob comments on the Hollyweasels butting in: "It never occurs to these people that it's so bad because they're involved in doing it." Also, Rob knew a very funny sitcom writer who was depressed, and was prescribed Paxil. Apparently, anti-depressants are a cure for being funny. The guy took the drug, became a lug. Good. I think I'll stay crazy then!

Andrew brought up reality TV, and Mike noted that civility used to be prized; now it's the opposite (on TV and in our society, I think he meant). Alan said Jerry Springer's been doing it for 15 years, and it's just now moving into prime time. He sees a business problem for the entertainment industry: there are no reruns, and there's no syndication. It's throwaway programming. PS Alan did the recent behind-the-scenes for The Simpsons (voiceover) cast, in their bid to get salary increases.

Some very attractive woman, an actress, asked about people taking productions out of town and out of the country. George Clooney was one of the accused (for his first directing effort). Sullivan mentioned that (John Sayles) Matewan was non-union! It's always the leftiest lefties who are the worst employers!

VERACITY NOTE: Somebody posted in my comments section below that this is not true. Maybe the comment by Sullivan was that Matewan was ABOUT union struggles? If anybody has the correct info on this, please let me know. On deadline now -- will come back to this when I'm done with my column on Tuesday afternoon.

MORE: Actually, it appears Sayles has worked non-union, although I can only find rumors on Google that Matewan was non-union.

Alan addressed runaway production, noting that people get caught between the choice of shooting at home (because people like working at home, quality of technicians is high, and the US looks more like the US than other places do). He talked about the difficulty of getting a green light -- and learning you can make it "for a price." And sometimes the only way to make it work is to go to Canada. Sometimes, the choice is make it there, or don't make it, he noted. "The best that can happen, and it's not a happy outcome..." he noted, is "...doing as much of the prep and the post" as possible, here (in America).

Rob noted, because the "above-the-line" costs (ie, actors -- the non-crew members of the production) are so high now, money is a concern in a way it never was.

Sullivan revealed that the Sopranos was first developed for Fox, and said that if it had been made for Fox, it would have been a totally different show, and Gandolfini wouldn't have been in the lead role.

Rob thinks HBO will begin to think that everything they do is great, and it's great because they did it. He thinks it's the nature of..."people" (networks, I think he means).

Andrew (who runs The Drudge Report), referred to himself as "Matt Drudge's bitch," then commented that blogging is based on good mainstream journalism, and if the journalism isn't good (LA Times was his example of "not good"), the blogging can't be good. He thinks, if the rest of the country knew "how the sausages are made" (in terms of production), people would be outraged at how stars' salaries are squeezing the below-the-line people.

Cathy's daughter, aka Cecile Dubois, is blogging live on Cathy's blog...check out her stuff on the event here.

Alan mentioned that he liked how Mulder on "The X Files" referred to "the Military-Entertainment Industrial Complex," and talked about how he wanted somebody to write a book on NY, DC, and Hollywood when he was a book publisher, and feels people don't really address the growing inter-relation here. He mentioned this before, at greater length, but my fingers weren't fast enough. If you know Alan, ask him about this, because he has a lot to say on it. If you don't, Luke Ford will probably have it all, word for word, in a day or two, because he's taping this whole thing.

Rob describes Hollywood, in a nutshell, as "people scrambling for money." He says, I think referring to the old Ovitz aura: "There's no 'most powerful man in Hollywod'; there are just aging failures."

Alan calls journalism "such a passive profession" (now), where people are waiting for stuff to come to them, contrasted with the old Izzy Stone journalism. Sullivan noted that he, as a programming executive, was informed by the grips that shows were canceled -- when he had no idea. Alan found the stuff he needed for The Simpsons' salary negotiations via a guy who found all the information through public sources. Cathy commented on people from the LA Times who have a reputation for never leaving the office. Or their chair, she might have said.

Toby Young asked if a journalist who starts writing hard-hitting stories for The New York Times or another paper -- if they wouldn't be frozen out. Mike Sullivan responded by pointing out the vast number of great sources there are -- disgruntled employees. Rob answered Toby's question -- noting that people are afraid of being frozen out (of their society, I think he meant) -- and maybe even by their spouses!

Andrew pointed out that you rarely hear from celebrities how grateful they are that they make the kind of money they are, and how grateful they are to this country in general. Hmm, but with the salary whining -- this is the marketplace. The stars can get it, so they do.

Rishawn Biddle noted that we have kind of an innate knowledge of stars -- who they are and what they do -- Andrew kept talking over him, so I couldn't hear what he was saying. He noted that people understand that stuff is fiction, and like it -- and people from Pakistan aspire to be Americans. Andrew was arguing that you'll be pushed aside if you have "a certain mentality" (ie, right of center), that they'll be "utterly alienated." Oh, please. See below blog item on how NPR! has more Republican commentators than any others. He says "Hollywood puts out a negative message of what America stands for." Again, I turn to the marketplace. Hollywood is not a state film unit. You want to make a movie about how great fundamentalism is, raise the money, go ahead. Rob, who is right of center, disagreed that you'd be ostracized on the set for being to the right. If he has been ostracized, he's done quite well for it!

Rob feels "you can't get a more distorted view" (of America) than you can by watching CNN and reading The New York Times. He calls it "a massive disinformation campaign."

Sullivan pointed out that it would be hard to sell a movie critical of Roe v. Wade. Rob agreed.

Andrew noted that Martin Sheen, who is anti-nuke, is willing to get arrested for that, but said Sheen is pro-life and doesn't protest for that -- out of self-interest, Andrew felt. (That pro-life wouldn't play so well in The Biz.)

Whew. Time for a drink. I need one. Signing off! Hope this was semi-coherent!

Drunk From AFI
Okay, drinks thingie is over, and being a (post-)Jewish drunk, I had two drinks (my ultimate limit) and two spinach pie corners, and I'm more semi-coherent than usual. Sitting next to me is Matthew Klam, who's writing a piece for The New York Times on blogging...and has come all the way here from the coast that's convinced it's superior, ie, New York. Of course, we're the biggest book-buying market in the country, and the biggest subscriber audience to The New Yorker.

Panel number two is Matt Welch, Charles Johnson, Kevin Drum, Roger L. Simon, Moxie, and Mickey Kaus, who looks quite sexy in a sweatshirt and baseball hat with a day's growth (saw him in our local coffee shop the other day, dressed accordingly). Yeah, yeah...you've read his stuff, but now you know the untold story.

"Moxie is here to represent the 20% of women bloggers," says Cathy, noting that Moxie is "by far, the most right-wing person on this panel." There was something about running around in a bikini for John Ashcroft, but I missed the beginning part of it.

Mickey, like me, is a Kerry-loathing Kerry voter. Mickey used to be at Newsweek. "There's a reason every Newsweek writer is an ex-Newsweek writer." Small news-hole, apparently, is the reason. Why did Mickey blog: "If worse came to worse, I could start posting my stuff up on the Web." Now he has "a little bit of money and a few readers" -- his worst fears being none of either after starting a blog. He's Kausfiles.com (which gets you to his blog on Slate but don't ask me to link it, because I'm typing 900 miles per hour, and I'm still behind). Mickey attributes the demise of Howell Raines to bloggers -- rightly, I think.

Moxie started blogging in October of 2000 "as a means to write every day." Initially, she did not start her blog with the intention of writing about politics, but over the course of time, she became outraged by what she saw in the media -- ie, there are no right-wing women here (I think she means Los Angeles), and made the transition to writing about politics.

Roger L. Simon picked up on something Moxie said about blogs: "I think it's an extraordinary way of...meeting people." Blogging is a giant singles bar with no physical contact? Or something like that. When Roger had a novel coming out, he thought he'd try blogging (as a way to publicity). He finds a strange similarity between the writing required in blogs and the writing required in crime novels. Roger seems to claim to be apolitical, but or "off in all directions," but I think people tend to find him right-wing. He notes that blogs are crummy for selling novels.

Kevin Drum is a former software exec whose company got bought up by a Swiss company, then quit (I think that's what he said), and spent time reading Mickey, and then went to a Mickey link to Glenn Reynolds, then it was blog-crack to him. Two days later, he was blogging, then he started writing for Washington Monthly.

Kevin brought up, roundaboutly, one of the main charms of blogging: lack of editor! Well, I must interject, if you have a good editor, that person makes your work better. If you don't -- kill yourself, FAST!

Charles Johnson started blogging to teach himself the technology, then September 11 crystalized something in him -- which became the blog Little Green Footballs. Go back to his blog around September 11 -- and see the roots of what his blog is now. He's a musician, interested in history (he says), and "it's been a very interesting process - becaues it's lead to a real examination of all these issues with examination with Islamic extremism. He feels the mainstream media "whitewashes" what's going on now. "We're not even told this is a war...yes we're at war, but not really." He wants to bring "enlightenment" and "a more clear vision" of...?where we are and what we're going? I believe that's what he said.

Matt Welch pointed out that Charles goes through the Arab press and pulls stuff so we know what's going on. Matt feels he's "a lot less interesting," and felt then that "blogs were stupid and narcissistic" (and he still does). But, after September 11, he felt compelled to blog -- and Ken Layne set up his blog. Matt's also an associate editor at Reason Magazine. "Ultimately, I don't really care about politics too much," but he doesnt' belong to a political party, and finds people like Mickey, who are politics obsessed...sort of crazy...and I missed the other word, but it was quite funny.

Cathy noted that Matt has had "a few drs, inks." Yes, haven't we all!

Cathy pointed out that blogging makes the world smaller -- and noted that she met (via blogging) Sergeant Striker -- an Air Force mechanic and blogger. She thinks she meets people she would never meet otherwise.

Matt says "it's a fantastic way to meet people who just aren't in your social strata"...like a Republican cop from Pomona (one of his first readers). He thinks it breaks the red-blue divide: "Bro, we're on the same team here." He's a bit disappointed it's receded so much (I think he means since September 11). Matt uses his Web log, he says, to garner different points of view. Matt, here's mine: will you cut the baseball stuff already!

Charles gets tons of comments. And days of 100,000 unique visitors, he says. He's knocked with some regularity for not erasing comments of racists of one stripe or another. "Overly vehement" in their expression is his euphemism for it. "You really -- if you pick out the people who really have something to say and skip over" those "who don't"...he says you can "learn a lot." "The exchange of ideas" is "one of the main benefits" of blogging, he thinks.

Kevin Drum talks about proof of the reach of blogging being his being here -- meaning his Washington Monthly blog -- but actually, it was a blog-fight on LAObserved.com that got him here. People attacked Cathy for not including a more representative (ie, where are them Democrats!?) slice of blog-dom...and she responded by inviting Kevin.

Moxie says blogging has expanded her professional writing -- and her freelance photography jobs. Moxie, "bizarrely," Cathy notes, wrote a singles column for The Jewish Journal, even though she's "not Jewish, and a Republican."

Mickey doesn't think the Web breaks down class barriers: "I, too, have people from all over..." who send him tips and arguments. He hasn't found himself "talking to cops in Pomona." Apparently, they're all bored lawyers or women who "don't have careers but are at home..." Cathy tried to elicit the porn angle. No luck.

Matt pointed out that his site has comments; Mickey's doesn't.

Mickey feels blogging is a real meritocracy. Mickey does a commercial for Ken Layne. Buy the Corvids CD. Blog-mercial. "If you are a good blogger, you will be read." Mickey noted that your hits go down right away if you suck. I'll drink to that. Or sober to that, rather.

Cathy got her most hits when she said Playboy "was okay" on National Review. Hello, this is a surprise? She calls blogging "the ultimate free-market" something I forget by the time I was about to type it. Now she's opening to questions, and I think I need to get a wrist massage.

Matt says he's "too small to attract trolls." Actually, he's too balanced. Also, he says he argues with assholes "until they leave."

Cathy notes a sort of self-censoring by comments posters on people's personal sites. Roger says he's "had a few." Charles -- well, personal attacks are his blog business. He is "called an odious Neanderthal," notes Cathy. "There seems to be a general code of honor, more often than not," says Cathy.

Virginia Postrel notes that "the commenters create a sense of who the audience for the blog is." She finds it non-representative...and "not very intelligent" (and I think she's speaking of Reason's blog on that).

Matt's feelings about various people's commenters:
Roger Simon's: "scare me"
Charles Johnson's: "scare the hell out of me"
Kevin Drum's: "scare me"

Roger notes that there's some woman author who sometimes post 5,000 words a day on his site, and I think he said she is smarter than he is. "I think one of the reasons blogs are what they are" is that they're a way to have a dialogue outside the mainstream media. Roger doesn't get freaked by the wild comments: "they're out there and I want to see it." "I'm a writer and I want to know." "In order to do art, you need the food that comes from this kind of thing."

The origin of the name (of Charles Johnson's blog) "Little Green Footballs": "it's intended to be somewhat enigmatic." He had a music publishing company under that name. It had to do with "a hang-gliding incident in Tokyo."

Uh-oh...I'm running way low on laptop power, and on wrist-power, too. I think I have to check out now. Thanks to Apple, for creating the iBook, and for my ancestors, for these wrists, which continue to type, despite the massive abuse I put them through. I hope this wasn't terribly incoherent; then again, I've been drinking, so please take that as my excuse.

Posted by aalkon at 07:22 PM | Comments (10)

Booze Bounty

The Booze Bounty
Pizza delivery people are being bribed to turn in minors with visible six packs, and no, not the abdominal kind. Compare our Puritanical approach to that of countries like France, where drinking isn't prohibited for kids -- hence, they aren't all apeshit over alcohol like kids are here. Essentially, in my experience, it's considered piggy to get sloppy drunk there, where alcohol is considered something to be enjoyed in moderation, before, after, or with meals. Moreover, because alcohol isn't demonized and prohibited, there isn't the impulse to go sneak out and drink. And, it's so nice, in France, to go to an ordinary caf�, not a bar, and be able to order a glass of wine and a snack at 4pm and watch the world go by. Maybe what's wrong in our neck of the bois isn't a national problem with alcohol but with the Puritanical prohibitions against it. And the same goes for drugs, if you take that logic a step further. How many "criminals" are we paying to keep in jail, who would otherwise be productive members of society who like a nightly toke? (Thanks to A.Ho for the link tip.)

Posted by aalkon at 11:22 AM | Comments (2)

May 28, 2004

NPR Bias

Right, Right, And Center
A survey by the left-leaning media watchdog, FAIR, says NPR mostly uses sources who are Republicans:

"Republicans not only had a substantial partisan edge," according to a report accompanying the survey, "individual Republicans were NPR's most popular sources overall, taking the top seven spots in frequency of appearance." In addition, representatives of right-of-center think tanks outnumbered their leftist counterparts by more than four to one, FAIR reported.

Yes, even the liberal-est of the liberal media leans conservative!

(via Romenesko)

Posted by aalkon at 07:26 AM | Comments (8)

May 26, 2004

Excuse me...Libya?

Discover Khaddafi Country!
Intrepid LA Times travel reporter Susan Spano wrote a huge two-pager, "The curtains part, revealing wonders," on the joys of vacationing in Libya. She did add a caveat:

There's nothing easy about visiting Libya, especially for Americans. A U.S. State Department warning, citing the country's sponsorship of terrorism, remains in effect, and tourist services are unsophisticated. Except for the new Corinthia Bab Africa Hotel in Tripoli, accommodations are rudimentary. At tourist sites, printed information is scant, and guides speak halting English. Changing dollars for Libyan dinars is an ordeal; credit cards are rarely accepted; alcohol is banned, in adherence to Muslim law. And just try to get a visa.

She was kind enough to add a helpful link to the State Department warning against traveling to the Middle East at the end of her piece:

This Public Announcement is being updated to remind U.S. citizens of the continuing threat of anti-American violence and terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens and interests, specifically in the Middle East, including the Red Sea, Persian Gulf, the Arabian Peninsula and North Africa.

...On occasion, the travel of official personnel at embassies and consulates around the world is restricted because of security concerns, and these posts may recommend that private U.S. citizens avoid the same areas if at all possible.

She did not include the one specifically on Libya. Probably because of stuff in it like this:

While Libya has taken steps to cooperate in the global war on terrorism, the Libyan Government remains on the U.S. Government's State Sponsors of Terrorism List. Although Libya appears to have curtailed its support for international terrorism, it may maintain residual contacts with some of its former terrorist clients.

Recent worldwide terrorist alerts have stated that extremist groups continue to plan terrorist attacks against U.S. interests in the region. Therefore, any American citizen that decides to travel to Libya (Amy says: is a moron!) should maintain a strong security posture by being aware of surroundings, avoiding crowds and demonstrations, keeping a low profile, and varying times and routes for all required travel. In light of these security concerns, U.S. citizens are urged to maintain a high level of vigilance and to take appropriate steps to increase their security awareness.

Oh yeah, and then there's this bit in there from the U.S. Treasury Department, on the U.S. sanctions against Libya:

...On February 26, 2004, OFAC issued a general license for transactions related to travel to, from, and within Libya and residence in Libya. The general license � authorizes the purchase of airline tickets, hotel room, etc. However, certain restrictions on payments will continue to apply to these transactions, for example: while there are no restrictions on how payment may be made to travel service providers in the U.S. for any travel-related expenses, the use in Libya of credit cards and checks drawn on U.S. banks remains prohibited. Travelers should be prepared to engage in cash-only transactions while in Libya. (Amy says: especially when negotiating ransom demands with kidnappers.)

What a charming place to travel! What's next from our friends at the LA Times? "Get Beheaded In Baghdad?" Or maybe "Osama Country: Your .04-Star Terrorist-Packed Cave Awaits!"

UPDATE: You might want to check out this article, "Attackers Hunted Westerners," from May 31/CNN.com, before you start packing your bags.

Posted by aalkon at 06:37 PM | Comments (5)

Virginia Is For Lovers. (Some Restrictions Apply)

"Virginia Is For Lovers. Some Restrictions Apply."
That's the revise on the state of Virginia motto that gay activists are toying with, thanks to a new law prohibiting civil unions:

The new law is an amendment to the state's 1997 Affirmation of Marriage Act, which prohibits gay marriages. The amendment extends that ban to civil unions, partnership contracts and other "arrangements between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage."

Some legal experts say the law is so vague it could interfere with powers of attorney, wills, medical directives, child custody, property arrangements and joint bank accounts.

Will the last lesbian out of Virginia, please turn out the lights? And any person who isn't gay, but who is for fairness and equal rights for all people, should treat the entire state like country club that doesn't admit Jews or blacks. The same goes for any state or place with bigoted, rights-denying policies based on religious nonsense. (Uh-oh...let's just hope our fundamentalist-in-chief doesn't get his way with that constitutional amendment!)

(via Reason's blog)

Posted by aalkon at 08:36 AM | Comments (3)

May 25, 2004

Dickolodeon

Dickelodeon
Defamer's name for the new gay cable network being launched by MTV. Sadly, they're calling it "LOGO." LOGO? Defamer gets my vote.

Posted by aalkon at 04:35 PM | Comments (7)

Michael And Me

Michael And Me
Andrew Anthony has a few "awkward questions" for Michael Moore:

Is he the radical who has claimed to give a third of his income to worthy causes or a ruthless self-aggrandising hypocrite, or both?

Posted by aalkon at 05:14 AM | Comments (3)

May 24, 2004

Democracy Later

Democracy Later
College students are being denied the vote, writes Megan Tandy:

(One) argument used to justify banning students from voting in college towns is their transient lifestyle � that they'll simply move away in four years, leaving behind the polices they help put in place. But, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 46% of Americans moved between 1995 and 2000; in other words, nearly half of the American public are as transient as college students. What's more, many states allow homeless people to vote and Virginia allows the homeless to vote "wherever they lay their head at night."

Posted by aalkon at 03:47 PM | Comments (0)

Shorn Again

Shorn Again
My friend Hillary Johnson collects fab heads of hair -- her own:

A couple of years ago, I became a serious collector of haircuts. While I can't afford to buy my clothes at Gucci or Chanel, or hang works by Ed Ruscha or Richard Diebenkorn on my dining room wall, a haute couture haircut is relatively affordable. Why bother living in Los Angeles if you're not going to participate in at least some aspect of the city's vanity fair? I'm a big believer in strategic luxury. A $200 haircut, for instance, can go a long way toward compensating for a $14,000 economy car. Think about it: If you had to choose between a Ford Escort and regular haircuts by Laurent D at Priv�, or driving a Volkswagen Passat to Supercuts, which package would you select?

I'll take the dramatic clash of the cheap and fabulous over a steady diet of mediocrity any day. So after several years of wearing my hair long, I showed up on Laurent's doorstep. Laurent doesn't cut your hair at a haircutting station but in front of a full-length mirror set up like a stage. This is because the haircut is more like a performance or magic show, complete with two assistants who hand Laurent the various instruments he requires, including a razor, thinning shears and scissors. His process is improvisational. After cutting off the long stuff, he set about changing the texture of my hair, thinning it at the top, then razoring in layers and sculpting them into short, foamy waves.

The end product was a head of short hair that somehow looked like a splendid up-do�it curled charmingly around my ears and pooled at the base of my neck in soft whorls. It was an impressionistic masterpiece�and technically brilliant, for when I washed it the next day, it looked just the same. And the next week. For the next three months it grew out charmingly, and for three months after that it gracefully accepted my whittling here and there with school scissors.

School scissors -- surely, the next trend after garden shears for Hollywood hair. You heard it here.

Posted by aalkon at 08:22 AM | Comments (2)

May 23, 2004

E&P Editor Distorted

Rush To Misjudgment
Editor & Publisher editor Gregg Mitchell (a stand-up guy, if the fact that he once personally mailed me an E&P issue I never received is any indication) found himself rather creatively quoted this week. Former New York Times publisher Abe Rosenthal wrote in The New York Sun, "The other day, an editor of Editor & Publisher, a trade paper, said all American journalists should come out in unity and demand the American withdrawal from Iraq."

Noted New York Times detractor Rush Limbaugh then parroted the Rosenthal party line. I guess Rush is quite happy to be convinced something's true as long as he agrees with it. Unfortunately, Rosenthal got the "a," "an," and "the" parts of what he wrote right, but not much more. Mitchell was quick to bitchslap Rosenthal in print:

This did not speak well for a man who once headed The New York Times. E&P is a magazine, not a "paper," although that has only been true for, oh, a century or so. I am the editor, not an editor, as plainly pegged on the column. More importantly, I did not say anything close to what he had me saying. Other than that: good job.

Rosenthal went on: "The planned unity of newspapers, television, and magazines is not my idea of good journalism -- or journalism at all."

Now, on this point, one can only agree. The problem is, I never called for any such thing.

My May 7 column was not addressed to "all American journalists" (print, TV, radio, Internet), and not even all newspaper journalists. It was aimed only at those who decide on editorials for the nation's largest newspapers -- and it did not, in any case, advocate that they "all" do anything. I merely suggested that at least ONE major paper come out for a phased U.S. pullout from Iraq -- as opposed to, say, sending more troops, which has been the favored position.

It seemed like a modest request, since the most recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll shows that 47% of the public now want us to bring home some or all of our troops. I imagine it's over 50% by now, the way things are going.

Subsequently, on CNN, I put that request in even more humble terms: I asked major newspapers to "consider advocating" a phased U.S. pullout from Iraq, or at the minimum begin a "healthy debate" on this subject.

Why did Rosenthal grossly mischaracterize what I am seeking? Perhaps he is afraid of that "healthy debate" on Iraq.

And, of course, it is Rosenthal himself who ends up calling for "planned unity" by urging all editors "to present background stories about the millions killed by Saddam" -- or else be branded "truly embarrassing."

What's "truly embarrassing" is the complete lack of embarrassment Rosenthal, Rush, and various self-promoters in the guise of public interest (Coulter, Hannity, and Michael Moore, just for starters) have about passing off lies and distortions as truths -- as long as it serves their particular partisan position. Come on, can't any of you viles even work up a tiny tinge of pink in the face about that?

(via Kevin Roderick's LAObserved)

Posted by aalkon at 08:52 AM | Comments (0)

May 22, 2004

Hastert Talks Tough To McCain

Hastert Talks Tough To McCain
This is rich. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, a former wrestling coach whose achy shoulder got him out of the war, lectures five-year Hanoi Hilton resident John McCain on military sacrifice. (Thanks, Eric, for the tip.)

Posted by aalkon at 12:53 PM | Comments (0)

Here, Chick, Chick, Chick...

Stanley Kurtz Casts Himself As Chicken Little
Conservative columnist Stanley Kurtz holds up Sweden in one more attempt to deny gays equal rights, erroneously claiming that gay marriage helped wipe out heterosexual marriage in Scandinavia. Statistics say he's wrong, points out Slate's M.V. Lee Badgett:

In fact, the numbers show that heterosexual marriage looks pretty healthy in Scandinavia, where same-sex couples have had rights the longest. In Denmark, for example, the marriage rate had been declining for a half-century but turned around in the early 1980s. After the 1989 passage of the registered-partner law, the marriage rate continued to climb; Danish heterosexual marriage rates are now the highest they've been since the early 1970's. And the most recent marriage rates in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland are all higher than the rates for the years before the partner laws were passed. Furthermore, in the 1990s, divorce rates in Scandinavia remained basically unchanged.

Of course, the good news about marriage rates is bad news for Kurtz's sky-is-falling argument. So, Kurtz instead focuses on the increasing tendency in Europe for couples to have children out of wedlock. Gay marriage, he argues, is a wedge that is prying marriage and parenthood apart.

The main evidence Kurtz points to is the increase in cohabitation rates among unmarried heterosexual couples and the increase in births to unmarried mothers. Roughly half of all children in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark are now born to unmarried parents. In Denmark, the number of cohabiting couples with children rose by 25 percent in the 1990s. From these statistics Kurtz concludes that " � married parenthood has become a minority phenomenon," and�surprise�he blames gay marriage.

But Kurtz's interpretation of the statistics is incorrect. Parenthood within marriage is still the norm�most cohabitating couples marry after they start having children. In Sweden, for instance, 70 percent of cohabiters wed after their first child is born. Indeed, in Scandinavia the majority of families with children are headed by married parents. In Denmark and Norway, roughly four out of five couples with children were married in 2003. In the Netherlands, a bit south of Scandinavia, 90 percent of heterosexual couples with kids are married.

These statistics aside, even if gay marriage caused every married heterosexual to run immediately to divorce court, that's still not a basis for denying homo taxpayers the same rights as the hetero ones.

Posted by aalkon at 08:18 AM | Comments (4)

May 21, 2004

Countdown To Jail

Countdown 'Til I'm In Jail
Or at least in the poorhouse. One of our elected idiots, California Congressman Duncan Hunter, has introduced legislation that could, in his words, �turn parents into prosecuting attorneys fighting a wave of obscenity":

H.B. 4239, also called the �Parents� Empowerment Act,� would allow the parent or guardian of a minor to sue in federal court anyone who knowingly disseminates any media containing �material that is harmful to minors� if the material is distributed in a way that �a reasonable person can expect a substantial number of minors to be exposed to the material and the minor, as a result to exposure to the material, is likely to suffer personal or emotional injury or injury to mental or moral welfare.� The bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

The bill allows compensatory damages starting at no less than $10,000 for any instance in which a minor is exposed to �harmful to minors� entertainment products. The bill also allows that punitive damages and reasonable fees may be awarded to the prevailing party at the discretion of the court. The bill also seeks to strengthen the current test courts utilize in determining what is obscene material by providing a separate definition of obscenity specifically for children. It is an affirmative defense to action under this bill if a parent or guardian of the minor owned the material.

The bill is in its earliest stage, but if it passes, it will seriously threaten retailers, distributors, and publishers. Family.org talked to Hunter who said, �If the people who published (the material), published it in such a way that they could reasonably have expected children to access it, then the parents can receive an award of $10,000.�

One more reason to dethrone the Puritan-In-Chief and many of the numbskull Republicans. At least the numbskull Democrats aren't so threatening to our freedoms. Too many Republicans treat The Constitution like a piece of old paper toweling. If your kid can't handle a dirty word or prurient comic, keep him locked in a closet and blindfolded. Don't try to curtail creators from writing and speaking freely.

(via Reason's blog)

Posted by aalkon at 11:59 AM | Comments (5)

Fat

Fat People Are Eating Your Wallet
A study by Roland Sturm and Darius Lakdawalla, two economists at RAND, says we're all paying bigtime for all the obese people in big fat health-care costs:

Obesity is linked to very high rates of chronic illnesses� higher than living in poverty and much higher than smoking or drinking.

...When compared with 100 normal-weight individuals of the same age and sex having similar backgrounds, 100 obese people would be expected to suffer 67 additional chronic conditions among them. In comparison, the increase associated with smoking is only about 25 additional conditions per 100 smokers (compared with 100 similar nonsmokers) and 12 additional conditions for problem drinkers.

Aging 20 years, from 30 to 50, is the only health risk comparable to obesity. Severely obese individuals, at least those who are aged 50�69, are more than twice as likely as are their normal-weight peers to be in only "fair" or "poor" health and suffer about twice as many chronic medical conditions.

Consequently, obese individuals incur higher health care costs than current smokers or problem drinkers. The obese spend 36 percent more on health care services and 77 percent more on medications than do their normal-weight counterparts. Current smokers spend only 21 percent and 28 percent more, respectively, than do nonsmokers; and problem drinkers spend yet smaller additional amounts on health care.

No, I'm not for a "Twinkie Tax." But, I do think fat people should pay extra for their health care -- perhaps by the pound! Helmet-less motorcyclers, "problem-drinkers," and smokers, too.

Posted by aalkon at 08:23 AM | Comments (5)

May 20, 2004

Seipp On The LA Times And Jill Stewart

Bias On Spring Street
Cathy Seipp dissects LA Times editor John Carroll's apparent grudge against political columnist Jill Stewart, who criticized his paper's California recall election coverage as biased:

Carroll slams Fox News and (unnamed) websites as "pseudo-journalists" that have "taken on the trappings of journalism" but are really fakers, because they don't seek to "earnestly serve the public." Evidently, Carroll considers opinion journalists who publicly argue their opinions to be, ipso facto, not serving the public. (At least, not earnestly.)

He does grudgingly acknowledge that in this country journalism is open to all: "It is the constitutional right of every citizen, no matter how ignorant or how depraved, to be a journalist." And we're depraved, Carroll apparently thinks, on account of the fact that we're deprived...of the five Pulitzers the Times just won, for one thing, but also of the awareness that the reader (or listener, or viewer) is "a master to be served."

Gee, Officer Krupke, tell us more. Like how, for instance, the Times reader is served by mysterious, information-withholding descriptions such as this: "The worst of the fictions originated with a freelance columnist in Los Angeles who claimed to have the inside story on unethical behavior at the Times." Or this: "Instead of being ignored, the author of the column was booked for repeated appearances on O'Reilly, on MSNBC, and even on the generally trustworthy CNN."

Well, who is she � this damned, infernal freelance columnist who managed to hoodwink even the generally trustworthy CNN? For the record, Jill Stewart is a friend of mine (we pseudo-journalists believe in owning up to biases, even if real ones don't always), and although it's convenient for the Times to dismiss her merely as a freelancer, her weekly column does appear in (real? pseudo?) papers like the San Francisco Chronicle, the Orange County Register, and the L.A. Daily News, among others.

Apparently, Stewart so gets Carroll's goat that he refuses to even mention her by name!

Posted by aalkon at 10:41 AM | Comments (7)

May 19, 2004

The Politics Of Personal Destruction

The Politics Of Personal Destruction
Research-fueled candidate-sliming in The Atlantic.

Posted by aalkon at 08:11 AM | Comments (0)

May 18, 2004

The Car Of The Future

The Car Of The Future
...Smells like french fries. Jim Washburn writes in the OC Weekly about the latest innovations in biodiesel. Converting your car, Washburn notes, "may be a minor inconvenience today, but it means never having to stand at the corner of Bristol and Anton with signs reading, 'No Blood for Wesson Oil.'"

Posted by aalkon at 02:51 PM | Comments (1)

May 17, 2004

Where There's A Mill, There's A Way

Where There's A Mill, There's A Way
Considering plastic surgery? Who better to counsel you on the ramifications of getting a fake face than a fake doctor of psychology? It turns out that Lynn Ianni, the shrink on the Fox show Extreme Makeover, got her Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology in the mail from a diploma mill called California Coast University. Yes, some Ph.D candidates struggle for years to write their doctoral dissertations; others struggle for seconds to find a stamp to put on the check they're mailing to buy the fancy-looking piece of paper that says they earned their Ph.D. And now, that line you've all been waiting for: No, she's not a doctor -- but she plays one on TV!

Posted by aalkon at 02:47 PM | Comments (4)

May 16, 2004

Complain And Simple

Complain And Simple
While I love letters telling me how I'm the next best thing to Socrates, only much prettier, the letters from people who think I'm shallow, mean-spirited, and stupid are always the most entertaining. Here's one from this week's mailbag:

Dear Ms. Alkon,
In today�s St. Paul Pioneer Press, I read your �Advice Goddess� column. Please note the section below, part of your response to a woman asking for advice about meeting men.

The choice is yours: Find some courage or buy 26 cats and plan to die alone in a smelly apartment with one light bulb swinging over your head.

I am appalled at this stinging insult to single women. How dare you imply that every single woman has 26 cats and lives in abject squalor? What century are you living in? Or was this only a feeble attempt at humor?

With disgust! N.C.

Of course, the "feeble attempt at humor" above was a joke I've retreaded for years about my own prospects. America, formerly "the land of the free and the home of the brave," is now also "the land of the insulted." Everybody takes everything soooo seriously. I mean, come on...like I would ever own 26 cats? Sure, I could see having one or two -- preferably dead and recycled into toilet seat covers.

Posted by aalkon at 10:26 AM | Comments (14)

May 15, 2004

Global Warming For Dummies

Global Warming For Dummies
George Monbiot has a few essential questions for "The Fossil Fools" -- the "scientists" who dismiss global warming as a danger to us all:

1. Does the atmosphere contain carbon dioxide? 2. Does atmospheric carbon dioxide influence global temperatures? 3. Will that influence be enhanced by the addition of more carbon dioxide? 4. Have human activities led to a net emission of carbon dioxide? It would be interesting to discover at which point they answer no - at which point, in other words, they choose to part company with basic physics.

Just because global warming is also attributed to "natural" causes, driving a Hummer isn't exactly helping matters. Nor, for that matter, is owning a house that isn't powered by solar or wind power -- if that's something you can afford. The big joke, for me, actually, is the Hollywood crowd arriving at Premieres in their modest little Priuses -- then zipping home to their 7,000 sq. foot, heavily air-conditioned mansions. Don't even talk to me about the people with recycling bins on their private jets.

Posted by aalkon at 08:15 AM | Comments (13)

May 14, 2004

Unwanted Control Of Pregnancy

Unwanted Control Of Pregnancy
Isn't that what the FDA decision is all about? Kari Lyderson writes about the bogus notion by an FDA official that "Plan B," as the pill is called, was likely to be misused by teen girls who couldn't figure out the directions. Please. Two pills -- a high dose of regular birth control pills -- taken 12 hours apart, within 72 hours of unprotected sex. How hard is that to figure out?

Right-wing pundits have also said that making the pill available over the counter would mean men (or other women) could purchase the pill and slip it to women or girls secretly to prevent them from conceiving a wanted child. Though there might be a small number of situations where something like this would happen, again it is an argument that twists reality on its head � it�s safe to say that in the majority of cases where a male partner is trying to manipulate a woman�s reproduction, it is by trying to prevent her access to contraception or otherwise limit her control over her own body. In other words, a husband or boyfriend is far more likely to pressure a woman not to take the pill or to be dismissive of the risk of pregnancy than he is to slip the pill into her drink.

Insinuations that the pill isn�t healthy for women are also inaccurate � the pill is essentially a strong dose of the same hormones and chemicals in birth control pills, and has virtually no side effects or long-term effects. An abortion is far more disruptive and stressful for a woman�s health than using the morning after pill.

Every year thousands women of all ages, and young women and girls in particular, see their lives changed forever because of unwanted pregnancies. Many unwanted pregnancies are avoided with the availability of the pill by prescription as it is now, but many more could be avoided if the pill were affordably and easily available over the counter. The idea that a woman should have to undergo an abortion or bear a child she isn�t ready for just because of a lapse of judgment or a broken condom, when this situation is fully avoidable with the pill, is a sad statement about the priorities of the Food & Drug Administration.

The priority is clearly going against separations of church and state under the guise of good medicine. Out, out, damn Bush!

Posted by aalkon at 08:17 AM | Comments (9)

May 13, 2004

The Administration Has A Rummy-Ache

The Administration Has A Rummy-Ache
Arianna weighs in on the Abu Ghraib spin:

To hear Don Rumsfeld tell it, even though the Bush administration had been told back in January about the abuse and torture going on at Abu Ghraib � and that there were photos documenting it � the idea that this might be a very bad thing didn�t really hit home until recently because no one in the White House had actually laid eyes on the photos.

�It is the photographs that give one the vivid realization of what actually took place,� Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week. �Words don�t do it.�

Really?

So being notified by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that U.S. soldiers were torturing and humiliating naked Iraqi prisoners in the very place that had once been Saddam Hussein�s favorite Little Shop of Horrors wasn�t vivid enough to get the alarm bells ringing on Pennsylvania Avenue?

Neither apparently were the non-visual warnings about the mistreatment of prisoners delivered by the Red Cross, Colin Powell and Paul Bremer.

Why not? Is the country being run by a bunch of preschoolers who can�t process all those big words and will only sit still for a colorful picture book?

See Rummy spin. Spin, Rummy, spin.

Now, there's something those Bushies are very good at!

Posted by aalkon at 08:55 AM | Comments (2)

Book-A-Lena

Book-A-Lena
An interesting book, recommended by Lena -- Martha Nussbaum's Hiding from Humanity: Disgust, Shame, and the Law. Here's the Publisher's Weekly Review:

Often, contentious social issues like gay marriage, pornography and stem cell research are framed in terms of religion, morality and the public good. This erudite and engaging treatise contends that these debates are frequently really about the primal emotions of disgust and shame. Philosophy professor Nussbaum, author of Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions, challenges a number of fashionable intellectual currents, including Leon Kass�s notion of a bioethics based on "the wisdom of repugnance" and communitarian Amitai Etzioni�s championing of public humiliation of drunk drivers and other criminals. In response to advocates of populist reflexes of disgust and shame as a cure for social degeneracy, she mounts a critical defense of the classical liberal philosophy of John Stuart Mill, one refounded on a psychoanalytic theory of the emotions. She argues that while disgust and shame are inescapable psychological reactions against human animality, weakness and decay, injecting them into law and politics ends up projecting these troubling aspects of ourselves onto stigmatized groups like homosexuals, women, Jews and the disabled, and is therefore incompatible with a liberal and humane society. Writing in an academically sophisticated but accessible style, Nussbaum is equally at home discussing Aristotle and Freud, Whitman�s poetry and Supreme Court case law. The result is an exceptionally smart, stimulating and intellectually rigorous analysis that adds an illuminating psychological dimension to our understanding of law and public policy. Copyright � Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Posted by aalkon at 08:48 AM | Comments (11)

May 12, 2004

Err Travel

Err Travel
Brilliant stroke by the airlines, this new rule that passengers are entitled to bring 100 pounds of their crap, but can only pack 50 lbs. per piece of luggage. I normally travel with one rolling expandable suitcase, but I now know to bring an extra nylon duffel inside it in case I go over the weight limit. Today, my luggage was over by 11 pounds. I had a choice: pay a $25 overweight charge, or give everybody a good look at my thongs as I repacked a bunch of my stuff into my duffel. Luckily, I've never been modest.

Apparently, the airlines think their business would be helped by giving their customers one more reason to be pissed off about flying. This policy is especially brilliant considering that it gives the already blindingly speedy and efficient TSA double the bags to check. The first airline to nix this rule gets my business by default. The rest of them -- well, they can eat my now much-seen thongs.

Posted by aalkon at 03:43 PM | Comments (3)

May 11, 2004

The Queen Of Team

The Queen Of Team
If there is one, trust me, it is not Cathy Seipp. Cathy weighs in on a recent adventure in editorial repurposing:

I'm developing the Pollyanna-ish theory that whenever a freelance writer declines insulting treatment by an editor, said writer will be offered three times more money for the same article within three days.

Sometimes I sell reprint rights to my pieces, as observant readers may know. It's never for much money; but it's also not much work to copy, paste, point, click and maybe do a few minutes of respinning, so I figure it's worth it. Recently, though, an editor asked me to write a new ending for one of these things. I said sorry, I can't get into rewriting for $125, but if he can't use it as is that's OK, I'll send it elsewhere.

This brought on a miffed email scolding me for not being a "team player," expressing shock that I wasn't open to editorial "input," and complaining about some colloquial words I'd used in the piece, because they weren't "proper English" and not up to high "editorial standards." I believe these sentiments were softened by the use of smiley face emoticons, but the sight of these abominations fills me with such nausea that I will let memory draw its gentle curtain on that part.

I have to wonder what kind of slanderous person would give anyone the notion that I'm a team player? Is any writer a team player? (Sure, J.R., looking forward to brainstorming widget ideas with you at the next meeting! Yeah, that'll be the day.) Anyway, I did indeed sell the piece elsewhere, for three times the money, which is the moral to that story.

Is any writer "a team player"? Probably not any writer you'd want to read!

Posted by aalkon at 08:14 AM | Comments (5)

Snakes In The Bush

Snakes In The Bush
Keith Olbermann is not to be swayed by attempts by the Bush administration to tar former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

(via Romenesko)

Posted by aalkon at 07:25 AM | Comments (0)

May 10, 2004

Go To The Head Of The Class

Go To The Head Of The Class
Wanna cut teen pregancy rates? Mark Townsend reports in the UK Observer that encouraging teens to "experiment" with oral sex (quotes, mine - what, experiment until they get it right?) "could prove the most effective way of curbing teenage pregnancy rates," according to a government study. Hilarious, but peer reviewed, and perhaps even statistically sound!

Posted by aalkon at 08:30 AM | Comments (4)

May 09, 2004

A Vast, Left-Wing Conspiracy

A Vast, Left-Wing Conspiracy
Luke Y. Thompson points out how wrong people are to claim that Kerry is as far to the left as George Bush is to the right. If he actually were, notes Luke, he would have done the following things (below are a few of my favorites):

-Given federal funding to the Nation of Islam, Church of Scientology, PETA, and the Madalyn Murray O'Hair foundation. Denied it to any organization that allowed open expression of Christianity. As a consolation prize, made a public speech declaring that Christianity is a religion of peace.

-Introduced the following acts: The "Meat is Tasty" act, to promote a vegan lifestyle; The "More Profits for Businessmen" act that would in fact cut CEO salaries in half; The "I Love Jesus" act, making it legal to bulldoze churches; and the "No Gun Left Behind" act, which would confiscate the guns from all Americans except Arabs who could show that they need guns because of their religion.

-Made Jerry Springer the Attorney General, because he knows how to break up fights.

-Given one press conference a year, and insisted in talking in Ebonics at each.

More here!

Posted by aalkon at 08:57 AM | Comments (1)

May 08, 2004

More On Abu Ghraib

More On Abu Ghraib
Matt Welch points the way to this piece on NormBlog, a supporter of the war in Iraq:

Amidst the general feelings of abhorrence brought forth by the revelations about the torture and humiliation of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, those of us who supported the war in Iraq as a liberation of the Iraqi people from Baathist dictatorship have had a more particular reason to feel appalled. For it was precisely because that regime was one which permitted and practised torture and other unforgiveable crimes on the scale it did that it was an appropriate object, for us, of external intervention and removal. The project to remove it which it was right to support, and whose completion through the achievement of a sovereign, democratic Iraq it remains right, even now, to see through, has been shamefully and irreversibly tainted by what was done by American soldiers in that notorious prison. It is not to the point to say that the abuses were not, either in nature or scale, comparable to the crimes of the Saddam Hussein regime. The practice of torture, just as such, is an unmixed and inexcusable evil; it is an abomination.

A Fly On The Wall quotes his grandfather, one of the liberators of the concentration camp Mauthausen, weighing in on Abu Ghraib:

I hear soldiers saying this happened because they weren't trained properly. What kind of idiot has to be trained not to abuse another human being?

Posted by aalkon at 09:12 AM | Comments (21)

George Bush, Preacher-In-Chief

George Bush, Preacher-In-Chief
Clearly, the separation of church and state idea isn't working.

Posted by aalkon at 08:12 AM | Comments (6)

Stunt For Red October

Stunt For Red October
Andrew Gumbel reports that, surprise, surprise, Michael Moore's cries of censorship were just a stunt:

In an indignant letter to his supporters, Moore said he had learnt only on Monday that Disney had put the kibosh on distributing the film, which has been financed by the semi-independent Disney subsidiary Miramax.

But in the CNN interview he said: "Almost a year ago, after we'd started making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent he was upset Miramax had made the film and he will not distribute it."

Oops!

Oh yeah -- congrats, Andrew, who's a Press Awards finalist for his Elliott Gould piece.

Posted by aalkon at 06:13 AM | Comments (6)

May 07, 2004

Score One (More) For The Fundamentalists

Score One (More) For The Fundamentalists
The FDA rules against permitting over-the-counter sales of the morning-after birth control pill, "citing concern about young teenagers use of the pill," according to an AP report. What a bunch of crap. Do we not allow alcohol to be sold to adults who want to drink it because alcoholics might get their hands on it and get tanked?

Here's my previous blog item on the topic, noting that they're sold in France, and the country doesn't seem to be falling apart because of it. No, the French are pretty smart about sex and relationships. It's the preoccupation with the (clearly) failed commie thing that's making France a mess.

If you're an American woman, and happen to be in Paris, go to a pharmacy there and ask for pilules de lendemain (morning-after pills). Buy a bunch. I think they're about 11 euros. The pharmacist will be concerned that you're using them as frequent birth control instead of as an occasional emergency measure, but just explain: "Ces sont cadeaux, actuellement. J'habite aux �tats Unis, et c'est tr�s Puritanique la, donc je les donnerai � toutes mes amies!" (These are gifts, actually. I live in the United States, which is very Puritanical, so I'm giving these to all my friends!)

MORE: From National Women's Law Center:

As NWLC�s report (in PDF) Slip-Sliding Away: The Erosion of Hard-Won Gains for Women Under the Bush Administration and an Agenda for Looking Forward, explains, under this Administration, the National Cancer Institute has distorted the science on whether abortion can cause breast cancer, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention replaced a comprehensive online fact sheet about condoms with one lacking crucial information on condom use and a diversity of viewpoints has been eliminated on the President�s Council on Bioethics.

A vote for Bush is a vote against science. Just hope you don't come down with a disease that might be alleviated through stem cell research.

Posted by aalkon at 08:23 AM | Comments (4)

Wiping Their Feet On The Constitution And The Bill Of Rights

Wiping Their Feet On The Constitution And The Bill Of Rights
Bush Democracy is a "We Elites Know What's Best For You" America, a "Don't Mind Your Pretty Heads About Anything" America. Arianna writes, in a very illuminating piece:

Welcome to George W. Bush's version of America � Bush Democracy. Apparently, he has his fanatical neo-con programmers working overtime to iron out all those bothersome bugs and kinks that have been holding the United States back for the last 228 years � exasperating glitches like openness, integrity, accountability, responsibility and the value of an informed public.

Be sure to click on all (or at least a lot of) the links in her piece.

Posted by aalkon at 06:47 AM | Comments (3)

May 06, 2004

The Los Angeles (Press Release) Times

The Los Angeles (Press Release) Times
Booth Moore retypes again!

Posted by aalkon at 02:16 PM | Comments (3)

Barbarians Like Us

Barbarians Like Us
We're supposed to be civilizing the Middle East, when a handful of soldiers lower us to the level of the primitives we're battling. Sick, sick stuff. More terrible Abu Ghraib photos here.

(via fellow Journalism Awards finalist Matt Welch)

Posted by aalkon at 11:01 AM | Comments (16)

Your Fundamentalism Or Theirs

Your Fundamentalism Or Theirs?
Daniel Radosh points out that not all fundamentalists are anti-choice. The solution? Separation of church and state anyone? (Oh, that old thing?!)

Posted by aalkon at 09:28 AM | Comments (0)

Fly It, You'll Like It

Fly It, You'll Like It
A very entertaining new blog I just discovered. And he's just discovered the new 2,000 Year Old Man, aka Harrison Ford.

Posted by aalkon at 08:17 AM | Comments (0)

May 05, 2004

LA Press Club Awards

Southern California Journalism Awards Finalists Announced
I happen to be one of them -- in a couple categories (see below). The exceptionally talented auto writer Dan Neil just won a Pulitzer for his column, so I would say he's the favorite in this category...nevertheless...! I'm reminded of how nice it is to be named Alkon, so alphabetical order has you listed above the guy who scored "The Big P."

B6. COLUMNIST -- daily/weekly newspapers over 100,000 circ
Amy Alkon, The Advice Goddess (syndicated)
Mariel Garza, Daily News of Los Angeles
Erin Aubry Kaplan, LA Weekly
Steve Lopez, Los Angeles Times
Dan Neil, Los Angeles Times

C5. SIGNED COMMENTARY -- daily/weekly newspapers under 100,000 circ
Amy Alkon, Creators Syndicate
Kevin Chavez, San Gabriel Valley Tribune
Thomas Elias, Southern California Focus
Joel Kotkin, The Jewish Journal
Mark Lacter, Los Angeles Business Journal

Posted by aalkon at 04:00 PM | Comments (7)

Therapy's Lenny Bruce

Therapy's Lenny Bruce
There's an article in yesterday's New York Times about Albert Ellis, the wise and hilarious 90-year-old psychologist and author of 55 books, whose thinking on solving psychological problems is part of the foundation of mine. Dan Hurley writes:

On a recent Friday evening, nearly 200 people came to the Albert Ellis Institute in Manhattan to watch a master performance � call it stand-up psychotherapy � by a legend.

As he has on nearly every Friday night for more than 30 years, Dr. Albert Ellis, the 90-year-old psychologist who invented rational emotive behavioral therapy and wrenched psychotherapy out of the age of Freud and into the age of Dr. Phil, was demonstrating his no-nonsense, confrontational, obscenity-laden technique before a packed house on East 65th Street.

"Do you know why your family is trying to control you?" he asked a volunteer who joined him at the front of the room. "Because they're out of their minds," he said, adding an unprintable adjective between "their" and "minds."

Another volunteer, Kristin Bell, spoke of her sister who had been killed by a drug dealer eight years before. "Why can't you understand that some people are crazy and violent and do all kinds of terrible things?" Dr. Ellis asked. "Until you accept it, you're going to be angry, angry, angry."

It is Dr. Ellis's conviction that people can always rationally choose to change and that a psychotherapist's job is to nudge them, gently or otherwise, in the right direction. That view has defined his career and has helped usher in an emphasis on quick results over profound insights.

Ellis' thinking is based, in part, on the ideas of the Stoic philosopher Epictetus; that it's not things or events that disturb us but the views we take of them. Identify your irrational thoughts, change the way you think (to be more rational), and you can change the way you feel. I think his therapy is the fastest, most efficient kind out there.

If ever you're in New York, make sure you go to one of Ellis' Friday night therapy sessions before an audience, described in the article. $5 admission, 212-535-0822 is the number of Ellis' non-profit institute on East 65th in Manhattan (between Madison and Park). You can also get a great shot of Ellis from his books. A few I like are: A Guide To Rational Living, How To Stubbornly Refuse To Make Yourself Miserable About Anything, Yes Anything!, How To Control Your Anger Before It Controls You, his most recent book, Ask Albert Ellis, and The Albert Ellis Reader: A Guide to Well-Being Using Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy, which is a compilation of Ellis' articles and talks.

PS The words Hurley "bleeped" for the article, if I know Ellis, are "fuck," "fucking," and "shit." If somebody says "fuck you," Ellis will turn around and say, "No, unfuck you -- fucking's a good thing!" I'm with him there!

Posted by aalkon at 08:53 AM | Comments (6)

Spam Is Canned Meat

Spam Is Canned Meat
Heh heh...no more blog comments spammers now! Gregg (my boyfriend) installed Jay Allen's MT Blacklist. I just went over and donated $25 to Allen. Before we added the blacklist of spammer's URLs to my site files (their actual URLS are banned from being included in comments, and they get a "sorry!" message when they try to post), one last spammer snuck in. One of the most satisfying things I've done recently was typing the spammer's URL into my Blacklist file, and banning them myself. That felt gooood! Now there are over 1000 URLS banned...all "get a bigger mortgage on your Penis in Los Vegas!" Hah! Not anymore!

PS We went with Blacklist instead of Speng's plug-in for a couple of reasons: It puts the burden on the sleazebag vandal spammers (because the regular commenter doesn't have to go to the trouble to type in a security code before posting) and it makes the comments section accessible to everyone. Apparently, blind people can't use the security code version (admittedly, probably not a huge readership of mine, but nevertheless...I think it's nice to see that everybody's included in case they want to be).

PPS The message, if somebody tries to post a spam link, says some polite "comment denied due to questionable content" to the spammers at the moment. I'll be rude-ing that up real soon!

And FYI: Spammers do this to up their link share on Google, so they appear further up the in the search.

Posted by aalkon at 07:37 AM | Comments (5)

May 04, 2004

Comments Are Now Open

Mountains being longer be mountains consumer electronics, far look should news.

Posted by aalkon at 04:32 PM | Comments (4)

Bergdorf Bitch

Bergdorf Bitch
A little something fun to read from the snottygirl book review section until I get my comments up and running again.

Posted by aalkon at 08:53 AM | Comments (2)

May 03, 2004

Blog Comments Temporarily Out Of Service

Blog Comments Temporarily Out Of Service
Thanks to the massive comments spam attack on my blog, I've followed the lead of Kevin Roderick at LAObserved, and turned off my comments until my boyfriend can get James Seng's rather elegant spam-blocker plug-in installed. Please save up your comments and post them in the next day or so when I turn the comments function back on. I'll post a note at the top of my blog to let you know when I'm up and running again. PS If anybody has installed this Seng plug-in and has any advice (especially relating to Mac installation and permissions issues) please e-mail me at adviceamy at aol.com, and I'll be happy to forward them to help others. Many thanks to those who post their opinions here and not links to online casinos and penis pills (which actually do affect size -- they make your wallet much smaller). And now, I have a column to write.

Posted by aalkon at 12:02 PM | Comments (0)

The Comments Spam Attack Continues

The Comments Spam Attack Continues
Posting may be light today, because I'm deleting hundreds of blog comments spam. Being the detective girl that I am, I went to one of the sites, and tracked down a company in Troy, Michigan, which provides the loan aps to various Internet sites. They say they're cutting off the guy (in Guam, quelle suprise!) and giving me his contact information. Heh heh...time to make a few fun phone calls! FYI to others with Movable Type sites, until MT writes a spambot blocker into their software, I've found a solution -- James Seng's plug-in that makes users enter a "security code" (just a string of numbers, different every time) to put up a post -- thus foiling the automated spam-bots.

UPDATE: Here's the scumbag spammer (the text is from the email from the guy from Troy):

Here is the contact info for the company

email: admin@autoloancenter.org
company name: Live Chat, Inc.
Address: 09-01-1288 #1209
City: Guayaquil
Country: Equador
State: GUA

My affiliate manager has already sent Alex a cease order. we do not have a
phone number for him, all correspondence has been via email.

Please let me know if this happens again.

He may just drop our program and sign up with someone else and continue to
spam sites like yours.

Posted by aalkon at 07:56 AM | Comments (0)

ADD Or IDD?

ADD Or IDD?
What was it that I was going to post? Oh yeah, that thing about the study out of Penn that suggests young women might be distracted because they aren't getting enough iron in their diets.

Posted by aalkon at 07:33 AM | Comments (0)

May 02, 2004

Advice Goddess On The Radio Tonight

Radio Advice Goddess
I wrote a blog item about radio host Glenn Sacks' men's movement campaign against mean tee-shirts (unfortunately, the original link in it was wrong -- now corrected). The shirts said, among other things, "Boys are Stupid--Throw Rocks at Them." Here's the corrected link to the piece Sacks wrote on the topic. And here's my blog item on it:

Men Can Be Whiny Crybabies, Too!
Radio host Glenn Sacks proves that the men's movement Cassandras can be just as irritating as the women's movement Cassandras. Do men really need protecting from those meanie women? Are they really a downtrodden class? Or are they just as good as an excuse as any to give a guy a soapbox? And, finally: Can't we all stop whining and get along?

Whiny victim feminists are bad enough. Is equality really having men join them? No, the tee-shirts aren't exactly ideal; neither are tee-shirts that say "Women are only good for sucking the chrome off a trailer hitch." But men water down their case on important issues like fathers' rights by getting all sniffly about stuff like this. And I'll be saying so on the radio tonight, on Glenn Sacks' show: in LA at 9pm PST on KMPC 1540 AM and in Seattle at 11pm PST on KKOL 1300 AM. It can also be heard on the Internet, live, at this address. Call in at 1-800-770-1540.

Posted by aalkon at 07:51 AM | Comments (5)

Want To Advertise On AdviceGoddess.com

Want To Advertise On AdviceGoddess.com?
Officially, there is no advertising on my site. I pay (close to $500 a year, if not more) to maintain my site and my blog so I can put up my thoughts on relationships and socially relevant issues. Period. The contributions I get from Paypal and Amazon and the occasional 5% I get when somebody buys a book through my book links page don't even begin to cover the cost.

Which brings us to the point: I should be preparing for my radio appearance tonight, but I came home to a giant spam attack, and I just deleted about 100 blog comments spam. The spam attack continues as I write this, with me intermittently deleting the vandalism.

If you're a filthy vandal, posting stuff with a commercial link in it on my blog to further your link share on Google, so you can sell more penis pills or separate more fools and their money with your auto loans, just to name a few; please be advised of the cost of doing so: $4,995 per entry, starting immediately, which would be 2:52pm, Sunday, May 2. Oh, and there's nothing that would please me more than to drag your sleazy spamming ass to small claims court and sue you blind for the money. I've got my eye on a company in Michigan; a company whose perps forgot to hide their real corporate identity and contact information well enough on the site I went to from their spam link. Hmmm, visit the folks in Detroit/siphon a downpayment on a Honda Insight out of some sleazebags. Cool!

Posted by aalkon at 05:06 AM | Comments (4)

May 01, 2004

Be Kaus He Likes It

Be Kaus He Likes It
Mickey Kaus recommends Carlos Watson's "bloggish web column", noting that "he almost always has something interesting to say. And he's, you know, diverse! I can't figure out why he isn't on every talk show in the country." Here's what Watson says about "Cheney's Case":

Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules in reviewing Vice President Cheney's secret energy task force, the result may be the re-energized presidential candidacy of Ralph Nader. Win or lose, the secret energy task force is likely to provide a ripe target for Nader to raise one of his most effective issues -- corporate corruption of the political system.

On the one hand, if the court forces Cheney to reveal whom he met with to decide energy policy, Nader may have evidence of a conspiracy so notorious (Enron, Halliburton, etc), that it makes even the most ardent defenders of the Bush administration blush.

If the court does not force Cheney to reveal who was involved and whether their involvement helped drive up gas prices and lead to electricity blackouts, then Nader may sound an even louder drumbeat of coverup.

In either case, Nader's political ads and speeches are likely to find great fodder this spring and the issue may be just what he needs to get more voters to pay him close attention.

Posted by aalkon at 09:48 AM | Comments (0)

Roy Walford's Obit

Roy Walford's Obit
"Eccentric UCLA Scientist Touted Food Restriction," says the headline of Roy's obit in the LA Times. But here's the best part:

Roy L. Walford was born in San Diego in 1924. Exceptionally gifted, he was not only the top student in his high school class, but also a talented gymnast and wrestler and a jitterbug dancer.

He matriculated at Caltech, where he met his lifelong friend Al Hibbs, a NASA space scientist who died last year.

After graduating, they went to the University of Chicago, Hibbs to study math and Walford to work on a medical degree. Walford developed an interest in theater and wrote a farcical adaptation of Christopher Marlowe's "Dr. Faustus." He also supplemented his income by performing a balancing act in which he was held aloft by a weight-lifter.

Upon graduation, what he later described as his periodic craziness took over, and he and Hibbs decided they wanted to sail around the world. Lacking money, a boat or the desire to earn the money working, they decided to try gambling.

Analyzing roulette wheels, they found that each had its own idiosyncrasy, with certain numbers appearing more often than others. Armed with their observations and a borrowed $200, they tackled Las Vegas and Reno.

They came away with $42,000, which allowed them to purchase the yacht of their dreams.

A cover story in Life magazine, as well as articles in Time and The Times, alerted the casinos, which began randomly moving roulette wheels around in the casinos to prevent others from following their example.

Walford and Hibbs sailed the Caribbean for 18 months until their money ran out, at which point they resumed their professional careers.

In addition to being a gifted scientist, Walford was also what one friend called a "cultural provocateur." Although he was on the clinical faculty at UCLA, he traveled with the Living Theater, writing reviews for the now-defunct Los Angeles Free Press. He wrote about the underground drug scene in Amsterdam before it became well known.

His tastes were eclectic. He was close friends with members of the pop group Manhattan Transfer and "was into punk rock before the rest of us knew what it was about," UCLA's Cochran said. His adventures in India, Africa and Biosphere 2 got him elected to the Explorers Club.

He met and married Martha Sylvia Schwalb while he was in Chicago and they had three children, but the couple divorced after 20 years. After that, he gained notoriety for his large number of relationships with women. Friends joked that he wanted to extend his life span only because "there were too many women and too little time."

Posted by aalkon at 08:11 AM | Comments (0)

April 30, 2004

Roy Walford Dies

Roy Walford Dies
Roy was a pretty renowned professor at UCLA, an author, a pioneer in calorie restriction research, ran The Biosphere and lived in there for a couple years, was part of the Tim Leary crowd, and was an old friend of mine. He died on Tuesday, at 80, from complications from ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease). As of yet, no obit in the LA Times (hello?), but here's a link to his site.

Posted by aalkon at 04:02 PM | Comments (1)

Peep Throat

Peep Throat
So many nosy newspapers out there, hoping to suck you dry of your personal demographics in exchange for besieging you with pop-up ads while you try to read an article online. Then there's that long registration process you have to go through. (I generally register as the demographically worst possible reader they could have -- an 88-year-old woman on food stamps living in public housing.) Never again! Check out bugmenot.com for all your password needs.

(via Romenesko's letters page)

Posted by aalkon at 08:10 AM | Comments (13)

April 29, 2004

The Republican Attack Machine

The Republican Attack Machine
Wesley Clark slaps the Republicans for their attack on Kerry�s war record. He notes that Kerry�s evaluations from his military superiors were �uniformly glowing�:

One commander wrote that Mr. Kerry ranked among "the top few" in three categories: initiative, cooperation and personal behavior. Another commander wrote, "In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, Lt. j.g. Kerry was unsurpassed." The citation for Mr. Kerry's Bronze Star praises his "calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire."

In the United States military, there's no ideology � there are no labels, Republican or Democrat � when superiors evaluate a man or woman's service to country. Mr. Kerry's commander for a brief time, Grant Hibbard, now a Republican, gave Mr. Kerry top marks 36 years ago.

Now the standards are those of politics, not the military. Despite his positive evaluations, Mr. Hibbard recently questioned whether Mr. Kerry deserved one of his three Purple Hearts.

In the heat of a political campaign, attacks come from all directions. That's why John Kerry's military records are so compelling; they measure the man before his critics or his supporters saw him through a political lens. These military records show that John Kerry served his country with valor, and that those who served with him and above him held him in high regard. That's honor enough for any veteran.

Then there�s the question of the medals Kerry tossed over a fence at the Capitol in 1971 to protest the war:

Republicans have tried to use this event to question his patriotism and his truthfulness, claiming he has been inconsistent in saying whether he threw away his medals or ribbons. This is no more than a political smear. After risking his life in Vietnam to save others, John Kerry earned the right to speak out against a war he believed was wrong. Make no mistake: it is that bravery these Republicans are now attacking.

At least the guy had war medals to throw away. What does George Bush have -- matchbooks from all the bars he was hanging out at while he was serving himself another beer...uh, serving his country in the National Guard?

Posted by aalkon at 08:14 AM | Comments (20)

April 28, 2004

Why The Nutbags Support Israel

Why The Nutbags Support Israel
George Monbiot writes in The Guardian about some of the irrational loonies running this country, and the real reason these fundamentalists are behind Israel:

In the United States, several million people have succumbed to an extraordinary delusion. In the 19th century, two immigrant preachers cobbled together a series of unrelated passages from the Bible to create what appears to be a consistent narrative: Jesus will return to Earth when certain preconditions have been met. The first of these was the establishment of a state of Israel. The next involves Israel's occupation of the rest of its "biblical lands" (most of the Middle East), and the rebuilding of the Third Temple on the site now occupied by the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa mosques. The legions of the antichrist will then be deployed against Israel, and their war will lead to a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon. The Jews will either burn or convert to Christianity, and the Messiah will return to Earth.

What makes the story so appealing to Christian fundamentalists is that before the big battle begins, all "true believers" (ie those who believe what they believe) will be lifted out of their clothes and wafted up to heaven during an event called the Rapture. Not only do the worthy get to sit at the right hand of God, but they will be able to watch, from the best seats, their political and religious opponents being devoured by boils, sores, locusts and frogs, during the seven years of Tribulation which follow.

The true believers are now seeking to bring all this about. This means staging confrontations at the old temple site (in 2000, three US Christians were deported for trying to blow up the mosques there), sponsoring Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, demanding ever more US support for Israel, and seeking to provoke a final battle with the Muslim world/Axis of Evil/United Nations/ European Union/France or whoever the legions of the antichrist turn out to be.

Shouldn't people who think like this be strapped down and given medication, not seats of power in government?

**Monbiot invites you to click on raptureready.com to "discover how close you might be to flying out of your pyjamas."

Posted by aalkon at 08:21 AM | Comments (8)

April 27, 2004

Biologically Incorrect.

Just Say Naaaaaay! To Naomi Wolf
A few choice words on one of my pet peeves from Cathy Seipp:

The most pervasive unscientific assumptions deal with that well traveled media intersection where pop culture meets public policy. Journalists are typically nervous about the un-p.c. idea that masculine and feminine behavior have any basis in biology, for instance. No, no, they insist; it's the culture. So are stallions rarely used as riding horses because the mares get their more docile nature from leafing through "How To Please a Man" articles in Cosmopolitan? (And maybe geldings subscribe to, I don't know, Eunuch Living.)

Posted by aalkon at 08:13 AM | Comments (16)

April 25, 2004

Just Say No To Jail

Just Say No To Jail
Jacob Sullum writes in Reason about Richard Paey, an MS sufferer with a botched back surgery who was forced to go to great (and illegal) lengths to get the pills he needed to relieve his pain:

When Paey and his family moved to Florida in 1994, he had trouble finding a new doctor. Because he had developed tolerance to the pain medication, he needed high doses, and because he was not on the verge of death, he needed them indefinitely. As many people who suffer from chronic pain can testify, both of those factors make doctors nervous, since they know the government is looking over their shoulders while they write prescriptions.

Unable to find a local physician who was comfortable taking him on as a patient, Paey used undated prescription forms from Nurkiewicz's office to obtain painkillers in Florida. Paey says Nurkiewicz authorized these prescriptions, which the doctor (who could face legal trouble of his own) denies.

The Pasco County Sheriff's Office began investigating Paey in late 1996 after receiving calls from suspicious pharmacists. Detectives tracked Paey as he filled prescriptions for 1,200 pills from January 1997 until his arrest that March.

At first investigators assumed Paey must be selling the pills, since they thought the amounts were too large for him to consume on his own. But the police never found any evidence of that, and two years after his arrest prosecutors offered him a deal: If he pleaded guilty to attempted trafficking, he would receive eight years of probation, including three years of house arrest.

But, Paey was worried, his wife Linda says, that he'd go to prison if he was accused of violating his probation. Moreover, he was loathe to identify himself as a criminal since he believed he'd done nothing wrong. Paey turned down the deal. Perhaps owing to his stubbornness, prosecutors then pursued him, junkyard dog-style, through three trials, to the final miscarriage of justice -- the mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years in jail -- even though they knew he was not selling the pills; merely trying to alleviate his own suffering.

Posted by aalkon at 08:04 AM | Comments (3)

April 24, 2004

Ask Auntie Lena

Ask Auntie Lena
Lena, best friend of The Advice Goddess, recommends "Democracy Now!" host Amy Goodman's new book, The Exception to the Rulers: Exposing Oily Politicians, War Profiteers, and the Media that Love Them. Apparently, Goodman is despised left and right:

(from the book description) Bill Clinton called her, "Hostile, combative, and even disrespectful." Newt Gingrich told her that it was because of "people like you" that he warned his mother not to speak to reporters. The New York Times says she's a "reporter who's not easy-listening." The Indonesian military banned her, calling her a "threat to national security."

I haven't read the book yet, but hearing a reporter referred to like that is like hearing the other side in a negotiation whine that they hate your lawyer.

Posted by aalkon at 08:29 AM | Comments (3)

April 23, 2004

Delta Burkha

Delta Burkha
A Louisiana idiot, uh, legislator, wants to make Louisiana a fashion police state, reports Michelle Krupa, in the Times-Picayune. Rep. Derrick Shepherd, D-Marrero, is proposing legislation (House Bill 1626) that would punish anybody wearing low-riding pants -- a $500 fine or six months in jail, or both. He sponsored the bill "because he was tired of catching glimpses of boxer shorts and G-strings over the low-slung belt lines of young adults." Now, I must confess, when I see a girl waddling around in a baby tee with fat handles hanging over the waistband of her pants, I'm the first one to see "there ought to be a law." That said, I don't go out and write up a bill about it. (Besides, running away screaming usually gets the point across so much better.) Hello? This guy is a congressman, and so are the other twits signing on to support. Is The First Amendment really a foreign concept for these people? Scary!

(via Romenesko's Obscure Store)

Posted by aalkon at 03:26 AM | Comments (8)

April 22, 2004

Seipp On Underparented Show Biz Brats

Seipp On Underparented Show Biz Brats
Cathy Seipp reports in National Review Online that it's the kids who are unsuccessful in show biz who are the most ill-mannered -- not the successful ones. She also quotes from my recent blog post on my encounter with a bellowing underparented toddler:

My friend Amy Alkon, a syndicated advice columnist who's always tangling with the parents of badly behaved children in cafes near her Venice-beach home, calls this indulgent style of child-rearing "go-right-ahead mommying." The other day, she stepped in when one of these oblivious moms plopped a howling, chair-kicking toddler down on a stool and then went to stand in line for coffee.

"You need to be quiet," Amy told the child. "It makes it not nice for all the other people here if you're making all this noise." Miraculously, the child did indeed quiet down, perhaps shocked into silence by a stranger's disapproval.

"My reward for my triumph for drive-by parenting?" Amy recounted on her blog. "His mother marched over to my table, shaking with rage, and demanded, 'Did you just reprimand my child? It isn't your job to reprimand my child!' I agreed with her � no, it isn't my job � and what a shame that the person whose job it is isn't doing it."

NRO reader "K" e-mailed me about my remarks in Cathy's piece. He was not amused, and got into some volunteer nannying of his own:

amy, got whiff of your drive-by parenting in a NRO catherine seipp article.� some kids do need a little verbal attention from the 'village'.� but, as bad as a screaming child is,� it is�inappropriate for a stranger to�address someone elses child.��if you ever feel�inclined to complain about such behavior, ADDRESS THE ADULT WHO IS NOT ACTING PROPERLY, NEVER THE CHILD.

and remember� 1] you're in a public place, 2] where there are numerous�adults who are annoying...to us parents.� if you want peace and quiet; if you want privacy, GO SOMEWHERE PRIVATE.� otherwise,�lighten up there.�-K

Okay, "K", point by point, here goes:

1. "it is�inappropriate for a stranger to�address someone elses child."

ME: Inappropriate says whom?

2. "...if you ever feel�inclined to complain about such behavior, ADDRESS THE ADULT WHO IS NOT ACTING PROPERLY, NEVER THE CHILD."

ME: Thanks, but since mommy seemed utterly incapable of managing her children, wouldn't it have been an act of futility? I actually provided her with an example of effective parenting - one I'm sure she's too self-absorbed to learn from.

3. "and remember� 1] you're in a public place, 2] where there are numerous�adults who are annoying...to us parents.� if you want peace and quiet; if you want privacy, GO SOMEWHERE PRIVATE.� otherwise,�lighten up there."

ME: If you're in a private place -- ie, your apartment or home, which you pay to live in, you are free to let your children run around screaming if you so desire (providing they don't knock out the eardrums of the people next door while doing so). In a private place, you need to be concerned with the needs of others -- starting with their need to remain sane for most of their adults lives.

If the public place is a nursery school, I would be inappropriate in acting on my desire to read the paper in peace and quiet. In the Rose Cafe, I like to hear the quiet murmer of adult conversation interspersed with their classical music. Apparently, others feel the same, since I can't imagine they're being deluged with requests to hear the sounds of screaming children piped in over their loudspeakers. Or are they? Hmmm.

Does it "take a village" to shut up a child? No, but you can bet the "village" was thrilled to have a grumpy, meddling crank like me around after they got to go back to reading their morning papers in peace.

UPDATE: More comments on this over in Seipp-land.

Posted by aalkon at 08:56 AM | Comments (17)

April 21, 2004

Parlez-Vous 'Merican?

Parlez-Vous 'Merican?
Perish forbid we should elect a president who's shown some interest in other countries in the world and has even gone to the trouble of learning to communicate with people who don't hail from Cleveland, Ohio. John Kerry is now being made fun of by right-ring radio numb-nuts for...and I'm embarrassed by how jingoistically dumb this is..."looking French." Now, Joshua Kurlantzick of The New Yorker reports, Kerry seems to feel he can't even speak French, lest he offend those Americans who, to their credit, don't still think the world is flat, but do seem convinced that any land of consequence ends at our borders.

Posted by aalkon at 08:01 AM | Comments (1)

April 20, 2004

Quote Of The Day

Foreign Policy By Roman Genn
From Cathy Seipp's blog, from the talent-crammed and darkly adorable USSR-born cartoonist Roman Genn:

"You hit people back with a chair, they stop calling you kike," he told me. "They'd still call other kids kike, but they'd always add, 'Not you, Roman.'"

Roman now has a Web site, RGenn.com, and there are rumors that he now accesses the Internet with some regularity; surely, all unfounded.

Posted by aalkon at 08:07 AM | Comments (0)

The Cloud Club

The Cloud Club
That was the name of the swingin' joint on top of The Chrysler Building. I'm borrowing it for my new New York City dream home. Got roof? Get a Loft Cube.

(via Metafilter)

Posted by aalkon at 07:08 AM | Comments (0)

April 19, 2004

Conda-LIE-LIE-LIE-LIE-eezza Rice

Conda-LIE-LIE-LIE-LIE-ezza Rice
Maybe you're a Democrat. Maybe you're a Republican. Maybe you're kinda-sorta libertarian...like me. ("Libertarian" small "l" means you wash). Whoever and whatever you are, a lie is a lie is a lie, right? Well, check out these WHOPPERS from our National Security Advisor...whose main security concern seems to be keeping George Bush's behind in the seat behind the desk in the Oval Office. And it seems she'll say just about anything to do that. Hmm, remember what happened to the last idiot in the White House who lied under oath?

Yes, Rice did seem to come off well to many people, immediately following the hearings. But remember, the lies she told weren't exposed until that Presidential Daily Briefing was unclassified -- something she clearly didn't expect to happen (oops!)...even as she was being asked questions straight out of its text, and answering them with her very special blend of meandering obfuscations. Read it all - parts 1-4, and beyond, and see if you aren't even the tiniest bit disgusted...even if you're a Republican.

MORE: How's this for an oath? "I swear to tell the partial truth, a bunch of half-truths, and make a lot of obfuscations, so help me, god." Too bad that isn't the one our National Security Advisor had to take.

All about lies, Condo-LIE-ezza, and her oath to tell it like it was, by CNN/FindLaw columnist Sherry F. Kolb.

Posted by aalkon at 08:31 AM | Comments (13)

Job Creation And Reality

Job Creation And Reality
"Show me the jobs," writes Judith Gorman about Bush's brag about all the jobs he's created:

So what are these "new jobs?" 13,000 of them are California grocery workers returning to work after an extended strike. Another 31,000 represent new government jobs. 71,000 "new jobs" are in the construction industry, a seasonal upswing independent of the President's policies. 11,000 "new jobs" are in credit intermediation, reflecting the surge in home refinancing due to low interest rates. And 36,000 "new jobs" are in healthcare/social assistance, jobs created to help people who no longer have jobs.

How do you lie to the country like this and still think of yourself as a patriot?...and beyond that...still sleep at night?

UPDATE: Slime-Side Economics All Around! Wheee! Equal Opportunity Lack Of Ethics! Not a surprise -- Lena points out that Kerry's a liar, too! Same topic, different wrong numbers! Here's the quote from Spinsanity:

Earlier this year, Kerry and his campaign engaged in a more subtle form of exaggeration, claiming that three million jobs had been lost during Bush's term and omitting the qualifier that this represented the decline in net private sector jobs at the time...

What great candidates for president we have to choose from! Vile and Viler! Which ethically bankrupt team are you on?

Posted by aalkon at 07:28 AM | Comments (2)

April 18, 2004

A-O-HELL For Mac OS X

A-O-HELL For Mac OS X
For about a week (AOL keeps saying it's been a day or three days...and has been since I called them to complain this past Tuesday), AOL for Mac OS X has been really buggy...spinning beach ball to get to your mail, you click on a piece of mail and the cursor jumps halfway back up your mailbox. After five tries, maybe you can get to the piece of mail. Replying is another story. The experience of typing an e-mail is comparable to chipping out the words with a chisel, but probably slightly pokier. AOL is very hush-hush about this issue -- but if you call a Mac OS X tech at AOL, they'll tell you the last 20 people they talked to just complained of the same issue.

Apparently, AOL is "working very hard" to fix this. Right. Anyway, the last tech guy I talked to -- an American, with perfect English, thank goodness -- told me that "the address book isn't populating." I'm a bit dim when it comes to making sense of technology, but apparently, your AOL address book is also on their server, and the corruption is there, up on the mother ship.

Anyway, it's been a nightmare, and I've been leaving much of my e-mail unanswered...but an AOL tech just helped me with a techno-bandaid. You go into your USER file on your hard drive, and pull out the AOL Contacts for each of your screen names, and put them in a folder on the desk top. You can't access them, and the address book in your e-mail will be blank, so it's probably good to print them out first. They still exist on AOL's server, the tech told me, and are accessible right now from any Windows piece of crap, uh, computer. Sorry, I'm a bit testy. I even screamed at my dog yesterday for yapping at a squirrel, which is extremely embarrassing, considering she's only 2.5 pounds, and the squirrel was taunting her, and deserved it. Rant over. Now I must nap -- the weenie alternative to following through on promises to kill oneself if relatively minor technical difficulties aren't magically resolved.

Posted by aalkon at 03:20 PM | Comments (11)

Seen And Kurd

Seen And Kurd
Blogger Mike Silverman asks a good question:

As long as we are handing states out...Why do the Palestinians get to jump ahead of the Kurds?

Hmm, maybe people in the Muslim world who want to live in peace in Israel are...welcome?!

(via Instapundit)

Posted by aalkon at 09:16 AM | Comments (1)

What George Bush Didn't Know And When He Didn't Know It

What George Bush Didn't Know And When He Didn't Know It
We had a liar in the Oval Office last time; we've got a liar in there this time. That said, according to this New York Times article by David Johnston and Jim Dwyer, the last liar seemed a little more effective on terrorism, vis a vis the warnings received, than the current liar. And if you're going to lie about something; quite frankly, I prefer that it's the whereabouts of your penis. Unfortunately, Clinton, too, lied about something terribly serious: the genocide in Rwanda.

Regarding the Presidential Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States," Bush actually claims he didn't get information specific enough to necessitate action. Excuse me, but how much more specific does it have to get? As I've heard somebody, somewhere, say: It's like he expects life to work like a Game Boy, complete with a big arrow: "Osama attacking right here! Shoot the dancing monkey!"

Say you're president, and you hear that some nasty evildoers from a group intent on killing Americans are casing downtown New York...ya know...this might be a good time to put in a few "go to it" calls to the CIA -- not go home to Crawford, TX, for a few shit-kicking photo-ops.

Posted by aalkon at 08:49 AM | Comments (0)

April 17, 2004

The Problem Of Backwater Barbarians

The Problem Of Backwater Barbarians
Theodore Dalrymple thinks the mono-minded, Qu'ran-toting "fanatics and bombers do not represent a resurgence of unreformed, fundamentalist Islam, but its death rattle." I wish I could believe he's right.

...the problem is that so many Muslims want both stagnation and power: they want a return to the perfection of the seventh century and to dominate the twenty-first, as they believe is the birthright of their doctrine, the last testament of God to man. If they were content to exist in a seventh-century backwater, secure in a quietist philosophy, there would be no problem for them or us; their problem, and ours, is that they want the power that free inquiry confers, without either the free inquiry or the philosophy and institutions that guarantee that free inquiry. They are faced with a dilemma: either they abandon their cherished religion, or they remain forever in the rear of human technical advance. Neither alternative is very appealing; and the tension between their desire for power and success in the modern world on the one hand, and their desire not to abandon their religion on the other, is resolvable for some only by exploding themselves as bombs.

Unfortunately, unless we bomb the Middle East, as the joke goes, centuries into the future (bringing them up to about The Middle Ages), I don't see the barbarians dissolving away anytime soon.

UPDATE: In the comments section below this blog item, Jeff R recommended Howard Bloom's book, The Lucifer Principle, A Scientific Expedition Into The Forces Of History, as a key to getting background on the psychology at work here. Here's what I posted in response, with slight edits for coherence:

heh heh...I would like to recommend that, too. Bloom is a very good friend. That book reads like a great novel, but it's about science and history. There's a great chapter in it (p239, "The Importance Of Hugging") that references James Prescott's survey of primitive cultures, which discovered that the difference between cultures which took pleasure in "killing, torturing or mutilating the enemy" were those which were physically cold to their children. These societies produced, (in Bloom's words), "brutal adults." He notes how this plays out in Islamic society, with Islamic mothers, "warm and nurturing," and fathers treating their children "harshly, acting cold, distant, and wrathful." When an Arab boy reaches puberty, he is "expelled from the loving world of his m other and sisters into the realm of men. There "...physical affection between men and women is frowned upon. A vengeful masculinity stands in its place. The result: violent adults." Bloom supports his contentions in the book -- you'll have to read it. I'll put up a link (ABOVE).

(story link via Arts & Letters Daily)

Posted by aalkon at 08:02 AM | Comments (22)

April 16, 2004

Something Child

Something Child
I was reading the paper in The Rose Cafe, in Venice, when a well-heeled mother, very preggers, early thirties, plopped her two small children down on two tall stools. One child was a boy, about four years old; the other, a sobbing, bellowing toddler. As soon as she left them to stand in the food and coffee line, the toddler started kicking the steel leg of the chair and intermittently yelling and howling. She returned to the table, and said something to him, causing him to cut his volume ever-so-slightly, but not entirely; probably because her version of the �firm hand� of parental discipline appeared to be more of a limp wrist. The moment she got back in line, the kid redoubled both his decibel level and his chair-kicking campaign.

I had a choice: Sit there until I got a migraine from the kid�s piercing howls duking it out with the high notes of the slightly overloud Vivaldi on the caf��s speakers...or do what I did: Look straight at the toddler, and say, in a firm voice, �You need to be quiet. It makes it not nice for all the other people here if you�re making all this noise, so please stop right now.� And miracle of miracles, that was all it took to make him to button his tiny little yap and stop kicking the chair: a lone adult voice, from beyond that vast sea of go-right-ahead mommying, telling him, firmly, but not cruelly, that his brat-hood simply would not be tolerated.

My reward for my triumph in drive-by parenting? His mother marched over to my table, shaking with rage, and demanded, �Did you just reprimand my child?!� Mustering an air of Gandhi-like calm (out of a less-than-Gandhi-like urge to bug her senseless), I told her I did. Her jaw dropped -- all the way to the stretchy stomach of her chic LA yoga-mommy maternity wear. She launched into a bit of �how-dare-you�ing, and huffed that �It isn�t your job to reprimand my child!� Maintaining my formica veneer of zen, I agreed with her -- no, it isn�t my job -- and what a shame that the person whose job it is isn�t doing it, thus forcing the task on irritable strangers in caf�s. Unwilling or unable to contest this reasoning, she turned on her heel and scooped up her underparented offspring and took them to stand in line with her...far, far away from the odd Satan Girl, who takes issue with having her eardrums exploded by shrieking toddlers when she�s attempting to read the newspaper in venues not clearly marked �Nursery School� above the door.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a child-trend -- children as the hot new status item in Los Angeles. Have one, dress one up in Petit Bateau, show it off on Montana Ave! (But enough about your needs.) Kids do need discipline or they�re sure to become unmanageable brats in the short-term, and their own worst enemies for the rest of their lives. Maybe just because a woman can afford to have kids, she shouldn�t necessarily foist herself on them as a sorry excuse for a parent. Yes, as alluring as it is to join in the mommy-chic, perhaps women who are well-funded but ill-equipped for the actual job of parenting might consider investing in a couple dozen Hermes handbags and a couple dozen matching Lincoln Navigators instead?

....

Epilogue: My friend Hank came over to talk to me a few minutes after my little exchange with the woman. I pointed to the table, just kitty-corner from mine, where the kids had been sitting. He noticed some...water...on the seat. Only, reexamining the picture of the kids in my head...the kids didn�t actually have anything to drink on their table, as far as I could remember. I went over and peered at the chair. Eeeeuw! The kid had peed on the seat! (Uh-oh -- maybe it happened when cruel Satan Girl reprimanded him!?) Still, had mommy done her job, cruel Satan Girl would never have said a word, reprimanding or otherwise!

Posted by aalkon at 07:31 AM | Comments (20)

April 15, 2004

Dad To The Bone

Dad To The Bone
In the journal The Independent Review, Stephen Baskerville peers into the "fatherhood crisis" and finds it more of a crisis of "policies that give mothers an incentive to initiate marital separation and divorce," taking away due process -- and a whole lot more, from a lot of dads. It's a long article, but worth reading.

(via Arts & Letters Daily)

Posted by aalkon at 08:46 AM | Comments (4)

April 14, 2004

The Culture Of Oversensitivity

The Culture Of Oversensitivity
In case anybody's interested, in this week alone, I have been accused of being anti-man, anti-woman, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-proletarian, anti-children, and anti-autism (after being quoted in a column by Dave Copeland). Keep those angry cards and letters coming!

Posted by aalkon at 08:50 AM | Comments (18)

April 13, 2004

The (Anti-)Science Club

The (Anti-)Science Club
The fundamentalists, led by the Fundamentalist-In-Chief are desperate to spread their puritanism-based abstinence propaganda -- even if the cost of spreading it is the spread of disease. They're hot to put warning labels on condom packets saying what they don't do: protect from genital warts. What do they think, kids will say, "Oh, we're going to get genital warts so we won't have sex at all?" Right. What they're more likely to say (while tearing off all their clothes for some nice unprotected sex) is, "Oh, why bother using a condom?" -- putting themselves at risk, not just for genital warts, but syphillis and HIV. The religious crap being pushed over a science and reason agenda has real costs, and the idiocy comes straight from the top...in the guise, of course, of legitimate concern:

...President George W. Bush has asked the Food and Drug Administration to modify the current warning to include information about human papillomavirus, commonly called HPV or genital warts.

On one side are scientists who believe that condoms should be promoted as a crucial line of defense against several STDs and cervical cancer. On the other are groups that advocate waiting for sex until marriage, and who see the dangers of HPV as an argument for their cause.

Is sticking this warning on the condom packet such a good idea?

Adding that information to a condom label would be "truth in advertising," said Libby Gray. She's the director of Project Reality, an Illinois-based group that teaches public school students about abstinence -- and notes that most students she speaks with have no idea what HPV is.

But scientists who study HPV worry that abstinence groups are dismissing important information to promote their own values.

"I want to be polite. But it appalls me when I see scientific and medical studies being manipulated for a different agenda," said Tom Broker. He's a professor of biochemistry and molecular genetics at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and president of the International Papillomavirus Society, a coalition of experts who study HPV.

The focus, Broker said, should be on the fact that condoms have been shown to reduce the risk of cervical cancer, which is caused by HPV and which can be detected and treated if women get regular PAP smears. (The federal Centers for Disease Control issued a recent report to Congress that included the same conclusion.)

Broker also said research has shown that HPV transmission is less likely when a person does not have other STDs, such as HIV, gonorrhea and chlamydia, which condoms have been shown to combat.

Both he and Dr. Ward Cates, former head of the CDC's STD/HIV prevention group, agreed that teaching abstinence is a key to preventing the spread of disease.

But when someone becomes sexually active, they also believe that "condoms are the best imperfect way we have," said Cates, now president of the Family Health Institute of Family Health International, nonprofit global health organization based in North Carolina.

I can just see the T-shirts now: "Some lady found Jesus, and all I got was this lousy chlamydia!"

Posted by aalkon at 08:28 AM | Comments (8)

April 12, 2004

Enlighten Up Already!

Enlighten Up Already!
Will Hutton writes in The Observer that "only by rebutting fundamentalism in all its forms can we stop ourselves being plunged into a new Dark Age." Fundamentalism, contends Hutton, is the opiate of the empty:

(Religion) offers a moral compass by which to live - the world's great religions have a very similar moral message - and so forms a key underpinning of good behaviour. But it also offers the answer to the ontological question: why? Everybody seeks a purpose; to make a difference; to be part of something; to belong.

Purpose within a social context allows us to make sense of being alive. For the secular, that purpose can be building a great society, a great work of art, a great business or a great family, against which religious values may or may not be an important backdrop.

But for the religious, the pursuit of their faith is their purpose, with the everpresent danger that because their religion answers the 'why?' question, they are compelled to impose it on others as crucial to their own purpose.

American society, where reformist social and political movements are undermined by its sheer continental scale, along with a deeply felt, faith-based individualism, is particularly prone to throwing up individuals who see no other way to give their lives purpose than by evangelising others.

For them, it is not enough to live by a religious code. They want others to live by it, too, and conversion is part of their purpose. Gibson is a classic of the genre - and so we are invited to put the clock back and live as if we were third-century Christians who believe in the reality of spirits and kingdoms of the faithful in paradise.

What is needed, he says:

...is a rediscovery of politics and a belief that purpose is best attempted in a secular guise underpinned by universal values, and that religion is a moral code to live by, rather than a purpose in its own right that gives believers the right to deny rationality and humanity.

This is a tall order. It won't be helped this Easter by following Gibson's interpretation of the Passion. The values we need are inclusion and love, not exclusion and irrationality. There's too much of that around, enough, if we let it, to usher in a new Dark Age. Values, yes; religious fundamentalism, no.

Come one, come all...join the modern age! There's plenty of science and reason to go around...really there is.

Posted by aalkon at 08:41 AM | Comments (56)

April 11, 2004

Message To The Barbarians

Memo To The Barbarians:
Drop your Kalashnikovs, Osama and Khalid! The Pope says love is the answer!

Posted by aalkon at 09:46 AM | Comments (5)

What George Bush Didn't Do On His Summer Vacation

What George Bush Didn't Do On His Summer Vacation
Stop terrorism when it potentially could have been stopped, for one, according to the contents of the Presidential Daily Briefing entitled, "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US" (PDF file to your right at the link above).

There's the argument that Clinton let stuff slide, too -- and sure, Bush and Clinton both could have, in hindsight, known better, and done better on a number of fronts. It's not a surprise that people -- be they Republicans or Democrats -- had a little trouble, before 9-11, mustering the imagination to understand the magnitude of our vulnerability within our own country.

Then again, this memo seems a pretty definitive statement of our internal vulnerability, noting "Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York." You're president, and you get a memo like that, and your response is go home to Crawford, Texas, and tool around in your pickup truck? Remind us to elect you for a second term as a reward for all your industriousness.

But that Bush administration argument again? �There was nothing that suggested that an attack was coming on New York or Washington, D.C.,� said Condoleezza Rice, in her recent Senate testimony. Yes, again, "nothing" in Condoleezza-speak reads like so:

"Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."

Aren't you glad a woman of her interpretative genius is in charge? Then again, she was a poly sci professor at Stanford. Is it possible she's not that dumb; merely, shall we say...mendacious?

Take your pick -- after you take a peek at a little more "nothing" from that memo:

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a ...(redacted portion) ... service.

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told an ... (redacted portion) ... service at the same time that Bin Ladin was planning to exploit the operative's access to the US to mount a terrorist strike.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.

Yes, all that, and the loudest sound from the Bush White House? "Yawwwwwn!"

UPDATE: And here's a little tidbit from a New York Observer story by Gail Sheehy. It's a quote from an "all-source" intelligence review ... given to top officials on June 28, 2001�the same month that Ms. Rice listed the administration�s priorities":

"Based on reporting over the last five months, we believe that UBL [Osama bin Laden] will launch a significant terrorist attack against U.S. and/or Israeli interests in the coming weeks. The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties �. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning. They are waiting us out, looking for a vulnerability."

Hmm, sounds kinda serious to me -- then again, I'm just a girl who writes in the newspaper about love, not one in charge of "national security" whose actions (or inaction) have life-and-death impact on millions of people.

Posted by aalkon at 08:42 AM | Comments (16)

April 10, 2004

Amy Alkon, Pi�ata

Amy Alkon, Pi�ata
There's some Alkon-bashing going on, over in the comments section at LA Observed, and more at the Spano blog over at the LA Times -- in response to my earlier post, Letter From Paris...Ohio, criticizing Spano for being frequently dull and wrong.

Posted by aalkon at 09:52 AM | Comments (5)

A Walk In The Clark

A Walk In The Clark
Robert Sam Anson calls Richard Clarke's book, Against All Enemies: Inside America�s War on Terror, the "...best beach reading since Robert Ludlum kicked." Here's reason number three:

3. Discloses resemblance between Bill Clinton and Rambo.

Ever since 9/11, the 42nd President has been taking hits from the right for being a terrorism twerp. Too busy with Monica and "promoting the homosexual agenda," etc., etc. Oh, yeah? Here he is on page 190, telling Joint Chiefs chairman and former Special Forces commander Hugh Shelton the payback he wants for the 1998 destruction of the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania�and that�s on top of the 75 cruise missiles he�s already launched at bin Laden.

"�Hugh, what I think would scare the shit out of these al Qaeda guys more than any cruise missile � would be the sight of U.S. commandos, Ninja guys in black suits, jumping out of helicopters into their camps, spraying machine guns. Even if we don�t get the big guys, it will have a good effect.�"

Who chickens out? The Pentagon, that�s who.

And then there's the next president's view -- oh, I mean the one we elected, not the one who got appointed:

5. Reveals thousands wasted hiring Naomi Wolf.

Apart from the Supreme Court, the principal reason Al Gore isn�t President today is George W. Bush�s successful portrayal of him as a wuss. Naomi Wolf, you�ll recall, was recruited to counter that image by clothing the then Vice-President in earth tones, the better to make him seem an "Alpha Male." Turns out, Mr. Gore already was; Florida voters just didn�t know it. History might have been infinitely cheerier had they been privy to the following 1993 Oval Office meeting.

To the horror of White House counsel Lloyd Cutler, Mr. Clarke was recommending to the President an "extraordinary rendition"�spook-talk for snatching a terrorist without benefit of legal nicety�and Mr. Clinton was still chewing his fingernails, when Mr. Gore, fresh off a plane from South Africa, walked in:

"Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, �That�s a no-brainer. Of course it�s a violation of international law, that�s why it�s a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.�"

They tried. Not for the last time, they failed.

Naturally, Clark, the guy who "gets it" is out of a job, and we've got a president "swatting at fleas" and detouring after the 9-11 attacks to go after Saddam instead of Osama. Genius in government -- the American specialty!

Posted by aalkon at 08:00 AM | Comments (17)

April 09, 2004

Sleazebags Left And Right

Sleazebags Left And Right
Voice of reason Matt Welch pointed me to this site, Spinsanity.org, that cuts through the tsunamis of baseless crap put out by Democrats and Republicans alike. Worth reading. Regularly. Just wish there were more sites like this for non-partisan, common-sense-in-government fans like me.

Here's their mission statement:

Robust political debate is essential to democracy. Our national political discourse is an important part of the democratic process and serves as a critical check on those in power. We are therefore deeply concerned that our public political dialogue, largely expressed through the channels of the mass media, is becoming systematically dominated by sophisticated tactics of manipulation rather than norms of public reason. Despite widespread complaints about spin, no one is adequately documenting the full ramifications of this development to our satisfaction.

Thus, our goal at Spinsanity is to use rigorous, non-partisan analysis to expose the use and intent of the simulated reason and public relations techniques that dominate political discourse, and to document how they are disseminated through the media. By exposing these tactics and demonstrating their pervasiveness, we hope to create a greater awareness of how spin operates and corrupts, and contribute to a healthy and vibrant political discourse.

Come on, bloggers, do your part to degrease Washington D.C.! Link to Spinsanity today!

Posted by aalkon at 08:12 AM | Comments (4)

April 08, 2004

Revengerella

One From The Revengerella Files
Some people will tell you success is the best revenge. Wrong. Revenge is the best revenge.

Posted by aalkon at 08:41 AM | Comments (7)

April 07, 2004

Not Enlightenment To Be?

Not Enlightenment To Be?
We need a New Enlightenment, writes Paul Kurtz, who starts his piece by explaining the first Enlightenment (numbers refer to footnotes within the link):

The term Enlightenment refers to a unique set of ideas and ideals that came to fruition in Europe in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It began with Bacon, Descartes, Locke, and other philosophers who sought a universal method for establishing knowledge. They looked to science as the model for knowledge and debated whether reason or experience was most important (actually, both are equally important). No doubt they took impetus from the remarkable discoveries of Newton and Galileo in mathematics, physics, and astronomy. The Enlightenment culminated with the French philosophes-Voltaire, Diderot, Condorcet, and d'Holbach-who popularized its ideas in Parisian salons, pamphlets, and books, enabling those ideas to spread to a wider educated public.

The philosophes criticized the ancien regime of religious superstition and dogmatism, hidebound social traditions, and repressive morality. They wished to use science and reason to understand nature and solve social problems. They were optimistic that in this way human progress could be advanced. In politics, they developed social contract theories, defended the secular state and the rights of man, and advocated economic liberty. The American Revolution was influenced by their ideals (through Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, and Paine). They influenced the French Revolution also, though many of them were opposed to its excesses. They wished to reform the penal code and end cruel punishments. They were anticlerical, castigating the corruption and hypocrisy of the churches, especially Roman Catholicism ("�crasez l'inf�me," cried Voltaire). Most were deists; some were atheists. The Enlightenment defended a humanist outlook that drew its values from the Renaissance and Greco-Roman Hellenic culture, which had also extolled the role of reason.

In his influential essay "What Is Enlightenment?" (1785) Immanuel Kant, a key figure of the Enlightenment, sought to define Enlightenment as follows:

Enlightenment is the emancipation of man from a state of self-imposed tutelage. This state is due to his incapacity to use his own intelligence without external guidance. . . . Dare to use your own intelligence! This is the battle-cry of the Enlightenment.1

According to Karl Popper, "It was this idea of self-liberation through knowledge that was central to the Enlightenment. "Dare to be free," added Kant, "and respect the freedom and autonomy of others. . . ." For Kant, the dignity of human beings lay in their freedom, and in their respect for other people's autonomous and responsible beliefs. However, it is only through the growth of knowledge that a person can be liberated "from enslavement by prejudices, idols, and avoidable errors."2

Due to the fact that the world has now, to a great extent, fallen back on primitive, irrational thinking (decision-making founded on superstition and the anti-empirica; a category which includes most religions), Paul urges an Enlightenment re-up. He spells out his plan, with his thoughts from a new (well, not new for the few straggling fans of rationality and secular ethics) way of approaching everything from decision-making to ethics. Here's a sample:

First, it is incumbent upon us to extend the methods of science and reason to all areas of human interest. This form of methodological naturalism is grounded in the recognition that the methods of science serve us as powerful tools in unlocking the secrets of nature and solving human problems. Scientific principles should be considered as hypotheses, tested by their experimental effects and predictive power, integrated into theories, and validated by their comprehensive character and mathematical elegance. They are always open to change in the light of new discoveries or more powerful theories; hence, science is fallible and self-correcting, though its methods have some degree of objectivity. Since the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, science has expanded rapidly, entering into fields never before imagined possible, such as understanding consciousness, the brain, the biological world and the genome, and the micro- and macro-dimensions of the universe. Using powerful instruments of observation, it has probed aspects of nature thought to be beyond reach. We should be prepared in the future to extend the methods of scientific inquiry still further to all areas of human interest. How and in what sense we can do this depends on the subject matter under consideration. In many areas, the best term to describe this process is critical thinking, which provides a normative model for appraising claims to truth. Second, we need to respond to the besetting existential question, "What is the meaning of life?" Many theists believe that, without belief in a supernatural deity, life would be meaningless. People are unable to face death, they say, only belief in life beyond the grave will console them. Science has disabused us of such primitive concepts of God and immortality, though such skepticism has not always penetrated to a wider public. We can no longer accept the ancient metaphysical-theological interpretations of reality in the light of naturalistic accounts of cosmology. Moreover, scientific and scholarly criticisms of biblical and Qur'anic texts have shown the specious character of historic claims of so-called revelations from on high. They lack confirmation or corroboration by any reliable empirical evidence.�

Theists are mistaken on another count: it is possible to live a full and meaningful life in a naturalistic universe, informed by scientific knowledge and devoid of supernatural illusions. Indeed, countless generations of people have experienced satisfying, creatively enriched, and morally significant lives without belief in God. A person's life in one sense is like a work of art, blending colors, tones, lines, and forms. It is what he or she chooses to do, the sum of his or her dreams and aspirations, plans and projects, ends and goals, tragedies and successes that define who and what a person is. Our ends and values are shared with others and conditioned by the societies in which we live. In open societies that respect freedom and autonomy, an individual's choices are plural and diverse and, though that person may be highly idiosyncratic, he or she is free to pursue them as long as no harm is done to others. Democratic societies afford a wider range of opportunities for free expression than do authoritarian ones. All human beings live out their lives in a universe of order and disorder, causality and contingency, regularity and chance. It is hoped that individuals can learn from experience and modify their choices in the light of consequences. They can develop common goals and values experienced with others. Thus they can find life intrinsically worthwhile and even immensely exciting�for its own sake.

No, you don't have to march in lockstep behind the men in the long black robes. Read on and see why not. Or cling in fear or laziness (you probably prefer to call it "faith") to your antique superstitions, and the way you've been told the world works -- something you believe entirely without a shred of proof...right? Or did the Virgin Mary make you your coffee this morning, unbeknownst to the rest of us?

Posted by aalkon at 08:47 AM | Comments (29)

April 06, 2004

Slack To The Future

Slack To The Future
Who clubbed all the car designers and made everything come up looking so Honda Civic -- from the Jag to the Honda Civic? How come the coolest "cars of the future" are from the 1950s and '60s? I mean, I have been looking at the Insight...but click on the "50s and 60s link above, and keep clicking and clicking and clicking, and see the cars of my dreams.

(via my man in crime, Gregg Sutter)

Posted by aalkon at 08:02 AM | Comments (2)

April 05, 2004

The Battle Between Good And Medieval

The Battle Between Good And Medieval
Gary Younge writes in the Guardian that presidential elections in America are largely culture wars; this election, in particular; with reason and religion duking it out for the top job:

In many ways, the two presidential candidates present a distinct cultural choice. True, both Bush and Democrat John Kerry are privileged, white, male, blue-blooded Ivy League graduates with roots in old money. But Bush is a former frat boy who wears cowboy boots and whose favourite philosopher is Jesus; Kerry has wavy hair, a foreign wife and enjoys reading and writing poetry.

All of this is as trite as it is significant. Presidential elections are not just determined by who has the best policies but which candidate the American people feel most comfortable with as a person. The Republicans are trying to brand Kerry a Massachusetts liberal, while the Democrats are keen to depict Bush as a rightwing, Texan cowboy - such insults are as cultural as they are political.

At the core of this struggle lies longstanding tension between religiosity and modernity that makes the US exceptional among western nations. In no other country with America's wealth and constitutional guarantees of individual liberty and regional autonomy does religion play such a central role, with 86% of people believing in miracles, 89% believing in heaven and 73% believing in the devil and hell.

Wonderful. How about, if you believe in the devil, hell, and the stuff the newspaper prints every day for Sagittarius, you stay home and burn incense and speak in tongues on November 4 -- while those of us whose views are shaped by science and reason go to the polls and vote for the lesser of two sleazebags?

Posted by aalkon at 08:26 AM | Comments (14)

April 04, 2004

Bush's (Cough, Cough) Clean Air Policy

Bush's (Cough, Cough) Clean Air Policy
Yank the regulations and, Bush says, "trust" the people in profit mode at the power plants "to make the right decisions." Hmmm, the public's lungs/profits? Profits/the public's lungs? Is anybody wondering which side of the equation will win? Bruce Barcott tells the tale in Sunday's New York Times:

Power plants pump dozens of chemicals into the air; among the most harmful are nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and mercury. Nitrogen oxides are major producers of ground-level ozone, or smog, and they interact in the atmosphere with sulfur dioxide, water and oxygen to form acid rain. Mercury, a highly toxic chemical that is emitted as a vapor when coal is burned, has been found to cause brain disorders in developing fetuses and young children, and unhealthy levels of it have recently been detected in swordfish and tuna.

The most disturbing research, though, involved fine particulates, the tiny particles of air pollution that spew out of smokestacks and lodge deep within the lungs of people nearby and even miles away. During the late 80's and 90's, medical researchers found that long-term exposure to fine particulates caused asthma attacks in children and raised the risk of chronic bronchitis in adults. Coal-fired plants account for about 60 percent of the nation's sulfur dioxide emissions and 40 percent of the mercury, and power plants as a whole are the nation's second-largest source of nitrogen-oxides pollution, after automobiles. Public health researchers estimate that fine-particulate pollution from power plants shortens the lives of more than 30,000 Americans every year. Pollution-controlling technology, while costly, can make an enormous difference. A new scrubber can cut emissions up to 95 percent.

Spurred on by that research, E.P.A. officials mounted a campaign to clean up the illegally polluting coal-fired power plants. E.P.A. agents began to go after suspected Clean Air Act violators through the companies' own accounting books. In any corporation, big capital improvement projects usually leave a trail of documents. Any department in a company that proposes a capital improvement has to justify it to the company's higher-ups, often by way of memos, briefing books, e-mail messages or PowerPoint presentations. In 1997, the E.P.A. started collecting such data, threatening subpoenas if companies didn't comply. ''We got lists of capital projects, then went after the internal justifications for those projects,'' Buckheit said.

After two years of investigation, E.P.A. officials had accumulated a daunting amount of evidence of wrongdoing by the coal-burning power industry. ''This was the most significant noncompliance pattern E.P.A. had ever found,'' Sylvia Lowrance said. ''It was the environmental equivalent of the tobacco litigation.'' Records compiled by the utilities themselves showed, according to former E.P.A. officials, that companies industrywide had systematically broken the law. If that was true, E.P.A. officials noted, the agency might have enough legal leverage to force the industry to install up-to-date pollution controls and achieve something truly historic: not merely incremental cuts in emissions but across-the-board reductions of 50 percent or more. ''On sulfur dioxide alone, we expected to get several million tons per year out of the atmosphere,'' Buckheit said.

Well, they expected that until George Bush took charge, and gave a big glad-hand to all the big polluters. Hey, you religious fundamentalists out there. Isn't there a bunch of stuff in the bible about respecting the planet? How come George Bush only seems to remember the stuff about disrespecting the homos?

P.S. If, in 2004, I buy a new Honda Insight, which, in ideal conditions, gets almost 60mpg city and highway, I can get a $1,500 "Clean Fuel" vehicle tax deduction (off the approximately $21,000 price tag for an automatic transmission). If, however, I keep my 3,000-year-old Mercedes for grocery store trips, and buy a Hummer (reportedly 8-10 mpg), and drive it only to pick up my mail at my mailbox place, I can get a small-business tax credit of up to $100,000. Hmmm, your lungs/my wallet? Your lungs/my wallet? Tough decision. I know...I'll turn to a real spiritual leader. WWGD? (What Would George Do?) Hmmm, that's a toughie!

Posted by aalkon at 08:06 AM | Comments (4)

April 03, 2004

A Sensible Defense Of Outsourcing

An Outsource Of A Different Color
It becomes increasingly hard for me, these days, to make my mind up about various issues, because it's so hard to extricate the tiny slivers of fact from the vast tar pits of propaganda -- from both the right and the left. That's why I was grateful to find this Jacob Sullum piece -- a sensible defense of outsourcing:

When I started working in journalism, strips of copy had to be physically cut and pasted onto boards, which were then photographed to make printing plates. Today, thanks to cheap, powerful computers and desktop publishing software, this whole process is handled electronically: Instead of assembling and transporting boards, you create and transmit files.

The shift to electronic composing has reduced the manpower, time, and cost involved in putting together a publication. At the same time, it has eliminated all the jobs associated with literal cutting and pasting.

Was that fair? The question can't really be answered, and the reason goes to the heart of the ongoing debate about offshore outsourcing of jobs by U.S. companies. Fairness, a concept appropriate in resolving schoolyard disputes and adjudicating legal cases, does not apply to market outcomes, which are not dictated by a referee or judge but arise spontaneously from the interactions of myriad individuals engaged in voluntary, mutually beneficial exchange.

Like the people who used to work in newspaper composing rooms, call center employees replaced by lower-wage workers in India don't "deserve" to lose their jobs. But that does not mean they have a right to keep them, any more than candle makers had a right to block electric lighting or blacksmiths had a right to prevent the introduction of the automobile.

In all of these cases, the need to make a profit in the face of competition drove people to produce better goods or services or to produce them more cheaply. The upshot of this process has been lower prices, higher productivity, and a standard of living unparalleled in history.

Posted by aalkon at 08:12 AM | Comments (4)

April 02, 2004

Polymorphous Sexual Perversity

Polymorphous Sexual Perversity
April Fool's from Luke Thompson, with a side of Luke Ford. Or is it the other way around?

Posted by aalkon at 11:43 PM | Comments (0)

Belated April Fools

Belated April Fools
What he said.

Posted by aalkon at 05:36 PM | Comments (1)

Men Can Be Whiny Crybabies, Too!

Men Can Be Whiny Crybabies, Too!
Radio host Glenn Sacks proves that the men's movement Cassandras can be just as irritating as the women's movement Cassandras. Do men really need protecting from those meanie women? Are they really a downtrodden class? Or are they just as good as an excuse as any to give a guy a soapbox? And, finally: Can't we all stop whining and get along?

Posted by aalkon at 08:10 AM | Comments (2)

April 01, 2004

Porn Without A Brain

Porn Without A Brain
There are some sick people in this world, exploiting teenage girls by photographing them in various stages of undress and performing sex acts, then posting the photos on the Internet. Luckily, the Pennsylvania state police are on the case this time -- arresting the perp who took advantage of this particular 15-year-old girl. Oops, except that the photographer/pornographer turns out to be the girl herself. No matter. They actually charged her with sexual abuse of a child (herself!), possession and dissemination of child pornography (photos of herself!). As Julian Sanchez wrote over at Reason:

Now, I don't know the details; probably the girl could use a little counseling if, at that age, she's shooting strangers in chat rooms pics of "herself in various states of undress and performing a variety of sexual acts." But it seems a touch bizarre to punish her for exploiting...herself.

I wonder if you fail at suicide in Pennsylvania, do they send you to jail for attempted homicide? At least, then the felons in the clink with you might finish the job. All in all, this story plays like a Hair Club For Men commercial: "I'm not just the victim...I'm also the perpetrator!"

More on this over at Volokh.com.

(via Reason's blog)

Posted by aalkon at 08:34 AM | Comments (1)

50 Most Loathsome New Yorkers

50 Most Loathsome New Yorkers
New York Press "cast a wide net and caught all manner of New York-centric frauds, blowhards and bloodsuckers." All you ex-New Yorkers can check it out here. And here are a few free samples:

#40
Donny Deutsch
Ad Man
DEUTSCH REPRESENTS THE latest trend in that most loathsome of New York traditions: the selling of adolescent greed, egomania and narcissism as charisma and depth of character. The chief of David Deutsch Associates says he only hires "Jews, chicks and fags," and is known for tearing off his shirt during office hours and saying�without irony�things like, "I can kick the ass of any CEO in advertising!" Think Steven Seagal meets Charlotte Beers. The "Elvis of Advertising" has been dabbling with a CNBC talk show and even told New York magazine that he'd consider running for mayor. Qualifications: good at selling shit, does lots of pushups. Look out, Bloomie.

#39
Eric Alterman
Pundit
WHAT LIBERAL DICKWAD? Milhouse is all grown up: He has a goatee, a PhD from Stanford and an online diary where he proclaims his love for Jackson Browne. Liberal bloggers are holding it up like the fucking Alamo, but his run-in with Dennis Miller last month left Alterman looking like he was about to get his head dunked in the toilet�for the third time. Even if you agree with him about Ann Coulter and Alexander Cockburn, it's hard not to root against this smirking, center-left prick who likes his dinner dates rich and famous and his fois gras seared. "He constantly wants to remind you that he's Eric Alterman," one of his interns revealed in a rumor-confirming Village Voice hatchet-job, "[and] that he knows a lot of important people, and that you're a lowly intern." Dear future self-respecting Alterman interns: If this creepy Bruce Springsteen groupie ever cops an attitude, just take a breath, start laughing and print out some of his "Alter-Reviews" at random. If you're lucky, you'll hit a Jackson Browne box set.

Posted by aalkon at 07:39 AM | Comments (1)

March 31, 2004

Letter From Paris...Ohio (in the LA Times)

Letter From Paris...Ohio
My letter to the LA Times Travel section:

Two years ago, I pitched the LA Times Travel section on writing a �letter from Paris� -- a city I�m in every three or four months, and for an entire month every summer. Travel turned me down, which, of course, is their prerogative. It was with some interest that I began reading LA Times travel writer Susan Spano�s new blog from Paris; and after I read the first few entries, it was with some disappointment.

Spano is printing the most facile, uninvestigated observations about Paris. Each entry, so far, has at least one glaring error; each, in my opinion, an error that could have been corrected by an extra moment or two of effort on Spano�s part to be astute in her observations, and/or do a little backup investigation as to whether her appraisals were, in fact, correct. For example:

1. Monoprix is not the �Wal-Mart Of Paris.� Monoprix sells wonderful (and often expensive) wines, cheeses and meats, and fruits and vegetables of the quality you�d find at Whole Foods (not marked �biologique� [organic], but not the crap sold in grocery stores here, either). Moreover, they sell extremely sexy lingerie -- contrasting Wal-Mart, which won�t even carry mass-market consumer magazines like Maxim, due to Wal-Mart�s puritanical bent. A more accurate description would be that Monoprix is �Target with a foie gras section.� When I wrote this to Spano, she commented that I wasn�t the only one who�d told her that. Not a surprise!

2. �Camembert Rustic� is actually �Camembert Rustique.� �Rustic Camembert� wouldn�t really be accurate, because it�s not really �rustic� -- it�s just called that, much like French fries and French toast. Check it out for yourself! They sell it at Whole Foods.

3. The superette Proxi is not like 7-11. Most are not open 24 hours, first of all. In fact, I would venture that few or none are -- although it seems likely at least some would be open way past Spano�s bedtime, considering that the Paris she blogs about seems more Paris, Ohio, than Paris, France. Moreover, the Proxi�s I�ve shopped at sell fine wine, cheese, and chocolate, and fruit -- of Trader Joe�s or Whole Foods� caliber.

4. Despite the fact that Spano observed people eating while walking down the street, it is not considered �acceptable� to eat while running around. It is considered rude and unacceptable. (There are a lot of murders in South Central LA, too, but it doesn�t mean murder is okay.) Perhaps Spano should notice who eats running around -- only 14-year-olds and plumbers and plasterers. Because she wrote that while I was in Paris last week, I took the liberty of asking several Parisians if her observation was accurate. All three confirmed my observation above. One Parisienne, a midlevel editor at a French publishing house that I spoke to at Bar du March�, told me (in French, of course) that only lower classes do that.

Yes, these are small details. But if you�re going to have somebody writing for you from Paris, who is known as a journalist, perhaps she should offer more than her most cursory (and incorrect) observations of the city. I really would rather read her blog for enjoyment than for errors.

Finally, Paris is, at least for me, at once hilarious, absurd, and challenging. I see little of that reflected in Spano�s blog. It�s a shame that the LA Times is so, apparently, terrified to have anyone write for them who might have something exciting or interesting to impart. If your paper, like so many dailies, is seeking readers who won�t be dead in five years, you�re certainly going about it the wrong way. --Amy Alkon

UPDATE: Because it�s important, at least to me, to fact-check what I write before printing or posting it, I sent the piece above to a close friend who�s French; born in Paris, who lived there most of her life, but is now living in Los Angeles. Here�s her response.

Hey miss amy, Welcome back! WOW... I completely agree with everything you're setting the record straight about. You can tell the LA times that French people absolutely endorse 100% your observations.

Gros bisous
N

Posted by aalkon at 08:24 AM | Comments (18)

March 30, 2004

Conservatives And Your Fetus

Conservatives And Your Fetus
In yet another big step in the slow and sneaky march to stomp out abortion, Jim Abrams of AP reports:

In a major win for social conservatives, Congress is sending to the president legislation that would expand the legal rights of the unborn by making it a separate crime to harm a fetus during an assault on a pregnant woman.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act cleared the Senate on a 61-38 vote Thursday, a month after the House passed the bill and five years after conservatives first tried to move the legislation through Congress.

The measure is limited in scope, applying only to harm to a fetus while a federal crime is being committed against the pregnant mother, such as terrorist attacks, drug-related shootings or attacks on federal lands or military bases. But proponents on both sides of the fetal rights and abortion issue saw far-reaching consequences.

Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, said that with the president's signature, "our nation will be one giant step closer to rebuilding a culture of life, where every child, born and unborn, is given the protections they so clearly deserve." President Bush (news - web sites) has urged Congress to send a bill to his desk.

But the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, Kate Michelman, said it would be the first time ever in federal law that an embryo or fetus is recognized as a distinct person, separate from the woman. "Much of this is preparing for the day the Supreme Court has a majority that will overrule Roe v. Wade (news - web sites)," the 1973 Supreme Court decision affirming a woman's right to end a pregnancy.

Bye-bye women's rights! Hello, coat hangers! Sound farfetched to you that women could soon become Margaret Atwood-style baby pods? It sounds less and less farfetched to me every day.

Posted by aalkon at 08:56 AM | Comments (18)

March 29, 2004

Two Plus Two Equals Paperweight

Two Plus Two Equals Paperweight
The Bush Administration has a bad habit of hiring people to add up all the facts, then looking the other way when the facts don't add up the way they like, writes Harold Meyerson in The American Prospect:

Step back a minute and look at who has left this administration or blown the whistle on it, and why. Clarke enumerates a half-dozen counterterrorism staffers, three of whom were with him in the Situation Room on Sept. 11, who left because they felt the White House was placing too much emphasis on the enemy who didn't attack us, Iraq, and far too little on the enemy who did.

But that only begins the list. There's Paul O'Neill, whose recent memoir recounts his ongoing and unavailing battle to get the president to take the skyrocketing deficit seriously. There's Christie Todd Whitman, who appears in O'Neill's memoir recalling her own unsuccessful struggles to get the White House to acknowledge the scientific data on environmental problems. There's Eric Shinseki, the former Army chief of staff, who told Congress that it would take hundreds of thousands of American soldiers to adequately secure postwar Iraq. There's Richard Foster, the Medicare accountant, who was forbidden by his superiors from giving Congress an accurate assessment of the cost of the administration's new program. All but Foster are now gone, and Foster's sole insurance policy is that Republican as well as Democratic members of Congress were burnt by his muzzling.

In the Bush administration, you're an empiricist at your own peril. Plainly, this has placed any number of conscientious civil servants -- from Foster, who totaled the costs on Medicare, to Clarke, who charted the al Qaeda leads before Sept. 11 -- at risk. In a White House where ideology trumps information time and again, you run the numbers at your own risk. Nothing so attests to the fundamental radicalism of this administration as the disaffection of professionals such as Foster and Clarke, each of whom had served presidents of both parties.

The revolt of the professionals poses a huge problem for the Bush presidency precisely because it is not coming from its ideological antagonists. Clarke concludes his book making a qualified case for establishing a security sub-agency within the FBI that would be much like Britain's MI5 -- a suggestion clearly not on the ACLU's wish list. O'Neill wants a return to traditional Republican budget-balancing. The common indictment that these critics are leveling at the administration is that it is impervious to facts. That's a more devastating election year charge than anything John Kerry could come up with.

There are a few of us out here -- me, for example -- who aren't glued to one party or another, but would simply like to see a little common sense, rationality, and respect for science and data from the people running this country. Evidently, that's too much to ask.

Posted by aalkon at 08:55 AM | Comments (15)

March 28, 2004

Bush Tough On...The Truth

Bush Tough On...The Truth
A former FBI translator testified that the FBI had detailed information, prior to 9-11, that terrorists were planning to attack the US with airplanes. Eric Boehlert writes in Salon:

Referring to the Homeland Security Department's color-coded warnings instituted in the wake of 9/11, the former translator, Sibel Edmonds, told Salon, "We should have had orange or red-type of alert in June or July of 2001. There was that much information available." Edmonds is offended by the Bush White House claim that it lacked foreknowledge of the kind of attacks made by al-Qaida on 9/11. "Especially after reading National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice [Washington Post Op-Ed on March 22] where she said, we had no specific information whatsoever of domestic threat or that they might use airplanes. That's an outrageous lie. And documents can prove it's a lie."

Edmonds' charge comes when the Bush White House is trying to fend off former counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke's testimony that it did not take serious measures to combat the threat of Islamic terrorism, and al-Qaida specifically, in the months leading up to 9/11.

Edmonds, who is Turkish-American, is a 10-year U.S. citizen who has passed a polygraph examination conducted by FBI investigators. She speaks fluent Farsi, Arabic and Turkish and worked part-time for the FBI, making $32 an hour for six months, beginning Sept. 20, 2001. She was assigned to the FBI's investigation into Sept. 11 attacks and other counterterrorism and counterintelligence cases, where she translated reams of documents seized by agents who, for the previous year, had been rounding up suspected terrorists.

She says those tapes, often connected to terrorism, money laundering or other criminal activity, provide evidence that should have made apparent that an al- Qaida plot was in the works. Edmonds cannot talk in detail about the tapes publicly because she's been under a Justice Department gag order since 2002.

"President Bush said they had no specific information about Sept. 11, and that's accurate," says Edmonds. "But there was specific information about use of airplanes, that an attack was on the way two or three months beforehand and that several people were already in the country by May of 2001. They should've alerted the people to the threat we're facing."

Edmonds testified before 9/11 commission staffers in February for more than three hours, providing detailed information about FBI investigations, documents and dates. This week Edmonds attended the commission hearings and plans to return in April when FBI Director Robert Mueller is scheduled to testify. "I'm hoping the commission asks him real questions -- like, in April 2001, did an FBI field office receive legitimate information indicating the use of airplanes for an attack on major cities? And is it true that through an FBI informant, who'd been used [by the Bureau] for 10 years, did you get information about specific terrorist plans and specific cells in this country? He couldn't say no," she insists.

Edmonds first made headlines in 2002 when she blew the whistle on the FBI's translation department, which was suddenly thrown into the spotlight as investigators clamored for original terrorist-related information, often in Arabic. Edmonds made several reports of serious misconduct, security lapses and gross incompetence in the FBI translations unit, including supervisors who told translators to work slowly during the crucial post-9/11 period to ensure the agency would get more funds for its next annual budget. As a result of her reports, Edmonds says she was harassed at the FBI. She was fired in March 2002.

Calling all the disingenuous Republicans, who were quick to call for Clinton's impeachment when he lied about the whereabouts of his penis. Isn't it time to impeach Bush and Co. for lying about stuff that really matters? At the very least, join the Anyone But Bush parade: I'll vote for Kerry...or my movie wardrobe lady-next-door neighbor before I vote for Bush.

Worried about huge Democratic-style entitlements? Well, that's what a vote for Bush gets you. Like the Medicare package the administration slimed through Congress by hushing up the real numbers. There's no Big Democrat like a lying Republican giving handouts to ensure his re-election.

UPDATE: Four 9-11 moms go to the intelligence failure hearings in the Senate, and don't like what they hear -- especially that nobody takes responsibility for being less-than-vigilant.

Posted by aalkon at 08:15 AM | Comments (3)

March 27, 2004

Dumb Crap People In Authority Believe

Dumb Crap People In Authority Believe
The TSA actually caused a flight to be canceled because a "psychic" thought there was a bomb on the plane.

Posted by aalkon at 03:44 PM | Comments (0)

They Just Want To Get Drunk And Have A Lot Of Sex

They Just Want To Get Drunk And Have A Lot Of Sex
Martyrdom, Palestinian-style: How to sell a 16-year-old on blowing himself up:

The teenage suicide bomber, caught by Israeli soldiers at a West Bank checkpoint, said he wanted to reach paradise where 72 virgins were waiting for him.

Hussam Abdo, 16, told the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot, he had learned about paradise in school.

�A river of honey, a river of wine and 72 virgins. Since I have been studying Koran I know about the sweet life that waits there,� he said.

He was caught yesterday with a suicide bomb vest strapped to his body at a crowded checkpoint, setting off a tense encounter with soldiers the army said he had been sent to kill.

Soldiers, taking cover behind concrete barriers, sent a yellow army robot to bring scissors to the teenager so he could cut off the vest and then made him strip to his underwear to ensure he was unarmed before detaining him.

Leaders in the Al Aqsa Martyrs� Brigades denied they were responsible for dispatching the boy.

However, local members of the militant group � which has ties to Yasser Arafat�s Fatah movement � in Nablus� Balata refugee camp said they had sent the boy to the checkpoint.

The teenager�s family said he was gullible and easily manipulated.

Well, maybe our side could be the side doing the manipulation. Bill Maher seems to have it right:

...We should hire women to infiltrate al-Qaida cells, and fuck them.

Things would change quickly. Because young Muslim men don't really hate America, they're jealous of America. We have rap videos, the Hilton sisters and magazines with titles like "Barely Legal." You know what's barely legal in Afghanistan? Everything.

Young men need sex, and if they don't get it for month after month after month, they wind up cursing the day they ever decided to go to Cornell.

Have you ever wondered why the word from the Arab street is so angry? It's because it's a bunch of guys standing in the street! Which is what guys do when they don't have girlfriends, or aren't allowed to even talk to a girl -- of course they want to commit suicide. Unlike this country, where it's the married guys who wanna kill themselves.

Pull out the troops, send in the hookers with vats of Gallo? Maybe it's not such a crazy idea.

(72 virgins article via Reason's blog)

Posted by aalkon at 08:41 AM | Comments (6)

March 26, 2004

Refresh Princess Of Venice Beach

Refresh Princess Of Venice Beach
I've been a little lax about updating my columns on my Web site...there's a new one up now -- Thighs Matters -- the column that generated a fat mail bag of complaint letters from the "fat-acceptance" girls. (If you can't see it, click "refresh" on your browser.)

Posted by aalkon at 09:11 AM | Comments (11)

Homeland Stupidity

Homeland Stupidity
The Feds give Wyoming, that near-empty hotbed of terrorist interest, $61 per person for homeland security; here in California, where Hollywood is a de facto red flag at a bull for terrorists, they dole out just $14 per citizen. Then there's Alaska, with $58 per citizen, and New York, with only $25. Time Magazine's Amanda Ripley calls funding "almost inversely proportional to risk," and attributes it to directing money based on emotion rather than actual assessment of risk. Then there are all the greedy senators from small states, like Leahy of Vermont, who pretends to think the frozen ski slopes there are as important and in as much danger as New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. In Ripley's article, she quotes Tim Ransdell, who "authored one of the few comprehensive assessments of homeland-security money on behalf of the Public Policy Institute of California":

Wyoming and South Dakota are important states, but it's a bit counterintuitive to say an individual in those states is manyfold more important than someone living in a state that has a border with a foreign nation, some of the nation's icons and almost half of the nation's containerized cargo.

Then Al O'Leary of the New York City Patrolmen's Benevolent Association weighs in:

It goes against every fundamental precept of fighting crime. If you're having a robbery pattern in a particular community, you put detectives there. It's actually a no-brainer, but there's apparently no brain in Washington, D.C.

Posted by aalkon at 02:33 AM | Comments (3)

March 25, 2004

Abstaining From The Facts

Abstaining From The Facts
Naomi Ninneman of Planned Parenthood explains the "only" in "abstinence only" sex ed:

OVER THE PAST year, Planned Parenthood's educators have been hearing a frightening new question from Massachusetts high school students: Why bother using condoms when you have sex, since they don't work anyway?

We teach sex education classes in more than 50 of the Commonwealth's high schools every year, so we are used to answering tough questions. We are used to combating myths. But we are not used to students challenging established scientific facts about the effectiveness of condoms.

Ask students where they are getting this information, and they almost always point to an abstinence-only-until-marriage program.

Abstinence-only education has been in the news recently. In his State of the Union address, President Bush proposed doubling federal funding for it. But many people are surprised when they find out what the "only" in "abstinence-only" really means.

It means, under the federal regulations governing these programs, that educators are prohibited from telling students that condoms can prevent pregnancy and HIV/AIDS.

They cannot discuss the facts even when talking to sexually active teens who are at high risk of contracting HIV. According to these guidelines, condoms and other forms of contraception can only be discussed to emphasize their failure rates. Some programs, for example, provide students with two lists: one of diseases they can get when having unprotected sex and another of diseases they can get when using a condom. The lists are the same. Both include HIV, but the fact that condoms are roughly 96 percent effective in preventing the spread of this disease is nowhere to be found.

This marks a radical departure from traditional sex education, which focuses on a comprehensive approach to preventing teen pregnancy, HIV, and other sexually transmitted diseases. It also makes abstinence-only programs dangerous.

It's not only the individual child of the nutbag fundamentalist who's affected by this. Private religious fanaticism affects public health -- potentially endangering anybody who has sex with anybody trained by the birth-control luddites. And anybody who has sex with them...and so on, and so on.

And excuse me, but why is it wrong to have sex as a teenager, if you happen to be emotionally ready and if you protect yourself? Why, exactly, is sex "wrong"? Oh, and please -- any reason but "because the bible tells (you) so" will do.

Posted by aalkon at 09:06 AM | Comments (102)

March 24, 2004

Ruth Seymour Gets Loh-er And Loh-er

Ruth Seymour Gets Loh-er And Loh-er
She'll show everyone! And she does! By releasing a letter Sandra wrote to the station immediate after being fired, KCRW station manager Ruth Seymour will tell the real story about Sandra. Unfortunately, the only bombshell she drops is that Sandra is kind, graceful, and polite -- and extremely concerned that the engineer won't lose his job. Not exactly the stuff Page Six is made of!

Posted by aalkon at 08:34 AM | Comments (0)

March 23, 2004

Whine And Filthy Lucre

Whine And Filthy Lucre
A mid-list author complains bitterly that she isn't making the big bucks as a novelist, thanks to meanie publishers who wouldn't take on her second book after her first book lost money, and other such tales of woe. To keep her daughter "in Nikes," she was forced to clean septic tanks with a toothbrush and three pieces of Kleenex; ie, suffer the indignity of writing copy for the dot-coms and penning a celebrity bio. A tragic tale of woe. As movie critic Peter Stack once wrote: "My tears stuck in their little ducts, refusing to be jerked."

Posted by aalkon at 08:05 AM | Comments (1)

March 22, 2004

Cutting Off An Arm to Cure A Brain Tumor

Cutting Off An Arm to Cure A Brain Tumor
That's pretty much what George Bush did, in going to war with Iraq, as supposed retribution for 9-11. I'm not one of those doves who thought we should sit around picking our collective nose after the WTC and the Pentagon were attacked. But it made sense to me to go directly after Bin Laden. And yes, we have done a humanitarian thing, freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. And I support our military people fighting in Iraq (and even sent the soldiers a case of tuna fish [via an army chaplain]) and I have a box of goods I'm packing to send to an orphanage in Iraq (per the suggestion of another army chaplain [via a blog ad on Instapundit]).

That said, there are many countries that could use a humanitarian overthrow of their repressive, murderous, and anti-democratic regimes. If it's on that basis we went into Iraq, we have a whole lot of other countries to invade. If it's truly about Weapons Of Mass Destruction; well, when are we going to take over North Korea?

Former Security Advisor Richard Clarke has a few harsh words (on 60 Minutes Sunday night) for the Bush administration about how they ignored pre-9/11 warnings about al Qaeda, and about their manic panic to find justifications for invading Iraq:

"Frankly," he said, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

Clarke went on to say, "I think he's done a terrible job on the war against terrorism."

Is the Bush administration as tough on terror as they make themselves out to be? Probably not. But they sure are hell on DJs and rock stars using dirty words! (Unfortunately, it's airborne bio-weapons, not flying fucks, that we really need to worry about.)

Posted by aalkon at 08:29 AM | Comments (13)

March 20, 2004

Bush-League Contradictions

Bush-League Contradictions
Children do better with married parents says the data trotted out by the republi-nannies behind the $1.5 billion dollar marriage promotion budget -- but we still aren't going to let gay parents marry. Here's how Gabriel Damast, the 13-year-old child of two moms, felt about his parents' marriage, according to a New York Times story by Patricia Leigh Brown:

"It was so cool," said Gabriel, 13, who served as the ringbearer, after standing in line overnight with his parents. "I always accepted that `Yeah, they're my moms,' but they were actually getting married. I felt thick inside with happiness. Just thick."

Here's how it worked for Max Blachman, 13:

"Before it was, `Oh, your parents are just partners,' " said Max Blachman, the 13-year-old son of lesbian parents in Berkeley. "Now, they're spouses. So it's a bigger way of thinking about them."

Here's how it worked for Alex Morris, 11:

Speaking of his mothers' marriage, Alex said: "It is something I always wanted. I've always been around people saying, `Oh, my parents anniversary is this week.' It's always been the sight of two parents, married, with rings. And knowing I'd probably never experience it ever."

That changed in the City Hall rotunda as his mothers exchanged vows. "The atmosphere was just springing with life," Alex recalled. "I just couldn't hold myself in. It was oh my god oh my god oh my god. I felt so happy I wanted to scream."

It's unfortunate that our fundamentalist-in-chief was told by his religion that gay sex was wrong, but how, exactly, does that make the needs of Gabriel, Max, and Alex different from those of any other children?

Posted by aalkon at 10:18 PM | Comments (9)

March 19, 2004

The Vast, Right-Wing Conspiracy

The Vast, Right-Wing Conspiracy
Don't laugh. Hillary Clinton knew a thing or two.

(via Metafilter)

Posted by aalkon at 08:13 AM | Comments (2)

March 18, 2004

Apr�s Le D�luge

Apr�s Le D�luge
I just arrived in Paris, to find hundreds of pieces of blog spam scattered all over my blog. Engaged in heavy cleaning. More blog items tomorrow.

Posted by aalkon at 06:47 AM | Comments (1)

March 17, 2004

Butt Pillow

Butt Pillow
A present for your ass. And here's a present for your cow's ass. Butt benevolence, all around!

(via Cruel Site Of The Day)

Posted by aalkon at 08:33 AM | Comments (2)

March 16, 2004

The Supreme Court Stands Up For Wife-Beaters

The Supreme Court Stands Up For Wife-Beaters
The Supreme Court just killed evidence-based prosecution, a prime way of bringing domestic abusers to justice, writes South Bronx public defender David Feige, on Slate:

One of the peculiar realities of domestic violence cases is that�abused or not�the complaining witnesses often don't want their loved ones prosecuted. Thanks to the Supreme Court, many more of those victims are about to get their wish. This week's decision in Crawford v. Washington , which reversed the assault conviction of Michael Crawford�sentenced to 14 1/2 years in prison for stabbing a man he believed had tried to rape his wife�was overtly about the Constitution's confrontation clause. But the ruling will radically change the prosecution of domestic violence cases throughout the country, empowering complainants to resist the demands of prosecutors and limiting the number of cases that proceed with unwilling witnesses.

It is not uncommon for alleged victims and prosecutors to have divergent agendas. This divergence can become particularly acute when prosecutors proceed with a case despite an alleged victim's desires. Prosecutors are, of course, within their rights to do this�there is no question that once an arrest is made, it is up to the state to prosecute or not, regardless of a victim's wishes�that's why criminal actions are captioned the People v. Someone or the United States of America v. Someone Else . But while pursuing a prosecution despite the express wishes of the alleged victim is rare in the average case, in domestic violence cases it's commonplace.

Not any more!

Posted by aalkon at 08:34 AM | Comments (2)

March 15, 2004

Everybody's Outsourcing

Everybody's Outsourcing
Even The Mob.

(via Fark.com)

Posted by aalkon at 08:24 AM | Comments (0)

March 14, 2004

Thomas Friedman Visits The Global Village

Thomas Friedman Visits The Global Village
And peers into the two faces of globalization:

India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan each spontaneously generated centers for their young people's energies. In India they're called "call centers," where young men and women get their first jobs and technical skills servicing the global economy and calling the world. In Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia they're called "madrassas," where young men, and only young men, spend their days memorizing the Koran and calling only God. Ironically, U.S. consumers help to finance both. We finance the madrassas by driving big cars and sending the money to Saudi Arabia, which uses it to build the madrassas that are central to Al Qaeda's global supply chain. And we finance the call centers by consuming modern technologies that need backup support, which is the role Infosys plays in the global supply chain.

Both Infosys and Al Qaeda challenge America: Infosys by competing for U.S. jobs through outsourcing, and Al Qaeda by threatening U.S. lives through terrorism. As Michael Mandelbaum, the Johns Hopkins foreign policy professor, put it: "Our next election will be about these two challenges � with the Republicans focused on how we respond to Al Qaeda, and the losers from globalization, and the Democrats focused on how we respond to Infosys, and the winners from globalization."

Every once in a while the technology and terrorist supply chains intersect � like last week. Reuters quoted a Spanish official as saying after the Madrid train bombings: "The hardest thing [for the rescue workers] was hearing mobile phones ringing in the pockets of the bodies. They couldn't get that out of their heads."

��

Posted by aalkon at 08:23 AM | Comments (3)

March 13, 2004

Solidarity With Spain

Solidarity With Spain
Instapundit suggests sending cards and letters of support, and flowers. Here's the address:

Embassy Of Spain
2375 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037

The Embassy phone number, which you'll need if you send flowers, is 202.452.0100

Posted by aalkon at 06:25 PM | Comments (2)

Everything Old Might Be New Again

Everything Old Might Be New Again
Okay, so we've been suffering with Bush for four years -- but, was he really elected president? No. The details on that -- how a company called DBT wiped thousands of Democratic voters off the election rolls -- were shoved aside. Here's a transcript of Greg Palast on the issue for the BBC, and a flash piece about it that's worth watching. Will we have a righteous election in 2004? Depends on whether the game is fair or cooked. I know everyone's sick of this issue, but take a look at this stuff. There's a lot that was glossed over in the "whether George Bush really is president" question, back in the day, and it's illuminated here.

By the way, Al Gore, whom I voted for (a little less grudgingly than I'll vote for Kerry) showed what he wasn't made of by accepting this fraud without a fight. Disgusting. And it's had a pretty big and alarming impact on all of us.

Posted by aalkon at 08:04 AM | Comments (7)

How Scary Is It?

How Scary Is It?
This station can't play the Pink Floyd song "Money," from the "Darkside Of The Moon" album their listeners voted number one, because it has the word "bullshit" in it. Playing it would hang them out for a $275,000 fine. How long before that word is banned on blogs, too? And don't tell me that's a silly question.

(via Metafilter)

Posted by aalkon at 07:41 AM | Comments (7)

March 12, 2004

The Schwing Vote

The Schwing Vote
Howard Stern is mobilizing his listeners against Bush, writes Eric Boehlert in Salon:

Declaring a "radio jihad" against President Bush, syndicated morning man Howard Stern and his burgeoning crusade to drive Republicans from the White House are shaping up as a colossal media headache for the GOP, and one they never saw coming.

The pioneering shock jock, "the man who launched the raunch," as the Los Angeles Times once put it, has emerged almost overnight as the most influential Bush critic in all of American broadcasting, as he rails against the president hour after hour, day after day to a weekly audience of 8 million listeners. Never before has a Republican president come under such withering attack from a radio talk-show host with the influence and national reach Stern has.

"The potential impact is huge," says Charles Goyette, talk-show host at KFYI in Phoenix. "And it's not just with the 8 million people who tune it, it's that he breaks the spell. Everybody's been enchanted by Bush, that he's a great wartime leader and to criticize him is unpatriotic. Now Stern pounds him every day and it shatters that illusion that the man is invincible and he shouldn't be criticized."

"He's got one of the biggest audiences in all of radio, and perhaps the most loyal," says Michael Harrison, publisher of Talkers magazine, the nonpartisan monthly that covers radio's news/talk industry. "And that's why he's so dangerous for the White House."

We can only hope. I'm no Democrat, and I loathe Kerry, but I'd vote for an autistic monkey before I'd vote for Bush.

Posted by aalkon at 10:12 AM | Comments (25)

Confessions Of A Welfare Queen

Confessions Of A Welfare Queen
Are you best friends with John Stossel? I hope so, because you paid for his beach house.

Posted by aalkon at 08:05 AM | Comments (5)

March 11, 2004

Lost Angeles

Lost Angeles
A pretty hard place to get a date. Alexandra Jacobs interviews me for her Palmy Days column about Internet dating in Los Angeles in the New York Observer:

"L.A. forces you to do Internet dating, because everyone�s apart from everyone else," said Amy Alkon, 40, a redheaded syndicated columnist who moved to Venice after many years in New York and has tried both Match and Matchmaker.com. "People aren�t as guarded in New York. In L.A., if you ask people what they do, they act as if you want to rob their house. Here, everybody acts like they�re a movie star, like, �Why do you want to talk to me?� Like you want something from them. It�s a disease."

She�s currently going out with a man who does research for the author Elmore Leonard; she met the fellow at an Apple computer store, after a long and flamboyant search that included placing a $2,200 display ad in the L.A. Times. "L.A. men are less troubled�unless they�re troubled New York Jews who have just moved to Los Angeles�and that�s in the uncomplimentary, uncomplicated sense," she said. "They�re not complicated because they haven�t had a thought, other than what�s on TV, in 20 years."

Guys return the compliment, perhaps even more forcefully.

"I find that you can talk about more things outside of yourself with New York women," said a 35-year-old screenwriter who moved from the Upper West Side to the Miracle Mile. "You can talk about the newspaper. Here, it doesn�t seem like anybody reads it. I was at a party one time and I made a comment about something I�d read in the paper, and a woman turned to me and said, �Did you just move out here?� And I said yes. And she said, �You won�t be reading the paper much longer.� That really shocked me.

That's not entirely true. But you are unlikely to be reading the paper, New York Times commercial-style, in bed with somebody else. That's why, as I wrote in a recent column, "Desperate is the new normal."

Posted by aalkon at 08:47 AM | Comments (1)

Not The Only Goddess In Town

Not The Only Goddess In Town
Got an e-mail from...get this...The Mold Goddess! You have to check out her site. She was responding to my column about Mr. Unclean, originally titled "We Could Grow Mold Together"; retitled "Toxic mold failing as a romantic attraction." (I hate when they change my headlines!)

Posted by aalkon at 07:37 AM | Comments (2)

March 10, 2004

The Religious Wrong

The Religious Wrong
Be afraid. Be very afraid. From the site, theocracywatch.org:

"The Republican Party of Texas affirms that the United States is a Christian nation." --Texas Republican Party Platform, 2002

Here we are in the year 2004 and a small group of religious extremists have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. This web site demonstrates how we got here and how the media, even the progressive media is missing what is the most important story in modern American politics.

Please don't misunderstand the title: the Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party. This site is not about religion, nor about Christianity, nor about Republicans. This site is about how a small group of Republican strategists targeted a religious constituency to expand the base of their party, and how a small group of religious extremists targeted the Republican Party to bring the United States government under religious control.

Paranoia? Well, as the saying goes, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you."

(via Metafilter)

Posted by aalkon at 09:20 AM | Comments (4)

Isn't It Romantic?

Isn't It Romantic?
Not really. See?

(via Gossiplist)

Posted by aalkon at 08:41 AM | Comments (2)

March 09, 2004

Public Stalker Number One

Public Stalker Number One
Florida reporters and other news media employees testing the state's public records law met with some difficulty when they requested information. Officials lied to, harrassed, and even threatened the requesters:

At many agencies, asking for a document immediately sparked suspicion.

Roger Desjarlais, the Broward County administrator, threatened a volunteer by saying, "I can make your life very difficult."

After insisting that the volunteer give his name, Desjarlais used the Internet to identify the volunteer, find his cell phone number and call him after work hours.

In an interview after the audit, Desjarlais denied that he threatened or tried to intimidate the volunteer, who is a reporter with SNN-Channel 6 in Sarasota.

Desjarlais defended his actions, saying that the volunteer raised suspicion when he declined to explain who he was. Officials across the state had similar misgivings about volunteers who came into their offices.

They cited a number of arbitrary reasons for their suspicions, including the volunteers' hair length, casual dress and, in one case, "the look in his eyes."

Yeah -- he probably looked...uninformed!

(via Reason's Daily Brickbats)

Posted by aalkon at 06:57 AM | Comments (0)

Zero Intelligence Policy

Zero Intelligence Policy
A 12-year-old boy is expelled, under the zero-tolerance policy, for bringing scissors to school -- to use in sewing class! I guess school officials were afraid he might wreak terrible violence on the fabric -- always a problem in my case, in the days I (rather optimistically) attempted to sew.

Posted by aalkon at 06:56 AM | Comments (4)

March 08, 2004

All Things Being Equally Unequal

All Things Being Equally Unequal
Cathy Young is right about how wrong "marriage privileging" (granting of special rights to people who are traditionally married) is -- and on top of that, denying marriage to non-heterosexuals who want those now-granted marital rights.

Personally, I don't believe in committing to someone for life. I actually find it anti-life -- because it promotes staying together after the relationship is dead. Well, there is divorce, you say. Yes, but I don't make promises I'm not reasonably sure I can keep. And I can't say, if I love you today, that I will love you 15 years from now. People change. And when they do, if they change in such a way that their relationship is no longer viable, they should amicably split up. Why is it considered tragic when relationships end? Things end, things die. It's merely a fact of life -- one we should begin to accept. There's more respect for life in living truthfully -- and splitting up -- than there is in two people living in misery together and pretending it's bliss.

Posted by aalkon at 11:49 AM | Comments (0)

Bush League Science

Bush League Science
Missing the scientific votes, President Bush, to make the ban on stem-cell research go your way? Just fire the opposition! Unfortunately, that won't be enough to silence the opposition. Cell biologist Elizabeth H. Blackburn, formerly a member of the President's Council on Bioethics tells all:

When I read the council's first discussion documents, my heart sank. The language was not what I was used to seeing in scientific discourse -- it seemed to me to present pre-judged views and to use rhetoric to make points. Still, the debates we had in the ensuing months proved far-ranging, and all comments were politely received. And, despite the betting of outsiders, 10 of the council's 17 members (one had retired) initially voted against recommending a ban on therapeutic cloning. A late change to the question being voted on turned the minority who were in favor of a ban into a majority of 10 favoring a four-year moratorium, an option the council had not discussed in meetings. But the report issued in July 2002 contained a breadth of views. It also contained a series of personal statements by council members, many of them dissenting from the report's official recommendations.

In the year and a half following that report, I began to sense much less tolerance from the chairman for dissenting views. I will focus only on embryonic stem cell research.

Work with animal models had been indicating the potential benefits of such research for more than two decades. More recently, breakthrough research had suggested for the first time that those avenues of investigation would be possible in humans, with revolutionary implications for health care. Yet at council meetings, I consistently sensed resistance to presenting human embryonic stem cell research in a way that would acknowledge the scientific, experimentally verified realities. The capabilities of embryonic versus adult stem cells, and their relative promise for medicine, were obfuscated. Although I was not able to attend every meeting, I engaged fully in preparations for the report: I read and assessed the published science, attended presentations on new research at national and international scientific conferences, and consulted with cell biologists, including stem cell biologists, across the country. The information I submitted was not reflected in the report drafts.

Clearly, the council's reports concerned politically charged topics. I knew that my views on cloning and stem cell research did not match those of either Kass or Bush, as I understood them: In his public statements, the president had supported banning therapeutic as well as reproductive cloning. Still, I was not prepared for the phone call I received at home from the White House on Wednesday, Feb. 25. The caller requested that on Friday afternoon I call the White House Personnel Office. No hint was given as to the reason. When I called, the director said that the White House had decided to "make changes" in the council and that it was adding new people to replace some individual members. I asked him whether this meant that my term on the council had terminated, and the reply was yes.

And what "changes" they were. I was one of just three full-time biomedical scientists on the council. William May, a deeply thoughtful, erudite theologian and medical ethicist, was also leaving. He, too, had often differed with Kass on issues such as the moral worth of biomedical research and the ramifications of trying to legislate such research. And he, too, had voted against both a ban and a moratorium on therapeutic cloning.

When I read the published views of the three new members (bringing the council up to its original total of 18 members), it seemed to me they represented a loss of balance in the council, both professionally and philosophically. None was a biomedical scientist, and the views of all three were much closer to the views espoused by Kass than mine or May's were. One, a surgeon who was not a scientist, had championed a larger place for religious values in public life. Another was a political philosopher who had publicly praised Kass's work; the third, a political scientist, had described research in which embryos are destroyed as "evil."

Just "science" as usual in Bush-land!

(via Reason's blog)

Posted by aalkon at 08:14 AM | Comments (0)

Overheard By Jeff Jarvis

Overheard By Jeff Jarvis
Bill Maher echoed the news that Ashcroft was in the hospital -- adding that doctors were figuring he got sick from "wiping his ass with the Bill of Rights."

Posted by aalkon at 07:39 AM | Comments (0)

The Hoggie Bag

The Hoggie Bag
A friend bought me dinner last week, and was a little peeved that I only ate about a third of my chicken. No, I hadn't eaten beforehand. But, I'm not a member of The Clean Plate Club -- aka Eat Until You Barf.

Nobody is going to give you an award for finishing the enormous portion of food a lot of restaurants in this country serve as dinner for one. You will, however, get an ass the size of Kansas if you eat it.

Kim Severinson writes that a lot of people don't even realize how much they're eating -- which, some surmise, is why America is so increasingly obese. I just don't understand. How hard is to to figure out, if you eat a full plate of French fries at every meal and a steak the size of a roast, the results are not going to be pretty?

Posted by aalkon at 06:19 AM | Comments (5)

March 07, 2004

The Appearance Of Safety

The Appearance Of Safety
Malcolm Gladwell's terrific New Yorker piece on SUVs is now online. Here's his interview about the piece, previously linked here.

Vomit now.

Posted by aalkon at 08:57 AM | Comments (0)

March 06, 2004

Moooo!

Moooo!
The "average" American woman is a size 14! Kate Zernike writes in The New York Times about the personally supersized:

For years, an average woman was thought to be a size 8, although some circles had bumped that up to size 12 in recent years. But even the women who came in on the small side in the SizeUSA survey look more like what the longtime clothing industry standards would consider a size 14 � the size at which "plus size" clothing begins.

Industry standards set a size 8 at a 35-inch bust, a 27-inch waist, and 37.5-inch hip. In the survey, white women ages 18 to 25 came in, on average, 38-32-41, with white women ages 36 to 45 coming in at 41-34-43. (Barbie, long the plastic bane of body image, is said to have measurements that project to about 39-18-33.) In that same age group, black women measure, on average, 43-37-46, Hispanic women 42.5-36-44, and "other" women, which researchers said meant mostly Asian, 41-35-43.

Similarly, most men are larger than the traditional 40 regular, long considered the average. A 40 regular, according to standards, means a 40-inch chest, 34-inch waist, and 40-inch hip, with a 15.5-inch collar. In the survey, white men ages 18 to 25 had, on average, a 41-inch chest, 35-inch waist, 41-inch hips and a 16-inch collar (that is raw neck size � shirts are generally sized at least a half-inch bigger). From the ages of 36 to 45, white men came in at 44-38-42, black men 43-37-42, Hispanic men 44-38-42 and "other" 42-37-41.

"Waists are the first problem, " said Jim Lovejoy, the director of SizeUSA and a director at TC2, the Cary, N.C., technology firm whose machines did the survey. "The numbers show that we're complex, but we're definitely getting heavier, and it's primarily in the waist � and the hips follow the waist."

The last national survey was done in 1941, when the United States Department of Agriculture sent out researchers with tape measures to size up the population in anticipation of having to design military uniforms for World War II. Sirvart Mellian, an anthropologist and a member of the board that sets the clothing size standards for the American Society of Testing and Materials, said those numbers were then taken by the mail-order industry to design clothing sizes.

But they measured a population far less diverse than today's. As more Americans have become overweight, A.S.T.M. has increased the measurements for the standard sizes. Clothing companies, too, began using "vanity sizing," putting, say, a size 6 label on a size 10 in the hopes of luring a customer. Even men's sizes, which are considered more accurate because they are labeled in inches, are often "relaxed" to measure an inch bigger than the advertised size.

But until now, no one has gone out and updated the actual measurements. Clothing companies wanted updated information to better design products to fit their customers.

How about a stall in a barn? A lot of women in America act like there's some conspiracy making them fat. What it is, is pretty simple: they go places that serve huge portions of (often tasteless) food, or make themselves huge portions, then eat the whole thing. Then they lie, whale-like, on the sofa, wondering why the pounds aren't melting away.

Posted by aalkon at 08:46 AM | Comments (11)

March 05, 2004

Close, But No David Souter

Close, But No David Souter
Roe v. Wade almost went down in 1992, according to Supreme Court Justice Blackmun's recently released papers. What saved it? In part, apparently, it was Justice Anthony Kennedy's cold feet -- unexplained in Blackmun's papers. But, was it also positively affected by Justice David Souter's alleged need, as suggested by one of Blackmun's clerks, to preserve his dating service?!!

At one point, one of Blackmun's law clerks wrote that the three centrist justices could pay a price for disagreeing with the White House view on abortion.

The unmarried Souter might lose his popularity with then-first lady Barbara Bush as her favorite "most-eligible bachelor" to invite to White House dinners, the clerk wrote.

It's been more than a decade since intimate details of the court's inner workings were revealed in Justice Thurgood Marshall's papers, which elicited bitter criticism within the court because the papers include secret memos and unpublished draft opinions in controversial cases.

Most current justices are expected to ensure their files and any embarrassing secrets they might hold will be protected long after their deaths.

Blackmun, like Marshall, served 24 years on the court and into his 80s, retiring in 1994. He accumulated far more correspondence than Marshall.

The appointee of President Nixon "took copious notes and never threw away any of his papers," Washington lawyer David Frederick said.

His authorship of Roe v. Wade brought him more than 60,000 angry letters and repeated threats on his life.

I'm no fan of the Democrats, but I suggest those of you who are planning on voting Bush back into office consider very carefully what might slip away in the course of another four more years.

Posted by aalkon at 08:58 AM | Comments (7)

Fundamentalism Kills

Fundamentalism Kills
And chases away scientists. David Ewing Duncan writes about Doug Melton, a scientist working with stem cells in hopes of saving the lives of his two children:

Twelve-year-old Sam and 16-year-old Emma have been diagnosed with insulin- dependent diabetes. If Melton's research is successful, they could be spared the organ failure, blindness and heart disease that eventually afflict diabetics -- but only if Melton is allowed to continue his work by lawmakers in Washington, D.C. They worry that his methods might be immoral or dangerous and are threatening to shut down his work.

If Congress bans stem cell research, Melton's choices are continue his research and risk prison, or leave the country. Duncan, who wrote the article, notes the parallel to Gallileo, "broken and banished" in his final years, and living in house arrest, "his output of discoveries silenced." Everything old is new again? Well, not quite. Probably like a lot of other scientists, if fundamentalism triumphs in The Senate (in the form of legislation lumping stem cell cloning with reproductive cloning), Melton plans to leave the country for another country -- Britain, perhaps -- where the benefits of stem cell research now take precedence over the ravings of religious fantatics.

Posted by aalkon at 07:29 AM | Comments (5)

March 04, 2004

Sandra The Love Sponge

Sandra The Love Sponge
More from Cathy Seipp on the Sandra Tsing Loh firing.

Posted by aalkon at 06:17 PM | Comments (1)

The Nipple That Rocked Santa Monica

The Nipple That Rocked Santa Monica
Janet Jackson's exposed nipple apparently did something weird to the clocks. It was 1976 when Patti Smith said "fuck" on WNEW radio, and got blacklisted by the station. And now, in 2004, Sandra Tsing Loh has been fired from KCRW, thanks to a "fuck" in her Sunday morning commentary that the engineer forgot to bleep (as was Sandra's intention). It's a scary, retrograde Puritan world we live in. LA Observed has a piece on it, Cathy Seipp has more on her blog, and then there's her LA City Beat column on it. Tell KCRW station head Ruth Seymour how you feel at mail@krcw.org.

UPDATE -- A friend of mine posted in the comments below:

Just emailed KCRW promising them another $100 on top of my annual subscription if they'll reinstate Sandra Tsing Loh.

Suggest everyone who either likes her, or disapproves of Ruth Seymour's decision, or both, does the same.

More effective, in my opinion, than cancelling subscriptions, which is liable only to harden battle lines and needlessly punish the station as a whole. Besides, it's almost always more productive to reward good behaviour than to punish bad. (True of children, true of grown-ups too.)

He's right.

Posted by aalkon at 10:11 AM | Comments (11)

The Science Of Spin

The Science Of Spin
Leon Kass, chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics, hurls a few whoppers around in the Washington Post in explaining the comings and goings of members on the council. Just one more example of how selective "science" is being handed down, right and left, by our fundamentalist-in-chief.

On a less depressing note, here's a link to the group -- The Union Of Concerned Scientists -- that advocates making decisions based on evidence, not coming up with the decisions first (after consulting with your pastor), then trolling for scientists to support it. That reminds me of a story I heard about a young guy in World War II, who was shooting at a wall. There were about ten perfect bullseyes, in chalk circles, on the wall. An officer came up and asked the guy how he'd learn to shoot so well. "It's easy," said the guy. "I shoot first, and draw the bullseyes afterward."

On to a more depressing note, here's a link to an article on the state of science in the Arab world; the Arab world, once a center for science (centuries ago), and now, anything but.

(Arabs in science link via Arts & Letters Daily)

Posted by aalkon at 08:45 AM | Comments (1)

March 03, 2004

Bill Maher

Tying The Leash
"Gay marriage will not lead to dog marriage. It is not a slippery slope to rampant inter-species marriage. When women got the vote, it didn't lead to hamsters voting."

--Bill Maher

Posted by aalkon at 09:43 AM | Comments (5)

The Word Of The Day

The Word Of The Day
A little souvenir from my deadline-day travels.

Posted by aalkon at 08:18 AM | Comments (1)

March 02, 2004

What's Your Dumb-Ass Question For The Candidate?

What's Your Dumb-Ass Question For The Candidate?
After Matt Welch heard somebody ask John Kerry "Is God on America's side?" he was inspired to come up with a his own list of dumb-ass questions for the candidates. Here are a few of my favorites:

* Does God love Guam and Puerto Rico just a little less? The District of Columbia? American Samoa?

* Do non-human animals believe in oral sex?

* What if all this was a dream, and you woke up & you were the president of Mexico?

Remember, you heard it hear first. (And on the major news networks second.)

(via Reason's blog)

Posted by aalkon at 08:26 AM | Comments (14)

March 01, 2004

What Price (Imaginary) Love?

What Price (Imaginary) Love?
Can't buy a girlfriend? Just rent one:

She's the perfect girlfriend - funny, sexy and supportive. She'll cheer you up after a hard day, send you loving text messages and make your life complete. If you dump her, she'll beg to be taken back. There's only one small hiccup - you'll never get to meet her.

This is the service promised by 'imaginary girlfriends' on the auction website ebay. Once known for selling collectables and leftovers, ebay has become the world's biggest car boot sale, with 94 million users and 3 million new items for sale every day.

Its massive success has created a subculture trading in bizarre, obscure or even theoretical items - human souls, aircraft carriers and now imaginary companions.

The phenomenon started in November when 'Judy', a 22-year-old Texan student, put herself up for sale 'totally on a whim'. 'It was just a late-night idea,' she says, aimed at men who wanted to claim they had a girlfriend. She already had a long-term boyfriend who 'thought it was kind of weird'. Her first two listings attracted 36,000 viewers and earned her $122. A craze was born.

By January, the trend had spread to the UK. There was 'xEmma Louizex' - '19, blond hair, very sexy and cute... trying to get into the acting/singing business'. She made �67. 'Nikki321' - 'a cute 19-year-old college girl from Berkshire' - got �48. 'Nightnursesara', a 'typical English rose', earned �30 'to fund my degree', although 'she' confessed to me that she was the creation of a married couple. Even the terrifying-sounding 'Wiccan_Pain_Slave' found a bidder willing to pay her a tenner.

One 'working mother, professional dancer and actress' decided that enhanced service was the way to go. One of her proposals was to die tragically in a car crash on the way to meeting you - she'd even place an obituary for you to show your friends.

Posted by aalkon at 08:16 AM | Comments (4)

What Newspapers In America Are Missing

What Newspapers In America Are Missing
Interviews like this: Marianne Faithful, Fabulous Beast.

Posted by aalkon at 07:39 AM | Comments (1)

February 29, 2004

Secrets And Liza

I don't really think your thoughts are right. Maybe you need a loan?

Posted by aalkon at 08:07 AM | Comments (5)

February 28, 2004

Jackhammer Jesus

Jackhammer Jesus
Bet even Mel's feeling the good vibrations.

Posted by aalkon at 09:07 AM | Comments (6)

Equal Rights Are Sooooo Complicated!

Equal Rights Are Sooooo Complicated!
David Frum argues against allowing gay marriage because it might get a little difficult legally, if one state (say, Massachusetts) truly allows all citizens to be treated equally, and the bigots in the rest get to treat gays like tax-paying second-class citizens. Here are a few questions he finds particularly troubling:

1) A Massachusetts man buys a condo in Miami. He marries another Massachusetts man. The condo purchaser dies before he can write a new will. Who inherits the condo?

2) Two Massachusetts women marry. One of them becomes pregnant. The couple split up, and the woman who bore the child moves to Connecticut. The other woman sues for visitation rights. What should the Connecticut courts do?

3) A Massachusetts man is accused of stock fraud. The federal Securities and Exchange Commission subpoenas his spouse. The spouse claims marital privilege and refuses to answer the SEC�s questions. May the SEC compel him to answer anyway?

4) A Massachusetts woman marries another Massachusetts woman. The relationship sours. Without obtaining a divorce, she moves to Texas and marries a man. Has she committed bigamy?

5) Two married Massachusetts men are vacationing in another state. One of them has a stroke. The hospital concludes he will never recover. Local law requires the hospital to ask the next of kin whether to continue treatment. Whom should it ask?

6) A Massachusetts man marries a foreign visitor to the United States. Should the foreigner be entitled to US residency?

7) A Delaware family set up a trust for their son. The son moves to Massachusetts, marries a man, and then gets divorced. The trust is the son's only financial asset. Should the Massachusetts take the trust into account while dividing up the couple�s possessions? If yes, what happens when the Delaware trustees refuse to comply?

8) A Massachusetts woman married to another woman wins a lawsuit against a California corporation. She dies before she can collect her debt. Her closest blood relative demands that the corporation pay the relative, not the surviving spouse. Who should get the money?

I ask these questions to drive home this point: Americans may live in states, but they conduct their financial and legal lives in a united country bound by interstate institutions.

If a couple gets married in Massachusetts and that marriage goes truly unrecognized by any entity outside the state � well then the Massachusetts wedding ceremony is just a form of words, as meaningless as the illegal weddings now being performed in San Francisco. If you�re not married outside Massachusetts, then you are not really married inside Massachusetts either.

Obviously, this can't be an issue states decide. We need to institute a national policy in which all citizens are allowed equal rights. Morever, the rights above, including inheiritance and hospital visitation of sick partners, should not just be granted to married people. We should have registered partnership agreements for people like me, in committed relationships, who don't believe in the irational idea of committing for life, and/or don't like the psycho-social baggage that comes with marriage. Moreover, it's time to end the privileging that comes with marriage -- in social security benefits and tax breaks. Sure, you can get a few bucks off your taxes for the upkeep of your 12 bratty children. But why should "single" people (a term I've never liked, since it defines people by comparison to "married," as if that's the gold standard) pay more in taxes than married people? The same, by the way, goes for the self-employed.

Mr. Frum, there are a lot of things about our society I don't like -- religious nuts crusading for institutionalized bigotry, to name just one -- but I don't try to legislate away their right to spew their thinly-disguised hate. If, Mr. Frum, you're a man who doesn't believe men should marry men, here's a simple solution for you: Don't marry one. But as long as rights are being granted to heterosexuals who marry, those rights also rightfully belong to gays.

Posted by aalkon at 08:10 AM | Comments (13)

February 27, 2004

Cingularly Worthless?

Cingularly Worthless?
Did anybody else out there, with an OS X Mac, buy a Bluetooth Sony Ericsson T68i phone (I got mine about a year ago), after being told by Cingular sales reps that they'd be able to use it as a modem with their iBook or Powerbook? I just got off the phone with one of those phone company ladies (in response to a nasty letter about another issue -- how they're sneakily overcharging me every month [no matter how often I complain and ask them to stop] to the tune of about 75 cents for long distance charges, when I pay for free nationwide long distance service).

While I was on the phone with this woman, I was reminded -- very unpleasantly reminded, that is -- of how I'd paid extra to get this phone, and even signed up for two years with them to get it at a discounted rate. I did this only because Cingular told me I'd be able to use my phone as a modem. Well, not only could I not make it work as a modem, my boyfriend couldn't either -- after spending about two excruciating hours on the phone with their tech people. Now, my boyfriend is a guy who, among other things, not only designs Web sites (my blog, for example), he pretty much takes apart computers and puts them back together for amusement...so, if he can't get the damn phone to work as a modem, nobody can. In short, I think I got rooked.

The Cingular woman, most irritatingly, kept telling me, "I'm sorry that you feel that way." "No, you aren't!" I eventually shouted into the phone, after hearing about her twelfth robotically repeated apology. "If you were truly sorry, you'd give me back the money that I wasted on this phone...and my Bluetooth (connection) chicklet, too!" Nooo...they couldn't do that. Before my final tantrum, Cingular Woman insisted, a number of times, that a number of their customers use the Bluetooth phone with their laptops. And how many were on Macintoshes, I asked her. HOW MANY ON MACS!? She "(didn't) know." None!...I bet.

Am I wrong? Please let me know. After all, I don't want to be unfair to irritating and unhelpful phone company customer service people. If you're connecting to the Internet via your computer and a Sony Ericsson T68i, do comment below and let me know. And, if you don't mind, spread this post to Mac/Tech people in the know. There's nothing I despise like paying for something I'm not getting -- and if Cingular is overselling this, let's get the word out, and Blogo-spear them.

--Yours In Consumer Indignation, The Advice Goddess

Posted by aalkon at 03:43 PM | Comments (7)

Amber Rumpenstuff

Amber Rumpenstuff
My Bond Girl name. What's yours?

(via Amy Langfield)

Posted by aalkon at 09:08 AM | Comments (11)

Why People Believe In Really Dumb Crap

Why People Believe In Really Dumb Crap
Mark Henderson explores the idiocy of people who should know better:

Take, for instance, the followers of Dr Deepak Chopra. Chopra is a real doctor whose credentials, like his powers of reason if not his bank balance, have lapsed. He makes millions of dollars by advising the gullible. His bestsellers, among their many banalities, take literally the maxim that age is a state of mind. �People grow old and die because they have seen other people grow old and die,� he argues. �Ageing is simply learned behaviour.�

It hardly takes a genius to spot the flaws. Yet Chopra�s speaking fee is $25,000 (�13,600), his annual income tops $20 million and his list of client-disciples includes Madonna, Hillary Clinton and Mikhail Gorbachev.

Demi Moore hopes to live to a great age through his teachings. �Even 130 years isn�t impossible,� she says.

Modern peddlers of snake oil such as Chopra are the worthy targets of a coruscating new book: Francis Wheen�s How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World. From Ronald Reagan�s astrological charts to Cherie Blair�s �BioElectric Shield� and the Queen and her heir�s homeopathic hokum, it lays bare the extent to which delusion, paranoia, ignorance and nonsense have takenover public life.

Far too many otherwise sensible people, Wheen argues, have abandoned rational inquiry for superstition, instinct and anecdote. As he puts it: �It was as if the Enlightenment had never happened.� This flight from facts has appeared in many guises. Creationism and postmodernism, alternative medical quackery and management speak are all cut from the same cloth: they share a pig-headed refusal to face up to sober evidence that the emperor is wearing no clothes.

Henderson sees some hope in the fact that some poll seemed to indicate that the average person would want data to be peer-reviewed -- "the independent refereeing process for scientific research" -- if they knew what peer review was. (Professional journals require articles and studies submitted for publication to be judged by a group of the author's professional peers, and published, revised and resubmitted, or rejected by the publication, based on the decision of that jury.)

Henderson is very optimistic. I am not.

UPDATE: Thanks to Jim Bennett, here's the link to the American version of Wheen's book, Idiot Proof: The 25-Year History of How We Stopped Thinking.

Posted by aalkon at 08:25 AM | Comments (7)

February 26, 2004

Remember Freedom Of Speech?

Remember Freedom Of Speech?
You might not remember it for long. Jeff Jarvis has a great, rage-filled blog item on the squashing of Howard Stern by Censor Channel (uh, Clear Channel):

The more I think about this, the more enraged I get. One tit flopped out and the government -- the Bush administration -- can't wait to play to its far-right fringe and censor speech and intimidate speech and chill speech. How dare they? This is not the role we expect of our government. We don't need a nanny. Let's hear a little liberartarian outrage at government meddling in our lives and our speech. Let's hear a little conservative outrage at government growing beyond its bounds. Let's hear a little liberal outrage at goverment stiffling free spech. I don't give a damn whether you like or despise Howard Stern; that's beside the point. If you're American, you cherish free speech and you should be appalled at what is happening to it. This is not coming from media consolidation. This is coming from government intimidation. F Michael Powell. F the FCC. F Clear Channel. Defend Howard Stern. Or lose your own rights to say what you want where and when you want to say it.

If you care about your right to free speech, he (and I) suggest you speak up about it before it's a dim memory. Start by contacting the idiots at the FCC.

Here's my own e-mail to the lead FCC nanny, Michael Powell:

Not everyone in this country is a bible-thumper. Those who are have the freedom to change the channel or turn off the set. But not for long, right? What you're doing is an assault on the freedoms of all citizens of this country. I'm not a big fan of Howard Stern, but my fingers work -- I can tune the radio to a lot of channels besides the one he's on. What happened to the party of small government? Who crowned you nanny? You disgust and appall me, and I loathe the Democrats, but I'd vote for an orangutan before I vote for George Bush and the likes of you, you vile, freedom-sucking cur. --Amy Alkon

Posted by aalkon at 11:22 AM | Comments (13)

Gay Is The New Black

Gay Is The New Black
The next time you open the newspaper, and see the words of some mouth-foaming bigot railing against gay marriage in a news story, go through the piece and replace the word "gay" with "blacks and whites" -- as in, "Allowing blacks and whites to marry will be the downfall of society as we know it."

No, The National Guard isn't marching on the San Francisco city hall with dogs and fire hoses -- but the fight for gay citizens to have the same rights as all other citizens is a sad repeat of the fight for civil rights for black Americans. Once again, the bible-toting bigots are using history and religion to justify their bigotry -- and once again, notes C.W. Nevius, in the SF Chronicle, they simply expurgated all the parts that don't support their case:

"It is really much more complex in religious perspective than you might think,'' says Tolbert, the George Atkinson Professor for Biblical Studies at the Pacific School of Religion. "What the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament) suggests as a general model for marriage is polygamy. You look at someone like Solomon who had 200 wives and 600-and-some concubines. Or Abraham, who had his first child by his wife's slave. It sounds as if it was quite normal.''

Tolbert, who is also the executive director for the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry, points out that marriage didn't even become a sacrament of the church "until the 12th century. For the first 1,200 years (A.D.) in Europe there were civil unions by town or village government.''

Nor does the New Testament offer much help. In fact, by some selective readings it sounds as if the Bible has mixed views of marriage. As Tolbert says, Jesus says very little about marriage, and both he and Paul were single men. And Paul, at least, recommended chastity.

"Marriage is not a sin,'' says Paul in First Corinthians, "but it is better to be unmarried.''

"The Bible is an incredibly important sacred icon in our culture,'' says Tolbert. "But I just think a lot of people don't read it.''

No, they prefer to use it as weapon.

Posted by aalkon at 09:21 AM | Comments (7)

Bottrell To Bush

Never Too Busy For Bigotry
It seems my friend, screenwriter David Bottrell ("Kingdom Come" and other movies), is one of those people who's of special interest to our fundamentalist-in-chief -- that busy guy who's never too busy to make a special effort to see that gays and lesbians remain second-class citizens. Here's what David had to say about that:

Well, I guess I should feel honored in some odd way. It�s not every day the President of the United States announces his support for a constitutional amendment specifically designed to take rights away from ME personally. Who knew that the President could afford to take time away from the troubled economy and the war in Iraq to deliver such a calculated slap to my face?

What a sad state of affairs. Perhaps I�m na�ve, but I continue to believe that there exists out there somewhere a quiet majority of intelligent, compassionate heterosexual people who understand that gayness is not a choice. Surely that same group also understands that as tax-paying, law-abiding citizens, we gay folks are not greedily seeking �more� rights, just the same basic civil rights as our heterosexual brothers and sisters. Long ago, marriage was made into a civil institution for a very good reason -- to strengthen society -- and as a civil institution; shouldn�t it be available to all who care to enter into it?

By endorsing a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, Mr. Bush has sadly aligned himself with that same loud-mouthed, unappealing group of people who always want to use ignorance, bad theology and fear to grab headlines when we as a country have much bigger fish to fry (like national security and the environment, for example).

Call me Pollyanna, but I believe the battle for same-sex marriage will ultimately be won � but not by activists, liberal judges or even by gay people. In the end, it will be won by compassionate, fair-minded heterosexual people who will finally come to realize that you can�t start a sentence with �Well, I have nothing against Gay people�� without proving just the opposite. Not that I�m any great biblical scholar, but it seems to me that the two most consistent themes in the Bible are to �love God� and to �love thy neighbor as yourself.� So perhaps as this debate rages on, it would behoove us all to keep in mind that to love one�s neighbor is to wish them the exact same happiness and fulfillment in their lives that you experience in your own (including the right to honorably marry the person you love).

--David Dean Bottrell, Los Angeles

Posted by aalkon at 07:29 AM | Comments (2)

February 25, 2004

Merchandising Jesus

Sanctimony Sells!
"Jesus died for your sins -- and also to sell you a really bitchin' 'Passion' coffee mug," writes Mark Morford. Nothing like cheap movie swag to make a movie David Denby called "a sickening death trip" go down a little easier:

You, yes you, can right now purchase a truly stylin' sepia-toned "Passion of the Christ" cross-adorned coffee mug, an exact replica of the one Jesus Himself used every morning at the Jerusalem Starbucks.

You can buy "witnessing tools," including lapel pins labeled in indecipherable Aramaic (yay Aramaic! What a comeback! Who knew?) and lapel pins with crucifixes, and packs of "witnessing cards" to swap with your Jesus-happy friends, just like the Disciples did when they sat around the holy campfire, swapping tales of sad lost goddesses and making s'mores with communion wafers and pink Easter marshmallow peeps.

But nothing says "slightly masochistic Jesus fanatic" like adorning your fine self with a two-inch silver pewter crucifixion-nail pendant, hanging 'round your neck from a nice 24-inch leather chord. Oh my yes.

It's an actual product, available right now for about ten bucks from Mel Gibson's official "Passion of the Christ" movie Web site, while supplies last, which they will forever and ever because they're doubtlessly made in bulk by Malaysian sweatshop workers wearing faded "Lethal Weapon IV" T-shirts who all believe in a very unhappy Allah. Irony, it knoweth no boundaries.

Hey...where's my Mary Magdalene "Girl Power" ring!?

Posted by aalkon at 09:09 AM | Comments (12)

February 24, 2004

Hep To Reality

Hep To Reality
�Sometimes I wonder if men and women really suit each
other. Perhaps they should live next door and just visit now and then.�

--Katherine Hepburn

Posted by aalkon at 08:51 AM | Comments (6)

February 23, 2004

Taliban-Town, USA

Taliban-Town, USA
Andrew Gumbel reports on the self-proclaimed Mormon "prophet," Warren Jeffs, who's installed himself as religious dictator of a small community in Utah -- one which could very well be the next Waco:

Jeffs permits no books, newspapers or television for his followers, telling them that much of the outside world is evil. Public entertainment was never a big feature of life in Colorado City, just the occasional dance or picnic, but now it has been banned altogether. Jeffs expects every family to hang at least one portrait of him above their mantlepiece, and to listen to tapes of his sermons -- there are at least 150 -- until they can be recited verbatim.

To enforce his will, he has formed a gang of teenage boys, known variously as Uncle Warren's Sons of Helaman or, simply, the God Squad, who knock on people's doors unannounced and conduct searches to check for signs of insubordination.

Since Jeffs controls the trust that owns all the land in Hildale and Colorado City, and since he claims divine authority to determine every aspect of the lives of the 6,000-odd inhabitants, from the jobs they do to the people they marry, he has many ways of expressing his displeasure.

In the past few months, he has broken up three dozen polygamous families, "reassigning" wives and children whose menfolk have fallen out of favour. Last month, Jeffs excommunicated and expelled 20 prominent people, including his nonagenarian chief bishop, Fred Jessop, longstanding mayor Dan Barlow, and several members of Barlow's extended family. The current whereabouts of some of those expelled is far from clear.

Others, meanwhile, have refused to leave, rising up instead in open revolt against him.

The most visible rebel, 35-year-old Ross Chatwin, recently invited the national media to gather in front of the house he has been ordered to give up and hear him liken Jeffs to Adolf Hitler. "Warren is out of control," Chatwin later told me in his sparsely furnished living room, as four of his six children ran in and out.

"If men are not perfectly obedient and submissive to him, he shatters their families. And people go along with it, because they are totally convinced he is talking to God daily. It truly is one of the most effective brain-washing schemes since Hitler."

At the same time as Jeffs is conducting a purge within his community, he is facing mounting pressure from the outside world, as ever more alarming reports surface of a polygamy culture in Colorado City tantamount to a slavery racket in teenage girls. The testimony of dozens of girls who have run away from the community, some of whom have gone on to testify in court, suggests that sex abuse, paedophilia and incest are rampant.

Young girls -- they used to be as young as 11 or 12, although in recent times they have more typically been 15 or 16 -- are given away in marriage solely on the say-so of the prophet. They will be traded among the men like chattel. Often, their designated husbands are old enough to be their grandfathers, or even their great-grandfathers, and have multiple wives and children already. Not only are the girls not consulted ahead of time; they are effectively raped on their wedding nights, and held in a state of captivity thereafter.

After decades of inactivity -- the result of fear, laziness and a residual sympathy for the polygamists among mainstream Mormons -- the authorities in both Arizona and Utah have decided it is time to crack down, and Warren Jeffs may very well be their prime target. Weak laws make it hard to prosecute polygamy in and of itself, but both states deem it a felony for a man to have sex with a minor, and Utah birth certificates show that Jeffs has conceived children with at least two girls under the age of 18.

Can we all please join the 21st century before somebody gets hurt?

TECHNICAL NOTE: The story has some minor text-translation problems -- question marks where there should be dashes (on Mac OS X Explorer and Safari browsers), but is well-worth a read.

Posted by aalkon at 07:21 AM | Comments (8)

February 22, 2004

Screaming For Civility

The Shouter Limits
Bob Morris included yours truly in his New York Times column about the anti-zen way to encourage good manners. He starts with his experience:

The three children two rows ahead of me on a Florida flight over a recent holiday weekend were going wild, yelling across other passengers, whining and screaming like colicky infants (though they were far from it). Their indulgent, clueless parents were doing very little to control them.

I had earplugs. Still, I could hear them clearly. Should I say something?

My instinct was to lay low, but after witnessing the obvious distress of the crew and other passengers for two hours, I became emboldened. "Will you please shut those kids up?" I yelled at the top of my lungs.

There was a moment of silence while the father looked around for the source of the complaint. I stayed seated, anonymous behind him. But then the man next to me (who runs a martial arts school for children in New Jersey, he later said) took up the cause. "And if they won't shut up," he yelled, "get some duct tape for their mouths!"

The other passengers nodded in support. Some were even smiling. Perhaps I had been uncivil, but it was clearly in the name of the greater good. I guess I had given voice to the collective superego, the one that yells out what everybody else is thinking of the ill-mannered � Emily Post with a bullhorn.

You go, Emily! And here's the part with my part:

"Someone has to be the ethical fascist," said Amy Alkon, a syndicated advice columnist who hands out cards in Los Angeles teasing S.U.V. drivers as road-hogging, gas-guzzling vulgarians." Sally Beatty, a Wall Street Journal reporter who chastised a rude receptionist in a doctor's office the other day, said, "You just see something that needs to be done and you do it."

Me? I was mortified for my eruption on that plane, but eventually pleased as well. Because to everyone's relief, those children were quiet for the rest of our flight.

Sometimes you just have to demand good manners in the rudest possible way.

That was what I did today when I encountered a cur on her cell phone in a no-cell phone-zoned Santa Monica cafe. There's actually a "No Cell Phones" sign at this particular place. Cur Woman saw it (and told me so after I pointed the sign out), but saw fit to ignore it. "It's raining out," she whined plaintively, as if Noah and The Ark were about to wash up any moment. I noted that the sign did not say "No Cell Phones -- except when there's a light mist," (which there was) but, simply "No Cell Phones." (Moreover, I'd just gone outside and stood under an awning to talk to my boyfriend on my own cell phone, and I didn't exactly get washed away in the torrential afternoon sprinkle.) Well, the woman stormed over to my table, as fast as her little drumstick-shaped legs could carry her, and demanded, "Who do you think you are?!" -- probably assuming I'd crawl under my table and curl up like a bug.

Well, not only am I naturally rather tall, I was wearing my normal four-inch-heeled slut boots. I got up from the table, stood up straight, towering over her, and announced, "I'm Amy Alkon, The Advice Goddess," and added, most conveniently, "And you can find me talking in the Sunday NY Times Styles section about rude people like you!" (Thank you, Emily Post/Bob!)

Our Girl In Cur-hood didn't disintegrate into a small pile of ashes from my withering squint (sadly, I'm all posture and no special powers), but there was more squawking from her about how I should be minding my own business, blah, blah, blah. I told her I'd been hoping to -- until my business was interrupted by her yammering. She squawked on a bit, then wobbled across the room on her little drumstick legs to commune with some other rule-flouter -- loudly detailing how she was disturbed by me while disturbing the peace. Oh, the injustice!

Now, I don't claim to be mature or anything. Perhaps I could have approached her a little less confrontationally. Perhaps. Still, I do get a little pissy about needing to interact with the universe all the time just because the place appears to be populated, largely, by inconsiderate boors. That said, there is something about standing up and looking down on the top of some squat rude person's head when you're berating them that is near-sex-like in the satisfaction it brings!

Posted by aalkon at 08:53 AM | Comments (11)

February 21, 2004

International Outsourcing

Say Phir Milengay To Your Privacy
(That would be "goodbye" in Hindi.) Because your social security number and a lot more are in the hands of somebody in Calcutta who's probably getting about three cents for handling your private medical or financial records. (Try not to laugh too hard when Bush administration officials claim this is good for our economy.) Kim Zetter reports for Wired on the outsourcing of our privacy:

Companies increasingly are outsourcing more than just programming jobs to places like India. They are using foreign accountants to prepare U.S. tax returns, foreign radiologists to examine X-rays and even foreign clerks to transcribe dictation of sensitive medical data from American doctors. In these cases, most Americans have no idea that someone outside the United States handled private information about them. More worrisome, Americans might not be able to sue or collect damages from foreigners who misuse the information.

Last year a medical transcriber in Pakistan threatened to post patients' medical records online unless the University of California at San Francisco Medical Center settled a financial dispute. Lubna Baloch, the transcriber, claimed she hadn't been paid the 3 cents a line reportedly promised by a Texas man, who, in turn, had subcontracted the work from a Florida woman. The Florida woman herself had subcontracted the work from Transcription Stat, a firm in Sausalito, California, that was paid 18 cents a line by the medical center for the work. The owner of Transcription Stat said she couldn't respond to questions due to a pending lawsuit in the case.

Posted by aalkon at 10:40 AM | Comments (0)

ReadMyBoobs.Com

ReadMyBoobs.Com
Just when you thought milk cartons and temporary tattoos were the last new frontier in advertising...

Posted by aalkon at 08:55 AM | Comments (2)

February 20, 2004

Nancy Rommelmann, Left, Right, And Center

Nancy Rommelmann, Left, Right, And Center
Nancy Rommelman (stunning in vintage Chanel, bien sur!) parties at both ends of the spectrum. At our end, the party Cathy Seipp, Emmanuelle Richard and I threw for Hollywood, Interrupted, Marc Ebner and Andrew Breitbart's deliciously scandalous new book about, among other things: misbehaving Hollywood celebrities, their abused nannies, Linda Lovelace and a dog that couldn't get it up (or didn't want to), and Mike Ovitz's tree-peeing son.

We gave away free books at our party (courtesy of Wiley, a publisher to covet, apparently), and there were free drinks and hors d'oeuvres, too. Viva capitalism! (Sadly, nobody came from the LA Weekly this time to complain about our free hors d'oeuvres.) As I noted on Cathy's blog, "It's always the commies complaining about the free gourmet food!"

Posted by aalkon at 07:29 PM | Comments (1)

Life In The Fat Lane

Life In The Fat Lane
Check out this new Web site about wide loads -- human and vehicular.

Posted by aalkon at 08:28 AM | Comments (1)

February 19, 2004

A Brief Break From Boobs

A Brief Break From Boobs
Yes, it's a vagina moment again. Well, not for everyone. No, it seems "Not all vaginas are skinny, white + straight" and "My cunt is not represented here." Don't say I didn't warn you: Swallow what you're drinking before you click this link, because you'll be laughing so hard you'll be snorting it out your nose.

Posted by aalkon at 09:31 AM | Comments (2)

The Anthropology Of Shopping

The Anthropology Of Shopping
Paco Underhill, called "a Sherlock Holmes for retailers," spends much of his life spying on shoppers, then reporting back to retailers so they can redecorate to make more money. I read his last book, Why We Buy, on the recommendation of an anthropologist, actually, and found it fascinating. In it, he explains, among other things, what he calls "the butt-brush effect": Shoppers, especially women, hate to be bumped or brushed from behind. If aisles are so narrow that they get bumped or jostled, they'll stop looking at merchandise and move on.

His latest book is Call Of The Mall. And that's where Roy Rivenburg followed him:

He began in the foyer of JCPenney, an area he calls "the landing strip" or "decompression zone." As shoppers enter a mall from outdoors, their walking speed downshifts and their eyes need time to adjust to the lighting. "This transition stage is one of the most critical things we've learned in two decades of studying how shoppers move through retail environments," Underhill explains in "Call of the Mall." If merchandise is placed too close to the door, it doesn't get noticed, he says.

Many department stores locate perfume counters near the entrance, a throwback to pre-automobile days when fragrance sections were "a bulwark against the stench of horse manure coming in from the street."

After zipping through Penney's, Underhill steps into the heart of Del Amo, a retail behemoth so sprawling it contains two Victoria's Secrets, two Carlton Cards and two Bath & Body Works.

As he navigates the mall, Underhill reels off statistics, trivia and play-by-play commentary on the sights around him.

Most of his banter zeroes in on "ways that merchants shoot themselves in the foot," such as a maternity store with aisles too narrow for baby strollers or a clothing shop with barebones fitting rooms. "Why don't we do a better job of romancing the dressing room?" he asks, going on to recommend adjustable lighting that simulates outdoor and indoor environments. "The dressing room is often the least glamorous part of a store, and yet it's where so much of the decision-making happens."

In Robinsons-May, he notes the contrast between the sleek cosmetics displays and the clutter behind the counter � clunky beige cash registers, 1980s-era telephones and frayed notebooks. If the store is trying to peddle glamour, he says, it should modernize the entire operation.

At Styles, a women's clothier, Underhill spots a mistake so common he can't resist meddling. With no clerks around to stop him, he bolts for the display window and starts rearranging the mannequins.

A moment later, he returns outside to explain his handiwork: Most mall window displays are aimed straight ahead, which means the only way to see them as you stroll past is to crane your neck unnaturally or walk sideways. A better method, he says, is to face the display slightly sideways, so the shopper sees it while approaching the store.

Hmm. That sounds fine if the customer arrives from the right side, but what about people approaching from the opposite direction? Wouldn't they see only the backs of the mannequins? Yes, Underhill says, but they'll be vastly outnumbered. That's because research shows that most mall pedestrians follow a counterclockwise loop through a mall � except in Britain, where people drive on the left side of the road and thus prefer a clockwise path as pedestrians.

Underhill, a self-described "tall, bald, stuttering research wonk" who spends a third of his time on the road ("There are more than 100 American malls to which I could give you accurate driving directions off the top of my head," he notes), has seen just about everything in retail. He can tell you, for example, that products displayed on tables sell better than those on shelves or racks.

But he's in for a surprise at Hermit Crab, a kiosk vendor near the middle of the mall. It's a tub of beach sand crawling with tiny crabs in hand-painted shells. It's an eye-catcher, but Underhill finds it slightly creepy: "This is a testament to the fact that we are fascinated by critters ... but how soon will it be before the ASPCA [cracks down]?"

At least they're hard to shoplift!

(via Arts & Letters Daily)

Posted by aalkon at 08:47 AM | Comments (0)

Nancy Rommelman's Journey

Nancy Rommelman's Journey
Nancy Rommelman reads a story of a sick little girl, who looks just like hers, and falls in. This week's LA Weekly cover story.

Posted by aalkon at 07:02 AM | Comments (0)

February 18, 2004

What First Amendment?

What First Amendment?
"Censorship is not a solution for trashy TV," writes Wendy McElroy about the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004. "Nipplegate by Janet" wasn't the impetus for the Act, she observes, but it may propel its passage:

Radio is particularly vulnerable. There are more independent radio stations than television ones; a high percentage of radio programming is live; the FCC-targeted shock jocks are a radio phenomenon; and, there are few television equivalents to freewheeling college radio stations. But both radio and television are equally vulnerable to the vagueness of the FCC's definition of indecency.

For example, one standard of indecency is whether the material is "patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium." Accused violations can be judged on a case-by-case basis according to this ill-defined measure.

In a letter to the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, Laura Murphy -- Director of the ACLU Washington National Office wrote, "Because of the vagueness, speakers must...[guess] what the FCC will determine to be prohibited. Increasing fines merely exacerbates the problem, particularly for small broadcasters. Rather than face a potentially ruinous fine, smaller broadcasters are more likely to remain silent."

Murphy concludes, "The bottom line is that broadcasters enjoy First Amendment protection."

The FCC's recent and heightened focus on indecency has already caused a chilling of free speech. For example, in 2001, a noncommercial community radio station in Oregon was fined $7,000 for playing a feminist rap song that included profanity. Although the fine was rescinded, the process took two years and the investigating agency declared, "it was a very close case."

With the threat of the BDEA, even large broadcasters are chilling free speech and self-censoring. The most publicized instance is NBC's decision to cut the image of an elderly woman's breast from its popular medical drama "ER." John Wells, "ER's" executive producer, argued that the audience was aware of the show's adult themes and could adjust their viewing habits accordingly.

Wells' argument points to the best solution to the vulgarity of Jackson and her ilk. It is not a shotgun policy that may be absorbed by media mega-corporations while destroying community and alternative broadcasting. The solution is for audience to flex their buying and boycott power.

They did so with "The Reagans," the anti-Reagan movie that posed as historical drama. When consumers threatened to boycott companies that bought commercial time during the movie's broadcast, CBS relegated it to a comparatively small-time slot on Showtime.

Broadcasters are listening to audience feedback. When Nicole Richie uttered profanity on the "Billboard Music Awards" that was carried by FOX, the network immediately explored ways to prevent future embarrassment, including adding a five-minute delay to live feeds.

Today, the first response to any controversy is, "there ought to be a law." But in matters of morality and freedom of speech, it is best for law to be the very last recourse society considers. The first resort is to let freedom and the free market function.

Posted by aalkon at 09:03 AM | Comments (0)

February 17, 2004

Physicians Committee for "Responsible" Medicine

Physicians Committee for "Responsible" Medicine
This group's idea of acting "responsibly" involves stripping a dead guy -- Dr. Atkins -- of his privacy, and marching lies about him around the media to serve their (vegetarian diet-promoting) cause. Vile. Syndicated columnist Neil Cavuto very responsibly comes to Atkins' defense:

The group says Atkins was fat, 258 pounds, proof, one of its members later told me, that Atkins either didn't practice what he preached, or did, and got fat anyway.

What the group failed to point out, and USA Today confirmed, is that Atkins went into the hospital weighing 195 pounds. He quickly fell into a coma and lingered for nine days in that vegetative state, being fed liquids that doctors tell me can indeed add dramatic weight in a short period of time.

But what Atkins ultimately weighed getting into, and sadly out of, that hospital doesn't matter. Common decency does. And this Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine wouldn't know the first thing about it.

It's one thing to hate a diet. It's quite another to use a dead man to make your point about that diet.

That dead man can't defend himself. So allow me.

I knew Atkins. I covered Atkins. The times I saw him he didn't look obese to me. And why would he? He was the poster child for the most talked about diet revolution in human history! You don't stay on message if you're not staying in shape. And the Atkins I saw was staying in shape.

He freely told me he battled weight in life.

It's a pity he can't battle classless fools in death.

Once again, here's a little responsibility in photography.

Posted by aalkon at 08:58 AM | Comments (1)

February 16, 2004

Cooter Conversations

Cooter Conversations
You don't see men running around shouting about their penises. Why do certain feminists feel this relatively recent compulsion to express their feelings of "vaginal empowerment" via the spoken (or rather, screeched) word?

Lisa De Pasquale,�program director of the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, casts a critical eye on The Vagina Monologues and the ticky-tacky "V-Day" (intended to be a -- cough, choke, where's my Dramamine? -- vagina-positive version of Valentine's Day). "The V-Day Web site proudly states that 'the 'V' stands for Victory, Valentine and Vagina,'" reports Pasquale, wryly adding, "Perhaps "Vulgar" should also be added to the list":

Some of their ideas for high school students include having a "Vagina Friendly" bake sale, designating a "Rape Free Zone" in one's high school, and organizing an "Envisioning Group" that brainstorms what the world would be like without violence.

What high school has a designated rape area? What baked good are unfriendly to the vagina? One has to wonder if these activities are more successful in inciting snickers and embarrassment than ending violence against women and girls.

Not surprisingly, Gloria Steinem, oft-quoted disseminating crap like "The most dangerous situation for a woman is not an unknown man in the street, or even the enemy in wartime, but a husband or lover in the isolation of their own home," was compelled to weigh in with her own special brand of inanity:

The shape we call a heart resembles the vulva far more than the organ that shares its name. ...It was reduced from power to romance by centuries of male dominance.

Oh, please. Every time you speak, Gloria, I try to figure out what you have reduced yourself to since the last time I saw you quoted. Unfortunately, I'm never sure what, technically, would be the next step down from horse's ass -- the form you reduced yourself to decades ago, thanks to your myriad insipid, ridiculous, and blatantly false pronouncements. (Steinem's propaganda, along with that of numerous others from the feminist industrial complex, is neatly debunked in Who Stole Feminism? by Christina Hoff Sommers, a book I highly recommend to all women whose identities weren't extruded, fully-formed, from the man-hating, robo-victim sisterhood that feminism has become.)

Eek. Even after losing myself in paragraphs of Gloria-bashing above -- always invigorating! -- I'm still picturing bake sales piled high with little strawberry-frosted vagina cookies. Truly embarrassing. It's probably only a matter of time before these V-Girls are running around whining about how oppressed they are via home-made pussy hand puppets. Oops. Let's not give them any bad ideas they haven't already had all by themselves.

Posted by aalkon at 08:01 AM | Comments (15)

February 15, 2004

All Breasts All The Time

All Breasts All The Time
As you may have noticed, this blog is dedicated to keeping you abreast of all the news in boobs. The Santa Cruz Sentinel weighs in on what we really should be afraid of, and it's not Janet's breast, but the scary people who would "protect" us from Janet's breast:

We agree that children should be protected from some of the raw programming that we see. But it�s not the government�s job to ban adult programs simply because some child somewhere may see it. An adult in his or her own home has the right to watch whatever he or she wants � without the government interfering.

Rather than have government officials decide what should be on, we�d rather that private citizens react in the best way they can � by turning off the set. Sleazy programming is there simply because there�s a market for it. Maybe Jackson�s dirty dancing with Justin Timberlake was a surprise to some, but to many others it was just business as usual. It�s axiomatic that no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.

That horrible taste and excessive slobbering over sexual themes is irritating, but it�s hardly illegal. After all, there are some adult shows � "Sex and the City," to name one � that are well done, funny and deserving of an audience. No, we wouldn�t want kids watching, but we see no reason for the government to ban it just because some people don�t like it.

If you don�t like what�s on cable, or on satellite, just cancel the service. But please, leave the government out of it.

Yeah, you chose to pop out those little effigies of yourself, now you parent them -- without erasing all the vulgar images on TV that I'd enjoy immensely if I watched them instead of reading about "the horror, the horror" the next day in the press.

(via Buzzmachine)

Posted by aalkon at 08:55 AM | Comments (0)

February 14, 2004

Duck The Vote

Duck The Vote
Media Circus columnist Cathy Seipp asks the lazy, uninformed idiots not to vote:

Look, voting is a privilege as well as a right and if you don�t vote, you should be ashamed of yourself. But the reason you should be ashamed of yourself is that not voting is lazy and idiotic. Should the lazy idiot constituency be encouraged to influence society even more than it already does? This is the paradox (and the problem) that hangs over these do-gooder media campaigns to get out the youth vote, which heat up every election year. But I don�t see how the crotch-grabbing antics that now seem integral to the Viacom brand encourage an informed electorate. You can lead a horse to water, but you can�t make him turn off the MTV.

Finally, she spanks the indignant commies over at the LA Weekly -- starting with Gregg Goldin, who managed to find the dark side of free hors d'oeuvres at the party Cathy, Emmanuelle, and I threw, with Reason magazine and LA Press Club, for John Stossel. Later, she bends over LA Weekly's Hollywood columnist, Nikki Fink, and gives her a good slap:

(Finke)...had whipped herself into a fury over CBS chief Les Moonves�s recent misadventures and thinks he should resign. The Super Bowl incident, according to Nikki, was the last straw. So she called up CBS spokesman Gil Schwartz to ask if he also thought Moonves should resign. Schwartz responded: �It�s an outrageous and moronic question not worthy of an answer.�

Fond as I am of the rude and inappropriate question, I have to say I was initially with CBS on this one. Moonves is not an elected official, and presumably neither Nikki nor many of her readers are Viacom shareholders. I can�t see why she thinks most of us should care about personnel matters in Big Media.

But then I read Nikki�s list of Moonves sins: He�s a �former child actor who � repeatedly plays himself on TV.� He�s a �show-biz insider who pals around only with others of the industry.� And � you might want to be sitting down for this one � he�s a �bicoastal philistine who used to live in a Brentwood mansion and is right now looking at opulent Malibu beach houses.�

Looking at them right now? After all this? Couldn�t Les at least show some shame and limit himself to unopulent houses? Since when did Nikki become such a bleeding-heart pushover? Resign, bah. Obviously, the man deserves the chair.

Posted by aalkon at 08:05 AM | Comments (2)

February 13, 2004

Whose Marriage Is It Anyway?

Whose Marriage Is It Anyway?
There are a few problems with the wacked thinking of people who seek to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying, notes Jacob Sullum:

The state does not own marriage and therefore cannot change it to the liking of this or that interest group. It is astonishing that conservatives, of all people, are so quick to grant the government that kind of power over something they hold sacred.

The Federal Marriage Amendment says, in part, "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman." Taken literally, the amendment forbids religious groups from sanctioning homosexual unions; a minister who officiated at such a ceremony would be violating the Constitution. The absurdity of that scenario suggests how confused our thinking about marriage has become.

At the same time, the amendment's backers insist it would not bar states from granting gay couples all the legal advantages of marriage, so long as the arrangement was not called "marriage." The president himself has said he has no problem with legal provisions that allow gay couples to take care of things like hospital visitation rights, insurance benefits, and inheritance, provided "the sanctity of marriage" is preserved.

The best way to do that is to take marriage�the word as well as the institution�back from the state.

Posted by aalkon at 08:08 AM | Comments (6)

The Face Of Gay Marriage

The Face Of Gay Marriage
See here. Sure looks a lot more romantic and meaningful than some hetero marriages -- Britney Spears', to name just one.

Posted by aalkon at 07:45 AM | Comments (1)

February 12, 2004

Matt Welch On The Deadbeat Dad-Catching Scam

Immaculate Deception
As promised, here's the link to Matt Welch's bombshell investigative piece on how efforts to squeeze child support out of deadbeat dads are actually rounding up a lot of innocent men -- and ruining their lives. Not to be missed.

Posted by aalkon at 11:07 AM | Comments (1)

Slim Chance Atkins Was Fat

Slim Chance Atkins Was Fat
Check out these photos, taken two months before his death.

(via Gawker)

Posted by aalkon at 10:32 AM | Comments (2)

Trial In Error

Trial In Error
James K. Glassman makes a very good point -- "As Martha Stewart's trial moves into a third week, an important question remains unasked: Why are the feds prosecuting someone for receiving inside information, anyway? Isn't the criminal the corporate official who acts on knowledge that the public doesn't have?" He thinks the SEC should leave Martha alone and focus on the corporate-level crooks:

Although it's clear that top officers in a company are breaching their fiduciary responsibility if, for example, they buy stock with secret knowledge that their company is about to be bought by another firm, it's far from clear why someone like Stewart should even be considered for prosecution under the insider-trading law, which stresses misappropriation -- that is, using material, nonpublic information in breach of a duty of trust or confidence. Waksal was in a position of trust; Stewart wasn't.

Also, who is hurt? Assume Stewart did know that Waksal was selling. That might have given her an edge over the buyer of her 3,928 shares, but the buyer was ready to buy on Dec. 27 anyway -- if not Stewart's shares, then someone else's.

In a book published in 1966, economist Henry Manne showed how insider trading actually makes markets more efficient because it speeds information that's immediately reflected in share prices. That's what we want from markets: a quick response to reality. In most other markets -- art, for instance, or cattle trading -- it is perfectly fine for one party to have inside information that the other does not. Prices ultimately reflect those facts, and prices are the way the public gleans knowledge.

Let's be honest about what Martha is really being tried for -- being rich, successful, and having bigger balls than a lot of men (albeit gilded, and trimmed with rickrack).

Posted by aalkon at 08:07 AM | Comments (4)

February 11, 2004

More Hitchens

Advanced Bitchslapping
"An old definition of a gentleman is someone who is never rude except on purpose."

--Christopher Hitchens, Letters To A Young Contrarian.

Posted by aalkon at 09:37 AM | Comments (4)

February 10, 2004

Matt Welch Has Bathroom Issues

Matt Welch Has Bathroom Issues
Just when you think there's absolutely nothing to fill your blog on deadline morning, Matt Welch goes off on bathroom automation:

I've studied this trend for several years now, and I can confirm that at least one out of every four sensory-triggered urinal-flushers in America suffers from a kind of aquatic Tourette's Syndrome, sending cascades of water both downward and outward at intervals that CalTech's finest couldn't predict. Woe to the end-user standing prone in front of a gusher; it can take hours to remove the phony appearance of incontinence, and that's one hell of an awkward position to assume in front of a wall-mounted blow drier.

The EZ Flush system has also migrated to the stalls, and for reasons utterly beyond my grasp, these seem to be most frequently situated in supposed classier washroom environments. In January, I found myself in a four-star InterContinental Hotel where not only did the automatic stall-flush fail to perform its critical function, the automatic lights failed as well, thereby throwing the entire room into a blackout at the worst possible moment.

Now, you didn't hear it from me, but some say it was an overenthusiastic auto-flush toilet that causes Janet's "wardrobe malfunction." I don't know -- some sort of delayed reaction or something -- auto-flush now -- and boob covers fly off hours later. Scarrrreeey!

Posted by aalkon at 09:17 AM | Comments (0)

Touched By A Sex Columnist

Touched By A Sex Columnist
Is it just me, or is Sex In The City going disturbingly warm and fuzzy in their final episodes? On Sunday night�s show, there were puppies having puppies and sleigh rides and Hallmark-style snowy winter cutaways -- I half expected James Taylor to pop up next to crack dealers crooning �You�ve Got A Friend.� Luckily, there was some respite -- when a big, fat, coke-snorting 80s party girl said something like, �This city is so boring I could just die,� and promptly fell off her Manolos and out a skyscraper window to her death -- or the entire show would have been entirely unwatchable.

Posted by aalkon at 08:59 AM | Comments (5)

February 09, 2004

The Advice Goddess On Biography Channel

The Advice Goddess On Biography Channel
A lot. Starting tonight, with "The Advice Minute with Amy Alkon," 11 one-minute advice bits running between Biography's programming, starting tonight, after 8:30pm EST. Per my advice origins, I'm giving advice on the streets of New York (and in my favorite downtown bar, because it rained cats, dogs, and Shetland ponies on our shoot day), to the likes of Cairo, the cross-dresser looking for love, and Dave, the adorable single guy from the south who says "New York women are savages!"

Posted by aalkon at 09:10 AM | Comments (1)

Are You Ready For Your Colonoscopy?

Are You Ready For Your Colonoscopy?
There's a perception, that just because movie stars are rich and famous, they should have to put up with any and every sort of invasion of their privacy. Well, while it's often hard, these days, to get shocked by the level of press invasiveness by a certain kind of press...it seems Nicole Kidman was recently asked if she had breast cancer because some reporters "obtain(ed) her medical records without authorization" from a Los Angeles hospital! Truly despicable. I'd like to propose that each of the guilty undergoes a live, nationally televised colonoscopy as their punishment. Too gross for the viewers, you say? Well, if the recent silly brouhaha about Jane's boob (vis a vis the normal TV fare of rapes, maimings, and murders) was any indication; as long as there's no titty showing during the telecast, it shouldn't bother the public much. As far as the issue of Janet's exposed boob goes, my big question is: "Why only one"?

Posted by aalkon at 08:31 AM | Comments (1)

February 08, 2004

"Love That Dare Not Squeak Its Name"

"Love That Dare Not Squeak Its Name"
To any lingering religious fanatics who defend their bigotry against gays with the notion that "gay sex isn't natural," check out these homosexual penguins in a New York Times story by Dinitia Smith:

Roy and Silo, two chinstrap penguins at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan, are completely devoted to each other. For nearly six years now, they have been inseparable. They exhibit what in penguin parlance is called "ecstatic behavior": that is, they entwine their necks, they vocalize to each other, they have sex. Silo and Roy are, to anthropomorphize a bit, gay penguins. When offered female companionship, they have adamantly refused it. And the females aren't interested in them, either.

At one time, the two seemed so desperate to incubate an egg together that they put a rock in their nest and sat on it, keeping it warm in the folds of their abdomens, said their chief keeper, Rob Gramzay. Finally, he gave them a fertile egg that needed care to hatch. Things went perfectly. Roy and Silo sat on it for the typical 34 days until a chick, Tango, was born. For the next two and a half months they raised Tango, keeping her warm and feeding her food from their beaks until she could go out into the world on her own. Mr. Gramzay is full of praise for them.

"They did a great job," he said. He was standing inside the glassed-in penguin exhibit, where Roy and Silo had just finished lunch. Penguins usually like a swim after they eat, and Silo was in the water. Roy had finished his dip and was up on the beach.

Roy and Silo are hardly unusual. Milou and Squawk, two young males, are also beginning to exhibit courtship behavior, hanging out with each other, billing and bowing. Before them, the Central Park Zoo had Georgey and Mickey, two female Gentoo penguins who tried to incubate eggs together. And Wendell and Cass, a devoted male African penguin pair, live at the New York Aquarium in Coney Island. Indeed, scientists have found homosexual behavior throughout the animal world.

At least, in the animal kingdom, the straight creatures just go off and have sex amongst themselves instead of concerning themselves with whether the other creatures are sodomizing each other.

Posted by aalkon at 08:45 AM | Comments (8)

February 07, 2004

Business As Delusional

Business As Delusional
Francis Wheen on the top ten modern delusions. My favorites:

1. "God is on our side"
George W Bush thinks so, as do Tony Blair and Osama bin Laden and an alarmingly high percentage of other important figures in today's world. After September 11 2001 Blair claimed that religion was the solution not the problem, since "Jews, Muslims and Christians are all children of Abraham" - unaware that the example of Abraham was also cited by Mohammed Atta, hijacker of the one of the planes that shattered the New York skyline. RH Tawney wrote in Religion and the Rise of Capitalism that "modern social theory, like modern political theory, developed only when society was given a naturalistic instead of a religious explanation". In which case modern social and political theory would now seem to be dead.

4. We mustn't be "judgmental"
In 2002 the Guardian revealed that Christian fundamentalists had taken control of a state-funded school in Gateshead and were striving to "show the superiority" of creationist beliefs in their classes. When Jenny Tonge MP asked Tony Blair if he was happy that the Book of Genesis was now being promoted as the most reliable biology textbook, he replied: "Yes. . . In the end a more diverse school system will deliver better results for our children." This is the enfeebling consequence of unthinking cultural and intellectual relativism. If some schools start teaching that the moon is made of Swiss cheese or that the stars are God's daisy chain, no doubt that too will be officially welcomed as a healthy sign of educational diversity.

6. Astrology and similar delusions are "harmless fun"
Those who say this never explain what is either funny or harmless in promoting a con-trick which preys on ignorance and anxiety. Yet even the Observer, Britain's most venerable and enlightened Sunday newspaper, now has a horoscope page.

9. America's economic success is entirely due to private enterprise
In the 19th century, the American government promoted the formation of a national economy, the building of railroads and the development of the telegraph. More recently, the internet was created by the Pentagon. American agriculture is heavily subsidised and protected, as are the steel industry and many other sectors of the world's biggest "free-market economy". At times of economic slowdown, even under presidents who denigrate the role of government, the US will increase its deficit to finance expansionary fiscal and monetary policies. But its leaders get very cross indeed if any developing country tries to follow this example.

(via Arts & Letters Daily)

Posted by aalkon at 09:23 AM | Comments (2)

February 06, 2004

Angry, Humorless P.C. Alert

Angry, Humorless P.C. Alert
In the comments section of the India, Inc. blog item. See Sravan Kameratt comment.

--posted by Amy Alkon, Pasty White Girl Of Indeterminate European Diaspora Extraction

Posted by aalkon at 02:16 PM | Comments (5)

Today In Boob News

Today In Boob News
Janet has been dumped as a presenter from the Grammycast, the SAG awards may go on 10-second delay, and the boobs in the House and Senate are set to grill Viacom/CBS honch Mel Karmazin about Nipplegate.

(via our man always on top of the breasts David "Tell Me Everything" Rensin)

Posted by aalkon at 10:30 AM | Comments (5)

Roll, Roll, Roll Your Boat

Roll, Roll, Roll Your Boat
Anybody with kids who buys an SUV should be jailed for attempted child abuse. Just read the latest rollover statistics.

And here's Ben Greenman's New Yorker interview of Malcolm Gladwell on the boom of the SUV culture -- and on the narcissistic, rude, and dunderheaded people who drive them.

Posted by aalkon at 08:42 AM | Comments (12)

February 05, 2004

I'm A Covergirl!

I'm A Covergirl
This link won't last forever, but click here for my covergirl debut, and click on the cover shot for the interview, by Hillary Johnson, editor of the Ventura County Reporter. Woo hoo!

Posted by aalkon at 12:12 PM | Comments (10)

The Daily Breast Watch

The Daily Breast Watch
News in and about boobs today includes a case of breast removal from ER. Where will the neo-Puritans wield their scalpel next!?

(via our man with his eye at 34C-level David "Tell Me Everything" Rensin)

Posted by aalkon at 09:13 AM | Comments (2)

India, Inc.

India, Inc.
Outsourcing American jobs has heavy psychic costs -- to me, for one. I was a paid guest two times on the now-aborted Jesse Ventura show, debating him on SUVs and smoking bans. One show was shot here in Hollywood; I was flown to Minneapolis for the other. Enroute to the Minneapolis show, I made the mistake of eating a hamburger at the airport. The hamburger, actually, wasn't that bad. It cost me $6.49. The very sweet young production coordinator offered to reimburse me. I gave him the receipt, and sometime later, received a check for the princessly sum of $6.49 -- which probably cost NBC $25 to process. Well, maybe they'll be just as kind in picking up my ensuing mental hospitalization costs, too.

A few days ago, I got a 1099 form in the mail, from NBC, for $6.49, made out to Amy Azicon instead of Amy Alkon. It had my social security number, but was sent to my home address (where the car picked me up for the show, but where I only get junk mail) instead of to my mailing address. Problem -- the $6.49 wasn't work income. I would have just lived with being taxed for it, except I was worried about a possible IRS mess-up, thanks to the misspelled name and the address that doesn't match the address on my taxes.

I called the number on the top of the 1099 that says "QUESTIONS: 1-212-664-4444." Cleverly, they put on the main number of NBC in New York, not the number of anybody who has anything to do with correcting wrong 1099s. After much "push one if you'd like to be executed immediately; press two if you prefer extended torture," I finally got transferred to accounts payable, and was promptly ordered to dial 1-866-665-7340. This, most charmingly, got me connected to a lady on the lower east side of Calcutta. The phone conversation started like this:

INDIAN WOMAN: Hello.

ME: Hello, I have a problem with my 1099.

INDIAN WOMAN: Hello.

ME: Yes, hello, I have a problem with my 1099.

INDIAN WOMAN: Hello.

ME: No, no, no...this is not going well. This is the part of the conversation where you're supposed to say, "Hi, but I'm the wrong person," or "I'm the right person, and how can I help you?"...something, anything...please speak!

The conversation only degenerated from there. Highlights included my assisting her in spelling my proper street address. PIER Avenue. And the "avenue" part wasn't the problem. I'm not making this up. It took five minute to get P-I-E-R on the page. P. Is for Paul. Extended waiting period. And so on. And then she read back that it was P...for Beer! And so on. Arrrrrrgh!

Ultimately, I called NBC in New York to complain. After being shuffled from wrong person to wrong person, I finally get some help from a really cool woman in accounting with a New York accent (what a relief). She's sharp, and on-the-ball, and she calls me twice -- the second time to give me the number of the guy in accounting who might be responsible for the Calcutta employees. He's going to get an earfull tomorrow -- from me -- about how she's the kind of person NBC should be hiring to do the jobs now being outsourced to India.

Is NBC really saving money on this? (Don't answer that too fast -- not without tabulating the costs of my electroshock therapy, six months of institutionalization, and a Christian Dior strait jacket with matching bed restraints.)

UPDATE: At 7:30am, Pacific Time, I was awakened by another limited-English lady from India.

LADY FROM INDIA: W.G. (who is lucky I am not mentioning his full name) sent me an email saying you have the wrong address. Your address is 1099?

ME: No! No! My address is not 1099. (I start to tell her my address, then stop). It's a wrong 1099 form! And you know what? I'm not going to talk to you about this. I'm going to call W.G. and he's going to deal with this!

I call W.G. at NBC and leave an enraged message, noting that I've just been visiting a friend in New York who has been in a coma, and kind of needed to catch up on my sleep -- a rather difficult endeavor, when non-English-speaking Indian ladies are calling me to not resolve my problem at 7:30 am Pacific Time!...thanks to NBC's unpatriotic and irritating practice of giving American jobs to people in Calcutta!

Posted by aalkon at 08:25 AM | Comments (25)

February 04, 2004

The Bad Words Police Are On The Case

The Bad Words Police Are On The Case
Dan Nephin of the Associated Press reports on a second-grader in Pittsburgh, suspended from school for saying "hell." Woooo. What's next on the banned words list, "poopy"?

This piece reminds me of the day at Gold's Gym, Venice, when the big, huge stuntman-like actor from Pearl Harbor (the one who had the fight with Cuba Gooding, Jr., someone told me) ignored a rather polite and reasonable request I made of him, and ran off to tattle on my to the gym staff for calling him a lunkhead (which he told me would result in my getting thrown out of the gym). A huge, musclebound grown man tattled on me! For calling him a lunkhead. (Take that you meanie!)

(link via David "Tell Me Everything" Rensin)

Posted by aalkon at 02:09 PM | Comments (1)

Cathy Young On Dr. Laura

Everything's Coming Up 1950s
Cathy Young analyzes Dr. Laura's new book, which takes the notion "don't be a controlling bitch" a step too far:

Schlessinger has a point, and to some extent her message can be read as one of equality: If you want your husband to treat you well, be nice to him, and don't forget that he has feelings too. Some of the callers mentioned in her book could definitely benefit from the advice to respect and appreciate their husbands more. One woman bristles at the suggestion that her husband should have input in decisions about purchases for the family. Another expects her husband to be "understanding" when, between kids, job, and all sorts of other activities, she has no time for sexual or emotional intimacy.

Alas, the sensible stuff here comes with a lot of baggage. Thus, reminders that marriage is a two-way street are intended mostly for wives who forget about their obligations: Schlessinger is emphatic about her belief that the happiness of the marriage depends on the wife, and if the husband is neglecting her it's probably her own fault.

There's also her irksome propensity to present grossly simplistic caricatures of the sexes as eternal verities. She is particularly fond of one male caller's comment, "Men are only interested in two things: If I'm not horny, make me a sandwich." Little deviance from traditional roles is tolerated: women cook and make a happy home, men are out in the workforce "slaying dragons"; a husband's demand that a wife give up her career to spend more time with him is treated as an expression of love.

What's more, Schlessinger's catalog of wifely sins ranges from wanting to take an extended vacation sans husband to failing to take an interest in his hobbies. And while she is certainly right that it's not "subjugation" to love a man or take pride in your marriage, must she approvingly cite a listener who writes, "Remember that without him, you are only a sorry excuse for a person"?

Suddenly, I feel like taking 12 showers.

Like The Surrendered Wife, this book addresses (and exascerbates) the symptom, not the problem: women who have low self-esteem. That's what makes a woman controlling. Thus, the answer isn't to grind a woman into a ground for refusing to be the epitome of subservience, but to encourage women to go entirely the other way: to be about "Who am I?" instead of "Who am I with?" -- the shortcut too many women take, thinking marriage and children are an easy way out of the hard work of developing a self. Of course, that's merely a shortcut to misery and controlling bitch-hood -- one that's about 5000 miles away from a fun, loving relationship.

Posted by aalkon at 08:18 AM | Comments (7)

February 03, 2004

Peek Experience

Peek Experience
See Janet Jackson's halftime show here.

(via Gossiplist)

Posted by aalkon at 09:54 AM | Comments (9)

The Three Stooges Guard The Airports

The Three Stooges Guard The Airports
Does the TSA make us safer, or just more inconvenienced -- and worse? James Bovard tells the whole sorry tale over at Reason.com:

In June 2002 news leaked out that TSA airport screeners missed 24 percent of the weapons and imitation bombs planted in the government�s undercover security tests. At some major airports, screeners failed to detect potentially dangerous objects in half the tests. The results were worse than they first appeared, because the testers were ordered not to "artfully conceal" the deadly contraband and instead pack their luggage "consistent with how a typical passenger in air transportation might pack a bag." Although the tests seemed designed to see if screeners could catch terrorists with single-digit IQs, they still failed to find the weapons much of the time.

That does not mean TSA screeners don�t find anything. Notable triumphs have included seizing a tiny pair of wire cutters from a Special Forces veteran who had been shot in the jaw in Afghanistan and needed the cutters to snip his jaw open if he started to choke; evacuating terminals in Los Angeles upon discovering that travelers were carrying such dangerous devices as a belt buckle or a tub of jam; and shutting down several concourses in St. Louis after a federal security screener spotted what appeared to be a "cutting tool" in a carry-on bag. After detecting the suspicious object, the St. Louis screener followed proper procedure: He fetched his supervisor to take a look at the frozen image on the video screen at the checkpoint. A few minutes later, the supervisor concluded that the bag was indeed suspicious and needed to be manually searched. But the passenger had long since retrieved it and headed to his or her flight. Hundreds of passengers were evacuated and up to 60 flights were delayed; despite many searches, the suspicious item was never found.

Larry! Moe! Curly! Bag-check on one!

Posted by aalkon at 08:57 AM | Comments (3)

February 02, 2004

A Little Male Bashing For Old Times' Sake

A Little Male Bashing For Old Times' Sake
"A rerun of Christina Hoff Sommers' classic rebuttal of the myth that SuperBowl Sunday inspires a spike in domestic violence," via iFeminist.

Posted by aalkon at 08:36 AM | Comments (1)

January 31, 2004

The Benefits Of Being Gay

The Benefits Of Being Gay
Gay couples get screwed out of benefits, thanks to the ban against gay marriage:

Same-sex couples face colossal fiscal burdens as they age -- including the potential loss of tens of thousands of dollars in taxes and an average of $5,000 in yearly Social Security survivor benefits -- due to the denial of their right to marry, according to new research by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).

A report to be released on Monday by HRC and the Urban Institute reveals that "widows" and "widowers" are heavily taxed on any retirement plan like 401(k)s or IRAs inherited from their partners, while heterosexual spouses can inherit the plans tax-free. Homosexuals are also charged an estate tax on the inheritance of a residence even if it was jointly owned -- a burden inapplicable for straight couples.

I'm visiting a tragically ill friend in the hospital in Manhattan, who's in an intensive care room with two other beds. One of those beds was occupied by an elderly gay man, who was conscious, but clearly extremely ill. His...well, "boyfriend" -- which doesn't begin to describe the relationship of this man -- was with him, caressing his face, mopping his brow. You see few couples of any kind of sexuality with the love between these two. I asked the caretaking man how long they'd been together, and he told me "30 years." These men are being denied marriage? Sick.

But, this article I linked to above brings up another issue. I just wrote a column on how marriage, if you're not looking to have kids, doesn't make sense anymore. (My philosophy: If straight people are allowed to not make sense, gay people should be allowed to not make sense as well.) But why are Social Security survivor benefits and other benefits and rights allotted to married people alone? We need a registered partner agreement in this country (like the PACS, Le Pact Civil de Solidarit�, in France), which can be broken more easily than a marriage (ie, isn't forever), but is not a marriage either. People just sign a PACs in a municipality�s city hall, and they are registered as partners. To break it, one of them just does the reverse -- declaring themselves out of the PACs. Marrying another person is another way to end a PACS.

More and more, people in this country are engaging in serial committed relationships. The way we distribute benefits should reflect that. If you're in a committed relationship (like these men were) for 30 years, and don't believe in marriage (as I don't), shouldn't you be recognized as a committed partner to another person in benefits you've paid in, just like everybody else, and in other important ways? Copying the PACS for use in this country -- which allows for one partner to continue renting the apartment after the other partner's death, and health insurance benefits, and the right to visit the other in the hospital, among other things -- seems most sensible, and the fair thing to do.

Posted by aalkon at 05:49 AM | Comments (4)

January 30, 2004

Carnival Of Critics

Carnival Of Critics
Cathy Seipp on the hilarious, the pissy, and the ridiculous at the TV press tour.

Note: I'm in the frozen tundra (aka New York City), visiting a very sick friend, so blogging will probably be very light until early next week.

Posted by aalkon at 08:00 AM | Comments (0)

January 29, 2004

In Flight

In Flight
On my way to New York. More blog items later or tomorrow.

Posted by aalkon at 05:22 AM | Comments (4)

January 28, 2004

Will You Bury Me?

Will You Bury Me?
"Modern divorce is little more than a functional substitute for death.�

--historian Lawrence Stone, The Family, Sex And Marriage In England 1500-1800

Posted by aalkon at 09:04 AM | Comments (0)

Yuk-Yuk-Yuk

Yuk-Yuk-Yuk
The hundred funniest jokes of all time, compiled for GQ. Some of them actually are quite funny:

A Catholic teenager goes to confession, and after confessing to an affair with a girl is told by the priest that he can't be forgiven unless he reveals who the girl is. "I promised not to tell!" he says. "Was it Mary Patricia, the butcher's daughter?" the preist asks. "No, and I said I wouldn't tell." "Was it Mary Elizabeth, the printer's daughter?" "No, and I still won't tell!" 'Was it Mary Francis, the baker's daughter?" "No," says the boy. 'Well, son," says the priest, "I have no choice but to excommunicate you for six months." Outside, the boy's friends ask what happened. "Well," he says, "I got six months, but three good leads."

An Irish friend of mine (from Dublin) told me a true confession-related story: He went to confession and said he had been thinking "impure thoughts" (good for him!) about this girl and that girl. The priest gave him a bunch of hail whatevers to say. He said them, and left, but started thinking more "impure thoughts" about different girls on the way home, so he went back and confessed again. And so on, and so on...until the priest yelled at him, "What are you doing?! Go home and stay home!"

Posted by aalkon at 08:59 AM | Comments (2)

January 27, 2004

The Great Indoors

The Great Indoors
"Now, nature, as I am only too well aware, has her enthusiasts, but on the whole, I am not to be counted among them. To put it rather bluntly, I am not the type who wants to go back to the land--I am the type who wants to go back to the hotel. This state of affairs is partially due to the fact that nature and I have so little in common. We don't go to the same restaurants, laugh at the same jokes or, most significant, see the same people." --Fran Lebowitz

Posted by aalkon at 08:33 PM | Comments (0)

January 26, 2004

Test

test

Posted by aalkon at 02:45 PM | Comments (0)

Bye-Bye Abortion Rights

Bye-Bye Abortion Rights
In the eyes of the Christian right, writes Erica Jong, women are being regarded once again primarily as wombs. She urges women to wake up before they discover that they've lost the right to both abortion and contraception:

The "partial birth" abortion bill (Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003), signed into law in November by President George Bush (and promptly challenged by the courts), is not only misnamed but is so vague concerning gestational age and the health of the mother that it leaves ample room for the Government to interfere with sound medical judgement, at the expense of women's health.

It may seem reasonable to limit abortion to the first trimester of pregnancy, but the truth is that many genetic tests - including those for Down syndrome, Tay-Sachs, Canavan's and other diseases - cannot be completed until the second trimester.

By then abortion is not such a simple matter, and limiting it makes a mockery of the right to choose not to bear a genetically damaged child. In the past decade our ability to test for genetic diseases has soared, and now we are taking away the opportunity to make informed decisions based on this technology - something no woman ever does lightly.

The contempt for women and for medicine that underlies the Christian right's attack on choice is as shocking as it is invisible. The right has been absolutely brilliant in cloaking an indifference to women's health in language that seems to affirm life.

A whole generation has grown up without knowing that in the days before legal abortion, many women died or were sterilised in their desperate efforts to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

And the pro-choice movement has been remiss in failing to remind people that banning abortion can in essence ban a woman's right to life-saving medical care.

A 1997 Nebraska bill identical to the one Bush signed has already been struck down by the Supreme Court. In the words of Justice Stephen G. Breyer: "The result [of this law] is an undue burden upon a woman's right to make an abortion decision. We must consequently find the statute unconstitutional."

The strategy of the right-to-life movement has been to keep passing the same unconstitutional laws until eventually they will be received by a Supreme Court packed with Bush appointees.

Sound farfetched? Well, look where we were, in terms of abortion rights, and look where we are now: it's becoming less and less farfetched every day.

Posted by aalkon at 10:12 AM | Comments (40)

January 25, 2004

Hitchens

A Contrary And Wonderful Thing
I highly recommend the book I'm reading, Christopher Hitchens' Letters To A Young Contrarian. Like me, he is not a believer in god. He says he is "not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful." (Anyone who thinks he's wrong should just look to the guy in The White House, trying to deny gays and lesbians rights in the name of religion.) Here's an exerpt from Hitchens' book, from the chapter on his views on religion:

I have met many brave men and women, morally superior to myself, whose courage in adversity derives from their faith. But whenever they have chosen to speak or write about it, I have found myself appalled by the instant decline of their intellectual and moral standards. They want god on their side and believe they are doing his work -- what is this, even at its very best, but an extreme form of solipsism? They proceed from conclusion to evidence; our greatest resource is the mind and the mind is not well-trained by being taught to assume what has to be proved.

This arrogance and illogic is inseparable even from the meekends and most altruistic religious affirmations. A true believer must believe that he or she is here for a purpose and is an object of real interest to a Supreme Being; he or she must also claim to have at least an inkling of what that Supreme Being desires. I have been called arrogant myself in my time, and hope to earn the title again, but to claim that I am privy to the secrets of the universe and its creator -- that's beyond my conceit. I therefore have no choice but to find something suspect even in the humblest believer, let alone in the great law-givers and edict-makers of whose "flock" (and what a revealing word that is) they form a part.

Even the most humane and compoassionate of the monotheisms and polytheisms are complicit in this quiet and irrational authoritarianism: they proclaim us, in Fulke Grenville's unforgettable line, "Created sick -- Commanded to be well." And there are totalitarian insinuations to back this up if its appeal should fail. Christians, for example, declare me redeemed by a human sacrifice that occurred thousands of years before I was born. I didn't ask for it, and would willingly have foregone it, but there it is: I'm claimed and saved whether I wish it or not. And if I refuse the unsolicited gift? Well, there are stsill some vague mutterings about an eternity of torment for my ingratitude. This is somewhat worse than a Big Brother state, because there could be no hope of its eventually passing away.

In any case, I find something repulsive in the idea of vicarious redemption. I would not throw my numberless sins onto a scapegoat and expect them to pass from me; we rightly sneer at the barbaric societies that practice this unpleasantness in its literal form. There's no moral value in the vicarious gesture anyway. As Thomas Paine pointed out, you may if you wish take on another man's debt, or even offer to take his place in prison. That would be self-sacrificing. But you may not assume his actual crimes as if they were your own; for one thing you did not commit them and might have died rather than do so; for another this impossible action would rob him of individual responsibility. So the whole apparatus of absolution and forgiveness strikes me as positively immoral, while the concept of revealed truth degrades the whole concept of free intelligence by purportedly relieving us of the hard task of working out ethical principles for ourselves.

Posted by aalkon at 09:48 AM | Comments (12)

January 24, 2004

Daughter Of A Veep

Daughter Of A Veep
Michael Signorile really lets Mary Cheney have it in New York Press:

Excuse me for being blunt, but my rights are at stake at the moment, as our born-again president has told his theocratic mentors that he�d sell us�you, me and millions of other homos�down the river. So let�s get to the point: What the hell happened to you? Are you just another spoiled rich brat�the lesbian Paris Hilton�worried about getting a chunk of those 30 million Halliburton bucks should Dad�s heart conk out? I mean, this is one of those moments of truth, Mary, one in which the fundamentalist forces of darkness either march into the White House�enshrining antigay discrimination into the U.S. Constitution�or are beaten back. And so far, you�ve been working for the enemy, darling.

I guess it turns out that the brand of "compassionate conservatism" Mary Cheney was working to sell was "we feel for you, but we sure aren't going to extend you all our rights."

Posted by aalkon at 08:51 AM | Comments (19)

January 23, 2004

Dog Hates Gaffes

Shall I teach you how to know something? Realize you know it when you know it, and realize you don't know it when you don't.

Posted by aalkon at 10:07 AM | Comments (10)

Got God?

Got God?
If not, you'd better not be running for president, because secularists pay a penalty at the polls. Cathy Young registers her alarm in the Boston Globe:

THE OTHER day, I was reading an interview with Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean in Newsweek when I had to stop and check that it was indeed Newsweek and not, say, Christianity Today. Yes, it was indeed Newsweek. And, after a series of questions about a variety of public policy issues, Dean was asked, out of the clear blue, the following question: "Do you see Jesus Christ as the son of God and believe in him as the route to salvation and eternal life?" For the record, Dean's somewhat cagey answer probably did little to assuage doubts about his religious faith: "I certainly see him as the son of God. I think whether I'm saved or not is not gonna be up to me." The real issue, though, is why this question even came up in a political magazine. Do we now have a religious test for public office -- something that was explicitly rejected by the Founders of the United States of America?

I am not, for many reasons, a Dean supporter. But in the past few weeks, Dean has been the target of something dangerously close to a religious witch-hunt -- and that should concern all of us, whatever our party affiliation or our political, religious, and moral convictions.

Personally, I'll have a soft spot for any candidate who doesn't just believe what they're told (that there's a god), but insists on a scientific standard of proof. Always nice to have a rational person in the head office, don't you think?

Posted by aalkon at 09:48 AM | Comments (5)

January 22, 2004

"No Bride Left Behind"

"No Bride Left Behind"
That's what Arianna calls Bush's new $1.5 billion marriage initiative. Like me, she wonders whether the federal government really belongs in the marriage counseling business:

"Marriage programs do work," insisted Dr. Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families of the Department of Health and Human Services. "On average, children raised by their own parents in healthy, stable married families enjoy better physical and mental health and are less likely to be poor." Yeah, well so are children who can read. And those raised by parents who have a job. Or health insurance. Or access to a decent education.

What makes the president's proposal particularly galling is that it's being offered up by a politician who came into office attacking federal programs like the one he is proposing for being too intrusive. "I trust people," said candidate Bush during one of his debates with Al Gore. "I don't trust the federal government."

Indeed, the very people who have been complaining for decades that government programs are not the way to fight the war on poverty are now determined to use Federal tax dollars to fight the war for matrimonial bliss. And they're using the same line of argument they excoriate liberals for using to explain why we need to invest in education, health care, and poverty fighting: "For every $1,000 we spend on public programs addressing family breakdown," said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, "we only spend one dollar trying to prevent that breakdown in the first place. The President's initiative puts the emphasis in the right place � prevention."

Of course, these "family values" types, who insist that "marriage is between a man and a woman," uniformly fail to mention that, these days, marriage in America is, quite often, between a man who works eight hours a day in a factory and five hours a night as a security guard and then comes home to an empty bed because his wife is on the night shift, stocking shelves at Wal-Mart. It's pretty damn hard to "manage your conflicts in a healthy way" when the two of you are never in the same room. And for all the talk about how much better off kids in unbroken homes are, there is very little said about how these barely-making-ends-meet parents are supposed to pull off the Ozzie and Harriet routine. Talk to your kids about drugs? When? In the waits at the emergency room, which you're using as your GP because you haven't got health care?

Posted by aalkon at 10:04 AM | Comments (12)

Watch Out For Those Soccer Dads!

Watch Out For Those Soccer Dads!
Family man Luigi Garofano gets swept up by the anti-terror squad for a 20-year-old drug charge. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, petitioned to deport him, but an immigration judge rejected their petition. The government can still appeal. As Mike Alissi from Reason put it, "Watch out for those soccer dad sleeper cells!"

(via Reason's blog)

Posted by aalkon at 09:16 AM | Comments (0)

January 21, 2004

Raining On The P.C. College Admissions Parade

Raining On The P.C. College Admissions Parade
Cathy Seipp exposes Pitzer College president Laura Skandera Trombley's soggy thinking about the SAT.

Posted by aalkon at 01:16 PM | Comments (1)

Gays On Steroids

We Have Nothing To Fear But Gays On Steroids
Nick Gillespie came up with a hilarious super-condensed version of Bush's State Of The Union address:

Things are good, though terrorism is a threat to America and so are kids who take steroids and gays who want to marry each other. The housing market's never been better. I have a 10 year-old pen pal named Ashley who's swell.

The link to the full text of the State Of The Union Address is here, along with Gillespie's super-condense job on the Democrats' blather in response.

Posted by aalkon at 07:47 AM | Comments (1)

January 20, 2004

A Define Romance

A Define Romance
The American Dialect Society has named the 2003 Words Of The Year. Here are my favorites:

ass-hat: noun, a thoughtless or stupid person.

flexitarian: noun, a vegetarian who occasionally eats meat.

freegan: noun, person who eats only what they can get for free.

tanorexia: noun, the condition of being addicted to tanning.

tofurkey: noun, a faux turkey crafted from tofu. Also a trade name.

manscaping: noun, male body-shaving.

Collyer: noun, in New York City, a person trapped under their own collected debris in their apartment.

Any additions?

(via Metafilter)

UPDATE: In related news, Treacher makes yet another important contribution to western culture.

Posted by aalkon at 09:13 AM | Comments (8)

Putting The Self Back In Self-Improvement

Putting The Self Back In Self-Improvement
Novelist and writer Louis Bayard is maxed-out on maxims.

(via Arts & Letters Daily)

Posted by aalkon at 07:57 AM | Comments (4)

January 19, 2004

Attention, Men! You, Too, Can Be A Father!

Dad Wrong
Attention, men! You, too, can be a father! Father of a child you've never met; whose mother you've never had sex with, nor even seen -- a father who owes a considerable sum of child-support to that mother of that child you didn't father.

Matt Welch has done a masterful investigative piece in the February 2004 Reason magazine on the terribly scary fraud being perpetuated on men in the name of welfare reform: any woman can name any man -- even one she's never met -- as the father of her child, and if he doesn't fight back (and fast) -- he could end up losing everything. Yes, everything. "A name, race, vague location, and a broad age range is sufficient to launch a process that" can cause a man who is not the child's father to have his wages garnished and his passport blocked, and have liens put on his assets.

It isn't even a crime for the mother to name the wrong man. Welch notes that "for both the mother and the state, the punishment for making a mistake is indirect, in the form of receiving less child support." But, the man's credit -- and his life -- can be ruined in the process.

It all boils down to paperwork. If the alleged father doesn't get, or ignores the (confusing) notice to respond to the paternity charge, he has a limited time to contest it before he's assumed to be daddy in the eyes of the law -- whether or not he actually is. Welch reports that the accused father has 30 days to respond to a paternity complaint (it helps if the complaint form has actually gotten to him, but in many cases it never did). Then, he has 180 days to contest a child support order, and two years from birth to challenge paternity using DNA evidence. "If," Welch writes, "for whatever reasons, any of these deadlines aren't met, no amount of evidence can move the state to review the case; the DCSS has to be sued." Unfortunately...

...Family cases typically hew to the "finality of judgment" principle to prevent disruptions in children's lives. Or, in the words of former California legislator Rod Wright, "It ain't your kid, you can prove it ain't your kid, and they say, 'So what?'"

That's how a man like Taron James could be slapped with a support bill for thousands of dollars from Los Angeles County in 2002, and continue to be barred from using his notary public license, even after producing convincing DNA evidence and notarized testimony from the mother that her 11-year-old son, whom he's seen exactly once and looks nothing like, is not his child and that she no longer seeks his support. James says his name was placed on the child's birth certificate without his consent while he was on a Navy tour of duty; then the mother refused to take blood tests for eight years, and he became aware of a default order against him only when the Department Of Motor Vehicles refused to issue him a driver's license in October 1996. By that time, James had missed all the relevant deadlines, the court was unimpressed with his tale of woe, and he has since coughed up $14,000 in child support via liens and garnishments.

Hideous stuff. Terribly wrong. It's clear what's right here, and all lawmakers like Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), who oppose paternity-related reform bills, should be voted out post-haste.

Personally, I would like to take the rights of men a step further. I don't think any man who doesn't want to be a father -- and clearly expresses that to a woman -- should be forced to pay for any child that ensues from having sex. Because a woman is the one who gets pregnant, if paying for and raising a child as a single mother is a problem for a particular woman, she needs to take steps -- and double steps -- to prevent pregnancy -- or be ready to have an abortion or give up the baby after it's born. Men shouldn't be forced into financing fatherhood -- by anyone -- be it a fuckbuddy or a representative of the state.

NOTE: To read Matt Welch's piece right now, buy the February 2004 Reason at any really good newsstand near you. When the link is up on the magazine's site, I'll put it up on my Web site, too.

Posted by aalkon at 09:04 AM | Comments (23)

Northworst For Privacy

Northworst For Privacy
I want my privacy back. Northwest Airlines, the flying cattlecar I take to my hometown, Detroit, very likely donated my private data to NASA without my permission. According to an AP story:

Northwest said it did not inform any passengers that it shared data with NASA. It also said it did not believe that the data sharing violated its privacy policy.

"Our privacy policy commits Northwest not to sell passenger information to third parties for marketing purposes," the company said in its statement to the Post. "This situation was entirely different, as we were providing the data to a government agency to conduct scientific research related to aviation security and we were confident that the privacy of passenger information would be maintained."

Well, I'm thrilled that they were "confident" about this. I just wish I'd gotten to weigh in, as it's likely that I was one of those informationally assaulted. Hmm, if I can't have my privacy back, maybe I can invoice them for a $500 Revealing My Private Data fee. Now, there's an idea.

Posted by aalkon at 08:16 AM | Comments (1)

January 18, 2004

Keep The Government Out Of Our Bloodstreams

Keep The Government Out Of Our Bloodstreams
The government, writes AP's Adam Geller, is preparing to use intrusive new ways to find out if employees are using drugs:

Saliva testing, done using a swab that looks much like a toothbrush but with a pad instead of bristles, is best at detecting drug use within the past one or two days.

Hair testing, in which a sample about the thickness of a shoelace is clipped at the root from the back of the head, allows detection of many drugs used as far back as 3 months.

Sweat testing, in which workers are fitted with a patch that is worn for two weeks, is used to screen people who have returned to work after drug treatment.

Oops -- they forgot something. What about employees who are alcoholics? Doesn't that affect job performance? And maybe, like me, you know a high-functioning drug user or two -- like a famous Ph.D. university professor I'm acquainted with, who unwinds after a long day of important discoveries by smoking a thick doob. If it's not ruining his life or demonstrably affecting his work (he seems a tad overproductive, if anything) -- what, please tell me, could possibly be wrong with that?

Posted by aalkon at 09:35 AM | Comments (7)

January 17, 2004

Fundamentalist Welfare

Fundamentalist Welfare
Bush panders to the religious right with his $1.5 billion marriage money package -- which gays are excluded from partaking of. I'm against this package altogether (whatever happened to the guy who campaigned for small government?), but it's completely wrong (and certainly unconstituional) that one segment of the population is discriminated against by the government they pay taxes to on the basis of sexual orientation. Chris Geidner has a good piece on this. And one of his commenters hits on one of my suspicions:

I'm sure this money is really going to be thrown at various churches, whose training is largely going to consist of the importance of accepting the Lord Jesus Christ as your savior, and building & improving your relationship with Christ as a first step to building & improving your relationship with your spouse.

Not to malign that as a possibly very successful means of improving marital relations, but it's one that should be privately funded.

Yes, it should.

Posted by aalkon at 09:26 AM | Comments (4)

January 16, 2004

Porn Again Whiner

Join the Penis Size Debate
http://psize.blogspot.com
http://psize.

blogspot.com

Posted by aalkon at 08:16 AM | Comments (7)

Cecile Dublog

Cecile Dublog
And now, a blatant promo for a certain teen blog...

Posted by aalkon at 06:19 AM | Comments (2)

January 15, 2004

The Book Babes

The Book Babes
On former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's account of the Bush administration in "The Price Of Loyalty." Link to the book is here.

Posted by aalkon at 11:23 AM | Comments (3)

Where Is Mrs. Dean?

Where Is Mrs. Dean?
Dumb question, says Reason's Nick Gillespie, knocking her critics:

...we already know where Steinberg Dean is: somewhere in the Green Mountain State, doing whatever it is that country doctors do. The question really is, Should we care where Mrs. Dean�or any other candidate's spouse�is? The short answer is no.

He's right. Check your clocks. It's 2004. Isn't it time we get comfortable with a presidential wife who's more than political arm candy?

Posted by aalkon at 10:19 AM | Comments (5)

Imam-my Dearest

Imam-my Dearest
Imam sentenced by a Spanish court for advising men on how to beat up their wives without leaving incriminating marks.

(via Instapundit)

Posted by aalkon at 09:43 AM | Comments (4)

We The (Secular) People

We The (Secular) People
The Constitution is a secular document, writes Susan Jacoby, author of the forthcoming Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism, and America is a secular country:

...The notion that elected officials should employ a religious rationale for policy decisions is rooted in the misconception, promulgated by the Christian right, that the American government was founded on divine authority rather than human reason. When I lecture on college campuses, students frequently express surprise at being told that the framers of the Constitution deliberately omitted any mention of God in order to assign supreme governmental power to "We the People."

Dismissing this inconvenient fact, some on the religious right have suggested that divine omnipotence was considered a given in the 1780's � that the framers had no need to acknowledge God in the Constitution because his dominion was as self-evident as the rising and setting of the sun. Yet isn't it absurd to suppose that men as precise in their use of language as Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison would absentmindedly have failed to insert God into the nation's founding document? In fact, they represented a majority of citizens who wished not only to free religion from government interference but government from religious interference.

This deep sentiment was expressed in letters to newspapers during the debate over ratification of the Constitution. One Massachusetts correspondent, signing himself "Elihu," summed up the secular case by praising the authors of the Constitution as men who "come to us in the plain language of common sense, and propose to our understanding a system of government, as the invention of mere human wisdom; no deity comes down to dictate it, nor even a God in a dream to propose any part of it."

The 18th-century public's understanding of the Constitution as a secular document can perhaps best be gauged by the reaction of religious conservatives at the time. For example, the Rev. John M. Mason, a fire-breathing New York City minister, denounced the absence of God in the preamble as "an omission which no pretext whatever can palliate." He warned that "we will have every reason to tremble, lest the governor of the universe, who will not be treated with indignity by a people more than individuals, overturn from its foundations the fabric we have been rearing and crush us to atoms in the wreck." But unlike many conservatives today, Mason acknowledged � even as he deplored � the Constitution's uncompromising secularism.

Americans tend to minimize not only the secular convictions of the founders, but also the secularist contribution to later social reform movements. One of the most common misconceptions is that organized religion deserves nearly all of the credit for 19th-century abolitionism and the 20th-century civil rights movement. While religion certainly played a role in both, many people fail to distinguish between personal faith and religious institutions.

Abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison, editor of The Liberator, and the Quaker Lucretia Mott, also a women's rights crusader, denounced the many mainstream Northern religious leaders who, in the 1830's and 40's, refused to condemn slavery.

In return, Garrison and Mott were castigated as infidels and sometimes as atheists � a common tactic used by those who do not recognize any form of faith but their own. Garrison, strongly influenced by his freethinking predecessor Thomas Paine, observed that one need only be a decent human being � not a believer in the Bible or any creed � to discern the evil of slavery.

Here are two mini-reviews of her book from Amazon.com:

�Freethinkers is not only a good book, it is a necessary one. Ranging from the freethinking Revolution to the pious administration of George W. Bush, this dramatic study offers a welcome reminder that the Founding Fathers were intent on keeping church and state firmly separated. Lively, impassioned, and impartial, Susan Jacoby�s argument deserves more than respect; it deserves support.� �Peter Gay, Sterling Professor of History Emeritus, Yale University

�This book is fresh air for those who defend the separation of church and state. Here, clearly written and without apologetics, is the noble record of the struggle to retain America�s precious freedom of conscience, her pride for two centuries, now under threat from the political Right as never before.� �Arthur Miller

Posted by aalkon at 08:41 AM | Comments (1)

January 14, 2004

Hillary In 2008

Hillary In 2008
She's outhawking the hawks all the way to The White House, predicts Andrew Sullivan.

Posted by aalkon at 08:01 AM | Comments (9)

Payless Car Rental: We Spy Harder

Payless Car Rental: We Spy Harder
Christopher Elliott writes in The New York Times about car rental companies using tracking devices against their customers. One customer, a Mr. Son, "received a shock" when he returned the Ford Escort he'd rented to Payless:

The $259.51 bill he expected had ballooned to $3,405.05 - most of it a result of a $1-a-mile fee for each of the 2,874 miles driven. It turned out that by crossing the state line, he had violated his contract with Payless.

"If we had known we couldn't drive the car outside California, we wouldn't have rented it," Mr. Son said.

Penalties for taking a rental vehicle beyond state lines or national borders are not new. But the way in which Mr. Son's surcharge was applied was somewhat novel. The rental company presented him with a map showing his exact route outside California as relayed by a tracking device in his car. Mr. Son said he was surprised to learn that his movements were being tracked. A letter was included with the bill. "Should you choose to dispute this amount," wrote Umesh Pudasaini, the Payless branch manager, "we will pursue all avenues" to collect full payment. Car rental companies have come to rely on an emerging technology called telematics - which combines satellite-based Global Positioning System tracking, wireless communications and vehicle monitoring systems - to keep tabs on their vehicles. About a quarter of the rental cars in the United States are equipped with tracking technology, analysts estimate. The industry views telematics as a way to enforce its contracts, but some customers regard it, at best, as a means to make more money and, at worst, as an invasion of privacy.

Neil Abrams, an auto rental consultant, said early uses of G.P.S. technology in rental cars, like the Hertz NeverLost system, were intended to help motorists find their way. But recent efforts have quietly focused on catching renters who drive out of state or break speed laws.

I'll focus my efforts on renting from companies that respect my privacy -- if any.

UPDATE: Speaking of scary, here's Reason's Brian Doherty on CAPPS II, which "could be operating in our nation's airports as soon as next month." Oh, relinquishing our privacy is all for our own protection, is it? Oh, goody.

Posted by aalkon at 07:25 AM | Comments (2)

January 13, 2004

Dawn Of The Same Old Day

Dawn Of The Same Old Day
Like me, Bernadine Healy wonders why in the world the morning-after pill is up for debate. The answer, of course: fundamentalists. Their attempt to turn back the clock on women's health issues is supposedly about "choosing life" -- a choosing that gives none of the choice to the women who, in turn, end up unnecessarily barefoot and pregnant, maimed or dead.

Posted by aalkon at 09:53 AM | Comments (1)

The Land Of The (Fat-)Free

The Land Of The (Fat-)Free
MSNBC's Howard Mortman on the elected nannies who seek to take a tax bite out of our junk food. Are you fat? Take a walk, don't take liberties with the price of my once-a-year fast food burger and fries. (Those sugar-dusted McDonald's fries...mmm-mmm good!)

(via Reason's blog)

Posted by aalkon at 08:52 AM | Comments (6)

January 12, 2004

Stay-At-Home Dads

Stay-At-Home Dads
Chances are, they're gay. Ginia Bellefante reports for The New York Times about "an emerging population of gay men who are not only raising children but are also committed to the idea that one parent should leave the workplace to do it":

Of 9,328 same-sex couples with children whose census returns were randomly selected for analysis by the Census Bureau, 26 percent of the male couples included a stay-at-home parent, said Gary Gates, a demographer with the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington. That figure is one percentage point more than for married couples with children and four percentage points higher than for female couples, said Mr. Gates, who performed the analysis for this article.

The percentage of men who stay at home is significantly smaller among married heterosexual couples, Mr. Gates said.

The obstacles of finding surrogate mothers and of discriminatory adoption laws that favor heterosexual couples have led some gay men to pursue parenthood with fervor.

"Being a planned gay father is such a project in itself," said Judith Stacey, a professor of sociology at New York University and a senior scholar at the Council on Contemporary Families, a research organization. Often, Professor Stacey said, gay fathers or those aspiring to be "remain very judgmental of parents who don't stay home."

To some gay men, the idea of entrusting the care of a hard-won child to someone else seems to defeat the purpose of parenthood.

Ray Friedmann, of Portland, Ore., gave up an accounting job at a credit union after he and his partner adopted their daughter, Ceriwen, now six months old. Unable to join his partner's medical plan because it does not provide for domestic partners, Mr. Friedmann, like many other gay fathers, pays for his own health insurance.

"We never thought we'd even be able to have this child," Mr. Friedmann said. "When we had the opportunity to do it, we wanted to give her the best attention and love."

Perhaps you've seen the above-quoted Judy Stacey, a friend of mine and Lena's, who testified in the case against the Florida ban on gay parent adoptions -- aka Rosie O'Donnell's Prime Time Live coming-out party. Two gay parents, Steve Lofton, 44, and Roger Croteau, 46, took in a bunch of kids that nobody wanted -- kids with AIDs and other serious illnesses, and difficult backgrounds -- and created a family so happy that a lot of kids with hetero parents would probably petition to join it. Now the state of Florida is trying to take one of those kids away -- just because the parents are gay. Go ahead -- tell me fundamentalism isn't evil.

Posted by aalkon at 11:08 AM | Comments (5)

Urine Terrorist Territory Now

Urine Terrorist Territory Now
Plotting to empty your bladder while flying from Sydney to New York? Better hope you don't have company. The TSA has outlawed collective pee breaks on planes to the USA.

(via Metafilter)

Posted by aalkon at 10:11 AM | Comments (0)

Did Michael Jackson Do It?

Did Michael Jackson Do It?
Like me, Leo McKinstry, of the London Spectator doubts it:

...Eccentricity does not necessarily imply guilt. Personally, I have the gravest doubts about the charges made against Jackson. Not only are the motives of his accusers open to suspicion, but also Jackson�s behaviour does not match that of a predatory, duplicitous child-abuser. The present case arose out of the television documentary made about Jackson by Martin Bashir. Broadcast in February 2003, this programme featured Gavin Arvizo, who was filmed leaning his head on Jackson�s shoulder while he talked of his devotion to the pop star � hardly the behaviour of someone living in terror of abuse. Indeed, Gavin�s mother, Janet Ventura, was so furious at the way Bashir hinted at Jackson�s impropriety that she made a formal complaint to the Independent Television Commission, arguing that Bashir�s programme was �a complete distortion of the truth about Michael Jackson as I know and admire him. At no time has Gavin ever been treated with anything other than love, respect and the deepest kindness by Michael Jackson.� She stressed that Jackson had helped her son in his battle with cancer through �his constant support, both practical and emotional�.

Those words will return to haunt Ms Ventura in court, for she is now one of the star witnesses for the prosecution against Jackson. She claims to be acting from a spirit of outrage, but others say that she is acting out of spite because Jackson would no longer give her financial support. Over the years, he has showered her with gifts, including a car and an apartment for a boyfriend, but earlier this year, when he told her that �the free ride is over�, she is alleged to have turned against him. Witnesses at Neverland state that they saw Janet Ventura, �high on crack�, arguing with Jackson and making verbal threats to go to �the tabloids and tell them some stories if you don�t take care of me�. Some might see Jackson�s supposed generosity as nothing more than hush money to cover up abuse. Yet if he was succumbing to such pressures, why would he suddenly stop paying?

Intriguingly, this picture of a grasping woman bent on revenge is supported by Janet Ventura�s estranged husband, David Arvizo, who says that his ex-wife was obsessed with becoming a celebrity and was only �interested in money and herself�. It has also been pointed out that Janet Ventura previously made allegations at the supermarket J.C. Penney, claiming to have been battered and sexually assaulted by security guards. She won $144,000 in an out-of-court settlement. During her divorce battle, she also accused her husband of abusing their children. For this purpose, she is said to have written out scripts for the children so that they would back up her testimony in court.

Ms Ventura and her son Gavin may indeed now be telling the truth, though it seems odd that they should have so radically changed their story in less than a year. Celebrities are uniquely vulnerable to allegations from disgruntled ex-employees and acquaintances, who seek wealth or fame. Prince Charles, the TV presenter John Leslie and the cricketer Geoff Boycott are just three examples of famous men who have recently been subject to vicious, unfounded campaigns by disturbed or money-grabbing individuals.

In Michael Jackson�s case, the fact that he has been so open about his childlike fondness for the company of young boys is surely a mark in his favour. A man who had something to hide would hardly proclaim in a TV interview, as Jackson did on 26 December, �What�s wrong with sharing your bed?� Jackson�s stance of outraged innocence might be an act, but equally it might reflect the real personality of someone who has never embraced adulthood.

Posted by aalkon at 09:49 AM | Comments (20)

January 11, 2004

Jesus Kicked Me In The Shins

Jesus Kicked Me In The Shins
David Bernstein, over at volokh.com, makes a really good point about people's silly tendency to give god credit for anything good that happens:

Americans have a tendency to publicly attribute any success they have had--anything ranging from winning a Little League playoff game to winning the lottery--to God's intervention on their behalf. But I haven't noticed a countervailing tendency to blame God when things go wrong, an especially annoying defect in the sports world, where victories are freely attributed to Jesus's blessings. If God wanted the Marlins to win the World Series, doesn't that mean he wanted the Yankees to lose? Just once, I'd like to see the losing Super Bowl quarterback tell the media "Guess Jesus really had it in for me today."

Yeah, and there's war in Iraq only because god's a little busy making some 10-year-old second baseperson drop the ball so your kid's little league team can win. Rrrright!

Posted by aalkon at 04:37 PM | Comments (1)

January 10, 2004

Return To Consenter

Return To Consenter
In the state of Michigan, according to a Local 6 report, "sex is a crime if both consenting parties aren't at least 17 years old." In other words, if you're a consenting 17-year-old girl, and you have sex with your (exceptionally grateful) consenting 16-year-old boyfriend, you can be charged as a sex-offender.

This 15-year-old girl's daddy is now crying rape -- after allegedly providing the girl and her boyfriend with condoms and a bed! -- because he found out her boyfriend was 20, not 18 like he'd said. Unfortunately for daddy, the police are charging him, too -- with the same three counts of criminal sexual conduct they're charging the boyfriend with -- for allowing the whole deal to go on.

While the backfiring aspect in this case is kind of hilarious, the law behind it is scary, and as stupid as our age limits on who can drink. How about we only call rape what is rape -- clearly forced sex on somebody who doesn't have the capacity to refuse? Sure, a 15-year-old having sex with a 20-year-old is usually ill-advised, and definitely, in this case, a sign of bad parenting. But, it sure isn't rape.

Posted by aalkon at 08:21 AM | Comments (5)

January 09, 2004

Crime Limit

Crime Limit
Spent last night drinking with the homicide squad in Detroit. Flying home soon. More blog items later!

Posted by aalkon at 08:25 AM | Comments (1)

January 08, 2004

The Modern Leftist's Association

The Modern Leftist's Association
The Modern Language Association is an organization supposedly all about promoting "the study and teaching of language and literature." According to a Boston Globe story by Scott Jaschik, it seems they're much busier promoting the idea of America as The Evil Empire. At their recent convention in San Diego, English professor after English professor weighed in on "American imperialism":

Anthony Dawahare of California State University at Northridge said that "whoever wins the war in Iraq, the working class people in Iraq and in the US will be subject to a dictatorship of the rich." In an interview, he said that unless Howard Dean challenged capitalism itself, student activism on his behalf would be "a waste of time."

Hmm, being subjected to "a dictatorship of the rich" (A wide-screen TV in every living room?) sounds a lot better than being subjected to a dictatorship of a guy who regularly tosses 400 citizens' dead bodies in a ravine. How about we drop-kick this guy into Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia and see if he starts missing democracy a little?

(via Reason's blog)

Posted by aalkon at 09:55 AM | Comments (1)

January 07, 2004

The Bush Brats Get Their Way

The Bush Brats Get Their Way
An excerpt from Ann Gerhart's book, "The Perfect Wife: The Life and Choices of Laura Bush," on Jenna and Barbara Bush:

The armored black limousine glides to a stop near a U.S. military jet at Andrews Air Force Base early one morning in May 2002. Laura Bush is about to embark on her first solo trip as first lady, a 10-day visit to three European nations, where she will speak out for Afghan women's rights.

An aide opens the door, and Mrs. Bush slides her legs carefully out and steps onto the tarmac. By this point, she knows her part well: Pause to smile, wave and let the photographers dutifully record the image. The small press corps knows its part, too, and watches the routine preflight maneuver with no expectations. Suddenly, one leg in worn corduroy, then the other, swings off the smooth leather limo seat. Jenna Bush stands up to follow her mother into the plane for this spring fling, and the reporters go on alert. It's the rowdy twin, the one who has been busted twice in four weeks for underage drinking, who has run her Secret Service detail ragged, who was captured in the National Enquirer falling down, a cigarette in her hand.

The corduroy jeans are ratty at their too-long hems, where Jenna has ground them into the pavement too many times. She is wearing a short black T-shirt, and her exposed tummy pooches out over the low-riding waistband. Flip-flops are on her feet. Her blond hair has been pinned carelessly up with a plastic clip. Sunglasses cover her eyes. Hoisting a backpack, she clomps up the plane stairs and disappears.

She hardly looks appropriately presidential daughterly, but then again, she has time to get herself together before the entourage lands in Paris, where French and American officials will greet Mrs. Bush and hand her flowers. The girl is hardly flying coach: Her mother has a hairdresser and a makeup artist on board the military plane, and there's a lovely wide bed and full shower.

But upon arrival 71/2 hours later, while her ladylike mother smiles and embraces the waiting welcomers, Jenna appears at the plane door looking exactly the same. The flip-flops still on the feet, the belly still exposed, the hair still not brushed. Suddenly, she darts back inside. The twin has spied the telephoto lenses of several French photographers far away, behind a fence. For a few moments, nothing happens, and then the limousine trunk floats open by electronic remote. A White House valet retrieves one of Mrs. Bush's Neiman Marcus garment bags, carefully laid out in the trunk, and he carries it back up the plane's steps. The reporters watch in wonder. While he holds it aloft, Jenna slips behind it, and he walks back down the stairs, shielding the first daughter from the prying eyes of all media, foreign and domestic. Only the top of her blond head, bobbing up and down, and those flip-flops are visible.

Jenna is hiding, literally, behind her mother's skirts.

There are only two possible explanations for what the reporters have just witnessed. Either, A) Laura Bush has asked her 20-year-old to please make herself more presentable, more fitting as a representative of the United States using taxpayer dollars on an official visit, and her daughter has adamantly refused, or B) Laura hasn't even bothered to ask.

The rest is here.

Posted by aalkon at 01:34 PM | Comments (12)

Back In The USSR

Back In The USSR
Well, not quite. Speech is still free in the US -- as long as nobody can hear those objectionable things you're saying. James Bovard reports on so-called "free-speech zones":

Attempts to suppress protesters become more disturbing in light of the Homeland Security Department's recommendation that local police departments view critics of the war on terrorism as potential terrorists. In a May terrorist advisory, the Homeland Security Department warned local law enforcement agencies to keep an eye on anyone who "expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the U.S. government." If police vigorously followed this advice, millions of Americans could be added to the official lists of suspected terrorists.

Excuse me, but when do we all get terrified about the continuing eradication of rights in the name of "national security"?

UPDATE: Longtime political dissenter Brent Bursey is fined $500 for breaking a a federal law "designed to shield the president from harm," reports Clif LeBlanc, in a story in the Columbia, South Carolina newspaper The State.

(via David "Tell Me Everything" Rensin)

Posted by aalkon at 09:49 AM | Comments (2)

January 06, 2004

Belief Blower

Belief Blower
In the February Psychology Today, Erik Strand does a mini-profile of The Brights -- "a growing group of atheists, humanists, and free-thinkers" with "a naturalistic worldview that rejects supernational and mystical thinking." It's a group that happens to include yours truly, and Strand included me in the piece:

Syndicated advice columnist Amy Alkon, who has slapped the sobriquet "Godless Harlot" on her business card, puts it this way: "Our country is run by [religious] fundamentalists in so many areas that it's important to come out of the closet."

Come out of the closet as a rational thinker, I meant. And, how scary that, in 2004, there's still a closet for that. Sure, we have cell phones that stop just short of making us hot buttered toast, but as far as advances in rational thought go, much of the world's population seems firmly planted in about 1652. And that's just the western portion.

NOTE: (The article isn't on the Internet yet, but it is on page 82 of the print version of the January/February Psychology Today, on newsstands now.)

Posted by aalkon at 07:03 PM | Comments (27)

January 05, 2004

Trough With The Pounds

Trough With The Pounds
No, lifting the Big Gulp to your fat face isn't exercise. How obvious is that? Not obvious enough, apparently, because a professor just did a bunch of research and came to the stunning conclusion that Americans are huge because they eat huge portions:

The University of Illinois researcher has set up several food experiments that show the more people are given, the more they will eat - regardless of whether they are full or think the food tastes good.

"In the obesity war, portion size is the first casualty,'' said Wansink, who founded the University of Illinois' Food & Brand Lab. "It's easy to point at, and we don't have to take responsibility because we can blame the restaurant or the packaged food manufacturer.''

Wansink and other researchers hope the results can help the federal government devise more user-friendly nutrition labels for packaged foods. For example, instead of stating that a handful of granola has 200 calories, the label instead could say the consumer would have to walk 2 miles to burn it off.

We couldn't possibly ask people to reflect on the obvious all by themselves, now could we? Eat a feed-bag of Ding Dongs every day, and you'll have an ass the size of Kansas. Not exactly advanced-placement calculus, now is it?

Posted by aalkon at 08:27 AM | Comments (5)

January 04, 2004

Keeping The Ex In Ex-Con

Keeping The Ex In Ex-Con
The New York Times' Adam Cohen reports on San Francisco's popular Delancy Street Restaurant, staffed entirely by ex-cons, where work seems to be working as a way to turn criminals into productive citizens:

It is...the centerpiece of the Delancey Street Foundation, where ex-convicts live together, run businesses and move to self-sufficiency. After three decades and 14,000 graduates, Delancey Street is at the intersection of two white-hot trends: the growing focus on "re-entry," the moment prisoners rejoin society, and "social entrepreneurship," using business to tackle social problems.

It is also well positioned ideologically. In a field overrun with liberal and conservative platitudes, it reflects the pragmatism of Mimi Silbert, who holds a Ph.D. in criminology from the University of California at Berkeley and who founded the group with an ex-convict in 1971. Dr. Silbert, who grew up in an immigrant family and worked on a kibbutz, drew heavily on both experiences to create an environment emphasizing hard work and mutual support.

Delancey Street's "third way" � neither harshly punitive, nor mindlessly permissive � has won backers ranging from Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, to George Shultz, secretary of state under President Ronald Reagan.

Maybe, when people are still in prison, we need to be a little less focused on simply punishing them for their crimes, and a little more focused on the fact that most of them will be out of prison sooner or later.

Posted by aalkon at 11:40 AM | Comments (3)

Yours, In Literacy

survivor pics that Jenna and Heidi be looking pretty!.

Posted by aalkon at 08:40 AM | Comments (5)

January 03, 2004

Pat Robertson Chats With The Supreme Being

Yo, Pat, God Give You Any Winning Lottery Numbers?
Pat Robertson claims he had a little chat with God the other day, reports the AP's Sonja Barisic. According to Pat, God said it's Bush in 2004, and it'll be "a blowout." Now that that's squared away, what I'm wondering is whether God and Pat got themselves a set of those cellphone walkie talkies, or whether Mr. Gossip (aka The Surpreme Being) just pops in at Pat's place to read him the News Of The Universe from time to time.

(via David "Tell Me Everything" Rensin)

Posted by aalkon at 08:38 AM | Comments (32)

Cathy Seipp's Media Roundup

Cathy Seipp's Media Roundup
Miss Seipp reviews her favorite media moments from 2003. Don't miss the semen special!

Posted by aalkon at 06:29 AM | Comments (5)

January 02, 2004

Crime Doesn't Repay, But It Should

Crime Doesn't Repay, But It Should
Wendy McElroy proposes something that I've been in favor of ever since I had my car stolen -- the concept that criminals should not only have to compensate their victims, but pay the cost of trial and jail:

A criminal court that focused on restitution would force those convicted to repay their victims not only for direct financial losses but also in compensation for emotional trauma. Criminals would bear the cost of court proceedings and of collecting any restitution that is not rendered voluntarily. If criminals did not have the means to pay a judgment or could not be trusted to do so over time, they could be monitored or confined to an institution for the sole purpose of working to earn that compensation and to pay the cost of confinement. The taxpayer would be taken out of the loop.

Objections immediately arise: for example, some categories of crime are so heinous that they do not seem to allow restitution. How can you compensate a victim of rape or murder?

I have always found this objection to be odd. The fact that there may be no perfect or adequate form of restitution is not an argument against providing whatever repayment is possible. A rapist cannot restore a victim's sense of safety but he or she can be made to pay such items as medical bills, the cost of counseling, and compensation for emotional trauma. A murderer cannot repay his debt to the dead but he can be forced to earn money to pay in perpetuity the expenses of a victim's family: food, mortgage, tuition, and so on. It is odd to argue that only non-criminal or trivial injuries deserve restitution. The more serious the injury, the more it seems that the victim deserves compensation.

The way I see it, our prisons should all be turned into hamster wheels of repayment. You want to watch Law & Order, con man? That'll be 120 extra license plates you'll make today!

Posted by aalkon at 07:40 PM | Comments (4)

January 01, 2004

Wooden Ya Know

Wooden Ya Know
"When I first got up here, I thought blogging was an Irish dance."

--Tricia Enright, communications director for Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, in a USA Today piece on the growing influence of political blogs.

Posted by aalkon at 11:25 AM | Comments (5)

The Luck Factor

The Luck Factor
Are you lucky? Give yourself a pat on the back.

UPDATE: Here's your handy-dandy link to the Seligman book my favorite epidemiologist keeps recommending.

Posted by aalkon at 08:11 AM | Comments (3)

December 31, 2003

2003, Reviewed

2003, Reviewed
The New York Times asked various writers and thinkers to comment on the year's most underrated and overrated ideas. Here are two of my favorites:

OVERRATED: Repeal of the Estate Tax
We pay taxes only because the alternative is worse: no taxes, no government; no government, no army. Among our myriad taxes, none is as efficient and painless as the estate tax. It's like a lawyer's contingency fee: injured parties who couldn't otherwise afford legal access can try to recover damages because lawyers are willing to forgo their fees unless they win.

Similarly, the estate tax lets us finance valuable public services with a surcharge that kicks in only if we end up among the wealthiest 1 percent. It also permits lower income-tax rates, encouraging effort and investment. It stimulates charitable giving, reducing the need for tax-financed public services. And a tax levied after death is surely less unpleasant than one collected from the living.

But if the estate tax is so great, why do 70 percent of surveyed voters favor the Bush administration's efforts to repeal it permanently? Perhaps this tax would fare better if pollsters began with a question like this: "If the estate tax were repealed, which other taxes should be increased, or which government services should be eliminated, to make up for the lost revenue?"

--Robert H. Frank, professor of economics at Cornell University and author of the forthcoming book "What Price the Moral High Ground?"

UNDERRATED: Link Between Money and Happiness
In conferences around the globe this year, psychologists reported that measures of human happiness scarcely change when national income grows. Citing this finding, many social critics now insist that income growth no longer promotes well-being.

Experience suggests otherwise. Years ago, when I was a graduate student with two children in diapers, my wife called in distress to report that our 10-year-old clothes dryer had died. That evening I scanned the classified ads, made numerous calls and the next day drove out to inspect several machines. After haggling with the owner of a five-year-old Kenmore, I wrote a check we could barely cover. I drove a friend's truck across town to pick it up, then drove 25 miles to take the old machine to the dump. Four days and numerous hardware store visits later, we again had a working dryer.

I now earn many times what I did then. Recently my wife called to say that another dryer had died. "Call Werninck's," I suggested. When I got home that evening, the old machine was gone and a new one already up and running. Money doesn't guarantee happiness. But having enough can make life a lot less stressful.

--also by Robert H. Frank

The rest are here.

Posted by aalkon at 09:08 AM | Comments (6)

Osama Fin Laden

"Osama Fin Laden"
The fish that threatened national security.

(via Metafilter)

Posted by aalkon at 08:10 AM | Comments (3)

December 30, 2003

The Mead Generation

The Mead Generation
"Always remember that you are absolutely unique. Just like everyone else."

--Margaret Mead, as quoted in The Week

Posted by aalkon at 09:20 AM | Comments (1)

Science Comes Second

Science Comes Second
What causes autism? Scientists aren't sure, but that hasn't stopped a bunch of parental lobbying groups from forcing their definitive opinion on Congress. A Wall Street Journal editorial says pressure from these groups "is having the unintended and dangerous consequence of limiting vaccines for all children":

This is a story of politics and lawyers trumping science and medicine. It concerns thimerosal, a preservative that was used in vaccines for 60 years and has never been credibly linked to any health problems. Nonetheless, a small but vocal group of parents have taken to claiming that thimerosal causes autism, a brain disorder that impairs normal social interaction. The result has been an ugly legal and political spat that has spilled into Congress and is frightening some parents from vaccinating their children against such deadly diseases as tetanus and whooping cough.

Studies say thimerosal isn't the cause. Apparently, a minor detail:

A 2002 University of Rochester study compared the blood mercury levels of infants who'd received vaccines with and without thimerosal. All had levels well below the super-cautious EPA safety standard. This was followed last March by a study published in Pediatrics magazine, in which researchers compared the physical manifestations of autism and mercury poisoning. They found that the symptoms weren't the same, nor were the brain tissues similar.

Perhaps the best evidence comes from Denmark, one of those European nations that likes to monitor most everything about its citizens. Researchers recently examined the health records of all children born in Denmark from 1971 to 2000 for autism diagnoses. Though Denmark eliminated thimerosal from its vaccines in 1992, the researchers found that the incidence of autism continued to increase. A second research team reviewed the records of nearly 500,000 Danes vaccinated for pertussis. They also found that the risk of autism and related disorders didn't differ between those vaccinated with thimerosal and those without.

Luckily, there is a cure -- but only for stupidity trumping science, not autism:

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has a proposal to offer liability protection against thimerosal claims and modernize the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program--which pays out to the rare family whose child is truly harmed by a vaccine. Congress could both redeem itself and improve public health by making this bill a priority when it reconvenes in January.

Posted by aalkon at 08:15 AM | Comments (0)

December 29, 2003

Improbable Cause

Improbable Cause
With all that's going terribly, terribly wrong in the world, here's a little something petty to worry about -- whether door nazis at superstores have any right to look at your receipt when you're leaving. (The answer, of course, is no.)

Posted by aalkon at 08:59 AM | Comments (9)

December 28, 2003

The Wright Way To Criticize Someone

The Wright Way To Criticize Someone
"Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away, and you have their shoes."

--Steven Wright, as quoted in The Week, one of my favorite magazines

Posted by aalkon at 07:58 PM | Comments (0)

Where The Wild Things Are

Where The Wild Things Are
On my zebra-print iBook, of course. I almost went for the pink flames. There's leopard, too, for those who are willing to wait. And more.

Posted by aalkon at 04:00 PM | Comments (1)

Live Long And Kill Yourself

Live Long And Kill Yourself
Katha Pollit, not exactly one of my favorite thinkers, takes a dim view of Carolyn Heibrun's rational take on ending it all:

"Quit while you're ahead' was, and is, my motto," wrote Carolyn Heilbrun, explaining why she had long intended to kill herself at 70.

...She was 77 when she finally took the pills she had somehow collected, having chosen a time when her husband would be in the country with the dog. ''The journey is over,'' read the note she left behind. ''Love to all.''

Seems a rather civilized way to go.

Posted by aalkon at 08:56 AM | Comments (9)

December 27, 2003

When Professional Mommies Get Fired

When Professional Mommies Get Fired
Women who might think they're taking the cushy way out -- leaving professional jobs to stay home with their kids -- are liable find themselves in the same position as pre-women's movement divorcees: poor and careerless when their husbands leave them. Oh, and please, if you're a fulltime mom, don't bother complaining how hard you have it. Come on, it's 2003. It's not like you have to catch the goat, shear the goat, dye the wool, spin the wool, and knit the socks. You need socks for Junior #3? You simply go to Target, pull a pair off the rack, and plunk down plastic. Whew, how exhausting! Modern mommyhood, as a sole profession, isn't exactly breaking rocks on a chain gang.

Posted by aalkon at 08:23 AM | Comments (5)

Titty-Cam

Titty-Cam
Don't say I never post any bare-naked breasts on copiers for you.

(via Marc Brown's BlogBlogBlog.com)

Posted by aalkon at 08:11 AM | Comments (14)

December 26, 2003

Never Too Young To Sue

Never Too Young To Sue
A two-year-old bumps his head on a playground railing, and requires several stitches. Just ordinary kid stuff, right? Wrong. The two-year-old, poor dear, happens to be a model (like the kid wakes up howling, "I want to go to the photographer's!"), so his stage mommy is suing the city of Stamford for -- get this -- "unspecified lost wages and other compensation," according to an AP report. I think this would be a good time for the city of Stamford to investigate this mommy and all the other local stage mommies for child abuse; at least that's my opinion, from my New York days, of the reality of mommies trying to turn two-year-olds into cash cows. Sick, sick stuff.

Posted by aalkon at 10:01 PM | Comments (0)

In America

In America
If you want to see a great movie, check out Jim Sheridan's In America. It's the story about his family coming to America from Ireland -- a semi-autobiographical tale about the time when he was running New York City's Irish Arts Center. Here's your exclusive peek at a bit from one of the early versions of the script, that didn't make it into the final film. This is Christy, 12, talking (as a kind of to-camera narration), from the back of an old station wagon, as her parents are being questioned by the border patrol guards before crossing from Canada into the United States:

CHRISTY This is a coming of age story...unfortunately, it's my father that is coming of age. Mam makes all the small decisions in our house. Where we live, what we eat, where we go to school. Dad makes all the big decisions, like whether the Jews should give back the West Bank to the Palestinians.

How good is the film? Well, Richard Roeper is so sure you'll love it to pieces that he says he'll give you your money back if you don't.

Posted by aalkon at 08:45 PM | Comments (1)

In France

In France
While we're in recommendation mode, check out Hotel Costes 6, a fabulous music mix, as played at the eponymous dripping-in-beautiful-people Parisian hotel.

Posted by aalkon at 08:08 PM | Comments (0)

December 25, 2003

Pope On A Grope

Pope On A Grope
The Pope asks Jesus to save the world from terrorism, says an AP report:

During his Midnight Mass homily, the pope decried: "Too much blood is still being shed on earth! Too much violence and too many conflicts trouble the peaceful coexistence of nations!"

"You come to bring us peace," John Paul said of the baby Jesus. "You are our peace!"

Uh, Popie darling, either Jesus doesn't exist, or doesn't give a crap -- about people being killed by terrorists, or little boys being molested by priests, to name a few. Doesn't exist or doesn't care: Which way do you want it?

Posted by aalkon at 07:13 PM | Comments (3)

Poor Warner Brothers

Poor Warner Brothers
Here's an ad from UCLA's listserve. Apparently, Warner Brothers so blew their wad on Tom Cruise and a bunch of old Samurai swords, they couldn't even pay a handful of girls $10 or $15 an hour to promote The Last Samurai:

Casting beautiful Asian women for Warner Bros.' The Last Samurai Premiere After-party to be held in Westwood on Dec 1st.. Women will be dressed as village women from the film's wardrobe department and mingle 'in character' through the party, helping to create the ambience of ancient Japan, circa 1870's. There is no pay, but a chance to be part of this year's biggest Hollywood premiere with a guest list including Tom Cruise and the rest of The Last Samurai's fantastic cast!!

If interested please forward a picture and information ASAP to:

Cheryl Rave
Entertainment Producer
Warner Bros. Special Events
(818)954-3549 phone
(818)954-3011 fax
Cheryl.Rave@Warnerbros.com

Here's the e-mail I sent Cheryl:

Dear Cheryl, I'm a middle class newspaper columnist, and I pay my assistant (because I think it's unethical to have somebody work for free). I think it's pretty terrible that Warner Bros. is trolling for people to work for free at this party. You can't pay the girls $10 an hour? Why, movie budget was too big? How icky. --Amy Alkon

Posted by aalkon at 10:20 AM | Comments (6)

Buy American, Or Sell Out For A Discount?

Buy American, Or Sell Out For A Discount?
Patt Morrison goes to Walmart:

Sam Walton's autobiography is subtitled "Made in America." Sam's been dead about a dozen years, but I'd still like to take him shopping with me to find out just what there is in Wal-Mart, besides Mr. Sam, that's made in America. The grail of free trade � Greenbacks Sans Frontieres � has made it not only old-fashioned to "Buy American," but damned near impossible.

All right, Mr. Sam, just inside the door, Jordache low-rise jeans, $17.94 � from the Philippines. That floaty pink rayon blouse on sale for $9 � India. Ah, here we go, L'Eggs panty hose, nude, sheer-toe, three pairs for $5, made in USA � of imported and domestic fibers. And oh, Sam, oh, Walt � a Disney Winnie-the-Pooh anniversary clock for $19.86 � made in China?

I tell you, who needs an exotic overseas vacation? Let Wal-Mart take you on a tour of the far-flung souks and sweatshops of the world, brought right here to your own hometown:

Little girls' Fruit of the Loom boy-leg briefs, two pairs, pink and blue, $4.66, made in Egypt. Scooby-Doo men's sleep pants, trademark Cartoon Network, $11.93, made in Cambodia. A Vassarette silken heather underwire bra, $9.66, size thirty-�no, you don't�made in Thailand. On the clearance rack, a Kathie Lee jacket from Bangladesh, a White Stag striped shirt from Honduras, a fake-leather-trimmed coat from Korea, another jacket from Guatemala.

Don't I need a visa for this? No, just a Visa.

Patt nails it in the finale:

I didn't talk to the shoppers. They were busy, and what's the point? Just as the bus strikes pitted the working class against the working poor, Wal-Mart sucks them all up: foreign workers desperate for jobs, American workers whose real wages have dropped and left them desperate for cheap goods, and Americans who would rather work at Wal-Mart's non-union jobs, with poor benefits and lower wages, than have no work at all. It's a circle of falling dominoes: Because decent-paying working- and middle-class American jobs are harder to come by, shoppers can't afford to go elsewhere, so they buy goods made overseas for pennies an hour, which encourages manufacturers to shut factories here to send work overseas, which means that more decent-paying jobs�you see where this goes.

I do, and that's why I don't shop at Walmart or Sam's Club. Do you?

Posted by aalkon at 03:46 AM | Comments (8)

December 24, 2003

Fatty Issue

Fatty Issue
Why are Americans so fat? Hmm...there's a toughie. Could it be that they refuse to pry their faces out of their plates and go to the gym? Not according to a section of the recent American Public Health Association conference, writes Kelly Jane Torrance, of the Center For Consumer Freedom:

Speaker after speaker scorned the notion that individual Americans are responsible for their own choices. Margo Wootan of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI�the Ralph Nader spinoff that has already ruined movie popcorn for millions of us), made no effort to hide her agenda. "We have got to move beyond personal responsibility," she pleaded with her audience. In a session titled "The Politics of Food," Skip Spitzer of the radical Pesticide Action Network added that "the idea of 'personal responsibility'" is merely "a cultural construct," ready to be superseded for our own good.

Yale psychologist Kelly Brownell, best known as the father of the "Twinkie tax," was one of the meeting's most popular speakers. Showing some politicking skill, Brownell suggested that activists should make use of children to sidestep commonsense arguments about personal choices: "Another, very utilitarian reason for focusing on children, of course, is then you get away from these arguments about personal responsibility."

Incidentally, Brownell scoffed at the idea that obesity can be successfully treated and reversed. Funny he should think so. The Associated Press noted last year that he gained a good deal of weight while writing a book. The experience apparently "kept him relatively sedentary and snack-prone." In San Francisco, Brownell appeared considerably leaner and meaner, but offered no hint as to which tax or other government program helped him shed the extra pounds.

Some complain that the Center For Consumer Freedom is just a front for Philip Morris, and other mega-companies that fund it. Funding aside, here's one of their articles on the fat issue that makes a lot of sense.

Posted by aalkon at 08:31 AM | Comments (6)

December 23, 2003

No Child Left Behind

No Child Left Behind
Well, except for the poor black ones. At least, that's the way it goes in Weldon, NC, according to a Washington Post story by Michael Dobbs:

Nelson Edwards is unhappy with the education his daughters are receiving at Weldon Middle School, which has failed to meet federal standards. But help should be on the way: The No Child Left Behind law gives the Winn-Dixie meat cutter the option of transferring his children to a better-performing school.

At least, that is the theory of one part of the most sweeping educational reforms adopted by Congress in more than a generation. The practice, from the perspective of a poor, overwhelmingly African American school district in North Carolina, is rather different.

A few months ago, Weldon school officials attempted to negotiate a school-choice agreement with their counterparts in Roanoke Rapids, a predominantly white, middle-class school district on the other side of Interstate 95. They were turned down flat.

Weldon's request would "create an administrative nightmare," said Roanoke Rapids school Superintendent John Parker, who employs two investigators to ensure that children living in Weldon and surrounding Halifax County do not try to sneak into his schools. "There is no way we could accommodate all the students who want to come here, if we opened our doors."

An administrative nightmare? Silly me, I thought that was precisely what "No Child Left Behind" was supposed to prevent: Give kids -- all kids -- access to adequate education -- and they might contribute something to society -- instead of contributing to the pile of papers on social services employees' desks.

Posted by aalkon at 04:18 AM | Comments (2)

December 22, 2003

Mything Out On Love

Mything Out On Love
�Survival and healthy psychological functioning do not necessarily require that one be loved. People are programmed during childhood to believe that their future happiness (and even their survival) is dependent on their finding their �one true love� and preserving this love in a long-term, exclusive couple relationship or marriage. This expectation is based on unrealistic notions regarding the nature of love and often leads to disillusionment and misery.�

--from Fear Of Intimacy, by Robert Firestone, PhD

Posted by aalkon at 05:42 PM | Comments (44)

Putting The Petal To The Metal

Putting The Petal To The Metal
"You are what you love, not what loves you."

--Charlie Kaufman, screenwriter, The Orchid Thief

Posted by aalkon at 07:47 AM | Comments (4)

In Other Words

In Other Words
The words of brilliant but hypocritical nutbag Ayn Rand:

�Love is a response to values. It is with a person�s sense of life that one falls in love -- with that essential sum, that fundamental stand or way of facing existence, which is the essence of a personality.� This is �reflected in his widest goals or smallest gestures, which create the style of his soul.�

The selection committee here, according to Rand, is your own �sense of life,� which sniffs out what it recognizes as your basic values in somebody else. It�s not so much what you stand for (although that matters, too); �it is a matter of much more profound conscious and subconscious harmony.�

Posted by aalkon at 06:52 AM | Comments (0)

December 21, 2003

"From Bad To Badder"

"From Bad To Badder"
That's where New York City schools are going, if a recent curriculum guide is any indication. According to a New York Daily News story by Joe Williams, the guide urged teachers to:

�"Crate [create] a balance bean [beam] with masking tape."

�"Think about a time when your family work together."

�Identify "student strengthens and weaknesses."

�Read a story about a fish with "shinning," instead of shining, scales.

"When I see this it breaks my heart," said one Queens teacher. "It's bad enough that the kids can't read and write."

Bloopers litter page after page in the separate guides for elementary, middle and high schools.

Educators were quick to point out that the error-ridden lesson plans came straight from the top - and at a time when fewer than half of city students can read at grade level.

"If a teacher handed in something like this, he or she would be raked over the coals, if not fired," said teachers union President Randi Weingarten.

Education Department bigwigs wrote the guides to help teachers explain a new discipline code to students - "so that everyone understands how serious we all are in making schools that is safe for student's body's, Schools that is safe for students' feelings, And schools that are safe for student's ideas," the error-filled document states.

I guess it's a little two much too ask four schools to teech students somepin, huh?

(via Reason.com)

Posted by aalkon at 11:44 AM | Comments (3)

So What If We Kant Know It All?

So What If We Kant Know It All?
Reason vs. faith: A flawed debate by Edward Rothstein in the form of a series of book reviews in The New York Times. Rothstein starts by pandering to the desire to even out a quip, selling out what reason's really about in this description of the debate:

It is a conflict between competing certainties: between followers of Faith, who know because they believe, and followers of Reason, who believe because they know.

True followers of reason don't "believe" or "know" -- they use available evidence to come to a conclusion. I conclude that this piece is a bit of a mess, and bends over backward to give credence to faith -- but it's a thought-provoking read anyway.

Posted by aalkon at 07:38 AM | Comments (2)

December 20, 2003

The Naked Ape

The Naked Ape
Why humans feel compelled to remove their hair. (I think evolutionary psychologist Robin Dunbar -- quoted in the last part of the article -- is probably right.)

(via Arts & Letters Daily)

Posted by aalkon at 09:06 PM | Comments (8)

Got The Clap?

Got The Clap?
Not the easiest thing to confess. Not to worry. Let your tie speak for you!

(via Cruel Site Of The Day)

Posted by aalkon at 08:42 AM | Comments (2)

December 19, 2003

Queer Eye On The Sputtering Economy

Queer Eye On The Sputtering Economy
You want to see Tiffany's join GM, IBM, and Kraft-General Foods in major corporation-land? You want to get the GNP up in one (slightly swish) fell swoop? Just legalize gay marriage. The ensuing rush to shop, prop, and cater could make the dot-com boom look like The Great Depression.

Posted by aalkon at 04:56 PM | Comments (0)

December 18, 2003

Erasing History

Erasing History
The Bush White House is turning "The Information Age" into "The Lack Of Information Age." According to a Washingtoon Post story by Dana Milbank, when the news on a government Web site isn't good, the administration either rewrites it to make it better news or removes it entirely:

White House officials were steamed when Andrew S. Natsios, the administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, said earlier this year that U.S. taxpayers would not have to pay more than $1.7 billion to reconstruct Iraq -- which turned out to be a gross understatement of the tens of billions of dollars the government now expects to spend.

Recently, however, the government has purged the offending comments by Natsios from the agency's Web site. The transcript, and links to it, have vanished.

This is not the first time the administration has done some creative editing of government Web sites. After the insurrection in Iraq proved more stubborn than expected, the White House edited the original headline on its Web site of President Bush's May 1 speech, "President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended," to insert the word "Major" before combat.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, administration Web sites have been scrubbed for anything vaguely sensitive, and passwords are now required to access even much unclassified information. Though it is not clear whether the White House is directing the changes, several agencies have been following a similar pattern. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and USAID have removed or revised fact sheets on condoms, excising information about their effectiveness in disease prevention, and promoting abstinence instead. The National Cancer Institute, meanwhile, scrapped claims on its Web site that there was no association between abortion and breast cancer. And the Justice Department recently redacted criticism of the department in a consultant's report that had been posted on its Web site.

Steven Aftergood, who directs the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, said the Natsios case is particularly pernicious. "This smells like an attempt to revise the record, not just to withhold information but to alter the historical record in a self-interested way, and that is sleazier than usual," he said. "If they simply said, 'We made an error; we underestimated,' people could understand it and deal with it."

One of the cornerstones of a democracy is free access to information. And that's free access to all but the information that truly needs to be classified -- and not only when it leaves The White House looking really good. If the growing government-funded fundamentalism and PR efforts like the one above don't leave you feeling terrified, you're either really dumb -- or a lockstep Republican.

What's really a shame -- and a little bit scary -- is the way this country still divides along party lines: Republicans nodding like zombies at anything the Bush White House does, and Democrats doing the same for their side. Right now, anybody with any common sense is feeling really afraid for where this country is going. Me, for example.

(via David "Tell Me Everything" Rensin)

Posted by aalkon at 08:14 AM | Comments (3)

December 17, 2003

The Face Of Gay Marriage

The Face Of Gay Marriage
Maybe fundamentalist heterosexuals are just jealous. Their marriages are falling apart, while a lot of really old gay guys have been happily, well, happily together, for decades. Here�s one example: Elmer Lokkins, 84, and Gustavo Archillo, 88, who have been a couple for six decades. After hiding their relationship with each other for 58 years, they were just married in Canada. Andrea Elliot tells their tale in today�s New York Times:

Mr. Archilla and Mr. Lokkins did not marry for political reasons, financial reasons or legal reasons. Through their 58 years together, they mostly stood by as others fought for rights like civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Marriage meant more to them. It was something sacred, they said, an institution they cherished even as it shunned them.

The couple capture what some in the gay rights movement say is an essential but unappreciated point in the argument for same-sex marriage: it offers something more basic and profound than survivor rights or shared health care. For many gays and lesbians, the power of marriage lies in the sanctity of its tradition, its social legitimacy � the very thing opponents of gay marriage are mobilizing at the highest levels to protect.

For Mr. Archilla and Mr. Lokkins, the need for an official blessing was so basic that until they married, they could not make their relationship public. It was only on the evening of Nov. 12, after they wed, that they embraced in front of others for the first time.

"What we did was finally cap it all up � make it seem complete," said Mr. Archilla, the son of a Puerto Rican Presbyterian minister. "It was about fulfilling this desire people have to dignify what you have done all your life � to qualify it by going through the ceremony so that it has the same seriousness, the same objective that anybody getting married would be entitled to."

Take another look at the photo of these two guys. How many heteros do you see who look that much in love after six decades together? You can probably count them on one finger. My suggestion: The middle one, pointed in the direction of The White House.

Posted by aalkon at 09:02 AM | Comments (3)

The Unequal Rights Amendment

The Unequal Rights Amendment
George Bush is leaning toward amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage, says an AP story by Jennifer Loven. He manages to hold this view while also holding the view that he is not intolerant. Now there's a flexible thinker! His words met with criticism from gay rights groups:

"It is never necessary to insert prejudice and discrimination into the U.S. Constitution - a document that has a proud history of being used to expand an individual's liberty and freedom, not to take them away," said Winnie Stachelberg, political director of the Human Rights Campaign.

The president also said that he - like any politician - could lose his next run for office, next year's bid for a second term in the White House.

Just a little something to remember before you waste your vote on Ralph Nader.

(via David "Tell Me Everything" Rensin)

Posted by aalkon at 05:35 AM | Comments (6)

December 16, 2003

Undercover Cops Go Under The Covers

Undercover Cops Go Under The Covers
What cop wants to get shot up hunting down murderers and rapists when he or she can bring down a former fifth-grade teacher and mother of three for selling a vibrator?

(via Reason's blog)

Posted by aalkon at 06:27 AM | Comments (9)

December 15, 2003

Today's Dumb Lefty Award

Today's Dumb Lefty Award
Goes to Noam Chomsky, who "seeks to use the Cuban missile crisis to explain the Iraq war, which is a little like using the first Moon landing to explain the dotcom boom." The quote is from a review, by The Guardian's Nick Cohen, of Chomsky's new book, Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance.

(via Arts & Letters Daily)

Posted by aalkon at 09:22 AM | Comments (3)

The Hills Are Alive

"The Hills Are Alive..."
With the sound of Lauryn being excommunicated. Well, not just yet. But, according to a Reuters story by Philip Pullella, pop star Lauryn Hill did "shock" Catholic officials at a Christmas concert in Vatican City when she told them to "repent," and alluded to sexual abuse of children by priests. Hill was a woman on a mission:

"I did not come here to celebrate the birth of Christ with you but to ask you why you are not in mourning for his death inside this place," she said according to a transcript of her statement run by the Rome newspaper La Repubblica.

You go, girl! There was no word as to whether Church officials were more shocked by the existence of sexual abuse, or by Hill's apparent reference of it while on a stage used by The Pope for his weekly general audiences and other events. What's your guess?

Posted by aalkon at 08:05 AM | Comments (6)

December 14, 2003

I Love You Two

I Love You Two
Three might be a crowd, according to custom and the dictates of your particular religious order, but that still doesn't explain why only couples are allowed to marry. I'm not kidding. As long as the state is still doling out all these special rights and privileges to married people (unfair marriage-privileging, in my book); it's not only wrong to limit which consenting adults can marry, but how many can tie the knot.

UPDATE: Ouch!
I've been spanked by Cathy Seipp.

Posted by aalkon at 11:21 AM | Comments (12)

Vive La Difference

Vive La Difference
In France, a woman can walk into a pharmacy and buy pilules de lendemain (the morning-after pill) without a prescription -- in other words, with zero hassle. What does this mean? Probably more than a few abortions prevented -- in France. Here in the USA, the F.D.A. is deciding whether to follow suit. On Tuesday, according to a New York Times editorial, there will be a hearing, supposedly to judge whether the drug (essentially, a few birth control pills, intended to be taken within 72 hours after the condom breaks, to prevent pregnancy), is "safe" to use without supervision. In other words, will American women be treated like adults, or like idiot children whose bodies need to be supervised by the state in loco parentis? And is it going to be fundamentalism or science ruling women's medical options?

Given numerous studies attesting to its safety, and the fact that millions of women around the world have been successfully using similar emergency medication for more than 25 years, advocates who have urged the drug's acceptance have a right to feel at least optimistic.

What's absolutely certain is that they have a right to expect the decision to be made on the basis of science. If some of the drug's supporters are uneasy on this count, it is because the Bush administration has, on more than one occasion, attempted to make scientific research agree with its own ideological predilections. This is particularly true when it comes to abortion.

The potential benefits from making emergency contraception more widely and easily available are enormous. Among other things, it would be an effective strategy for reducing the number of abortions in this country. It's ironic that many of the same groups that pressed for passage of the ban on so-called partial birth abortions by describing certain abortion procedures in grisly detail are pushing just as hard to limit the availability of a drug that would make all abortions, including later ones, less common.

Posted by aalkon at 08:08 AM | Comments (3)

December 13, 2003

All Three-And-A-Half Feet On The Ground

All Three-And-A-Half Feet On The Ground
Ontario bans dwarf tossing.

Posted by aalkon at 01:14 PM | Comments (2)

December 12, 2003

Faith-Based Malpractice

Faith-Based Malpractice
Women who go to religiously affiliated hospitals -- and we're not talking Beth Israel and Mt. Sinai here, but the hospitals run by Catholics and others who base their medicine on irrational religious beliefs rather than science -- are jeopardizing their access to care, according to a National Women's Law Center report:

The ban on services at many religiously affiliated hospitals, nursing homes, managed care companies and insurers go beyond abortions, extending to other arenas of health to include: end-of-life-treatments; research and therapy using fetal and embryonic stem cells; counseling about the use of condoms by HIV patients (and other patients with sexually transmitted diseases); certain infertility treatments; emergency contraception (including for rape victims); certain treatment of ectopic pregnancies; tubal ligations (and other forms of sterilization); and contraceptive services (including contraceptive prescriptions) and counseling.

While religiously-affiliated health care institutions can restrict services in certain circumstances, they must warn consumers in a clear, accurate and timely way or face legal sanctions. However, health care consumers are often unaware of these limitations because facilities provide little notice or information about the restrictions, often marketing themselves as providing comprehensive women�s health services when they in fact do not.

In a nationwide survey cited in the report, nearly half of the 1,000 respondents said they believed they would be able to get medical services that may go against Catholic teaching at a Catholic hospital. Less than seven percent were able to identify restricted services such as emergency contraception, sterilization or infertility treatment. Women�s health care is threatened when they must make decisions about their care without knowing about these restrictions. For example, pregnant women who may want to have a tubal ligation during the same hospital stay might not select a doctor who only has privileges at a hospital that prohibits that practice.

Although there are other types of entities that impose restrictions on health care because institutional and or moral objections, Catholic entities usually impose the most rigid limitations on women�s reproductive and other health services, often failing to share information with patients on treatment alternatives and referrals that go against church teachings. Catholic health care entities also have a substantial role in this country�s health care system. Five of the ten largest health care systems are Catholic-owned. And in many rural areas, Catholic hospitals are often the sole health care providers. Also, Catholic health care entities usually impose bans on nonsectarian institutions that merge or affiliate with them, resulting in non-Catholic entities agreeing to comply with religious restrictions. As a consequence, key women�s reproductive and other health services are eliminated for a community with little or no notice to patients and consumers.

In other words, a lot of women -- especially rural women -- are being discriminated against in the name of religion. What should be one of the most basic rights, in a modern society like ours -- access to medical care based on the available science and technology -- is being denied because a bunch of bible thumpers run certain hospitals. Sick, sick stuff. It affects men, too. Just think -- if you have an Advanced Directive, telling doctors you don't want to be maintained as a human turnip, and the ambulance brings you to a Catholic hospital -- your relatives could very well end up in a legal tug-of-war with the hospital to pull the plug.

Posted by aalkon at 04:42 AM | Comments (15)

December 11, 2003

Biographer David Rensin's Favorite Stupid Question

David "Tell Me Everything" Rensin's Favorite Stupid Question
As posted on Cathy Seipp's blog by David, our favorite best-selling biographer:

Just because it seems to suggest that what we do for a living isn't really working, my favorite stupid question -- usually asked by people who haven't seen me for a while -- is: Are you still writing?

I love that one, too. I like to answer, "Naw, I'm a crack whore now. You?"

Posted by aalkon at 06:58 PM | Comments (1)

December 10, 2003

Using Jessica Lynch

Using Jessica Lynch
Genuine war heroes are mad as hell at the Pentagon for shoving a handful of medals at Jessica Lynch for getting conked out and landing in the hospital, writes Col. David H. Hackworth. Hackworth notes that many see it as a ploy to entice young women into the military:

According to retired Marine Lt. Col. Roger Charles: "There's nothing they won't stoop to spin. The Army needed a female hero to boost female recruiting and PR efforts, so they went and invented one."

And that's the root of the problem. The elevation of Jessica to Joan of Arc status is to recruit more women, even though thousands of female soldiers couldn't deploy with their units to Iraq because of pregnancy, no sitters for single moms' multiple kids and other problems.

And poor Jessica Lynch has become the unwitting poster girl for an Army of One that's fast becoming an Army of Two � since apparently more than half of the women deployed to Iraq are now pregnant.

Hmm, seems like a great argument to me for upping the gay-lesbian Army recruiting efforts, since it's pretty much impossible to get artificial insemination or adopt a baby during combat.

**Here's a Reason Mag review of the book about Lynch. (The Hackworth link above is from that review.)

NOTE: Blogging will be light today and tomorrow, because I'm in New York shooting some TV stuff...soon to air...unless I suck!

Posted by aalkon at 05:22 AM | Comments (5)

December 09, 2003

This Is Your Brain On Jokes

This Is Your Brain On Jokes
According to a new study, laughter tickles the same part of your brain as a snort of coke. Hmm, how long before John Ashcroft outlaws jokes? I mean, besides the Bush administration's drug policies.

Posted by aalkon at 06:53 AM | Comments (4)

December 08, 2003

Letting It All Hang In

Letting It All Hang In
"The most common error made in matters of appearance is the belief that one should disdain the superficial and let the true beauty of one's soul shine through. If there are places on your body where this is a possibility, you are not attractive -- you are leaking." --Fran Lebowitz

Posted by aalkon at 05:15 AM | Comments (1)

December 07, 2003

Tumor Talk

Tumor Talk
I'm in Birmingham, Michigan now (near Detroit), blogging via Wi-Fi from the Woodward Avenue Starbucks, where I am displeased to report that a woman is shouting into her cell phone, at length, about her tumor! In case you're interested, her tumor's gone for now, but she has to get checked often to make sure it doesn't come back. I'll spare you the rest. (Wish I'd been so lucky.) Amazing, huh? I mentioned something to some man near me about "the girl talking really loudly on her cell phone about her tumor," and she gave me the death glare. Misplaced, of course. The way I see it: "Hey, honey, don't blame me. I didn't give you cancer -- or the damn cell phone. But your mama should have given you a lesson in The (high-tech) Golden Rule -- 'Don't Shout Unto Others Unless You Want Them Blogging About Your Rude Ass!'"

Posted by aalkon at 06:13 AM | Comments (3)

Crime Pays

Crime Pays
The lowdown on privately-owned prisons for profit.

Posted by aalkon at 04:37 AM | Comments (4)

December 06, 2003

Chong Number

Chong Number
Come on -- if you're a DEA agent, do you really want to be raiding South Central LA? A guy could get shot! Okay, so there's a lot of life-and-death crime prevention to be done there. And, sure, you'll get there -- right after you do your part to keep drug-related gangland murder out of the Pacific Palisades.

Posted by aalkon at 06:49 AM | Comments (1)

December 05, 2003

Cunning Linguists

Cunning Linguists
The military is hurting, hurting, hurting for Arabic-English translators, writes Ann Hull in The Washington Post. Then again, maybe they aren't actually "hurting" -- maybe just itching...and just the tiniest bit. This would explain why Arabic interpreter Cathleen Glover is now employed as a pool cleaner at the Sri Lankan ambassador's residence:

She learned Arabic at the Defense Language Institute (DLI), the military's premier language school, in Monterey, Calif. Her timing as a soldier was fortuitous: Around her graduation last year, a Government Accounting Office study reported that the Army faced a critical shortage of linguists needed to translate intercepts and interrogate suspects in the war on terrorism.

"I was what the country needed," Glover said.

She was, and she wasn't. Glover is gay. She mastered Arabic but couldn't handle living a double life under the military policy known as "don't ask, don't tell." After two years in the Army, Glover, 26, voluntarily wrote a statement acknowledging her homosexuality.

Confronted with a shortage of Arabic interpreters and its policy banning openly gay service members, the Pentagon had a choice to make.

Which is how former Spec. Glover came to be cleaning pools instead of sitting in the desert, translating Arabic for the U.S. government.

In the past two years, the Department of Defense has discharged 37 linguists from the Defense Language Institute for being gay. Like Glover, many studied Arabic. At a time of heightened need for intelligence specialists, 37 linguists were rendered useless because of their homosexuality.

How about we discharge the backward dumbasses responsible for maintaining the ludicrous "don't ask, don't tell" rule? Along with anybody who is really, really tweaked by how other consenting adults are having sex, and with whom.

Posted by aalkon at 09:21 AM | Comments (4)

December 04, 2003

Re-elect George Bush!

Re-elect George Bush
Want four more years of fundamentalism? Vote for Ralph Nader again, you twits. Nader, reports Nick Anderson in the Los Angeles Times, "is raising money to explore another run for the White House next year, one of his strategists said Tuesday." Oh, the horror, the horror.

Posted by aalkon at 10:33 AM | Comments (17)

Helpful Hints

Helpful Hints For The Under-Curled
My new Helen Of Troy Model 6603 curling iron included this essential piece of advice:

6. Never use while sleeping.

Sloppy, sloppy. They left off "Never use while dead."

Posted by aalkon at 10:21 AM | Comments (3)

The Morality Of The Story

The Morality Of The Story
Radley Balko of the Cato Institute dissects the failed war on drinking, and the neo-prohibitionists among us, trying to curb our access to alcohol with new laws:

Some of those laws aim to make alcohol less available through taxation schemes, others through strict licensing or zoning requirements, still others by censoring alcohol advertisements. State and federal government officials have also sought to curb alcohol abuse from the demand side, but such efforts ultimately prove misguided. The 2000 federal law that encouraged local officials to lower the legal threshold for drunken driving, for example, will have little effect on public safety. Instead, it shifts law enforcement resources away from catching heavily intoxicated drunk drivers, who pose a risk, to harassing responsible social drinkers, who don't.

Taken together, the well-organized efforts of activists, law enforcement, and policymakers portend an approaching "back-door prohibition"�an effort to curb what some of them call the "environment of alcoholism"�instead of holding individual drinkers responsible for their actions. Policymakers should be wary of attempts to restrict choice when it comes to alcohol. Such policies place the external costs attributable to a small number of alcohol abusers on the large percentage of people who consume alcohol responsibly. Those efforts didn't work when enacted as a wide-scale, federal prohibition, and they are also ineffective and counterproductive when implemented incrementally.

Not to mention, plain old moronic. When I was growing up, if my dad was drinking some wine or some vile, schnapps-type liqueur, he'd offer us girls "a taste." I thought it all tasted like crap, and because it was freely offered, I didn't see the allure. Since drinking was so "no big deal" in my family, when I decided I wanted to see what it was like to get drunk, I decided that there'd be no better time to do it than at my cousin's wedding, when my parents would be there to take me home. At the end of the evening, my dad laughed while I threw up (vodka and Tab, yuck!) at the side of the road, and mused that I'd probably be a little more careful not to overdo it in the future. And he was right.

When I got to college, not having been prohibited from drinking in my brat-hood, I didn't see how it would be, in any way, liberating, to stick my head in a vat of grain alcohol. In fact, I didn't even bother to start having a glass of wine here and there until I was about 30. The same logic applies to kids in France, who are allowed wine with meals, just like everybody else. You certainly don't see drunks all over the place in France the way you do in the Puritan Fundamentalist States Of America. Addiction treatment expert Stanton Peele notes the same effect in a few other non-nanny states:

...In Portugal, Spain, Belgium, and other countries, 16-year-olds (and those even younger) can drink alcohol freely in public establishments. These countries have almost no AA presence; Portugal, which had the highest per capita alcohol consumption in 1990, had 0.6 AA groups per million population compared with almost 800 AA groups per million population in Iceland, the country that consumed the least alcohol per capita in Europe. The idea of the need to control drinking externally or formally thus coincides with drinking problems in a paradoxically mutually reinforcing relationship.

Tell that to the idiots in Wisconsin. Somebody, please. Because the legislators there, like those in many states, are making a big mistake: Trying to make it a crime for a parent to give a kid a bit of wine.

UPDATE: A better supporting quote about drinking in Europe:

"Stanton Peele, a psychologist and alcohol issues consultant, said cross-cultural research shows reduced alcohol abuse rates in societies where education emphasizes moderation rather than the no-use approach. Temperance cultures which provide predominantly anti- alcohol messages have much higher incidences of social problems related to alcohol consumption. While cultures that integrate drinking into daily life have many fewer social problems as reflected in Mediterranean countries such as Greece, Italy and France, he said."

(Cato piece via Reason's blog)

Posted by aalkon at 08:04 AM | Comments (13)

December 03, 2003

Not Sacrament To Be

Not Sacrament To Be
Alan Dershowitz rightly argues that the government has no business being in the marriage business:

Those who oppose gay marriage believe deeply that marriage is sacreda divine, a blessed sacrament between man and woman as ordained in the Bible. If they are right, then the entire concept of marriage has no place in our civil society, which recognizes the separation between the sacred and the secular, between church and state.

The state is, of course, concerned with the secular rights and responsibilities that are currently associated with the sacrament of marriage: the financial consequences of divorce, the custody of children, Social Security and hospital benefits, etc.

The solution is to unlink the religious institution of marriage � as distinguished from the secular institution of civil union � from the state. Under this proposal, any couple could register for civil union, recognized by the state, with all its rights and responsibilities.

Religious couples could then go to the church, synagogue, mosque or other sacred institution of their choice in order to be married. These religious institutions would have total decision-making authority over which marriages to recognize. Catholic churches would not recognize gay marriages. Orthodox Jewish synagogues would not recognize a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew who did not wish to convert to Judaism. And those religious institutions that chose to recognize gay marriages could do so. It would be entirely a religious decision beyond the scope of the state.

As it should be, and should have been all along.

(via David Rensin)

Posted by aalkon at 08:25 AM | Comments (4)

December 02, 2003

"All Humans Are Out Of Their Fucking Minds"

"All Humans Are Out Of Their Fucking Minds..."
"...Every single one of them." The New Yorker profiles 90-year-old Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy founder and fellow profanity afficionado Albert Ellis. My personal favorite Ellis-ism: When somebody says "fuck you," he responds, "No, unfuck you; fucking's a good thing!"

Posted by aalkon at 06:18 AM | Comments (4)

December 01, 2003

Marriage By The Book

Marriage By The Book
The gay Republican West Hollywood blogger, Boi From Troy, lays out what marriage would look like if played straight from The Bible. A few examples:

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed (Deut 22:13-21)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

The hilarity continues here.

Posted by aalkon at 11:04 AM | Comments (2)

Who Do You Sue

Who Do You Sue
...to get a drink around here?

In California, the department of Alcoholic Beverage Control requires restaurants to get a liquor license -- even if they're just uncorking patrons' wine without charging. Brooke Williamson, owner of Venice's new Amuse Cafe, found this out the hard way, when her liquor license was pending. Williamson had been doing the free uncorking thing until an investigator told her she'd be subject to arrest -- that day -- if she didn't stop. When patrons called to make reservations, she had to tell them "no drinkie" -- and business dropped off precipitously because of it.

The "logic" behind this is the notion that the restaurant might serve alcohol to a minor, and sans license, they wouldn't be legally liable for any drunk driving accident the minor might have. Hello? Like the LA Times' David Shaw says, "This all seems pretty ridiculous to me. The person responsible for serving alcohol to a minor in a restaurant with no alcohol and no license is the person who brought it in and poured it for him. The person responsible for getting into a drunk-driving accident is the jerk who drank too much and drove the car." Duh.

Posted by aalkon at 10:36 AM | Comments (0)

Tragedy Isn't Pretty

Tragedy Isn't Pretty
Not even if somebody gives it a zen-mall makeover. Maureen Dowd is right-on in her criticism of the WTC memorial, if her descriptions of it are accurate:

...pretty.

Pretty and soothing.

Soothing and smooth.

Smooth and light.

Light and watery.

The eight designs for a memorial at ground zero, gleaming with hanging candles and translucent tubes and reflecting pools and the smiling faces of those killed on 9/11, aim to transcend. And they succeed.

They transcend terror. They have the banality of no evil. They represent the triumph of atmosphere over atrocity, mood over meaning. The designs are more concerned with the play of light on water than the play of darkness on life.

They have taken the heaviest event in modern American history and made the lightest memorials.

...The ugliness of Al Qaeda's vicious blow to America is obscured by these prettified designs, which look oddly like spas or fancy malls or aromatherapy centers. It's easy to visualize toned women with yoga mats strolling through these New Age pavilions filled with waterfalls and floating trees and sunken gardens and suspended votives. Mass murder dulled by architectural Musak.

The designs are reflections of our psychobabble culture, exuding that horrible and impossible concept, closure. Our grief and anger have been sentimentalized and stripped of a larger historical and moral purpose.

Even the names of the models sound like books by Deepak Chopra and Marianne Williamson: "Garden of Lights," "Inversion of Light," "Votives in Suspension," "Suspending Memory," "Reflecting Absence," "Passages of Light: The Memorial Cloud." All ambient light and transient emotion � nothing raw or harsh or rough on which the heart and mind can collide.

The spontaneous memorials that sprang up right after 9/11, both near ground zero and at police and fire stations around the city, had more power and raw passion. What's missing from the designs is some trace of what actually happened on this ground. Why not return that twisted metal skeleton cross to the site, the one that made the World Trade Center ruins such a chilling and indelible memory for the thousands of Americans who flocked to ground zero in the months after the attack?

She's got a point.

Posted by aalkon at 08:00 AM | Comments (1)

November 30, 2003

Underparented Children Of The Day

Underparented Children Of The Day
I'm at a Starbucks in the Hollywood Hills, where I often go to write on the weekend, sitting right by the window. This gives me something to do -- namely, look out the window -- when the muse is playing hooky. Well, lucky me, some blonde English chick is smoking at the table directly outside my window space, accompanied by her two blond brats, uh, boys. Not their fault, of course, that they're brats. Still, the fact remains.

Her underparented urchins are running wild, doing various underparented urchin things, which mostly do not affect me. Suddenly, the younger boy climbs up on a chair directly opposite where I'm sitting inside, and begins wiping his sticky-greasy little paws all over the window -- to a degree where his handiwork, to my surprise and great irritation, is substantially marring my view. As if this isn't disgusting and annoying enough, he actually begins licking the window, then drawing on it with candy. Mom is too busy smoking up a storm and having whatever conversation one has as a parental failure/not-well-aged expat English blonde. As she natters on, utterly oblivious to what is rapidly becoming a grease and fingerprint-on-window neo-Jackson Pollock, my view becomes even further impaired...until I can take it no longer. In the absence, on my immediate horizon, of nomadic barristas with a bottle of Windex in hand, I get up from my computer, go out with a napkin, and attempt to clean off the mess on the window.

"Did my son do that?" the not-well-aged blonde wonders, most blas�. "Yes," I respond, scrubbing furiously. Not wanting to start some Big Ugly at a place I'll be writing all day, I restrain myself from launching into the tirade on the tippy-tip of my tongue, and just mutter something about preferring an unobstructed view out the window. "Well," she sighs, as I scrub away at the greasy fingerpainting on the window with great futility, "He'll probably just do it again." I didn't say what immediately came to mind; again, in the spirit of maintaining a non-toxic writing environment; but I will say it here:

"THEN, WHY DON'T YOU CLEAN IT UP, BITCH!?"

(And, looking to the longterm..."HOW ABOUT ADDING PARENTING TO YOUR DAILY TO-DO LIST!?" ...I mean, if that doesn't cut too, too much, into your daily grind to get cut, colored, Pilateased, collagened, and Botoxed, and gossip about Hollywood divorce settlements...and whatever else it is you do when you should be home giving your kids a few lessons in manners and boundaries!)

NOTE TO OTHERS OF HER ILK CONTEMPLATING SEXUAL REPRODUCTION:

Look, I know it's fabulously de rigeur these days to have something to dress in Petit Bateau, but if you really aren't up to actually parenting a child, can't you fulfill your desire to do the "in" thing by getting an Hermes handbag to carry around instead? It's so classic, and ever-so-versatile -- and best of all: it can be guaranteed -- yes, guaranteed -- never to lick or greasily paw a window outside Starbucks where I am attempting to write!

Posted by aalkon at 12:17 PM | Comments (12)

Zero Intelligence Policy

Zero Intelligence Policy
That's what it took to bring down the full weight of the asinine "Zero Tolerance" policy on Stratford Creek High School, in Goose Creek, South Carolina. Wendy McElroy writes that students "were forced onto their knees or against walls, while dogs sniffed their backpacks for drugs." (None were found.)

Silly me! I paid so little attention in geography class that I thought South Carolina was part of the current United States of America, not the USSR, 20 years ago. Jack-booted thugs are, apparently, part of a solid high school education. I guess they don't learn about stuff like that Fourth Amendment thingamajiggie with that probable cause whatchamacallit.

The "Zero Tolerance" idiocy extends way, way down...down to elementary school in New Jersey, where prosecutors have charged a seven-year-old boy with molesting a five-year-old girl. Yes, "molesting." When I was growing up, they called it what the defense attorney rightly called it: "playing doctor." Is there a virus going around, spreading rampant stupidity around the country, like wildfire?

It's gotten to the point where a kid can't even hang onto an asthma inhaler!

Posted by aalkon at 09:40 AM | Comments (0)

November 29, 2003

Today's Most Irritating Letter

Today�s Most Irritating Letter

Dear Advice Goddess,
Is there any hope for a man who has Erectile Dysfunction, yet is very sensual, affectionate and passionate, and loves kissing all over? Kissing has always been my favorite thing, but now I don't feel like a complete man. I want to love and be loved so very much. I feel like I am at the end of my rope. A relationship just ended for me. The lady said that my problem was not a problem, but I know it was; she wanted to see others, and I know for what reason. I know there are lesbians who love each other and have meaningful relationships.�I am very depressed and frustrated. How can one go into a relationship being honest without telling the problem up front? Would you? Could you? Help! --ED

I�ve got a question for ED:

Dear ED, Well, first, do you know the root of your ED? Is it medical or psychological? And have you seen doctors about it? Tried Viagra, Levitra, injections? Please copy this entire email into your answer. --Amy Alkon

ED has an answer -- of sorts -- for me:

No I don't know the root and�I haven't seen a doctor. I do not have insurance and cannot afford it.�Hypothetically, the problem is medical and cannot be fixed with medication.�Is there any hope for a true loving lasting relationship.�I know I do have really high cholesterol. --ED

The Advice Goddess is not pleased:

Helloo!? You haven't seen a doctor? You can't afford it? What do you do for a living, pick lettuce? I have Kaiser Permanente for $178 a month. $25 for doctor visits; $10 for prescriptions. Get insurance or buy by the visit if you can't get insured. Don't "hypothetically" me. You have no idea what the problem is. If getting the plumbing working really mattered to you, you'd earn money to see a doctor. After you get checked out medically and get told there's no hope, write back to me, and then, I�ll tell you what you can do. On a positive note, even then, you aren�t without hope -- yes, even if Mr. Winky refuses to stand up ever again. But, remember this:

The Advice Goddess helps those who get off their lazy asses and help themselves!

Posted by aalkon at 07:07 AM | Comments (7)

November 28, 2003

A Stupidity-Free Workplace

A Stupidity Free Workplace
Troy Anderson reports in the LA Daily News that LA County officials have gone way, way overboard in political correctness:

...banning as potentially "offensive or defamatory" the words master and slave from computer hard drives and video equipment where they are used to describe primary and secondary circuits.

Under orders from the affirmative action office...

Wait -- my tax dollars are paying for an "affirmative action office"? This gets worse by the paragraph!

...county departments have surveyed about 1,000 pieces of equipment and taped over "master/slave" and put "primary/secondary" on the equipment, officials said.

Joe Sandoval, division manager of purchasing and contract services in the Internal Services Department, started the flap with a memo to electronic equipment vendors saying the county wants master and slave labeling removed from computer equipment it buys.

"The County of Los Angeles actively promotes and is committed to ensure a work environment that is free from any discriminatory influence be it actual or perceived," he wrote in the Nov. 18 memo.

What about ensuring a workplace that's free of taxpayer-sucking idiocy? I think citizens paying for this crap -- me included -- should start a drive to make this guy, or whomever above him is responsible for this idiocy, to change his job title to "Abject Moron Wasting Taxpayer Dollars."

Posted by aalkon at 10:24 AM | Comments (3)

Who Killed Nicole Simpson

Who Killed Nicole Simpson?
A question that might have been answered, but for mishandling of Nicole's body, according to forensics expert Dr. Henry Lee. In an interview in the December FHM, he tells Jon Chase "That case should have been solved easily because of three bloody fingerprints on Nicole's arm. If they were O.J.'s fingerprints, then the case would've been solved. There were pictures of them, but they never collected the fingerprints. Nicole's body was sent to the morgue and they were washed off."

Posted by aalkon at 10:06 AM | Comments (6)

Straight Eye On The Gay Guy

Straight Anthropologist's Eye On The Gay Guy
"Homosexual men tend to be interested in dress and appearance not because they are, as a group, effeminate, but simply because they face the same problem that heterosexual women face: they wish to be sexually attractive to males, and males assess sexual attractiveness primarily on the basis of physical attractiveness."

--Donald Symons, author, Evolution of Human Sexuality

Posted by aalkon at 08:44 AM | Comments (2)

November 27, 2003

Moral Sex

Moral Sex
I've subscribed to Playboy, on and off, for years, and I just bought a copy, along with one each of Maxim and FHM. (Not to worry -- I only look at the pictures.) Luckily for Wal-Mart shoppers, who might be tempted to do the same, those very prim and proper Christians running Wal-Mart are very firm about keeping "objectionable" music and magazines out of their stores. How weird that these same Wal-Mart mucky-mucks don't find it the least bit objectionable to screw their workers -- the foreign ones making their clothes (see Tuesday's blog item), and the U.S. workers staffing their stores. Silly me, I must have missed the bit in The Bible about how good it is to gouge people. And just an aside, but I'll bet Larry Flynt pays his people a living wage. I know writing for Penthouse was a gold mine for Cathy Seipp.

LA councilman Eric Garcetti, whom I heard on KABC? yesterday, noted the hidden cost of shopping at a company that doesn't pay its staff a living wage. Maybe you save a few dollars at the register. Ultimately, you (and the rest of us) end up paying the price for those savings -- by picking up the cost of "affordable housing" and emergency room visits for workers who don't make a living wage and can't afford health care. Now, that's obscene.

Posted by aalkon at 09:38 AM | Comments (2)

Seems Academic To Me

Seems Academic To Me
Is it really the university's job to "increase spiritual awareness"? Silly me, I went for literature, science, and the arts. The climate in this country is downright frightening.

Posted by aalkon at 09:00 AM | Comments (2)

I Know You Are But What Am I?

I Know You Are, But What Am I?
Take this handy-dandy quiz to figure out what to call yourself, politically speaking (I mean, besides "disgusted with just about everybody in politics"). I came up firmly libertarian ("libertarian, small 'l'", that is -- a term which I borrowed from Cathy Seipp, whom, I think, got it from Eugene Volokh -- very useful for differentiating oneself from the wild-eyed, muttering conspiracy theorists who appear to make up much of the Libertarian party).

Posted by aalkon at 08:41 AM | Comments (10)

November 26, 2003

Sin Is In

Sin Is In
Two new books ask, what's so sinful about gluttony, anyway?...which is different from being a gourmand. In the words of Boston Globe reviewer Jim Holt:

St. Thomas Aquinas -- a hefty fellow himself, as it happens -- declared that gluttony had "six daughters": "excessive and unseemly joy" are the first two, followed by "loutishness, uncleanness, talkativeness, and an uncomprehending dullness of mind." Others have claimed that gluttony paves the way to lechery. "When the belly is full to bursting with food and drink, debauchery knocks at the door," wrote the medieval German monk Thomas a Kempis. Now, there may be some validity to the "drink" part of that: After seven Cosmopolitans, people will do just about anything. But does a gargantuan repast really put one in the mood for fornication? More likely it conduces to slumbrous chastity.

In Dante's "Inferno," the gluttonous are consigned to an even lower circle of hell than the lecherous because of the sheer animal grossness of their vice. Gluttony may have seemed bestial to the Carthaginian church father Tertullian, who complained of the mass belching that soured the air at great Roman feasts. But there is more to this alleged vice than just stuffing one's face. Pope Gregory the Great identified five aspects to gluttony; eating too soon, too delicately, too expensively, too greedily, and too much. And no one has accused Americans of eating "too delicately." In fact, it may be our very lack of delicacy at the table that gets us into trouble on the scale.

Is there a link between quality of national cuisine and fatness?

The European countries that have the nicest food -- Italy, Switzerland, and France -- also have the lowest adult obesity rates, below 10 percent according to the latest figures from the International Obesity Task Force. The countries that have, shall we say, less nice food -- Greece, Finland, and Britain -- have the highest adult obesity rates, in excess of 20 percent.

Even in the age of celebrity chefs and the Food Network, there is still far more fuss over food in France than there is here in the United States. What American expatriate in Paris, for example, has not had to endure an excruciating dinner-party debate over the best wine to pair with white asparagus? (Viognier, of course.)

If an "inordinate interest in food" is the mark of gluttony, as Prose herself says, then aren't the French as much a culture of gluttons as we are? They would, of course, prefer the nicer term gourmand, which has come to mean someone who loves food and eats for pleasure (even though la gourmandise remains the word for the deadly sin). The most discerning and cerebral of gourmands might claim the honorific of gastronome -- like the great Brillat-Savarin, who famously said that the discovery of a new dish does more for the happiness of mankind than the discovery of a new star.

The French play up the epicurean side of gluttony, eating daintily and expensively; we play up the bestial side, eating excessively and greedily. In the eyes of Pope Gregory the Great, as he looks down upon us from heaven, we are all sinners.

Actually, eating a tiny, seared piece of foie gras with blackberry sauce shows respect for existence in a way that eating a huge, tasteless plate of over-processed crap never can. Americans are fat because we (and I use this "we" loosely, having reformed my American eating habits after many trips to France)...we eat huge portions of tasteless, hormone and chemical-laced crap, and don't move off our fat, gluttonous asses after this Divine-sized "pleasure." (The ridiculous, scientifically stupid "fat-free" movement also has much to do with the ever-expanding American ass -- since those who eat food without fat never feel full.) The French literally love to eat -- which makes them food lovers -- as compared to gluttonous Americans, who are engaged in a lifelong gastronomic gang-bang.

(via Arts & Letters Daily)

Posted by aalkon at 08:05 AM | Comments (5)

November 25, 2003

Screw 'Em To The Walmart

Screw 'Em To The Wal-Mart
An excellent LA Times expos� by Nancy Cleeland, Evelyn Iritani and Tyler Marshall about the low wages and poor working conditions of foreign sewers contracted by Wal-Mart:

When Wal-Mart Stores Inc. demands a lower price for the shirts and shorts it sells by the millions, the consequences are felt in a remote Chinese industrial town, at a port in Bangladesh and here in Honduras, under the corrugated metal roof of the Cosmos clothing factory.

Isabel Reyes, who has worked at the plant for 11 years, pushes fabric through her sewing machine 10 hours a day, struggling to meet the latest quota scrawled on a blackboard.

She now sews sleeves onto shirts at the rate of 1,200 garments a day. That's two shirts a minute, one sleeve every 15 seconds.

"There is always an acceleration," said Reyes, 37, who can't lift a cooking pot or hold her infant daughter without the anti-inflammatory pills she gulps down every few hours. "The goals are always increasing, but the pay stays the same."

Reyes, who earns the equivalent of $35 a week, says her bosses blame the long hours and low wages on big U.S. companies and their demands for ever-cheaper merchandise. Wal-Mart, the biggest company of them all, is the Cosmos factory's main customer.

Reyes is skeptical. Why, she asked, would a company in the richest country in the world care about a few pennies on a pair of shorts?

The answer: Wal-Mart built its empire on bargains.

Right. And how much is saving five bucks worth to you?

Posted by aalkon at 11:10 PM | Comments (2)

The Fallen Arches

The Fallen Arches
If you've been dreaming of having feet that resemble toilet seat covers, now's your chance. For those who favor roadkill chic, here's the "raccoon" version. Despite the strong statements (such as "run for a blindfold!") made by the above furry-uglies, the winner for the "world's ugliest shoe" (according to Google popularity) remains...and no surprises here: G'wan...guess!

Hint: In the absence of a latex condom, they are a highly effective form of birth control. Wear them, and nobody in their right mind who's not blind will want to have sex with you.

Posted by aalkon at 07:03 PM | Comments (2)

November 24, 2003

Come Again?

Come Again?
Dozens of women have a rare condition that makes them have hundreds of orgasms every day, says an Anova story:

Office manager Jean said: "I looked (the doctor) in the face and said: "How would you like to walk around on the verge of an orgasm every second?"

Beats gallstones, I'd imagine.

Posted by aalkon at 02:15 AM | Comments (5)

Fetus First

Fetus First
Myra Rafkind of Planned Parenthood asks a good question:

What does a zygote/embryo have that many viable human beings do not have?��

Answer: The endorsement of the far-right.

Rafkind lays out the far-right�s idiocy, presenting a rational approach these staunch defenders of masses of cells are sure to ignore. Of course, these are the people most likely to be far, far away (probably �reforming� welfare) once the mass of cells becomes the fully-functioning child of a working-poor single mom who can�t afford childcare, or much else.

Posted by aalkon at 01:13 AM | Comments (4)

"The Matt Drudge Of Porn"

"The Matt Drudge Of Porn"
Cathy Seipp on our pal Luke Ford, most recently seen on Sixty Minutes ("most recently," as in, about five hours ago), giving Steve Kroft a tour through a section of Pornville (aka Chatsworth, California).

Posted by aalkon at 12:12 AM | Comments (0)

November 23, 2003

Questions For Retarded Terrorists

Questions For Retarded Terrorists
Perhaps my French unsucks a lot more than I think, or perhaps it was just a random error, but somebody at Charles de Gaulle airport gave me the wrong form to fill out to get back into the United States. I didn�t realize it until I�d answered a few questions:

A. Do you have a communicable disease; physical or mental disorder; or are you a drug abuser or addict?

Um, yeah. I should probably be chained to a bed somewhere, what's a little TB among friends?, and I hope it doesn�t take long at the border because I gotta hurry up and score some crack.

B. Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude or a violation related to a controlled substance; or been arrested or convicted for two or more offenses for which the aggregate sentence to confinement was five years or more; or been a controlled substance trafficker; or are you seeking entry to engage in criminal or immoral activities?

Immoral? What do you mean, exactly, by "immoral"? If the goat is consenting, do you really have a problem with it?

C. Have you ever been or are you now involved in espionage or sabotage; or in terrorist activities; or genocide; or between 1933 and 1945 were you involved, in any way, in persecutions associated with Nazi Germany or its allies?

Hmmm...um, what Mohammed Atta said.

D. Are you seeking to work in the United States...?

Am I seeking to work in the United States? Duh. You�d like me to suck off the public trough? What kind of dumb question is that?

Since it's beyond obvious to anyone with an IQ over 22 that you have to answer "no" to all these questions, or have various and sundry border patrol types poking various and sundry cold steel implements up various and sundry orifices, I got a little worried. It finally occurred to me that I might have the wrong form. I stopped a flight attendant and asked. Indeed I did. It was the I-94W form for �nonimmigrant visitors� without visas (except foreign journalists, who get strip-searched and packed off home, and have their lipliner confiscated as a national security threat, if they accidentally come in with the I-94W instead of a special media visa). As I filled out the correct form, given to me by the flight attendant, I reflected on all the undesirables the Justice Department must be tripping up with the I-94W; most notably, the autistic wing of Al Qaeda.

Posted by aalkon at 07:38 AM | Comments (1)

Saccharine, Actually

Saccharine Actually
The revised title I'm proposing for Love Actually, a sickening series of weak vignettes tarted up as a movie, which I had the cruel misfortune to see last night, because I looked for a Luke Thompson or Gregory Weinkauf review in the New Times papers, and came up short.

To be fair, the movie isn't totally devoid of value. Should you happen to ingest a small amount of Janitor In a Drum, and be fresh out of Syrup of Ipecac, Love Actually would make a fantastic emetic.

Posted by aalkon at 07:06 AM | Comments (5)

November 22, 2003

What Did He Know And When Did He Know It?

What Did He Know And When Did He Know It?
Bush, 9-11, and the Presidential Daily Briefing.

Posted by aalkon at 11:22 PM | Comments (13)

Separated At Middle Age

Separated At Middle Age
A very funny side-by-side comparison by Gawker.

Posted by aalkon at 01:30 AM | Comments (2)

Just Say "Huh?" To Drugs

Just Say "Huh?" To Drugs
Colin Powell and Ambien.

(via Radosh)

Posted by aalkon at 01:02 AM | Comments (1)

November 21, 2003

Parent Your Own Damn Brats

Parent Your Own Damn Brats
"These parents, they think I'm a role model for their kids, that their kids look at me as some sort of idol. But it's the parents' job to makes sure their kids don't turn out that shallow. That's not my responsibility. I'm not responsible for your kid." --Britney Spears, in Entertainment Weekly

Posted by aalkon at 10:35 AM | Comments (8)

November 20, 2003

Paris

Par Avion
Coming back from Paris today. More blog items on Friday.

Posted by aalkon at 11:04 PM | Comments (1)

November 19, 2003

The Recline Of Western Civilization

The Recline Of Western Civilization
...in ever-increasingly cramped coach seats, prompted this man to invent "The Knee Defender."

Posted by aalkon at 10:34 PM | Comments (0)

November 18, 2003

Larry Miller Refiller

Larry Miller Refiller
A Cathy Seipp blog item reminded me of this very smart and funny article by actor/writer/comedian Larry Miller in The Weekly Standard. Unfortunately, it's as timely as ever.

Posted by aalkon at 11:41 PM | Comments (0)

November 17, 2003

Wild Kingdom

Wild Kingdom
For those of you who know I'm in Paris this week, no, this entry has nothing to do with the subway and French armpits.

I have a two-and-a-half-pound Yorkshire Terrier named Lucy, after Lucille Ball and Lucy from Peanuts. She has a wardrobe that rivals mine, and is most honestly described as "beautiful but dumb." Look to the left on the blog (and perhaps scroll a bit) and you'll see her picture. When I'm away, my neighbors take care of her. She stays at my house, but they come over or bring her to their place and play with her.

Well, they e-mailed me the other day to tell me they were very concerned about her. Sometimes, when I'm away, she doesn't eat much -- they have to throw her balls of kibble and turn it into a game. Well, they wrote that she was emptying her dish -- food and water -- twice a day! (She normally goes through one dish of food in three days.) They also said she was pooping by the refrigerator, not in her litter box. (Come on...you think I would have a dog who wouldn't be toilet-trained?) I think of her as an improvement on having a child: She doesn't need private school, never asks to borrow the car, and is unlikely to set up a meth lab in my basement.

Anyway, the unladylike bathroom habits are not at all like her. I was terribly worried -- but I thought she could wait to go to the vet for a few days, since she's scared enough at the vet if I'm with her. I called the vet from France to make her an appointment for Friday morning, when I'm back. (I figured I might also have to check her into the doggie version of Jennie Craig.)

Well...it turns out it wasn't Lucy sucking down all that food. Turns out she had a little party for two. Yes, she had a friend over: a big ugly possum who's probably been living in my house for a week! My assistant Heather came over to edit my stuff on Monday and got surprised by him in the bathroom. She slammed the doors to the bathroom and called animal control. Apparently, the animal control guy just waltzed in, picked le critter up by the tail and waltzed out. Heather was quite calm about the whole thing. I was not.

Finally, it does underscore what an utter failure Lucy is as a dog. A wild animal is squatting in my house -- and she was probably totally clueless. (A good thing, since it probably kept her from becoming dinner.)

Posted by aalkon at 10:09 PM | Comments (3)

Angles In America

Angles In America
Frank Rich compares two different angles on the Reagan years -- the mini-series CBS shelved and the filmed version of Tony Kushner�s play, Angels In America:

Because "Angels" will reach a far larger audience through TV than any play does in the theater, it will instantly cast the curious argument over CBS's "Reagans" in another light. If there was one consistent theme to 90 percent of the outrage over a mini-series that no one outside CBS (including me) has seen, it was focused on a single line about AIDS attributed to Ronald Reagan: "They that live in sin shall die in sin." The screenwriter of "The Reagans" admitted to The New York Times that she had no source for the line and it was cut. Yet even after it was cut, those on the attack kept harping on it more than any other element in the unseen film. Why?

It was the syndrome of protesting too much, methinks. There's no evidence to suggest that Reagan was a bigot, but even so, he did say things similar to that jettisoned sentence. Edmund Morris, who wrote "Dutch," the Reagan biography both solicited and authorized by the former president's inner circle, quoted him as saying, "Maybe the Lord brought down this plague" because "illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments." But what's more important in any event is what Reagan didn't say � and didn't do � when AIDS happened on his watch.

As Lou Cannon, the most respected of Reagan biographers, wrote in his authoritative "President Reagan," "Reagan's response to this epidemic was halting and ineffective." The president mentioned to his own doctor that he thought AIDS was as transitory as measles. Mr. Cannon's bald accounting of the net results of this inactivity speaks for itself: "There were only 199 reported cases of AIDS in 1981. Eight years later more than 55,000 persons had died from this new scourge, exceeding the total of U.S. combat deaths in either the Vietnam War or the Korean War."

Hmmm, they that live by The Bible instead of science -- like the guy we have in The White House now, who got off the sauce (and perhaps more) by finding religion and now makes policy according to WWFD (What Would Fundamentalists Do?)...will needlessly kill a whole lot of people in Africa and other places by supporting the withdrawing of funding from clinics that perform abortion -- and AIDs prevention.

Posted by aalkon at 12:40 AM | Comments (13)

November 16, 2003

The Man In One Black Patent-Leather High-Heeled Shoe

The Man In One Black Patent-Leather High-Heeled Shoe
Question: What's wrong with a man in a black patent-leather miniskirt and matching black patent-leather fuck-me pumps?

Answer: Nothing whatsoever -- providing he's got the legs for it.

Trans-gender girl Deirdre McCloskey, a Reason contributing editor who teaches at the U of Illinois, Chicago, shines a spotlight on the meteorite crater-sized holes in the apparently intellectually crooked author Michael Bailey's "science" about gay men (oops, forgot to study lesbians) and transsexuals -- which says that gay men really want to be girls, or girlish, and men who want a sex change are just gay or crazy or sex-mad, not people with a genuine gender-identity issue:

Bailey writes charmingly and has the knack of suggesting that he�s reporting from the front lines of Science, inserting a lot of personal "guesses" and "hunches" into the prose as though he were an actual Scientist with a lifetime of serious consideration of alternative hypotheses and tons of data behind him. You can imagine Bailey with a pipe and a lab coat advertising laxatives on TV. But in his case we have what the physicist Richard Feynman used to call "cargo-cult science": The book has the style of an informal talk with a Serious Scientist who is getting down and personal with you about his science. The stuff looks a little like science, the way the "airports" the highlanders of New Guinea constructed out of coconuts and palm fronds to get the American cargo planes to come back after the war looked a little like airports. It�s even in the title of his book, that Science. But sadly, it�s scientific nonsense.

Harsh words? Judge for yourself. Throughout the book, Bailey makes a big deal of his academic position. (His bosses at Northwestern seem to agree: they recently promoted this alleged violator of their own human-subjects procedures to chairman of the Psychology Department.) All the way through the book he calls his findings "science." His main evidence for the femininity of gay men (aside from that study of how queers say the two s sounds in science) is a Scientific study of personal ads in some gay newspapers. His other piece of "research" -- and the only research this Researcher did on gender crossers -- consisted of, first, long talks with one gender crosser in Chicago (named "Cher" in the book; I know her well; she�s one of the people who have filed legal complaints against Bailey) and, second, short talks with a half dozen young Hispanic gender-crossing prostitutes whom Cher brought to Bailey under the impression he wanted to help them. It�s a sample of convenience of, say, size seven. (One was Cher herself, the only case of alleged "autogynephilia" Bailey has studied; the rest were the other type, of the two types allowed.)

The sample was collected by what looks like a violation of federal law. Northwestern�s Office for Human Research is investigating. No one was offered a human subjects form to sign, no one was told she was under study, and no one was told her story would appear in a book. The subjects were enticed by the offer of a document crucial for their gender change. (Gender surgeons require a letter from a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist saying that the patient is in her right mind, if not his right body.) Their lives were used in the book with brutal disregard for their feelings to titillate readers. Bailey even "studies" one of their weddings, to which he was invited as a guest.

That�s the legal problem Bailey and his university now face, but the scientific problem they face is worse. The entire sample, representing the world�s hundreds of thousands of gender crossers, just happens to live in Chicago. Six-sevenths of the sample are first-generation Hispanic Americans, most working as prostitutes and professional drag queens. (Bailey dropped from his sample women who were not in sex trades.) That�s not a very good sample. If most of Bailey�s data come from young Hispanic sex workers in Chicago, then he has not put his theory (namely, that gender crossing is about sex, sex, sex, because gender crossers are men, men, men) in much jeopardy.

Randi Ettner, a clinical psychologist who has written the best book on gender problems, Gender Loving Care, and who has seen hundreds of every conceivable kind, has an office in Evanston, a few blocks from Bailey�s. Not interested, says Bailey in effect: Leave me alone with my two-category VFW theory and my half-dozen pretty girls off the streets of Boys� Town. He didn�t want to talk with gender crossers like, say, me -- exhibiting no "autogynephilia," working not as a prostitute but as a professor of economics (now, now: no jokes).

McCloskey asks the essential question at the end: Why do the transgendered need to be �cured� if they�re happy?

Why shouldn�t a free person be able to express her notions of gender? (Gender expression -- your right as a woman to wear pants, say -- is the next frontier of this evolving revolution: see www.gpac.org, the Web site for GenderPAC, devoted to freedom whatever your chromosomes or genitals.) And if changing one�s genitals is considered a violation of God�s law, why aren�t nose jobs or cancer cures also abominations?

Ask the libertarian question: Why not ? No fair just declaring without sensible argument that it�s contrary to natural law. Or saying peevishly, "I can�t understand such a desire." Neither can I understand why some people let themselves pay first-year depreciation on automobiles or why other people write books in which they exploit for gain little boys interested in dolls and Hispanic women off the street desperate for a letter to allow gender surgery. But I�m not proposing to put these two disorders into the next DSM to prevent people from engaging in such behavior.

Posted by aalkon at 03:46 PM | Comments (1)

November 15, 2003

Forget The War On Drugs

Forget The War On Drugs
How about a war on stupidity? How much money does it take to jail one consenting adult pot-head? And why are we not putting that money into showing middle school students how dumb it is to smoke?

Posted by aalkon at 02:57 PM | Comments (5)

November 14, 2003

Hosting With The Mosting

Hosting With The Mosting
"Invite people who disagree with each other � even to the point of wanting to throttle each other. In other words, if you want to throw a good party, be sure you invite at least one major asshole."

--the advice I give in the LA Weekly on how to throw a great party (or a happening fist-fight)

Posted by aalkon at 08:50 PM | Comments (8)

November 13, 2003

But Aren�t Gay Churches A Threat To Straight Churches?

But Aren�t Gay Churches A Threat To Straight Churches?
According to an article on WorldNetDaily, before the ink on that �Marriage Protection Act� George Bush endorsed was even dry, he jotted off a little fan letter to a queer church -- one that performs over 6,000 same-sex weddings a year:

The president wrote to the founding congregation in Los Angeles of the Metropolitan Community Churches, led by leading homosexual activist Rev. Troy D. Perry, on the occasion of its 35th anniversary.

"By encouraging the celebration of faith and sharing of God's love and boundless mercy, churches like yours put hope in people's hearts and a sense of purpose in their lives," Bush said in his Oct. 14 missive. "This milestone provides an opportunity to reflect on your years of service and to rejoice in God's faithfulness to your congregation."

Just prior to sending that letter, however, Bush issued a proclamation endorsing an effort to defend the traditional family in response to an increasingly powerful homosexual lobby intent on establishing a right to same-sex "marriage." (quotation marks, theirs)

In other words, if you�re gay, George Bush totally supports seeing you on your knees; just don�t get any funny ideas about sauntering down the aisle.

Posted by aalkon at 09:30 AM | Comments (4)

November 12, 2003

One Good Rollback Deserves Another

One Good Rollback Deserves Another
And another, and another, in the slow-but-steady laying of the groundwork to repeal Roe vs. Wade. First to go is the so-called "partial-birth" abortion procedure. What's next on the list? Salon's Michelle Goldberg reports on the continuing effort by the religious nuts running our country to take away women's rights:

Right now, several bills that would either curtail abortion or confer personhood on fetuses are wending their way through Congress. Laci and Conner's Law, also known as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, will punish attacks on a fetus separately from attacks on a pregnant woman. (It's named after Laci Peterson, the murdered California woman, and her unborn son, Conner. Whenever possible, Republicans title their legislation after high-profile victims.) When a pregnant woman is attacked, "the pro-life movement says there is a second victim, therefore there should be two victims recognized as being murdered," says Jim Backlin, director of legislative affairs for the Christian Coalition.

Laci and Conner's Law has 133 co-sponsors in the House and is expected to be signed into law next year. "There's momentum behind it," says Backlin. "Realistically, it will probably pass in the spring of next year, definitely before the election."

According to the text of the bill, it is meant "to protect unborn children from assault and murder" and applies at "any stage of development." Though it makes an explicit exception for abortion, within the rhetoric of a law that defines killing a fetus as murder the exception seems absurd -- and that's precisely the point.

Meanwhile, even as attorneys for pro-choice organizations were in court to block the Partial Birth Abortion Ban on Nov. 5, Reps. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., introduced a bill to suspend the FDA's approval of RU-486, the abortion pill. They're calling the bill "Holly's law," after Holly Patterson, an 18-year-old who died in September, a week after taking the pill, making her the second American woman to die from RU-486 complications. In comparison, according to the Food and Drug Administration, as of 1998, 130 Americans died after taking Viagra.

If Roe is overturned, abortion won't be banned everywhere, Goldberg writes. The individual states will decide:

Middle-class women on the coast will continue to have access to reproductive care, much as they did before Roe. Women in conservative states who can afford to travel will also be able to get abortions. Other women with unwanted pregnancies will be out of luck.

Not if they've got a closet full of coat hangers!

Posted by aalkon at 04:58 AM | Comments (24)

November 11, 2003

An Ace Bandage For The Sprained Soul

An Ace Bandage For The Sprained Soul
I haven�t heard the latest album by Rickie Lee Jones, but I highly recommend the David Was-produced Rickie Lee Jones CD, Pop Pop. For best results, listen to it in a first-class seat to Paris. If that suggestion seems a bit unreasonable, bite the bullet and fly coach. $408 on Priceline RT from LA. I�m going on Wednesday. Why do I go to Paris all the time? Because it�s there.

Check out BiddingForTravel.com, the place to find out how low you can go when bidding for Priceline seats. And, if you do go to Paris, try the snails in broth at La Potee Des Halles, a tr�s charmant restaurant in the first arrondisement, about three and a half steps from the Etienne Marcel metro stop. Tell the chef -- a roly-poly apple-cheeked gay guy -- that a crazy redhead from Los Angeles sent you (une folle femme avec cheveux russe de Los Angeles m'a envoy�), and you might get an extra escagot or two.

Posted by aalkon at 01:17 AM | Comments (0)

November 10, 2003

No More Donkey Dongs

No More Donkey Dongs
She's looking for "a nice, firm, enthusiastic, perky 3-5 incher."

Posted by aalkon at 04:16 AM | Comments (8)

Liar's Remorse

Liar's Remorse
Unfortunately, Ann Coulter doesn't have any. But she should. Because, like a Hollywood agent ("Hello," he lied, the old saying goes), she can hardly speak a sentence without projectile-vomiting falsehoods. Here's one of many, many, many, reported in a column by David Corn:

She claimed that the movie Patton was made by Holly-libs with "hatred in their hearts" for George S. Patton, the brilliant but erratic World War II general. These filmmakers "intended to make Patton look terrible," she maintained, but because they produced an accurate work, the movie ended up making "Patton look great and people loved him."

Was Patton a left-wing Hollywood conspiracy that backfired? Host Chris Matthews immediately challenged her in his subtle fashion: "You are dead wrong." He pushed her for proof, and she replied, "That is why George C. Scott turned down his Academy Award for playing Patton." Coulter was suggesting that Scott had spurned his Oscar because the filmmakers plan to destroy Patton's image by portraying the general "as negatively as possible" had gone awry.

Matthews wasn't buying. "Who told you that, who told you that?" he shouted. Her Oracle-like response: "It is well known." She added, "Why did you think he turned down the award, Chris? You never looked that up? It never occurred to you?"

Matthews retorted, "Because he said he wasn't going to a meat parade, because he didn't believe in award ceremonies." And Matthews was right. Following the show, I took Coulter's advice and did look it up. I found a 1999 obituary of Scott that noted he had stunned Hollywood in 1971 for being the first person ever to refuse an Academy Award. He had explained his action by slamming such awards as "demeaning" and he had dismissed the Oscar ceremony as a "two-hour meat parade." (Matthews receives extra points for getting this quote correct.) Coulter had twisted this well-documented episode into yet more proof that liberals--especially those in Hollywood--are conspiratorial traitors.

Coulter's as despicable as the left-wing's favorite liar, Michael Moore -- just easier on the eyes.

Posted by aalkon at 01:02 AM | Comments (8)

November 09, 2003

Today's Deep Thought

Today�s Deep Thought
It�s from Krishnamurti�s Freedom From The Known, one of my much-highlighted favorite books.

Throughout the world, so-called holy men have maintained that to look at a woman is something totally wrong: they say you cannot come near to God if you indulge in sex, therefor they push it aside although they are eaten up with it. But by denying sexuality, they put out their eyes and cut out their tongues for they deny the whole beauty of the earth. They have starved their hearts and minds; they are dehydrated human beings; they have banished beauty because beauty is associated with woman.

Posted by aalkon at 09:33 AM | Comments (1)

November 08, 2003

Supreme Naivet�

Supreme Naivet�
New Hampshire's Supreme Court needs to get out more. No...on second thought, make that stay in more -- so they can snuggle up at home with a pile of girls-on-girls porn videos -- because a majority of the justices there just voted that gay sex isn't sex. They didn't say what, exactly they think it is. Nevertheless, their misconceptions worked out quite nicely for the married woman who had an affair with another woman, but still (it sounds like) will get to keep a nice chunk of her husband's stuff.

(via David Rensin who just sold another book!)

Posted by aalkon at 08:16 PM | Comments (7)

At Least Industry Can Breathe Easy

At Least Industry Can Breathe Easy
One of President Bush's first acts," reports a New York Times editorial, "Was to convene a task force to produce a national energy strategy":

Led by Vice President Dick Cheney, the group met secretly with hundreds of witnesses. It heard from few environmentalists, but many lobbyists and executives from industries whose fortunes would be affected by any new policies. Despite lawsuits, the White House has refused to divulge the names of those privileged to get Mr. Cheney's ear. The results, however, have been plain as day: policies that broadly favor industry � including big campaign contributors � at the expense of the environment and public health.

That unfortunate bias was demonstrated anew this week when the Environmental Protection Agency decided to drop investigations into more than 140 power plants, refineries and other industrial sites suspected of violating the Clean Air Act. The winner is industry; the loser, the public.

How is the administration going to spin the fallout from this one? Liberal bias...in favor of...breathing?

Posted by aalkon at 01:49 AM | Comments (0)

November 07, 2003

Where The Boys Are

Where The Boys Are
Taking away rights from the girls.

Posted by aalkon at 08:20 AM | Comments (3)

Disgraceful Welfare Leaches

Disgraceful Welfare Leaches
No, not single mothers squandering the monthly welfare check in a one big Blue-Light Special shopping spree. These welfare leaches are rich cotton farmers whose government subsidies exceed the market value of their crop by 30 percent. Jacob Sullum writes in Reason that "...the 'cotton competitiveness program' has cost taxpayers $.$1.7 billion during the last eight years. The payments have included $107 million to the Allenberg Cotton Co. of Cordova, Tennessee; $102 million to Dunavent Enterprises of Fresno, California, and Memphis, Tennessee; and $87 million to Cargill Cotton of Cordova, Tennessee":

Speaking of foreign competition, the cotton subsidies are shameful not only because U.S. farmers should have to play by the rules of the market but because this welfare program for the well-to-do has a ruinous impact on poor farmers in other countries who do not enjoy such largess. By artificially boosting the cotton supply, subsidies depress world prices, driving farmers in countries such as Mali, Benin, and Burkina Faso out of business. Oxfam estimates that U.S. subsidies cost cotton-growing African countries $300 million a year.

For American cotton farmers (whose average net worth is about $800,000) the subsidies may be the difference between growing cotton and growing something else, or between farming and pursuing a different line of work, assuming they can't compete without the government's support. For African farmers who earn something like $800 a year, the subsidies can be the difference between eating and starving.

Given this reality, the anger of African leaders is perfectly understandable. Referring to U.S. and European subsidies, Mali's finance minister told the BBC: "The money that those countries put into agricultural subsidies is five times what they give as development assistance. And we've always said to those rich countries, 'You're hypocrites. You tell us to play [by] the rules of the open market at the same time as you subsidize your farmers.'"

Additionally, If we now require poor people in the US to do community service work in exchange for their HUD housing, maybe we should be providing workfare, not welfare, for the rich. Yeah. Since cotton barons are getting all these handouts, shouldn't we get them out there next to all the poor people, picking up highway trash and cleaning toilets?

Posted by aalkon at 02:46 AM | Comments (1)

November 06, 2003

Ellen Goodman Cares About Your Breasts

Ellen Goodman Cares About Your Breasts
Why is it okay to get your big, honking hook nose de-hooked, but wrong, wrong, wrong to get your small breasts upgraded to big ones? Because men might like you better if you get bigger boobs? Scandalous!

According to condescending femi-nannies like Goodman, and the misguided activist daddy she quotes in her column, if you want to surgically enlarge your boobs, you can only be a misguided idiot who�s been brainwashed by the media. The daddy, a guy named Joe Kelly, �suggested that this �choice� might be a nonchoice, the result of the �unchecked cultural pressure� of the �toxic beauty myth.�� (Not to worry! She and the daddy and several legions of mustachio-ed feminists will happily lend you their small minds so you can do what they think is right for you.)

Contrary to what feminist parrots like Goodman and company would have you believe, beauty is not some arbitrary standard issued by monthly mandate from Vogue editor Anna Wintour�s office. Anthropologist Donald Symons said it best: �Beauty is in the adaptations of the beholder.� We have very, very, very old psychology. Millions of years old. The features men adapted (are hard-wired) to find beautiful in women -- an hourglass figure, clear skin, youth, symmetrical features -- all indicate that a woman is likely to be a fertile and healthy childbearing candidate. Just because a particular modern woman might not be on the mommy track, or a particular guy isn�t seeking a wife, doesn�t mean she or he is any less affected by their inheirited evolutionary psychology.

Please, somebody get the message to the antique-thinkers who call themselves feminists. Even now that it�s become scientifically clear that silicone breast implants don�t harm women�s health, feminists, ever infantilizing women, remain shrilly dead-set against letting women make their own decisions whenever those decisions won't fall into lock-step with the feminist party line. Sure, there may be complications from boob jobs, just like there can be from nose jobs, or any kind of surgery, elective or non. Those risks should, obviously, be built into the cost of getting implants, and not be borne by the rest of us (such as yours truly, whose porn star-sized hooters were hereditary).

In reality (a place far, far away from the women�s studies department), any woman who tries to improve her looks to make herself more attractive to men -- is a woman who understands male biology! Men are visually oriented. Men like beautiful women. No, beauty isn�t everything, but trust me, men at parties are not standing across the room muttering to each other, �Look at the cranium on the chick in the red!�

In other words, if you want a man, you'll want to look like what men like. Is this anti-feminist? No, just smart! Maybe you won't want to go so far as to go under the knife (I certainly won�t). And sure, other stuff is essential, too -- (duh!) -- such as good character, values, and ethics, and being with somebody you love and find fun. But, by making yourself as beautiful as possible, by making whatever effort seems reasonable to you, you�ll increase the pool of men you have to choose from, thus increasing your chances of landing a really good one.

The same (only a little different) goes for men. Since women are wired to go for men of status and power (and care less about men's looks, except for symmetry and tallness), guys on the unemployment line aren�t likely to be catching the eye of chicks cruising by in their Ferraris. Life�s tough, huh? Unfortunately for men, getting a huge wallet surgically implanted in one buttock probably won't do the trick.

Posted by aalkon at 11:40 AM | Comments (7)

The "Gallop" Poll

The "Gallop" Poll
Galloping after cabs (assuming you eventually catch them) is a great way to take the pulse of most cities, according to a bit of classic urban wisdom. Baghdad cab customer Stephen Vincent agrees. According to Vincent's own recent gallop poll, a majority of the hacks in Baghdad are rather thrilled about America's recent and continuing activities in their country. He suspects the scattered nay-sayers he encounters are Sunni Moslems: "Long favored by Saddam, Sunnis stand the most to lose in a democratic Iraq, where power will almost certainly shift to the more numerous Shias."

Posted by aalkon at 11:37 AM | Comments (0)

November 05, 2003

Low And Lower

Charity Begins In The Checkout Line
Who pays for those deep discounts you get at Wal-Mart? You do! In keeping costs down by hiring janitorial companies that hire illegals, Wal-Mart passes on the schooling and emergency health care costs of those illegals to the public. Steven Greenhouse writes in The New York Times:

One night...a co-worker sliced his hand open on a floor-scraping blade and was rushed to a hospital in Red Bank. He had problems paying the $800 bill because his job did not provide health insurance and his employer shunned the workers' compensation system. The hospital swallowed the cost.

And there�s more:

"When you don't pay taxes, don't pay Social Security and don't pay workers' comp, you have a 40 percent cost advantage," said Lilia Garcia, executive director of the Maintenance Cooperation Trust Fund, a group financed by California cleaning contractors to police fly-by-night competitors. "It makes it hard for companies that follow the rules."

Robert, a Czech who runs a Web site to attract Eastern Europeans to janitorial work, said using foreign cleaners was good for Wal-Mart and for American consumers. "No American wants to do this job," he said. "If they hired Americans, it would take 10 of them to do the work done by five Czechs. This helps Wal-Mart keep its prices low."

Right. Buy now...pay later!

Posted by aalkon at 05:13 AM | Comments (7)

Mock The Vote

Mock The Vote
Andrew Gumbel exposes the gaping flaws in computer voting machines:

For the past few months, an increasingly loud chorus of leading computer scientists has warned about the dangers of touchscreen voting machines. Mounting evidence from elections across the country, including California�s recall election, indicates that the machines are prone to software bugs and breakdowns, extremely easy to tamper with, and impossible to verify because of strict trade-secrecy agreements by which the equipment is sold to county elections officials.

The first all-touchscreen election in the country, in Georgia last November, was marked by huge, unexplained last-minute swings that resulted in the surprise elections of Republican governor Sonny Perdue and Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss. The results raised significant concerns about the reliability of the machines, made by Diebold Election Systems, particularly since they had been �patched� at the last minute following a major software breakdown. The patches, which amounted to a complete reprogramming, were never tested. Then, in January, the source code apparently used in Georgia suddenly popped up on an open-access Internet site � a big security no-no that was followed by the discovery of hundreds of security flaws by computer security experts who conducted two separate studies of the code for Johns Hopkins University and for the state of Maryland.

Worse, there were concerns that the companies making the machines were themselves politically engaged. Diebold CEO Walden O�Dell told fellow Republicans (he is a major fundraiser for Bush 2004) he was �committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.�

Touchscreens made by the three leading U.S. manufacturers (used by about 10 percent of California voters on October 7) are not currently configured to print out receipts of individual voting choices, so there is no separate paper trail to follow in case of controversy, and no possibility of conducting recounts. What is in the machine is in the machine � whether it is right, wrong, incorrectly processed, or subject to malicious interference.

Critics also have concerns about other uses of computers, especially in the tabulation of votes, irrespective of how they were actually cast. Again, it is a matter of properly functioning software and data security. That might not sound like such a stretch in this digital age, but the record of recent elections around the country suggests there are plenty of anomalies arising from computer tabulation that we need to worry about. Last November�s mid-terms produced one election in Texas where the computers declared a landslide victory to a candidate subsequently found, after a hand recount, to have lost. In another Texas county, three candidates for local office all won exactly 18,181 votes � a bizarre coincidence that was never investigated further. And in Alabama, the close race for governor turned on the last-minute, highly suspect cancellation of 7,000 votes in a rural county, where the discrepancy was blamed on a computer-tabulation error.

This isn't to say, with any certainty, that your vote won't count. It still might -- maybe even two or three times!

UPDATE: Here's Andrew's original exhaustive Independent/UK piece on the topic, republished on Common Dreams.

Posted by aalkon at 02:21 AM | Comments (0)

November 04, 2003

The Leftovers

The Leftovers
Here�s your very own bloggie bag of some bits that got left out of my column for tomorrow's deadline -- cell phone manners on dates:

Some people don�t realize that it�s bad manners to cut out for a cell phone conversation in the middle of a date; perhaps because mommy�s telecommunications etiquette instructions stopped at 1. Don�t beat the Jones boy over the head with the receiver, and 2. Answer the family phone, �Smith residence, Jennifer speaking,� not �Wanna hear me fart!?�

If your date comes to understand the error of her ways, you might want to give her a second chance. Then again, how hard is it to figure out, all by yourself, how to be kind and respectful to the person you�re out with? Pay attention to your date and let the calls go to voicemail. Hmm...maybe the unexamined life is a life not worth living with.

Posted by aalkon at 10:27 PM | Comments (0)

November 03, 2003

Have You Looked At Your Vagina Lately?

Have You Looked At Your Vagina Lately?
Good morning, repressed America! Jeanie Lerche Davis reports on WebMD that women are a mite shy about what many refer to as their "down there." According to a survey of women's attitudes about female health topics:

�73% said that the vagina is a shocking topic.
�Less than half have ever performed a self-exam of their vagina.
�One in four has not looked at her vagina in the past year.
�47% said that discussions about the vagina should be held in private.
�Only one in 10 women said that there is no shame in having discussions about vaginas.
�Only 14% said that women are as comfortable talking about their vaginas as men are about penis-related issues.

Lerche Davis quotes Margaret Thompson, M.D., who calls the vagina "a woman's friend" (mine's always been very good to me), and says "women need to become more comfortable with their bodies, especially talking about sexual health."

Come on, girls! There's no time like the present to get a little cozier with your cooter. Your health may depend on it. And besides, your vagina is just another organ like your lungs or your liver. Or would those be your breathing bags and your toxin filtration system?

Posted by aalkon at 01:20 AM | Comments (12)

November 02, 2003

Cleopatra Was No Liz Taylor

Cleopatra Was No Liz Taylor
The real-life Cleopatra looked like a "'before' plastic surgery profile," says Betsy Prioleau, author of Seductress: Women Who Ravished the World and Their Lost Art of Love. According to Prioleau, it takes a truly brainy girl to cut through the groupies -- and it doesn't much matter what the brainy girl looks like if she's got the gray goods to seduce and keep a man's mind on her:

"The way Cleopatra got Julius Caesar is totally amazing," she continues. "Here is a guy -- you can imagine Mick Jagger -- he was surrounded by groupies. All the women wanted this guy. Men went into battle singing this little ditty about all the women he'd had. Not only that, he was bisexual -- he had all the beautiful boys too. He had everybody. He was a jaded ladies' man. Here's a guy maybe 56 when Cleopatra saw him. When she rolled out of that rug, she was about 18 and not beautiful at all. Plutarch is clear about that. She rolled out and barraged Caesar with such a stream of charming conversation -- a 'charm offensive' through language. She addressed him in perfect Latin. Then perfect Greek. She told him jokes. Stories. Displayed her magnificent erudition. She was a brilliant women. She wrote a tract on weights and measurements, of all things. She was happiest in a library. It was said she had a 'voluptuous' love of learning. Caesar had never encountered a woman like this. He was so charmed he made her his mistress that night."

Posted by aalkon at 08:03 AM | Comments (9)

November 01, 2003

Nobody's Founding Fundamentalists

Nobody's Founding Fundamentalists
Contrary to the contentions of the religious right, the founding fathers didn't see America as a Christian country. They were surprisingly modern and rational in their thinking, as this page of quotes from Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and George Washington shows:

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear. --Thomas Jefferson

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. --Thomas Paine

Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. --George Washington, letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792

Wise guys, those founding fathers.

(via Metafilter)

Posted by aalkon at 02:39 AM | Comments (3)

October 31, 2003

"That Looks Like A Penis, Only Smaller!"

Good people strengthen themselves ceaselessly.

Posted by aalkon at 05:19 PM | Comments (4)

Tax Breaks For Gays And Lesbians

Tax Breaks For Gays and Lesbians
If they don't get full rights (including the rights that come to heteros through marriage); if they're getting, say, half the rights everybody else is -- why shouldn't they have to pay only 50% of their tax bills?

And, how should heterosexuals react to the prohibitions against equal rights for gays and lesbians? Here's a suggestion, in a few excerpts from an essay by Eric Rofes, in the book, From ACT UP to the WTO -- urban protest and community building in the era of globalization:

Heterosexuals getting married is analogous to Christians joining a club that excludes Jews, men working as partners in a law firm that has no female partners, or whites supporting the flying of the Confederate flag over public buildings intended to serve people of all races. No matter how one wishes to frame them, such choices are inherently ethical choices: participation in rituals and institutions that exclude sectors of society puts you on the side of discrimination and oppression.

During the Civil Rights Movement, a number of white people repulsed by the injustices of racism declined to participate in key institutions of segregation. They refused to utilize white-only public facilities, ride on buses which forced Blacks to the back seats, and sit at segregated lunch counters. Likewise, there have been men who resigned from clubs that excluded Jews, women, and people of color, and people with inherited wealth who have given away their legacies to organizations in poor communities in this battle against heterosexism.

It may be time not only for true heterosexual allies to say no to marriage until all people have equal access, but also for all principled people to engage in public education around their refusal to accept privilege.

Recognize that it used to seem "normal" to hate and discriminate against blacks, Jews, and the Chinese, too (among others). Of course, for some, it still is. In one of this week's pleasant moments, I got a copy of my printed column (about a gay guy who wanted to know whether to tell a guy he'd dated that he was prematurely head over heels with him) with the words "SICK = PURE GARBAGE, JEW ADVICE, SICK SICK" scrawled all over it in red marker.

Hmmm...no matter how much you bore people who read your blog with stuff about being a Bright, and not believing in god, and being post-Jewish -- it seems you never stop being Jewish to the people who hate Jews.

Posted by aalkon at 01:27 AM | Comments (40)

October 30, 2003

Yale Fights Discrimination Against Gays In The Military

The Right To Lie For Your Country
Yale University students and professors have filed suit against the military, reports Fox News' Rick Leventhal, protesting the "don't ask, don't tell policy."

"These are talented people ... our students are very smart,� Yale professor Robert Burt said. �They're good lawyers, and their sexual preference, who they choose to sleep with or fall in love with, has nothing to do with their fitness for the job."

There's no gag order on heteros in the military; why should there be a gag order on gays?

Posted by aalkon at 06:18 PM | Comments (1)

October 29, 2003

Who's Yer Daddy?

Who's Yer Daddy?
According to a story in the Australian newspaper, The Age, an unnamed Australian man was tricked into a believing he was the biological father of his partner's baby; now an eight-year-old child:

He did not want a baby, but he raised his child with love. When the man's marriage ended, he paid thousands of dollars in child support.

The man is seeking repayment of $75,000 in school fees and child support in the Federal Magistrates Court after learning in 2002 that he was not the child's biological father.

...the woman had also been sexually involved with another man, in early 1995. She now admits that the second man was the child's natural father but says she did not know that at the time.

A former friend of the child's mother told the court the woman had confided to her early in the pregnancy that she would tell the man he was the father because he had "more of a future" than the biological father.

The court was told the man had not wanted to become a father and had asked the woman to terminate the pregnancy.

Shouldn't a man get a refund on his child support if it turns out he wasn't the biological father of a baby? And, beyond that, why, in 2003, are men still expected to pay for children they made it clear they did not want to have?

"Oops, The Little Strip Turned Pink"

Say there's a woman who wants a child, but can't afford to raise it, or would prefer to have somebody else pay to raise it. Say the man in her life (or the one she snags out of a club some night) isn't up for financing her dreams of mommyhood. Shouldn't it be up to her to take steps (and backup steps) to avoid becoming pregnant -- and/or be prepared to get an abortion or give up the baby after it's born? Why, so many ways for a woman to opt out of becoming a parent, are we still forcing men into "fatherhood" -- another name for our only societally-accepted form of paying protection money?

(The Age story via ifeminists.net)

Posted by aalkon at 09:52 AM | Comments (9)

October 28, 2003

Powerless Over Porn

survivor pics that Jenna and Heidi be looking pretty!.

Posted by aalkon at 04:04 AM | Comments (2)

October 27, 2003

No Good Deed Goes Uncriminalized

No Good Deed Goes Uncriminalized
Here's a story, by Wendy McElroy, of a good Samaritan who nearly got what wasn't coming to him -- jail time, a criminal record, and maybe a place on the list of registered sex offenders -- when he made just TWO attempts to return a woman's lost college ID. Now maybe his female accuser was just nuts, or maybe she's partially right to feel like a victim -- because she sounds a lot like a typical victim of the victim-industrial complex, also known as the Women's Studies department.

No matter what the issue -- if a woman misplaces her bus pass, or it looks like rain, or they're serving lime jello in the school cafeteria -- of course, it's gotta be THE PATRIARCHY that's to blame. Hello? Is this tired, or what? Men aren't the enemy. Big, angry, rat-haired radical feminists who promote the hatred of men are the enemy. Why can't everybody go shave their legs and their mustaches (this is optional for the men) and go play nicely together?

Posted by aalkon at 08:27 AM | Comments (10)

October 25, 2003

Is The Religious Right Un-Christian?

Is The Religious Right Un-Christian?
That's what seminary president Joe Hough seems to be saying:

If Tom Delay is acting out of his Born Again Christian convictions in pushing legislation that disadvantages the poor every time he opens his mouth, I'm not saying he's not a Born Again Christian, but as a the Lord's humble fruit inspector, it sure looks suspicious to me. And anybody who claims in the name of God they're gonna run over people of other nations, and just willy-nilly, by your own free will, reshape the world in your own image, and claim that you're acting on behalf of God, that sounds a lot like Caesar to me.

(via Metafilter)

Posted by aalkon at 03:59 AM | Comments (5)

October 24, 2003

How About A War On Dumb?

How About A War On Dumb?
Tommy Chong's in jail for selling glass pipes to pot smokers, writes Deroy Murdock:

Prosecutors were not impressed that his Nice Dreams Enterprises marketed a morally neutral product. Chong's pipes, after all, could be used with loose-leaf tobacco, just as any stoner in an Armani suit can smoke pot in a lawful Dunhill meerschaum.

In fact, as the Los Angeles Times reported October 10, Assistant U.S. Attorney Mary Houghton's court pleadings sought Chong's harsh punishment because he got rich "glamorizing the illegal distribution and use of marijuana" in films that "trivialize law enforcement efforts to combat drug trafficking and use."

Chong must have wondered when such activities became criminal. Perhaps the FBI now will arrest Sean Penn for hilariously smoking grass in "Fast Times at Ridgemont High." Then they can handcuff Denzel Washington for portraying a crooked narcotics officer in "Training Day."

As Murdock writes at the end of his piece, "An honest, national debate on the War on Drugs in general � and its uniquely idiotic marijuana phobia in particular � - would be a welcome development in the sad history of this national fiasco."

Posted by aalkon at 06:24 AM | Comments (6)

Why Terri Should Be Allowed To Die

Why Terri Should Be Allowed To Die
Because she ceased to be Terri -- or anything but live meat in a bed -- 13 years ago. Finally, the article I've been waiting for, by Reason's Ronald Bailey. Her family has posted some "short, ambiguous video clips" online, which seem "to fit an AMA's report of how PVS patients can respond to environmental cues without being aware." Bailey explains why her family and others have false hopes, describing what a "persistent vegetative state" means:

Movements are largely confined to reflex withdrawals or posturing in response to noxious or other external stimuli. Since neither visual nor auditory signals require cortical integrity to stimulate brief orienting reflexes, some vegetative patients may turn the head or dart the eyes toward a noise or moving objects. However, PVS patients neither fixate upon nor consistently follow moving objects with the eyes, nor do they show other than startle responses to loud stimuli. They blink when air movements stimulate the cornea but not in the presence of visual threats per se."

"So," asks Bailey, "Is Terri Schiavo still alive? The odds are way against it. It's time that her long-suffering parents and the grandstanding politicians let her go in peace."

Yeah. What he said.

Posted by aalkon at 03:06 AM | Comments (20)

October 23, 2003

Stress Mismanagement

Stress Mismanagement
Maybe remembering a horrible event isn't such a good thing. According to an article by David Glenn:

At least two controlled studies suggest that debriefing may delay some people's recovery from trauma --�perhaps because it promotes the habit of ruminating over painful images and memories before a wounded psyche is ready to do so. In 2001, Britain's National Health Service listed stress debriefing as "contraindicated."

Maybe the ability to forget is a sort of mental anaesthetic. A friend's husband had his life spared on 9/11 because she had a early-morning meeting. He took their kids to to school -- making him just late enough to his job at the World Trade Center. Almost all of his coworkers were killed. Afterward, his company sent him to a shrink for stress debriefing, which, according to his wife, was very painful for him -- and probably impeded his emotional recovery. What was it supposed to tell him that he didn't already know? That his colleagues died horrible and senseless deaths? That life was random and unfair? Maybe the healthy thing is being allowed to forget -- which is difficult enough after witnessing or experiencing something horrible.

(Glenn piece via Arts & Letters Daily)

Posted by aalkon at 11:53 AM | Comments (1)

Life As A Human Turnip

Life As A Human Turnip
If you don't want to end up in Terri Schiavo's position, here's the link you need to draw up and register (free!) a living will.

Posted by aalkon at 02:12 AM | Comments (4)

October 22, 2003

Will Your Congressman Be Removing Your Appendix?

Will Your Congressman Be Removing Your Appendix?
Terrific analysis of the so-called "partial-birth" abortion bill on the blog A Well-Timed Period.

UPDATE: William Saletan also explains on Slate that it really isn't birth they're talking about:

This procedure doesn't take place anywhere near the appointed hour of birth. If you paid close attention to the Senate debate, you might have noticed the part where Santorum said the procedure was performed "at least 20 weeks, and in many cases, 21, 22, 23, 24 weeks [into pregnancy], and in rarer cases, beyond that." He didn't clarify how many of these abortions took place past the 20th week. A full-term pregnancy is 40 weeks. In 1992, the Supreme Court mentioned that viability could "sometimes" occur at 23 or 24 weeks. Santorum described a 1-pound fetus as "a fully formed baby," noting that while it was only at 20 weeks gestation, it had a complete set of features and extremities. But according to the National Center for Health Statistics, the survival rate for babies born weighing 500 grams or less�that's 1 pound, 1 ounce or less�is 14 percent.

In other words, what we're really talking about is partial-truth legislation.

Posted by aalkon at 01:51 PM | Comments (9)

Faux News

survivor pics that Jenna and Heidi be looking pretty!.

Posted by aalkon at 07:28 AM | Comments (6)

Religious Fever

Religious Fever
Confirming my notion that the wild-eyed nuts on the subway often speak the truth, Bush's "Jihad General," Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin, asks the money question, writes Farai Chideya:

"Why is this man [President Bush] in the White House?" he said. "The majority of Americans did not vote for him. Why is he there? And I tell you this morning that he's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this."

I believe it was the Supreme Court, hon, that put him there, but thanks for asking!

Regarding Boykin's inflammatory "my god vs. your god" remarks about Iraq, the administration, through Donald Rumsfield, defends them on free speech grounds, saying, "We're a free people." Yes, we are, but most of us who are seeing things and babbling freely about them get institutionalized, not put in charge of a lot of people with dangerous weapons. P.S. I'm sure all our troops in Iraq really appreciate this guy mouthing off about his god being "bigger" in light off all the nuts on Iraqi soil who aren't exactly lacking in their own fundamentalist nutty reasons for taking potshots at Americans.

Posted by aalkon at 03:00 AM | Comments (7)

October 21, 2003

Say No To Smugs

Say No To Smugs
On Reason's blog, Jeff A. Taylor knocks "preening" Newsweek editor Mark Whitaker for bragging, in the light of recent Rush revelations, about Newsweek's coverage of the spread of Oxycontin. Taylor explains:

...Oxy was portrayed as the scourge of the rural America, the "hillbilly heroin" that Newsweek had positively over-running the town of Hazard, Kentucky with its cheap, alluring high. Excepting the gullible souls who got hooked by accident -- they lack quality, affordable medical care or a basic understanding of body chemistry, you see -- Oxy helped blot out hard-scrabble blue-collar life.

If that accurately explained Oxy abuse, then yes, there is absolutely no conceivable connection to a well-cared for, fabulously wealthy, immensely adored entertainer in Florida. But, of course, that 2001 scare story did not get the Oxy story right.

The truth is Oxy -- or any drug -- can be used and abused by a cross-section of the populace with a wide array of outcomes. If Oxy was getting people high in backwoods trailer-parks, then you can bet the folks in uptown penthouses were in on it too. The only real difference between the two groups would be the quality of their legal help.

My friend Cathy Seipp managed to have a bottle of Vicodin (a chemical kissing cousin of Oxy) in her bathroom without turning into an upper-middle-class junkie. As addiction treatment industry critics Stanton Peele and Archie Brodsky point out, drug abuse is not a disease, but a matter of priority and choice. "Reason's numerous deflations of the Oxy scare can be found here," advises Walker.

Posted by aalkon at 03:43 AM | Comments (7)

October 20, 2003

Lies The Government Tells Us

Lies The Government Tells Us
It isn't just the Fundamentalist States Government -- aka the United States Government -- passing off propaganda as science (by fudging data to support "abstinence-only" programs, for example). The Minnesota Department of Health is following suit, with a handbook that discusses (supposed) abortion risks, says this Star-Tribune editorial:

Here is what the health brochure says: "Findings from some studies suggest there is an increased risk of breast cancer among women who had an abortion, while findings from other studies suggest there is no increased risk." This implies an active debate on the issue, when in fact there is a consensus among eminent scientists that no link exists.

Last February the National Cancer Institute brought together more than 100 of the world's leading experts on the subject to review all of the existing research. Their finding was unequivocal: "Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk."

I don't know about you, but I'd like to get my science from the scientists, not the anti-abortion brochure writers. Because a faction of people would like to abolish abortion, and a woman's right to choose, doesn't mean they're entitled to present fiction as data in hopes of duping the public. Especially not when the public (with state and/or local taxes) is the publisher paying the advance on their fundamentalist fiction. Remember when the U.S. was a secular country, with separation of church and state? Yeah...it's a vague memory for me, too.

Posted by aalkon at 07:35 PM | Comments (1)

Danger In The Funny Pages!

Danger In The Funny Pages!
Why The Washington Post didn't run Aaron McGruder's comic strip Boondocks last week.

(via Romenesko)

Posted by aalkon at 11:09 AM | Comments (2)

October 19, 2003

Justice Is Blind

In France, Justice Is Not Only Blind
It probably has hairy palms. A French Judge was caught masturbating in open court. From the controversial MerdeInFrance, one of my favorite bilingual blogs.

Posted by aalkon at 05:26 PM | Comments (4)

October 18, 2003

Maim Difference

Maim Difference
"People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it's safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs." --Rodney Lee

Posted by aalkon at 02:58 PM | Comments (13)

A Woman's Right To Choose

A Woman's Right To Contradict Herself
Seems feminists think women should have "the right to choose" -- but only to choose some things: Abortion, yes; breast implants, no. Steve Chapman writes, in the Chicago Tribune, about where feminists draw the line (at the male eyeline, apparently). Be sure to check out the comments on Reason's blog, where I spotted the link.

Posted by aalkon at 08:53 AM | Comments (4)

October 17, 2003

Accidents With A Knife

Accidents With A Knife
Celebrities who fell on a scalpel and got up Frankenstinian.

(via Metafilter)

Posted by aalkon at 08:21 AM | Comments (9)

October 16, 2003

It�s Free Speech, Not Far Speech

First Amendment Dyslexia
It�s free speech, not far speech that we�re supposed to have a right to. But, according to this Salon article by Dave Lindorf, the Bush administration is �keeping dissent invisible" by herding protesters into remote areas so all the cameras on the president see are the cheering, waving �Go Bushies." When retired steelworker Bill Neel tried to protest at Bush�s Labor Day visit to Pittsburgh last year, he was told he'd have to go to a caged-off �free speech area�:

"He pointed out a relatively remote baseball diamond that was enclosed in a chain-link fence," Neel recalled in an interview with Salon. "I could see these people behind the fence, with their faces up against it, and their hands on the wire." (The ACLU posted photos of the demonstrators and supporters at that event on its Web site. ) "It looked more like a concentration camp than a free speech area to me, so I said, 'I'm not going in there. I thought the whole country was a free speech area.'"

P.S. Don�t kid yourself that this is about protecting the President. Neel has it right:

�Putting protesters behind a fence isn't going to help, ... I mean, somebody who was going to attempt an assassination wouldn't be carrying a protest sign. He'd be carrying a sign saying 'I love George!'"

Here are a few photos and a story from the ACLU Web site. The Salon article is free if you click through an annoying commercial.

Posted by aalkon at 06:31 PM | Comments (3)

Grandma Knows Her G-Spots

Grandma Knows Her G-Spots
Meet my favorite sex-ed lady, the unintentionally hilarious Sue Johanson, in this profile by Steve Lichtman on Slate.

See Sue on Oxygen network's Talk Sex (Sundays, 11 p.m. ET) and Sunday Night Sex Show (Monday through Thursday, midnight ET).

Posted by aalkon at 05:32 PM | Comments (0)

October 15, 2003

I've Been Had -- What Fun!

I've Been Had -- What Fun!
I've been had by one of the best -- who happens to be Cathy Seipp's 14-year-old daughter and my good friend Cecile DuBois. Cecile wrote to me as Randy, the semi-employed garage-band boy who was supposedly being shoved into marriage after having (gasp!) premarital sex with a Mormon girl.

Now, I'm usually pretty good at catching the phony letters, and especially if there's any sort of extended e-mail exchange (and there was, in this case), but Cecile had me absolutely convinced. She was a little worried I'd be mad when I found out, but as a prankster, I love getting pranked -- especially when the prankster is successful. Here's Randy's true identity exposed, along with a bit of my initial answer, dashed off via e-mail to Cecile/"Randy":

Excuse me, it's the 21st century and you're worried about "supporting" a woman? What does she do? Why can't she support herself? Is she just going to be the baby machine and you're going to pay for her? That makes for a reallly fascinating woman. Right now, your hormones are all a-go-go -- but what about a year from now when she's a big fat housewife and you can't afford a can of beans for her -- and she can't get off her pregnant ass to help pay for one.

Here's what it became in my column:

Disgrace Under Pressure

My fiancee's parents are radical Mormons who say I must marry her immediately to end the disgrace I've brought on the family by having premarital sex with her. I don't feel ready for marriage, but the wedding date has been moved up (from not even set to three weeks away). I'm in a band, and I don't make much money, so I have no idea how I'll support my future wife. What should I do? --The Bad Guy

"Because her parents are fundamentalists" is a good reason to avoid inviting them to hear your favorite Satanic metal band, not to gallop to the altar with their daughter. Yes, it might be hard for them to read their family name under that big black mark they think you put on it, but in time, they'll manage. You're likely to lose your fiancee if you don't follow their orders, but in time, you'll manage. Probably much better than you would paying rent to her parents so you can live in wedded bliss in the doghouse behind their house -- the perfect place for you to be trained to respond to all their commands: "Roll over!...Fetch!...Play dead!" Of course, that last one shouldn't be necessary.

Posted by aalkon at 07:13 PM | Comments (3)

Grope And Vainglory

Grope And Vainglory
LA Times Editor John Carroll wishy-washily tells "The Story Behind The Story" on LAT's anonymously-sourced Schwarzen-groper piece, knocking Jill Stewart, Bill Bradley, and Mickey Kaus in the process -- without mentioning their names. Jill Stewart knocks back with a few choice Stories Behind "The Story Behind The Story," and Jay Rosen and Patterico referee. (Click Reason and LAObserved links below to read more comments).

(via LAObserved and Reason's blog)

Posted by aalkon at 11:44 AM | Comments (0)

October 14, 2003

Let Them Eat Steak!

Let Them Eat Steak!
Science says low-carb diets are working. It gets better. According to this AP report by Daniel Q. Haney, it seems that people on low-carb, high fat diets can eat more without gaining weight:

(A) study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of Public Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American Association for the Study of Obesity, found that people eating an extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost just as much during a 12-week study as those on a standard lowfat diet.

Pass the butter! Hold the bread!

Posted by aalkon at 04:54 PM | Comments (2)

This Week's Best Love Letter

They Love Me Not, They Love Me Not
I like letters from people who like my column, but I looove letters from people who loathe it:

10/5/2003

Dear Miss Alkaline Amy,

It pleases me that you so enjoy your ready-made platform to spew vitriol, -and of your obvious talent for it there is no doubt. We picture you in a subsidized housing environment, killing roaches, and shooting daggers at any unfortunate neighbors you meet on the stairwells.

When one develops a rancid and humungous boil, the preferred treatment is to lance it, and follow-up with antibiotics, if indicated. We fear yours has taken a nasty turn and burst inward, -hence the pus that permeates your spittle amidst your weekly printed rants.

Obviously you think highly of yourself, and believe you have found your niche. Too bad it is so angry, arrogant, and dead.

Why does your anger rule you? You may now burn this.

-Anonymous: Spokane, WA

UPDATE: Hilariously, before I even posted this on the site, I stuffed the letter into my "Amy's Favorite Hate Mail" folder, and noticed that the handwriting was the same as the handwriting on another recent letter -- a letter the sender remembered to sign before sending! Here's my blog post about it:

A Big Fan Of My "Fleeting Whiffs Of Compassion"
From the early June mail pile, a letter from somebody who likes her advice a little more Dear Abby:

6/06/03

Hey, Alkali Amy,

Hope you get your bitter rocks off in your column, at least incrementally (sic) weak by week -- so you can sometime look forward to a more likable you. The acidity that bleeds out of your offal is ultimately more sad than anything. Because once in a while you slip and give off a fleeting whiff of compassion.

To better ways and better days,
L.C., Spokane, WA

The acidity that bleeds out of your offal? "I think there's an ointment for that," says Treacher.

Since I had the anonymous writer's full name from this previous letter (although I felt sorry for her and only printed her initials), I googled her e-mail address and sent her a thank you for "the hilarious letter." Serial hate mail! It means so much to me when they despise me enough to go to all that repeated effort.

Posted by aalkon at 03:32 PM | Comments (10)

October 13, 2003

The Crack Epidemic The Drug Warriors Can't Touch

The Crack Epidemic The Drug Warriors Can't Touch
The butt-crack epidemic.

(spotted in Treacher-land)

Posted by aalkon at 09:04 AM | Comments (2)

Who Says Religion Doesn't Kill?

Who Says Religion Doesn't Kill?
Is The Catholic Church guilty of murder -- with spreading their ideology the motive? Probably, if the claims of a program screened Sunday on BBC One are true. The Panorama program, called "Sex And The Holy City," accuses The Vatican of telling people in countries rife with AIDS that condoms don't protect against the virus. According to this BBC News report:

...One of the Vatican's most senior cardinals Alfonso Lopez Trujillo suggested HIV could even pass through condoms.

"The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom," he says.

The cardinal, who is president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, suggests that governments should urge people not to use condoms.

The Archbishop of Nairobi Raphael Ndingi Nzeki told Panaroma that condoms were helping to spread the virus.

"Aids...has grown so fast because of the availability of condoms," he said.

In Kenya, one in five people are HIV positive.

Gordon Wambi, director of an Aids testing programme in Lwak, near Lake Victoria, told the programme that he could not distribute condoms because of opposition from the Catholic Church.

"Some priests have even been saying that condoms are laced with HIV/Aids," he said.

According to Panaroma, the claims about condoms are repeated by Catholics as far apart as Asia and Latin America.

Just think of it as The New Crusade -- a crusade against science and reason, and for dying a horrible and unnecessary death. Of course, it's brought to us by the same people who gave us The Spanish Inquisition and a lot of other fine examples of tolerance, sweetness, and light.

(also spotted in Treacher-land)

Posted by aalkon at 08:27 AM | Comments (4)

October 12, 2003

The UnStepford Wives

The UnStepford Wives
Just as Hollywood is "preparing a new version of the 1975 feminist cult classic 'The Stepford Wives,'" Andrew Sullivan is preparing us for a new breed of political wife, the ragingly independent woman. John Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz, and Howard Dean's wife, Dr. Judith Steinberg, are two who don't just break, but explode, the Stepford first lady mold:

She has always gone by Teresa Heinz, but for the purposes of the campaign, she recently agreed to be called Teresa Heinz Kerry. This was a stretch in itself, but when asked by Elle magazine how she felt about it, she didn't exactly smoothe it over: "Now, politically, it's going to be Teresa Heinz Kerry, but I don't give a shit, you know? There are other things to worry about." Not since Barbara Bush opined of vice-presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro that she was something that rhymed with "rich," has a prominent political spouse been so forthcoming about her true feelings. The Washington Post clucked that Heinz-Kerry was "ungaggable." In the same interview, she remarked, in respect to Pat Nixon, that "Well, we know Richard Nixon wasn't too much in contact with how women should be." The New York Times subsequently tutted that she had managed the rare feat of "casually insulting a dead president and first lady." Heinz has also spoken openly of her enthusiasm for plastic surgery, her use of Botox and her firm belief that, in matters of marriage, "you've got to have a pre-nup." With half a billion at stake, you can see her point. But such insistence is not exactly designed to win over the lower-middle-class voters of, say, Oklahoma.

Judith Steinberg represents another kind of Blue America: not the lefty plutocrats who now run the Democratic Party, but the earnest Northeastern career professionals who tend to vote for it. Steinberg is a doctor married to Howard Dean, and has kept her maiden name in her own practice, which she once shared with her husband. She has a starkly refreshing approach to the role of First Lady, which is to say, she would essentially abolish it. She has refused to go to almost any social functions with her husband as the wife of the governor of Vermont; and has said that if he won the presidency, she would simply move her medical practice to Washington and leave the White House alone. It doesn't seem to have dawned on her yet that the Secret Service detail required to vet and screen every patient would not exactly be conducive to a regular practice.

Not to worry, Dr. Steinberg. In the heartland, it's the glassy-eyed automatons who get their husbands elected.

Posted by aalkon at 01:58 PM | Comments (4)

October 11, 2003

Healthy Harlots

Healthy Harlots
Sorry, puritannical people, but according to this rather entertaining Forbes piece by Alan Farnham, "having regular and enthusiastic sex ... confers a host of measurable physiological advantages," including reduced risk of heart disease and depression, less frequent colds and flu, better bladder control...and even better teeth!

(via Instapundit)

Posted by aalkon at 09:33 PM | Comments (6)

October 10, 2003

TSA Stupidity

Hiring The Mentally Handicapped
The TSA test for airport screeners is very...inclusive. According to an AP article by Leslie Miller, not only were screeners spoon-fed the answers in advance of the test, the answers were to ridiculously easy multiple-choice questions like this:

One question asked ''How do threats get aboard an aircraft?'' The possible answers were (a) In carry-on bags; (b) In checked-in bags; (c) In another person's bag; and (d) All of the above.

Of course, the correct answer is (d). Of course, if you can sound out the words in this blog posting, you're probably clever enough to figure that out without hours and hours of training. But are the TSA screeners hired via this test clever enough to find a bomb in somebody's luggage? Well, it probably helps if the terrorists put a big sign on the outside of the bag that says "bomb inside."

Posted by aalkon at 11:39 AM | Comments (0)

Small Penises Unite!

Power To The Small Penis People!
Yes, this is an actual workshop being offered by The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center in New York:

Monday, October 20, 2003, Sexuality Series: What is Small Anyway? Tonight�s discussion, Shame & Getting Over It, provides a space where men can talk about small penises.� Everyone is welcome � those who have them, those who love them, and those who are curious about them. Hosted by Robert Woodworth. Socializing; light refreshments. $6 members, $10 nonmembers. 7PM.

Posted by aalkon at 09:47 AM | Comments (2)

Internet Prayer Chains

The Powerlessness Of Prayer
If you pray, and your four-year-old daughter dies anyway, of some horrible disease, does that mean (A), The Big Guy was watching that morning you left a rather stinky tip at the diner, and it's payback time? Or, is it because (B), The Big Guy is a bigtime jerk and thinks he'll snuff a few four-year-olds today, and yours happened to be one of them? Or could it be because (C), there is no Big Guy (there certainly is no evidence he exists) and the world is a totally random place in which sweet, darling four-year-olds get terribly sick and die painfully?

Now, I know it's going to be hard for some of you more entrenched god afficionados, but try to forget that some guy in a long funny robe told you (and me) there is a Big Guy, and maybe even said (based on zero evidence) that you'd fry till the end of time if you didn't believe in said Big Guy. How about you just be really, really honest and pick the only answer here which makes any sense: C! There is no evidence of the existence of god, heaven, or hell, and we've all got a very short time on this planet in which to make a real difference, so we'd all better drag our big, lardy asses out of our houses and "houses of worship" and do something!

This brings me to an article in Sunday's LA Times by K. Connie Kang, about "The Presidential Prayer Team," which "uses the Internet to alert 3 million people a week to appeal to God on behalf of soldiers, officials and others." In other words, lots of religious people across America are thinking lots of nice thoughts in behalf of the troops:

Someone had registered the names of Todd and Trevor Harris with the Adopt Our Troops campaign of the Presidential Prayer Team, a nondenominational Christian prayer group on the Internet. Soon, hundreds of thousands of strangers across the country were praying for the brothers.

Too bad all the praying people aren't putting their wishful thinking time into something that really matters -- such as petitioning the Pentagon to give the troops modern bullet-proof vests that actually have a prayer of stopping a modern bullet. Far too many of the troops have, in the words of Jonathan Turley, "Vietnam-era flak jacket that cannot stop the type of weapons used today." According to Turley, "parents across the country are now purchasers of body armor because of the failure of the military to supply soldiers with modern vests." Turley tells how one soldier's schoolteacher mother spent more than a week's salary buying her son the ceramic plates needed to stop bullets so he can tape them to his Pentagon-issued, antique bullet-useless vest. (Excuse me, but is this soccer practice or a war? Because if it's a war, maybe mommy shouldn't have to supply the uniform.)

While the naive praying millions certainly "have their heart in the right place"; if they really want to help the troops (instead of simply thinking they're helping the troops), they need to get off their knees, march to the Pentagon and make an ungodly amount of noise about this issue. An Internet "Presidential Take Action! Team" in place of the "Presidential Prayer Team" would be a start.

NOTE: Something small, but perhaps meaningful, you can do (as I did last night) -- write to your Senator (click "Senator" to get their address). It doesn't matter if you're particularly eloquent, just that they get a volume of mail on a particular issue. Here's my letter that I sent to Feinstein and Boxer:

In the words of of columnist Jonathan Turley, our troops in Iraq have a "Vietnam-era flak jacket that cannot stop the type of weapons used today." According to Turley, "parents across the country are now purchasers of body armor because of the failure of the military to supply soldiers with modern vests." This is sick. Our troops need our support -- rapidly, desperately -- so they aren't pigeons to be picked off in Iraq. Please petition the President and the Senate on this issue. --Amy Alkon

(Internet prayer chain article via Luke Ford, who got it from Heather MacDonald)

Posted by aalkon at 08:58 AM | Comments (21)

October 09, 2003

Controversy Alert!

Controversy Alert!
Is Amy Alkon a racist meanie? There's been a bit of a brouhaha about my Barbies For Muslim Fundamentalists posting. Here's the whole story over at Eugene Volokh's place. And be sure to check out the comments section at Eric Muller's IsThatLegal?, where it appears everybody gets the spirit of my posting -- well, everybody but him.

Posted by aalkon at 07:05 PM | Comments (25)

Where's My Faithless-Based Initiative?

Where's My Faithless-Based Initiative?
When will politicians start pandering to Brights like me -- people who don't believe in god? Math prof John Allen Paulos wonders about that, on ABCNews.com:

...Since we're now at the beginning of a presidential campaign, it's reasonable to ask not only President Bush, but also each of the ten contenders for the Democratic nomination to state their attitude toward Brights (designated by whatever term they choose).

We might also speculate about which of these candidates might be closet Brights? Which would evince anything like the free-thinking of Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln? Which would put forward a Bright Supreme Court nominee? Which would support self-avowed Brights in positions of authority over children?

Which of them would even include Brights in inclusive platitudes about Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Muslims? Doing so might be good politics. Although unorganized and relatively invisible, Brights constitute a large group to whom politicians almost never appeal. Moreover, it would be interesting to see and hear the squirming responses of the candidates to the above questions.

In reason we trust! Well, not all of us, but more of us than you think.

Posted by aalkon at 08:49 AM | Comments (25)

October 08, 2003

Barbies For Fundamentalists!

Barbies For Fundamentalists
Saudi Arabia's religious police proclaimed Barbie dolls a "Jewish" toy (apparently, nobody told them that if there were a prototypical shiksa goddess, it would be Barbie), and deemed Barbie's revealing clothes a threat to Islam. Good thing there's now a full line of dolls that should get a pass with the Saudi Arabian police:

With her long-sleeved dresses, hijab or Muslim head scarf and, by her creator Ammar Saadeh's own admission, a less-than-flattering bust-line, Razanne is all about modesty and piety.

But Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries likely would be attracted to Praying Razanne, who comes complete with a long hijab and modest prayer gown.

So much better for covering up suicide bomb packs than that scantily clad Malibu Barbie!

Posted by aalkon at 07:16 PM | Comments (15)

Rush Limbaugh: Big Fat Drug War Casualty?

Rush Limbaugh: Big Fat Drug War Casualty?
Matthew Briggs, of the Drug Policy Alliance, says, "hero or big fat idiot, Rush Limbaugh should not face prison" if he did, indeed, buy and take tankloads of painkillers:

I hope, in fact, that this experience further opens Mr. Limbaugh's eyes to the plight of the hundreds of thousands of nonviolent drug offenders behind bars in this country. I would be happy to welcome him to the growing national movement for drug policy reform. We need all the help we can get.

But first and foremost, I hope Mr. Limbaugh's life isn't destroyed by unjust, unscientific and uncompassionate drug laws. No one deserves that, friend or foe.

I'm with him. And I still don't know (and perhaps some fine legal mind who's dropped in here can explain it) how The Constitution gives anyone any right to tell anyone in this country what they can and can't put in their bodies (as long as their consumption isn't hurting anybody else).

Posted by aalkon at 05:20 PM | Comments (4)

Join The Mickey Kaus Club

Join The Mickey Kaus Club!
Blogger Mickey Kaus tells why he voted for Schwarzenegger (scroll down to October 7 entry). I voted for Schwarzie, too -- despite the efforts of several entrenched lefty friends who tried to perform numerous "interventions" by e-mail and telephone message. Well, I guess I'll have a few fewer dinner parties to go to this fall! Finally, here are a few choice words from Mickey on what's in store:

Bruce Cain, the overquoted Berkeley professor, was just on television sneering that the recall doesn't get California any closer to solving its problems. What an idiot. Schwarzenegger as governor will have weapons Davis doesn't have, the most important of which is the ability to go over the heads of the legislature and rally public support--behind a ballot initiative, if necessary. He might even be able to threaten to go into legislators' districts and campaign against them (although the state is so heavily gerrymandered there may be no unsafe "swing" districts left). You want to amend the state Constitution to get rid of the paralyzing requirement that two-thirds of the legislature approve any budget? Schwarzenegger is the man who can do it. You want a tax increase if cutting the budget isn't enough to close the deficit? Schwarzenegger's the man for that too. As a nominal Republican, he is in a position to attract at least some Republican votes for a budget package that includes both taxes and cuts. And if even an anti-tax candidate like Schwarzenegger tells the voters some increases are needed, they're more likely to accept it from him than from a Democrat whose first instinct is to pay whatever it takes to avoid public employee layoffs.

Mickey also picks up on another important point: That "Schwarzenegger's flaws are the very things that might actually help him perform better in office. Maybe a governor who is manipulative and mean is just the man to subdue the unions, the casino tribes and entrenched, free-spending legislators." We can only hope.

Posted by aalkon at 09:00 AM | Comments (1)

October 07, 2003

Broken Facts Machine

Broken Facts Machine
That would be the LA Times, which printed unattributed dirt on Arnold, but "forgot" to mention the dirt on Gray. Luckily, the L.A. Daily News, like The New York Times, sees fit to print Jill Stewart, who sets the record straight.

UPDATE: Here's a captioned photo of one of Arnold's accusers, Rhonda Miller, who "alleged the actor had groped, photographed and nibbled her breasts on the set of Terminator 2." According to the blog Fresh Potatoes (linked below):

Her allegations of sex harassment have been directly contradicted (on KFI AM) by the hair stylist who claims that he actually took the photograph that Rhonda Miller accused Arnold of taking. Said hair stylist said that Arnold was not in the trailer at the time, and that Miller wanted to have her picture taken, and then laughed about it when her picture was taped to the ceiling of the trailer.

Posted by aalkon at 08:31 AM | Comments (4)

October 06, 2003

Harlem: It's A Jungle Up There

Harlem: It's A Jungle Up There
Downtown, the nutbags each have 26 cats. Uptown, they like to consolidate.

Posted by aalkon at 02:19 PM | Comments (5)

October 04, 2003

Death Begunks Her

Death Begunks Her
Despite the fact that there's zero evidence of the existence of either heaven or hell (although sitting on a plane for six hours in front of a caterwauling baby can make even the most rational human being believe they've been transported to the latter), people cling to the fairy tales religion feeds them about The Great Beyond. As a Bright (a person who doesn't believe in unproven mystical crap), I favor the empirical approach to life endings, stated rather succinctly by physicist Tom Morse:

"What happens to you when you die? You go from a highly organized state to a highly mushy one."

And no, because we don't have a "fer-sure fer sure" explanation for how it all began doesn't mean we can say, based on zero evidence, "Oh, god did it." By the way, for any homo haters out there who justify their hatred and discrimination against gays with a convenient couple of lines in The Bible; as a biblical literalist, if you've ever cheated on your spouse, does that mean we get to stone you?

Posted by aalkon at 02:51 PM | Comments (10)

For Whom The Belle Tolls

For Whom The Belle Tolls
"You could find any feature of a beauty queen in our caf�s, but they were all on different girls. A girl who was beautiful all over would pick a better neighborhood." --A.J. Liebling, "Between Meals -- An Appetite For Paris"

Posted by aalkon at 10:03 AM | Comments (7)

October 03, 2003

Who You Gonna Call?

Will Your Congressman Deliver Your Baby?
If you're a woman in Michigan, and you need medical attention, try a novel approach: consult your local legislator instead of your doctor. The Detroit News' Laura Berman makes a great case for why legislators have no business trying to ban partial-birth abortion, or abortion of any other kind:

The procedure that's said to be the target of the law -- intact dilation and extraction -- is so rarely used in Michigan that even Michigan Right to Life fails to document a single case of it in the organization's exhaustive 2003 analysis of state abortion statistics.

...The absurdly worded Legal Birth Definition Act sitting on the governor's desk could easily pit the life of a newly-coined perinate up against the health of a woman who might be your daughter, sister, wife, best friend or just plain you.

If the governor signs this bill into law, the sight of a tiny toe will create peculiar dilemmas for doctors, who will have to decide whether to intervene on behalf of a pregnant patient or avoid criminal prosecution by trying harder to save a dying fetus.

Dr. Timothy Johnson, who heads the University of Michigan's obstetrics department, says fetal parts are often visible during late miscarriages. Providing proper care, he has written, would often result "in the death of the nonviable fetus."

Now, I find abortion troubling, and partial birth abortion certainly sounds creepy, but I still maintain that women must not be forced to be baby pods against their will, and that whether to perform or not to perform any medical procedure should be between a woman and her doctor.

Posted by aalkon at 07:44 AM | Comments (3)

October 02, 2003

U-Pay Health Insurance

Who Should Pay For Your Health Insurance?
Hmm, there's a toughie. Should it be your next-door neighbor? Ozzie Osborne? Regis Philbin? Jacques Chirac? Or maybe...and here's a radical one...you?

For decades, people have expected their health care costs, and those of their families, to be paid by the big companies they worked for for a lifetime. Because American working life doesn't work like that anymore, Ronald Bailey suggests, in Reason, that breaking "the link between a job and a health insurance policy" could increase the number of insured Americans:

The fact is that fewer and fewer Americans are following the career paths of their parents and grandparents�i.e., graduating from high school, going to work for one big company that provides health insurance for the worker's family, and retiring at 65 with a company pension. In the 2lst century, workers change jobs more frequently, more people are working for smaller companies that offer fewer benefits, and one in 12 Americans will start her own business. What is needed is a more flexible health insurance system to meet the needs of the modern world. So why not let workers decide how to handle their own health insurance needs?

Indeed. I pay for my own health insurance. Why shouldn't everyone? It's especially unfair that childless employees at a company subsidize the health care costs of breeder employees and their wives and five children. Also, according to Bailey's piece, those who are self-employed pay their health care costs with after-tax dollars; employees' health care benefits aren't taxed. Not fair. You burp out a passel of kids, how about you pay for their health care, and yours and your spouse's?...and with the same after-tax dollars self-employed people like me use to pay for ours, instead of with a cushy little subsidy from Uncle Sam.

Posted by aalkon at 08:37 AM | Comments (25)

October 01, 2003

Fatty, Fatty, Two-By-Four, Can�t Fit Through The Taurus Door

Fatty, Fatty, Two-By-Four, Can�t Fit Through The Taurus Door
An opinion piece in a British paper attributed SUV popularity in America, in part, to the fact that many Americans are "large" people, as in...BIG FAT, OVEREATING PIGS!!...who can�t fit their enormous pantloads into a normal passenger car:

A recent study estimates that more than half of Americans are clinically obese. You can take a moral position on that finding, but I wouldn't recommend it sitting next to an average American in the back of an average European runabout.

After reading this piece, I came up with an idea for a new anti-SUV card. (I tuck insulting messages printed on business cards under the windshield wipers of USS Nimitz-sized new SUVs; the notion being, if you can afford to drive this, you can afford to drive something that doesn�t endanger the rest of us, blah, blah, blah.) Here's the rough draft of my next card:

WIDE LOAD ALERT!

Sorry that your ass is so fat you can�t squeeze it into a normal car, but why not drag it to the gym so you don�t have to smog up the planet for the rest of us?

Which do you prefer, that or my current anti-SUV card?

ROAD-HOGGING, GAS-GUZZLING, AIR-FOULING VULGARIAN!

Clearly you have an extremely small penis, or you wouldn't drive such a monstrosity. For the adequately endowed, there are hybrids or electrics.

Or maybe you�d like to suggest one of your own. Please do.

P.S. Those of you who were in New York in the 1980s, and/or read Spy magazine, will note my appropriation of the fabulous word "vulgarian," which was frequently used to describe Donald Trump, to whom they referred as the "short-fingered vulgarian." I'm sure SUV drivers are notably short of finger as well, but you can only fit so many words on a two by three-inch card!

Posted by aalkon at 09:53 PM | Comments (9)

Call Waiting And Waiting

Call Waiting And Waiting
What does it mean when this girl hears the sound of her phone not ringing? I'll be waiting by the computer to read your comments on this column I just posted.

Posted by aalkon at 02:37 AM | Comments (2)

September 30, 2003

The War On Drugs Kills

The War On Drugs Kills
Oops, wrong address! Bang, bang, you're dead!

(via Metafilter)

Posted by aalkon at 03:56 AM | Comments (11)

September 29, 2003

The Oral Of The Story

The Oral Of The Story
From The Best Of Craig's List, a hilarious ad, entitled "Why I gave you that excellent blow job last year." Two choice excerpts:

That autistic-like repetition that drove you to pick one 6 inch part of my skin and rub it like you were cleaning the windows, then never deviate again? Did you not notice that it didn�t even elicit an appreciative murmur? Did you not notice that I froze? Pay attention, man! And is there a reason that you picked a spot on my back to apply this movement to, as opposed to, say, a documented and socially recognized erogenous zone?

I was having a difficult enough time dealing with the Wax-on, Wax-off routine with your hand, but good grief, did you need to add that �sexy� interrogation? �Do you want me to talk dirty to you?� Well, no, bonehead, not if you have to ask. The idea is to try a tiny bit of it and�hello�NOTICE the reaction! �Do your titties like me?� What the fuck kind of a question is that? Do my titties like you?...I don�t know, ask them!

If you're interested in the whole, sorry, blow-by-blow, and the semi-happy ending, click here.

Posted by aalkon at 08:32 AM | Comments (1)

September 28, 2003

The Aura Of Safety

The Aura Of Safety
As a clotheswhore who travels like Liz Taylor (but with uglier luggage and minus the entourage), when I'm flying home from a trip, I always find that there are a few items that challenge the laws of bag-packing physics. Of course, that's why boyfriends with untapped space in their bags were invented. As usual, on a recent trip home, via Tampa, I handed off my overflow to my boyfriend. Well, on this trip, my boyfriend decided, at the airport, to roll his rollaboard on the plane. It just so happened that one of the items I'd given him was an elegant little desk set I'd bought: petite scissors, a mini stapler, and mini ruler. I'd completely forgotten this desk set until I spotted my boyfriend putting all his clothes back on after getting stripped and felt up by the TSA. A TSA searcher was going through his bag. My boyfriend couldn't figure out what the problem could be, as he travels all the time for his job, and had never gotten searched before. "Scissors," the searcher said, "We saw scissors in your bag." Uh-oh. I pointed out that I'd given him my scissors set. The TSA guy said he had to take them. I ask if I could mail them to myself. Yes, I could, the TSA guy said -- if I exited the airport and went through the metal detector again, and then... My scissors were history. Grrr...Like they were actually dangerous!...especially now that we have locking cockpit doors, blah blah blah.

I railed to the searcher (who wasn't a bad guy) that I was losing my scissors because people believe in god ("If everybody stopped believing in god right at this moment, nobody would be...[I was afraid to say "getting blown up"]... inconvenienced at airports!"). Fuming, I left the scissors, and the boyfriend and I went to our gate. As I sat down, I realized something and started to laugh: The TSA guy had gotten my scissors, but he'd missed the knitting kit I'd bought for my neighbor -- two metal knitting needles!!, instructions on how to make booties or whatever it is people knit, and a three inch metal yarn needle!! As there was never and never will be any danger of me knitting, violently or otherwise, I swiftly decided against declaring my contraband. But, the incident got me thinking: How much sense does it make, really, to take away scissors from people boarding planes, or to make passengers cut their rubber chicken with plastic knives? To me, this seems to be yet another measure designed mainly to make passengers feel more secure, but which doesn't actually make us more secure.

After boarding, I mentioned my thoughts to my boyfriend, a researcher for a crime novelist, who always runs around lugging piles of crime data. Naturally, he was packin'. He yanked out his laptop to show me a really fascinating PDF (click first item on page) of concealed weapons from the FBI, including photos of a James Bondian deck of fake playing cards, made of thin metal. The cards can be thrown "with deadly results," confirms Curt Anderson, writing for the AP. And there's more; much more:

Knives ... concealed in belt buckles, hairbrushes and combs, working cigarette lighters, crucifixes, lipstick cases, canes, umbrellas, keychains, pens, mock credit cards and money clips. While many of the blades are small, others can be at least 4 inches long and some are sword-length.

One fake key made in Japan conceals a knife and a smaller key that could be used to escape from handcuffs.

One device, called a "shuckra," is a metal tube containing a wire that, when locked into place, becomes a hardened spike that could be used as a dagger.

There are false name-brand soup, hairspray, shaving cream and cleanser cans with hidden compartments -- the FBI calls them "can safes" -- where weapons or dangerous substances could be placed. Fake books with hollowed centers are used as safes.

To me, this PDF poses a question: If we really want to prevent terrorism, do we take away scissors at the airport or do we take out leaders of terrorist cells? Josie Glausiuz poses this question and more to anthropologist Scott Atran in "The Surprises Of Suicide Terrorism", in Discover. First, she wonders about terrorists' motivation. Based on research of suicide bombers, Atran calls it "utter nonsense" to deem terrorism the result of insanity, or despair or hopelessness:

The CIA released a report in 2001 on the psychology and sociology of terrorism, and they basically said these people are perfectly sane. If you look at the history of these kinds of extreme acts, they're pretty much directed by middle-class or higher-middle-class intellectuals. They always have been. Never have they been directed by wacky, crazed, homicidal nuts. The Japanese kamikaze of World War II were, by the way, extremely intelligent guys. If you read their diaries, they were German romantics, reading Goethe and Schiller, and quite conscious of the efforts of the state to manipulate them.

But, "How on earth," asks Glausiuz, "Does anyone sane work up the gumption to blow himself up, together with what is often hundreds of bystanders?" Atran responds:

Exactly the same way that you get soldiers on the front line of an army to sacrifice themselves for their buddies. What these cells do is very similar to what our military, or any modern military, does. They form small groups of intimately involved "brothers" who literally sacrifice themselves for one another, the way a mother would do for her child. They do it by manipulating universal heartfelt human sentiments that I think are probably innate and part of biological evolution. In fact, I think most culture is a manipulation of innate desires. It's the same way that our fast-food industry manipulates our desires for sugars and fats, or the way the pornography industry manipulates people to get all hot about pixels on a screen or on wood pulp.

"Why does it matter whether we understand the making of a suicide terrorist?"

Huge amounts of money were being offered, at least on the horizon, for science-related defense research, most of it going to things like bioterrorism prevention. There were all these harebrained schemes--they're still around--to have a Radio Free Arabia. They're going to bombard these people with information about how good our society is, our goals, and that's supposed to win the war on terrorism. If you look at the February 2003 National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, you'll see they plan to introduce programs against poverty and illiteracy. These ideas seem to me just completely wrong. First, the people who carry out terrorist acts are already educated. Second, they're not poor, so reducing poverty isn't going to do a thing.

"So what's your strategy for combating suicide terrorism?"

I think it has to be a multilayered strategy. You've got to be able to--and this I'm all for--go after the guys who operate the cells. Take them out. Get rid of them. Jail them or kill them, because they are not willing to compromise. What do you do with somebody who says, "All Americans and Jews have got to die"? The point of talking to such people has passed. Whatever the grievances were that caused such people to have such ideas, if they show that they're willing to implement them, then you've just got to make a decision whether you want to see this guy survive or you and your people survive.

(Atran piece via Volokh.com)

Posted by aalkon at 12:13 PM | Comments (3)

Librarians Get Feisty

Librarians Get Feisty
Librarians are going up against Ashcroft and The Patriot Act, "indignant about a provision ... that could oblige them to cooperate with federal agents by turning over the records of what some library patrons have checked out," writes Margaret Talbot in The New York Times:

Some have reported that they are purposely shredding borrowing records. Others are reminding patrons that if they return books on time, their records are purged automatically, which must strike library workers as a lovely synchronicity of civil libertarian and housekeeping goals. Still others are considering how to refuse to cooperate if they are actually approached by the government. Meanwhile, an article that ran on a listserve for ''feisty librarians'' crowed, ''The old stereotype of librarians as meek maidens whose only passion is for the Dewey Decimal System'' is now ''being shattered for good, replaced by a new image of librarians as feisty fighters for freedom.''

You go, girls!

Posted by aalkon at 05:17 AM | Comments (14)

September 27, 2003

The Demerol Diet

The Demerol Diet
Doctors who prescribe painkillers for people desperately in need put themselves in danger of losing their licenses and maybe even going to jail, and it's killing their patients. Per H.L Mencken's definition of Puritanism -- "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere might be having fun" -- we're so worried that somebody, somewhere, might get high, that we're needlessly forcing people to live in terrible chronic pain. Jacob Sullum chronicles this in a terrific article in a back issue of Reason:

A 28-year-old man who underwent lumbar disk surgery after an accident at work was left with persistent pain in one leg. His doctor refused to prescribe a strong painkiller, giving him an antidepressant instead. After seeking relief from alcohol and street drugs, the man hanged himself in his garage. A 37-year-old woman who suffered from severe migraines and muscle pain unsuccessfully sought Percocet, the only drug that seemed to work, from several physicians. At one point the pain was so bad that she put a gun to her head and pulled the trigger, unaware that her husband had recently removed the bullets. A 78-year-old woman with degenerative cervical disk disease suffered from chronic back pain after undergoing surgery. A series of physicians gave her small amounts of narcotics, but not enough to relieve her pain. She tried to kill herself four times--slashing her wrists, taking overdoses of Valium and heart medication, and getting into a bathtub with an electric mixer--before she became one of Rose's patients and started getting sufficient doses of painkiller.

I especially love the stories in Sullum's piece about people dying of cancer who are denied painkillers -- lest they become addicts! Get this, you've got six months to live, and somebody's worried that you're getting "addicted" to Oxycontin? Hello?

One doctor who, it seems, sacrificed his license to help serious pain sufferers, was rewarded for his efforts with an indictment by a federal grand jury yesterday. If William E. Hurwitz is convicted, he faces life in prison. Here's an ugly piece of slanted reporting about Hurwitz in the Washington Post (compare it to Sullum's exhaustive piece linked above) that dovetails quite nicely with the national paranoia about drugs:

Prosecutors allege that Hurwitz made large profits by charging an initiation fee of $1,000 for each patient and then $250 a month for maintenance. They said Hurwitz had about 470 patients in his clinic over the past five years, accounting for millions of dollars in profit.

So, he's supposed to give medical care for free? The Washington Post reporter never bothered to talk to any of the patients the guy has helped, and it sounds like there are legions of them.

Anybody whose life has been markedly improved by any Schedule II drug -- me, for example: I take Ritalin, which keeps me at the computer instead of bouncing off the ceiling -- should be very, very afraid.

UPDATE: Here's a related link from Reason's blog -- first, an essay by professor of pharmacy health care administration David Brushwood, on how prescribing practices that seem suspicious to regulators may actually be legitimate treatment of a patient's pain. Finally, there's this great quote from the comments section on Reason, by RC Dean (rcdean@samizdata.net):

"One can only hope that, when they fall sick, the drug warriors responsible for this are treated by doctors who they have cowed into undermedicating pain."

Posted by aalkon at 08:22 AM | Comments (13)

Short Subjects

Short Subjects
"If you like the movies about homosexual dwarf taxidermists, check out The Embalmer," advises movie critic and blogger Luke Thompson.

Posted by aalkon at 01:34 AM | Comments (0)

September 26, 2003

I Know You Are, But What Am I?

I Know You Are, But What Am I?
Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie is very, very scared. Eek! What if gays and lesbians get the same rights as the rest of the taxpaying public -- the right to get married and get all the rights that ensue? Just for wanting that right, he accuses them! of "intolerance and bigotry." Haw, haw, haw...you're a funny guy, Mr. Ed.

Not only that, it's clear from the article linked above that Ed's all for amending the constitution to "define marriage as a monogamous, heterosexual union, and ... forbid states from legalizing homosexual marriages." Hi, are we threatened by homosexuality or what? Whatever happened to "Christian tolerance"? Ed counters that people are "free to pursue the choices they want in the privacy of their home, that's tolerance." Yeah, if you're gay, Ed will let you pursue marriage all you want; you just can't catch it.

Posted by aalkon at 09:20 PM | Comments (27)

Got Bilk?

Got Bilk?
An EBay master thief tells all.

(via Lockergnome)

Posted by aalkon at 10:00 AM | Comments (0)

September 25, 2003

Fur And Away

Fur And Away
Simon Dumenco, in New York magazine on who's shaving, plucking, and waxing their body hair, and who's growing it out and braiding it.

Posted by aalkon at 12:52 PM | Comments (2)

Advances In Pharmacist-ed Living

Advances In Pharmacist-ed Living
I've been waiting for this: Provigil -- a pill that allows users to function normally after up to 54 hours without sleep, John Simons writes in Fortune magazine:

In 1998 the FDA approved Provigil to treat narcolepsy, but doctors prescribe it "off label" as a fatigue fighter for airline pilots, long-haul truckers, and medical residents. Users say the drug doesn't make them jittery the way caffeine does. One 200-milligram pill restores focus and alertness as effectively as three tall lattes and costs $5. And all the clinical data show that the drug has none of the addictive qualities of amphetamines like Dexedrine. Because Provigil has fewer side effects than Ritalin, it's even being prescribed to some children with attention-deficit disorder.

Deadline calls! Bring on those (chemically-assisted) sleepless nights! (The question is, will anyone's doctor be willing prescribe it?)

(via Reason's blog)

Posted by aalkon at 11:51 AM | Comments (4)

September 24, 2003

Huffington Hilarity

Huffington Hilarity
Comedy-sniffer and Reason mag Associate Editor Matt Welch found some very funny stuff on Arianna�s blog:

One of the few things I don't love about being on the campaign trail is getting the same questions again and again and again. Especially the one about my so-called �political transformation.�

Shouldn't there be a statute of limitation on questions about this? I mean, when I was a Republican, Saddam Hussein was our ally, George Bush owned a mediocre baseball team, Enron was a respected energy company and Michael Jackson was still black.

Well, we all have our vices. For some, it's booze. For others it's group sex. For me, it was Newt Gingrich.

Group sex and Newt in the same breath? Eeeeeuw!

Posted by aalkon at 03:03 PM | Comments (3)

Intellectual Property Theft: It�s Not Just For Slackers On Napster Anymore

Intellectual Property Theft: It�s Not Just For Slackers On Napster Anymore
The Wall Street Journal tries to get what they didn�t pay for -- the right to use a Chinese calligrapher�s rendering of the word �dao� -- the phonetic translation of �Dow,� as in �Dow Jones.� What's behind their wanting his work to be a freebie? Let�s just call it �selective capitalism.�

(via Romenesko)

Posted by aalkon at 08:52 AM | Comments (3)

Book Stoop

Book Stoop
Just as pot doesn�t really lead to heroin, Harry Potter doesn�t lead to Rudyard Kipling, writes Harold Bloom in the LA Times. Bloom�s sputtering mad about the National Book Foundation�s �distinguished contribution� award to Stephen King:

"...another low in the shocking process of dumbing down our cultural life. I've described King in the past as a writer of penny dreadfuls, but perhaps even that is too kind. He shares nothing with Edgar Allan Poe. What he is is an immensely inadequate writer, on a sentence-by-sentence, paragraph-by-paragraph, book-by-book basis.

The publishing industry has stooped terribly low to bestow on King a lifetime award that has previously gone to the novelists Saul Bellow and Philip Roth and to playwright Arthur Miller. By awarding it to King, they recognize nothing but the commercial value of his books, which sell in the millions but do little more for humanity than keep the publishing world afloat. If this is going to be the criterion in the future, then perhaps next year the committee should give its award for distinguished contribution to Danielle Steel, and surely the Nobel Prize for literature should go to J.K. Rowling."

Is Bloom right or his he just "such a bitch"? Check out the sample pages from "The Stand," and see for yourself.

Posted by aalkon at 12:42 AM | Comments (3)

September 23, 2003

Welfare For Rich, Famous People

Welfare For Rich, Famous People
You can�t visit David Geffen�s Malibu beach house. It�s private property -- and off-limits to all hoi polloi -- unless it gets flooded. That�s where the hoi polloi come in. Make no mistake: we polloi still don�t get to visit. We just get to pick up the cost of rebuilding after the flood. Sweet, huh? Just like Bill Clinton�s deal for his new offices -- those four times the size of his digs in The White House. Don�t you worry that he�ll be cracking into the $12 million he got from his recent book deal to pay the rent. It�s you and me who�ll be picking up the tab -- as we do for all ex-presidents -- rich, obscenely rich, or poor. The same goes for all the rich old people sucking off Medicare. At what point do we say, �Yo, moneybags, pick up your own damn tab?�

Posted by aalkon at 08:50 AM | Comments (0)

The Unsexy List

The Unsexy List
"50 genital-retracting people, places, and things, from the Nerve staff." A few of my genital-retracting faves:

1. Lip liner. To paraphrase David Cross: "Lip liner makes your mouth look like an asshole. You're talking and I'm imagining six different types of shit coming out of your mouth."

4. Match.com personals. Fun-loving gal, 42, likes long walks on the beach, long Sunday afternoons at Linens 'n' Things, bridge . . . PLEASE KILL ME.

6. Denise Richards. Sexy two years ago, but now looks like she's been ridden hard and hung out wet.

15. Pilates. Yoga minus the kinky contortions. There are better ways to spend an hour on your back.

29. All-over tans. Frequently accompanied by a clean-shaved pubic region, a pot belly and a NASCAR visor. A deep-tanned penis looks like a dry-cured meat snack you bought at a gas station. Tan lines � hot!

43. Blogging about your sex life. People who do this are under two delusions: a) that everyone wants to fuck them, and b) that their writing is interesting. Which is worse: sexual megalomania or an inability to edit? It's a dead heat. The online equivalent of that excruciatingly monotonous blowjob scene in every porn movie ever made.

What do you find unsexy? Add your metaphorical cold showers below!

Posted by aalkon at 12:37 AM | Comments (23)

September 22, 2003

"I Did Not Have Financial Relations With That Company!"

"I Did Not Have Financial Relations With That Company!"
According to this Boston Globe piece by Derrick Z. Jackson, that's pretty much what Dick Cheney claimed about Halliburton. Cheney's public disclosure financial sheets tell a different story -- six figures in deferred salary from Halliburton to Cheney in both 2001 and 2002:

Flushed into the open, Cheney spokeswoman Catherine Martin said the vice president will continue to receive about $150,000 a year from Halliburton in 2003, 2004, and 2005. If President Bush wins a second term, that means Cheney will make at least $800,000 from the company while sitting in office.

Martin said the payments did not represent a lie. She said Cheney had already earned that salary. She said Cheney took out an insurance policy that would guarantee the money would be paid to him no matter what happened to the company.

Five years ago, America was in a tizzy over President Clinton's "That depends on what the meaning of is, is." That was over lying about sex. For that, Clinton was impeached. Now, we have a vice president who tells America he has severed his ties even as his umbilical cord doubles his salary. To him, it depends what the meaning of i$, i$.

To me, it "i$" much more worrisome than a Sleazo-In-Chief who lied about getting blow jobs under the desk -- especially since I didn't see Clinton awarding Monica a multi-million dollar, no-bid contract to produce handbags for the Pentagon.

(via Metafilter)

Posted by aalkon at 05:00 PM | Comments (6)

Tiger Beat

Tiger Beat
Need to read? Then you'll be happy to hear that Lionel Tiger, one of my favorite anthropologists (and commentarians), has a new book out -- a compilation of his New York Press, Daily News, New Yorker, and Wall Street Journal columns, called "Apes Of New York." Here's a quote from one of his New York Press columns, entitled "Brain-And-Mouth Disease," about America's clutching grip on myths about fat and cholesterol:

...While the individual steps of the effect of fat have been demonstrated, the whole chain of events and their impact has not been. Among people not already at risk for heart disease (like enthusiastic smokers with high blood pressure), according to Taubes and the research of which he is the accountant, the evidence is weak that sharply reduced consumption of saturated fats will increase longevity more than a few weeks, perhaps as much as three months. As long ago as 1969, the National Heart Institute stated plainly, "It is not known whether dietary manipulation has any effect whatsoever on coronary heart disease." In fact, the authors of the report in which this was the conclusive sentence were concerned that, because fat is so important to cell membranes and the brain (which is 70 percent fat), too little fat could be a more serious medical deficit than too much. There is some evidence that very low cholesterol levels are associated with increased risk for auto accidents and aggressive interaction. Japanese physicians have found that low levels were associated with hemorrhagic stroke, and may counsel their patients to raise their levels.

Since the beginning of the 70s Americans have dropped their consumption of fat to about 34 percent of their calories, down from more than 40 percent beforehand. The incidence of heart disease does not seem to have declined, according to a 10-year study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1998. Nonetheless, the treatment of heart disease has improved enormously�with more than 5.4 million heart-related procedures compared with 1.2 million in 1979. This may provide the questionable impression that it is dietary change that is responsible for improved coronary experience.

Furthermore, the replacement of fat-containing foods by carbohydrates may have contributed to an epidemic of obesity and then diabetes among Americans. The term "fat-free" on a product appears to provide permission to consume large portions of it, producing an intake well beyond what seems to be necessary to balance energy consumed and energy used. Taubes describes how the principal political supporter of the low-fat push in the public arena was Sen. George McGovern, who had himself gone through the severely low-fat Pritikin diet program. McGovern then held two days of committee testimony in 1976 on the subject, and followed up by commissioning a former labor reporter for the Providence Journal, who had no scientific background, to produce the first "Dietary Goals for the United States."

This article of Tiger's happens to reference the work of one of my favorite science writers, Gary Taubes, who's most "secularly" famous for his New York Times Magazine article, "What If It's All Been A Big Fat Lie?"

If the members of the American medical establishment were to have a collective find-yourself-standing-naked-in-Times-Square-type nightmare, this might be it. They spend 30 years ridiculing Robert Atkins, author of the phenomenally-best-selling ''Dr. Atkins' Diet Revolution'' and ''Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution,'' accusing the Manhattan doctor of quackery and fraud, only to discover that the unrepentant Atkins was right all along. Or maybe it's this: they find that their very own dietary recommendations -- eat less fat and more carbohydrates -- are the cause of the rampaging epidemic of obesity in America. Or, just possibly this: they find out both of the above are true.

In other words, Grease Is Good -- providing you don't swab it all up with a loaf of bread.

Posted by aalkon at 12:00 AM | Comments (2)

September 21, 2003

You Can't Read Her In The LA Times

Turkey-Watching With Jill
With all the ridiculous last-minute bills flying around Sacramento right now, the only thing (save a wise decision from the Ninth Circuit Court) that might save California would be Gray Davis breaking all ten fingers. Political columnist and TV and radio commentator Jill Stewart runs down the turkeys lining up to be signed by Davis:

SB 796, by Joseph Dunn. Allows workers to seek fines of $200 each from firms who commit tiny labor violations. California's labor code is thicker than a Manhattan phone book. One code specifies a font size employee notices must be posted in. So 50 employees can now get $10,000 over improper fonts. More ice for our business climate. Dunn's special interest servicing of lawyers and unions is shameless.

AB 1742. If your taxman has more than 100 clients, he now must send your return in via Internet. Your privacy is at risk.

AB 231, by Darrell Steinberg. "Reforms" the food stamp program, which required that nobody own a fancy car if taxpayers were buying their food. Up to now, car value was capped at $4,650. But now? Now, you can own a Rolls, and your household can own as many luxury cars as it wishes. Also, no more face-to-face interviews to qualify. Just give a buzz. Who's this for---busy, jobless billionaires? If it's really so poor workers can keep reliable cars, why wasn't a new cap set of $15,000? Did I mention that California's food stamp program is rife with fraud, and in particular is being targeted by con artists who are not poor?

What do you want to bet all of these, and more, become insta-laws? And what, exactly, are you waiting for? Get your own idiotic bill in today. If you've got a vote, Gray's got a pen!

Posted by aalkon at 06:37 PM | Comments (0)

Can You Hear Me Now, General?

Can You Hear Me Now, General?
Average Americans aren�t the only ones with crappy cell phone service. According to a story on Slate, "US reconstruction officers in Baghdad could not even talk with U.S. military officers down the street," thanks to Pentagon idiots who awarded the Iraq cellular network contract to WorldCom/MCI. What did WorldCom/MCI do to deserve such an award? Maybe it was perpetrating "the largest financial fraud case" in American business, or maybe it was having "no prior experience at building cellular networks." As could be expected, they've done a simply brilliant job in Iraq:

Not until July did the cellular network in Iraq start up, and it turned out to be less than occupation officials expected�or needed. According to officials who were there at the time, they could use the phones (which cost a staggering $4,000 a piece) to talk only among themselves. The network did not extend, or link, to Iraqi telephones.

According to a Defense Department official, if someone working for the U.S. occupation authority needed to talk with a battalion commander, there was no way to make direct contact. He or she had to call a desk officer back in the Pentagon, who would jot down the message and call the commander himself. If the commander wanted to reply to the message, the same desk officer would jot down the response and call back the occupation authority.

Fee-fi-fo-fum, I smell the sickly cologne of lobbyist-scum. Too cynical for you? Well, there is another explanation: that the people running the Pentagon make their business decisions by shaking a Magic Eight-Ball.

Posted by aalkon at 12:16 PM | Comments (1)

September 20, 2003

Shrinks On The Take

Shrinks On The Take
Wonder why your shrink prescribes one drug and not another? Maybe it pays for him...literally. Noted schizophrenia researcher Dr. E. Fuller Torrey writes about how pharmaceutical companies surreptitiously put shrinks on their payroll by funding their conference trips and talks; and then, here's the really scary part -- how they can monitor how loyal the docs are to the company's drugs in return:

Pharmaceutical companies in many countries can now use computerized pharmacy databases (which delete the names of the patients) to track how many prescriptions any given physician writes for any given drug. So Eli Lilly could sponsor Dr. Smith from Detroit or Manchester, send him to Berlin, and then monitor his prescribing pattern following the congress. If Dr. Smith's prescriptions for Zyprexa and Prozac do not increase sufficiently, a company representative can remind him how well he was treated in Berlin. And besides, isn't he interested in going to Copenhagen next summer?

There is clear evidence that attending conferences such as the Berlin meeting does affect the prescribing practices of physicians. In one U.S. study, 10 physicians were invited by a pharmaceutical company to attend "all-expenses paid" symposia at "popular Sunbelt vacation sites." The company tracked the physicians' prescribing patterns for two drugs, for 22 months before and 17 months after the symposia. Though the physicians had predicted that their attendance would not affect their prescribing practices, their prescriptions for one drug increased 87 percent and for the other, 272 percent. Other studies have shown that attending drug-sponsored education courses affects drug-prescribing practices, even though the physicians deny it. Indeed, if it were otherwise, why would pharmaceutical companies sponsor such activities?

So, maybe you're not all that crazy. Maybe your shrink just owes a few people. It's kind of like the mob, except that the mob never thought to give out pens and message pads with, say, John Gotti's name on them.

(via Metafilter)

Posted by aalkon at 05:21 AM | Comments (6)

September 19, 2003

Donated: Your Privacy

Donated: Your Privacy
If you flew Jet Blue in 2002 or before, a whole lot of people might know a whole lot about you. According to this Wired story, in September, 2002, Jet Blue transferred customer data to a defense contractor -- with the assistance of the Transportation Safety Administration, and without the knowledge or permission of the passengers -- and that's pretty damn creepy:

The contractor, Torch Concepts, then augmented that data with Social Security numbers and other sensitive personal information, including income level, to develop what looks to be a study of whether passenger-profiling systems such as CAPPS II are feasible.

The study, titled "Homeland Security -- Airline Passenger Risk Assessment," which JetBlue says was based on an unauthorized use of its data, was presented at a February technology conference.

JetBlue clearly violated its own privacy policy by transferring its passenger data. Such a violation could be grounds for an investigation of unfair business practices by the Federal Trade Commission, which has the authority to fine companies and issue injunctions.

"We made a special exemption for this one exceptional case," said Gareth Edmundson-Jones, a spokesman for JetBlue. "We clearly have to review internally the decision and reconsider our policies."

Picture this: You paid a little too much for that new car a few years back, feeling comforted that nobody knew but you. Wrong! Just you and the 500 conference attendees who saw the PowerPoint presentation of your "vehicle ownership information" -- if you had the bad fortune to "save" by flying Jet Blue. Have you learned your lesson? Take this quick, easy test (just one question): How do you spell "privacy" now?

ANSWER: B-O-Y-C-O-T-T J-E-T B-L-U-E.

How'dja do?

Posted by aalkon at 08:39 AM | Comments (0)

September 18, 2003

Equal Opportunity Incompetence

Equal Opportunity Incompetence
We'll know our society is color-blind when it becomes common for black people to suck all the way to the top just like white people. Fran Lebowitz has it right:

"We will have equality when dopey black people get into Harvard because their chair-endowing grandfathers went there. We will have equality when incompetent black people buy their way into the Senate. We will have equality when larcenous black union plumbers start not showing up in greater and greater numbers. We will have equality when the unjust deserts and ill-gotten gains are spread around impartially. One Clarence Thomas is not enough."

Carol Moseley Braun for president, anyone?

Posted by aalkon at 08:27 AM | Comments (1)

September 17, 2003

John Ashcroft On My Shoulder

John Ashcroft On My Shoulder
Oh, that poor, misunderstood John Ashcroft. According to a bit on Reason's blog, the government doesn't want to know "how far you have gotten on the latest Tom Clancy novel." Well, not yet, anyway:

Ashcroft does not deny that the PATRIOT Act authorizes the government to monitor your reading habits (and many other private aspects of your life). He just says the government has no interest in doing so. All it wants to do is catch the bad guys, and if you've done nothing wrong you have no cause to be concerned--presumably because government officials never waste resources, make mistakes, or act maliciously. In other words: Trust us.

Posted by aalkon at 01:47 PM | Comments (3)

September 16, 2003

Crime Pays, It Just Doesn�t Pay Me

Crime Pays, It Just Doesn�t Pay Me
The LA City Attorney just called me about George Gomez, my car thief. (The LA Times legal department weenies made me call him �Fred Lopez� in my story even though it was clear I had his real name, along with an answering machine message from him apologizing for stealing my car and a signed letter of apology.) Anyway, the City Attorney had contacted me once before, last August, to see if George �had made his restitution payment of $75 this month" for the damage he�d done to my pink Rambler when he�d stolen it.

�$75 dollars this month!� I said. �That would be $75 more than I�ve ever gotten from George.�

Well, she called me this morning to let me know that George was �in custody,� and again asked if he�s been "keeping up with his payments." (Of course he hasn�t!) She told me he�ll be in court this afternoon (she mentioned that he has �lots of parole violations� -- surprise, surprise!), and said if the judge thinks George isn�t likely to pay, he'll throw him in jail for 180 days instead. This is fine by me, except the part about the 180 days in jail meaning he doesn�t have to pay me.

I don�t see why he can�t combine jail and paying me. I think of it as "The Hamster Wheel Principle." Let him run on the wheel (or hammer out license plates) until he earns what he owes me, then let him out. That�s the way it should be for all prisoners. Unfortunately, government isn�t quite the cold, cruel bitch I am, so they�ll probably just lock him up someplace with a better color TV than I have, and let him sleep off his time.

Posted by aalkon at 11:22 AM | Comments (5)

A Cadillac In Every Garage

A Cadillac In Every Garage!
What will Gray Davis give away next? There are, like, four businesses still left in this state, and they're all packing up as Davis signs any old bill anybody puts in front of him. It gets worse. A federal appeals court has postponed the October 7 recall election due to "voting equipment defects." I would say "last one out of California, please turn out the lights!" but I'm sure, by the time the election rolls around in March of 2004, we'll all be down to the last of our homemade candles.

Posted by aalkon at 01:55 AM | Comments (2)

Government Pot Is Rot

Government Pot Is Rot
Canada passed out medical marijuana and those who smoked it wanted their money back.

(via Reason�s blog)

Posted by aalkon at 12:46 AM | Comments (0)

September 15, 2003

The Patriot Act: It's Not Just For Terrorists Anymore!

The Patriot Act: It's Not Just For Terrorists Anymore!
Meth-heads across America, watch out! According to this AP report, Uncle Sam wants you in the cell next to the guy from Al-Quaida, and he's going to use the new powers granted by the Patriot Act to put you there:

A North Carolina county prosecutor charged a man accused of running a methamphetamine lab with breaking a new state law barring the manufacture of chemical weapons. If convicted, Martin Dwayne Miller could get 12 years to life in prison for a crime that usually brings about six months.

Prosecutor Jerry Wilson says he isn't abusing the law, which defines chemical weapons of mass destruction as "any substance that is designed or has the capability to cause death or serious injury" and contains toxic chemicals.

"Within six months of passing the Patriot Act, the Justice Department was conducting seminars on how to stretch the new wiretapping provisions to extend them beyond terror cases," said Dan Dodson, a spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. "They say they want the Patriot Act to fight terrorism, then, within six months, they are teaching their people how to use it on ordinary citizens."

Let's see...if weapons of mass destruction are now "'any substance that...has the capability to cause death or serious injury' and contains toxic chemicals"...doesn't this mean we have to send the (much-)alleged former coke-head George Bush to jail; at the very least, for decreeing that all those old power plants can now puff black smoke into our lungs with reckless abandon?

Posted by aalkon at 10:00 AM | Comments (8)

Very Funny Money

Very Funny Money
It's a $200 bill with a pic of George Bush on the front and The White House on the back, with lawn signs including "WE LIKE ICE CREAM" and "USA DESERVES A TAX CUT." A cashier at a Roanoke, Virginia Food Lion took it seriously, accepting it in payment for $150 in groceries and giving the perp $50 change. (No word on who was pictured on that $50, and whether the lawn on the back included a bathtub, plastic pink flamingos, gnomes, or baby deer.)

Posted by aalkon at 01:14 AM | Comments (0)

The Most Talentless Music Acts Of All Time!

The Most Talentless Music Acts Of All Time!
The Week magazine served up a few tasty morsels from Blender magazine�s "50 Worst Artists In Music History." Here are my personal favorites:

#26, Celine Dion
Her �shrieking uber-hits, particularly the Titanic theme, My Heart Will Go On, would have made the passengers �leap to their doom long before the iceberg did its dastardly deed.�

#39, Bob Geldof
�Should have stuck to saving the planet.� His Sex, Age, & Death, with its �achingly embarrassing claims of undiminished sexual potency,� is a midlife crisis set to music.

#37, The Doors
First, Jim Morrison �inflicted his terminally adolescent view� on millions of unfortunate listeners. Then �he got fat and died.�

Posted by aalkon at 12:58 AM | Comments (5)

September 14, 2003

How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Dentist's Drill

How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Dentist's Drill
Three short stories in the LA Times about yammering parents on cell phones and the children they ignore helped me look back fondly on a few hours in the dentist's chair:

My dentist�s waiting room is about the size of a coffee table. I'm sharing it with a woman and her little girl. I just want to sit there quietly and distract myself from the horror to come by reading old copies of People. The woman's cell phone rings.

Now, I might be intolerant and unreasonable, but even I make allowances for "tell the babysitter not to let Johnny smoke crack before dinner" calls. This isn't one of them. No, the woman starts having a full-on, dentist's drill-shrill gossip session about her dull life. This must stop.

I start small, with a little �Hey, do you mind?� wave at the woman, and work my way up to expansive hand gestures and loud "Shhhhush"-ing. Unfortunately, every molecule of her attention seems to be commanded by her toe-curlingly dull conversation; hence, notice of somebody gesturing wildly two feet from her face appears to escape her. After a few minutes, I contemplate beating her to death with the June 1999 People and stomping her cell phone into small bits of plastic, but I recognize that postponing dental work with a lengthy court process will give me more time to be anxious about the drilling to come.

I try the spoken word: "A little quiet, please!" Nothing. I turn to her child and say very loudly, �Mommy has bad manners.� Of course, I could have been saying "Hi, I'm a pedophile, how 'bout you come over and see me some time?" and Mommy would have been none-the-wiser. Finally, I get right in Mommy's face and loudly tell her to put a lid on it: "You need to get off the cell phone right now!"

Mommy turns to me and goes all slack-jawed. �Hold on,� she says to the person on the cell, and to me: ��Scuze me?�

�Your cell phone," I say. "You�re talking very loudly and this is a small space and it�s bothering me.� She makes a little put upon grunt and gets off the phone. We have a boring argument, which she loses. Unfortunately, she is too dumb to understand this. The hygienist calls me before I can remedially educate her, and I am treated to the comparative peace and quiet of my dentist's Black & Decker.

Posted by aalkon at 12:37 PM | Comments (0)

September 13, 2003

Why Did Daniel Pearl Die?

Why Did Daniel Pearl Die?
The New York Observer's Ron Rosenbaum speculates on Bernard-Henri L�vy's speculations.

Posted by aalkon at 01:48 PM | Comments (9)

What Did He Know And When Did He Know It?

What Did He Know And When Did He Know It?
The contradictory reports about Bush and 9-11.

(via Cold Fury)

Posted by aalkon at 10:11 AM | Comments (4)

Cash Cows

Cash Cows
"When you see what some girls marry, you realize how they must hate to work for a living." --Journalist Helen Rowland, quoted in Forbes

(via The Week)

Posted by aalkon at 07:33 AM | Comments (2)

September 12, 2003

Is This The State Of California...

Is This The State Of California...
Or Mrs. DeMaio's third grade class? According to a Fox News story, the California Senate just voted to punish that naughty, naughty Davis boy for saying mean things about that funny way Arnie Schwarzenegger talks. Davis, that big meanie, is supposed to apologize. Senator Martha Escutia was one of those who voted for the motion:

"I am not going to deny that when the governor made fun of Mr. Schwarzenegger's accent it was very, very painful, especially for someone like me who speaks with an accent."

Awww! Suddenly, I think expanding the recall and getting a few grownups running the state for a change would be a very good idea.

(via Volokh.com)

Posted by aalkon at 12:51 AM | Comments (1)

1-800-CLICK-THIS-LINK-IF-YOU'RE-DUMB-AS-CEMENT

1-800-CLICK-THIS-LINK-IF-YOU'RE-DUMB-AS-CEMENT
Apparently, the latest scam to hit AOL's members' mailboxes (well, mine, anyway) is this little "we just charged your card, okay?" dealie, where you're supposed to click a link in a completely unofficial-looking email and probably "verify" your credit card number:

Dear AOL member,

There has been a purchase added to your AOL billing method. This purchase took place at 1-800-flowers.com. If this order was unauthorized and you would like to cancel or review this order, please click here (link removed to protect the dangerously stupid)

Below is listed information about your order.
Produce - 32 dozen long stem roses

Price - $79.99
Shipment Type - 3-5 Day Ground
Shipping and handling - $13.65
Total Price - $93.64

Anybody who's dumb enough to believe this sort of thing probably has a hard time performing complicated tasks like sealing an envelope or crossing the street without advance planning. That goes double or triple for anybody who gets duped by this particular email, which was sent from the screen name of some (purported) AOL billing department lackey named...YoungFatHoe!

Posted by aalkon at 12:00 AM | Comments (2)

September 11, 2003

Telemarketers Taste Their Own Meds

Don't Call Us, And We Won't Call You
Are you annoying? If so, chances are you irritate the crap out of others free of charge. Why not become a telemarketer and make it your business to irritate others? Maybe even irritate your way into a new car!

Telemarketers have been much maligned lately, with major media saturation about the "Do Not Call" list. Still, their spokesdude, Tim Searcy, wants to make it clear that telemarketers are as patriotic as the next shill, uh, person. They aren't merely struggling for the continued "right" to interrupt your dinner; he insists it's actually First Amendment rights they're "fighting for"! You know: "Give me liberty, or give me a 'yes' on switching your long distance!" (Wait -- is that the Nokia ring-tone national anthem I hear in the distance?)

It's really great telemarketers are such staunch defenders of freedom of speech, because Dave Barry just printed the phone number of their association (877-779-3974) so we can all feel free to call and commend them for their, uh, patriotism. Oddly, they didn't appear to be very grateful to Mr. Barry for working to further their cause, and even made a snippy remark about receiving "no warning" before angry telemarketees by the bazillion interrupted their important business:

Though meant as a prank, the Barry column has had harmful consequences for the ATA, Searcy said. An ATA staffer has spent about five hours a day for the past six days monitoring the voice mail and clearing out messages.

Tragic, simply tragic. Be sure to call the ATA, toll-free, and express your, uh, sympathy: 877-779-3974

On A First Amendment Note: I'm all for freedom of speech...such as the freedom to hire somebody to stand on public property to ask us to give them our phone numbers so people in a boiler room can irritate the crap out of us. The freedom I'm not for is the freedom to hijack a telephone line I pay for to interrupt me at dinner time (or any other time) to try to sell me something. This freedom is, however, available for a price, per Tyler Cowen's suggestion.

AMY ALKON'S PRICE LIST FOR TELEMARKETERS:

Interrupting me during my nap: $3,012.50 (not including tax).
During dinner: $3,761.23.
During sex: $13,456.50.
Other prices available upon request.

Telemarketers, I eagerly await your calls!

(via Romenesko)

Posted by aalkon at 09:03 AM | Comments (10)

Just The Junk Fax

Just The Junk Fax
Yes, this is a real letter, which I just faxed to the junk faxers at TheToner.com, who used MY fax ink and paper to try to sell me their crap. Bad idea!

To whom it may concern at TheToner.com:

I just moments ago sent you an invoice for $100, for the junk fax you sent me, without my permission, to my fax number 555-555-5555. After reviewing junkfax.org, I realize that you owe me $1500. I would be willing to settle for $1000. Consider this your invoice, and pay that amount immediately. I�m engaged in a settlement process now with the US Mint for sending me three junk faxes, and I would be more than happy to take you to court, as I was going to do with the US Mint before one of their senior attorneys called me and told me they would settle, and sent me a form to collect from them for that purpose. Please have your attorney contact me this week to let me know when I can expect a check.

Posted by aalkon at 02:58 AM | Comments (8)

Unfair And Imbalanced

Unfair And Imbalanced
Arnold and Maria are appearing on Oprah's season debut. When will it be "Oprah Time" for The Gray Squirrel and the rest? It's hard to loathe Gray Davis and Bustamante more than I do, but you have to admit that "buying" free air time with celebrity when other candidates get none goes totally against the FCC's Equal Time rule.

(via David "Tell Me Everything" Rensin)

UPDATE: More on the Equal Time rolllback -- including a determination, reported in The Washington Post, that Howard Stern's show is exempted as Serious News. Mmmhmmm. Is there no shame there in government-land?

Posted by aalkon at 12:53 AM | Comments (0)

September 10, 2003

Liberty, Justice, And Abstinence For All

Liberty, Justice, And Abstinence For All
To anybody who doesn't think it's such a big deal, having a fundamentalist and his religious fanatic cronies running the country, check out how they're trying to stop funding for sex-related research:

Last December, a $147,000 grant for a Northwestern University study of women's sexual arousal was called "disgusting" by Rep. Dave Weldon, Florida Republican. Women were paid as much as $75 to "watch a series of commercially available film clips, some of which will be sexually explicit, while we monitor your body's sexual arousal," according to a flyer seeking volunteers for the study led by psychology professor J. Michael Bailey.

Disgusting? Kind of like women whose arousal problems go unnecessarily untreated -- who, in turn, develop a lifelong "headache" -- unnecessarily leading to the breakup of their marriages and relationships.

Posted by aalkon at 08:36 AM | Comments (14)

Put On Your Red Wig

Put On Your Red Wig
Yes, it's that time again, time to tell me what you think about what I think. Here's Connect The Spots:

Just because a player�s found love doesn�t mean he�s going to stop looking for it. Perhaps that�s why there�s an aspiring Annette Bening in every woman. Bening is more than a movie star -- she�s the woman who turned Warren Beatty into Ward Cleaver. It�s the ultimate female ego-polisher, to be the one who had what it took to tame the beast. The truth is, there�s no woman fabulous enough. Only the beast can tame the beast...more��

Comment on this week's column posting. Just below and to the right.

Posted by aalkon at 12:31 AM | Comments (7)

September 09, 2003

Henry Kissinger Death Watch

Henry Kissinger Death Watch
According to an informed source, Henry Kissinger is �quite vibrant.� You heard it here first -- but only because I�m making a Henry Kissinger joke in my column that�s going out today. I had to make reasonably sure he wouldn�t kick off in the next four weeks, which would mean I�d have to replace my column�s second question. (Sadly, some editors have something against running columns that are in very poor taste...poor dears.)

Posted by aalkon at 11:06 AM | Comments (0)

September 08, 2003

Video Colon

Live, From Up Your Butt!
"Although colonoscopy is very effective in detecting cancer, some people are reluctant to undergo the procedure," writes Anthony J. Brown, MD, apparently confused at why going to the proctologist's office to get a camera shoved up one's butt isn't commanding a bigger share of America's leisure dollars.

According to Brown's article, it sounds like doctors will soon be able to get the picture from the outside looking in, by taking a special x-ray of your colon -- called "virtual colonoscopy" -- an admittedly dull alternative for those who prefer to let their doctor relive his recent car trip through winding mountain roads by revving a video camera up and around their large intestine.

Posted by aalkon at 09:14 AM | Comments (12)

It's Your Body, Sell It If You Want To

It's Your Body, Sell It If You Want To
Heidi Fleiss makes the case for legalizing prostitution.

(via Instapundit)

Posted by aalkon at 12:56 AM | Comments (6)

September 07, 2003

Hair Down There Plugs

Alternative Uses For The Press-On Goatee
Yes, just as girls in Dubuque and Des Moines are getting into the Brazilian bikini wax and other extreme forms of down there defoliation, their Korean counterparts are going the other way. Yup. Korean cooter country is getting very...bushy, with pubic hair plugs, and maybe even an upsurge in merkin sales. (That's the name for a pubic wig, FYI.) Hmmm, suddenly, I'm picturing a rather rude version of that old Rolling Stones album cover. Oh, quit complaining. You've known for quite some time that I'm utterly inappropriate and sick. (Isn't that what keeps you coming back for more?)

Posted by aalkon at 01:58 PM | Comments (2)

My Kinda Gay-Basher

My Kinda Gay-Basher
In that 1977 Oui interview Mickey Kaus dug up, Arnold uses the word "fag" with all the animosity of somebody describing "that guy in the blue car":

"Recently I posed for a gay magazine, which caused much comment. But it doesn't bother me. Gay people are fighting the same kind of stereotyping that bodybuilders are: People have certain misconceptions about them just as they do about us. Well, I have absolutely no hang-ups about the fag business; though it may bother some bodybuilders, it doesn't bother me at all."

The fact that Arnold comes off, in this interview, as the antithesis of somebody who hates (or even feels uncomfortable about) homosexuals -- and remember, this is 1977!! -- doesn't stop a handful of idiots from using the interview as a platform for painting Arnold as some gay-slurring regressive. Luckily, we have Matt Welch (yet another talented Los Angeles writer and thinker you can't read in The LA Times) to set the record straight:

So for Schwarzenegger -- his sport's top athlete -- to defend gays against unjust stereotyping 26 years ago, is far more remarkable than the fact he used a word that was not, at the time, widely considered to be "a vulgar epithet," as Los Angeles Times columnist Tim Rutten recently described it (without using the actual word).

Yet the news stories about the Oui article were filled with "fag"-bashing. "In an interview with an adult magazine 26 years ago," the Washington Post wrote, in a typical lead, "actor Arnold Schwarzenegger, now the leading Republican candidate in California's recall election, described participating in an orgy, said he smoked marijuana and referred to gay men as 'fags.' "

Other reporters and columnists openly doubted Arnold's tolerance, for example in the San Jose Mercury News: "He also said he harboured no prejudices against gays, although he referred to them as 'fags.' "

Meanwhile, on the Web, such bloggers as Robert Garcia Tagorda (boomshock.blogspot.com) were digging up 10-year-old articles about Schwarzenegger's involvement with various gay-rights groups, such as Hollywood Supports. And the candidate continued to profess support for gay adoption and civil unions, unpopular positions in the state and (especially) national Republican parties.

Posted by aalkon at 12:35 AM | Comments (9)

September 06, 2003

Cathy Seipp, On Writing For Penthouse

Cathy Seipp, On Writing For Penthouse
"...To proper feminists who ask how I can work for a magazine that exploits women, my answer is always: Go write for a women's magazine before you talk to me about exploited women.

Lured by the prospect of what, ludicrously, always seems like easy money, I have occasionally over the years done just that. But after weeks of snippy, sorority, slambook-style fee negotiations -- 'And FYI, the editor said, 'Why does she think she should get that much?' -- and torturously rewriting and rewriting until the correct women's mag tone (perky, smarmy, know-it-all, generic) is achieved, that fatally tempting $2 a word shrinks to about five cents an hour. At Penthouse, on the other hand, the drill always went like this: Accept advance, turn in article, hear back from editor within hours about how much he liked it, see not one word changed, collect $6,000."

(Cathy's blog here)

Posted by aalkon at 08:21 AM | Comments (0)

The Future Of Marriage In The United Christian States Of America

The Future Of Marriage In The United Christian States Of America
The Baptist Press reports that "the future of America is at stake in the struggle over legalizing same-sex" marriage. And they're right. Are we going to become the United Christian States Of America, or continue as a secular country?

The fundamentalists trot out frightened idiots like columnist Maggie Gallagher, who howled, at a Senate hearing, that the institution of marriage will be forever damaged if it's removed from its narrow, religiously-based definition. She argues (naturally, in a religiously-correct way) that children are central to the purpose of marriage. Well then, Maggie, let's go all the way and make couples take fertility tests before they tie the knot! "Barren" women or men who don't have enough swimmies have to stay single forever! Come on Maggie, it's called logic, and it's best when it isn't selectively employed.

Gallagher sees great horror in the idea that gay couples would become parents -- probably because she's never seen any gay parents. My experience has been that gay couples are amazing parents -- especially because they aren't having kids by accident ("Oops! The little strip turned pink!"). Because they have to go through rigorous adoption procedures, arrange for a surrogate mother to carry a child, or go the turkey baster route, gay parents don't have children unless they're really committed to raising them. That's something that they don't have in common with straight parents -- and what a good thing that is.

The whole ridiculous hearing left Keith Bradkowski, a gay guy who lost his partner in the 9-11 attack, feeling pretty perplexed:

"Jeff and I only sought to love and take care of each other," he said. "I do not understand why that is a threat to some people and I cannot understand why the leaders of this country would hold a hearing on the best way to prevent that from happening."

UPDATE: Eugene Volokh posted this report from the Federal Marriage Amendment hearing from Dale Carpenter, a professor who testified.

Posted by aalkon at 08:00 AM | Comments (7)

Theocracy Now!

Theocracy Now!
Just what the world needs, more pregnant poor women who can't care for their hungry babies! Well, thank George Bush for fulfilling that need, by expanding a White House policy that "prohibits federal funds from going to international organizations that perform abortions or lobby foreign governments to liberalize their abortion laws." (Don't forget that many fundamentalists consider mere contraception a form of abortion.) Well, I'm sure Mr. Bush, with his commitment to the "right to life," will be coming right around with funds to help all those poor women with 12 starving children have the right to a nice hot lunch...for the rest of their lives.

(via ifeminists.net)

Posted by aalkon at 07:15 AM | Comments (0)

September 05, 2003

Constitutionally Clueless Legislators

Constitutionally Clueless Legislators
"Apparently, some legislators are upset enough by courts actually, you know, enforcing the First Amendment that they've decided to resurrect a Ten Commandments Defense Act," intended to smooth the way for religious displays on government property, writes Julian Sanchez in Reason's blog.

If religion is so great, how come all these congressmen think they need to get government to publicize it, with glaringly unconstitutional bills like this? Sanchez notes a truly pressing need, on the part of these legislators, to go back for a little remedial government -- as in, a little Schoolhouse Rock -- so they can learn that about that "separation of church and state" thingie. Scary. Obviously, "the best and the brightest" are doing something other than running our country.

Posted by aalkon at 02:04 PM | Comments (28)

Why Religious Fanatics Kill

Why Religious Fanatics Kill
Peter I. Rose reviews Jessica Stern's new book, Terror In The Name Of God, in which she interviews various and sundry extremist sickos to discover what they have in common:

Almost everyone Stern interviewed said they were doing God's will, defending the faithful against the lies and evil deeds of their enemies. Such testimonials, she suggests, "often mask a deeper kind of angst and a deeper kind of fear - fear of a godless universe, of chaos, of loose rules, and of loneliness." It may be that many are "projecting fears and inadequacies on the Other."

Stern also found abundant evidence to support the widely held assumption that lines between religious expression and political action are frequently blurred and are justified only by internalizing an ends-justify-the-means sensibility.

Stern suggests we respond, "not just with guns...but by seeking to create confusion, conflict, and competition among terrorists and between terrorists and their sponsors and sympathizers. We should encourage the condemnation of extremist interpretations of religion by peace-loving practitioners."

Contrary to what the anti-globalization huffy-puffies will tell you, giving them all wide-screen TVs couldn't hurt either. And I'm serious. Give the average would-be terrorist a choice between watching Law & Order reruns all day, or blowing a lot of "infidels" up, I'd be willing to place my bets with Jerry Orbach and crew.

Posted by aalkon at 09:39 AM | Comments (13)

Excuse Of The Day

Excuse Of The Day
"My apartment building is burning down so I can't come to work!" --actual excuse from my assistant, whom I happen to believe. What's your excuse?

Posted by aalkon at 09:37 AM | Comments (9)

"Let's Be Moore Like Iran!"

"Let's Be Moore Like Iran!"
That's what an Iranian blogger notes Judge Moore is really saying with his refusal to remove The Ten Commandments from government premises. Jeff Jarvis, who keeps watch on the Iranian blog scene, excerpted the guy's comments:

"...Mr. Moore has violated the principle which sets the US government apart from regime's like that which is oppressing the people of Iran. by stating that the word of HIS 'god' shall overrule the laws of the State of Alabama, he has declared that he wishes Alabama to become a theocracy, just like the one in Iran. he has declared himself the representative of 'god' on Earth (or in Alabama), and has allowed himself to destroy the civil institutions of that State based on his religious bigotry. Mr. Moore should move to Iran, and join the Ayatollahs in doing the 'work of god', ie, opressing people and destroying democracy."

Now, here's a worthy cause -- chipping in for Ayatollah Moore's one-way plane ticket to Tehran!

Posted by aalkon at 08:24 AM | Comments (0)

September 04, 2003

"My Parents Got God, And All I Got Was This Lousy Casket!"

"My Parents Got God, And All I Got Was This Lousy Casket!"
Religion kills, and not just when terrorists strap bombs to their chests in the name of it. It's what parents of various denominations use to justify refusing medical treatment for their kids, writes Ronald Bailey in Reason:

"You can't beat, sexually abuse or starve your kids, but the law allows a parent to refuse medical care in favor of magic," says Dr. Seth Asser, co-author of an article on medically preventable child fatalities.

Yes, it's 2003, and we have all this science, and people are still crossing their fingers and hoping Johnny's cancer boo-boo will go away. Should we really allow kids to die because their parents are wildly irrational (and/or just plain stupid, as in the case of the parents who kidnapped their kid with cancer to prevent him from getting chemotherapy)?

And how many people are dead this week just because other people believe in god? Last week, for example, there was that darling little autistic boy in Milwaukee, who had the bad fortune to be born to a parent who found it perfectly reasonable to let her preacher wrap him in sheets, hold him down, kicking and screaming, and pray to �cast the devil out of him� -- in turn, suffocating him:

"What we was trying to do was call the spirit out of the young man that was making him not act right," (the preacher) said.

Sick, sick stuff. Add that little boy's death to those of myriad people in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia who were blown to bits in the past seven days or otherwise offed in the name of religion. If anybody's got a bit of time on their hands, it seems a worthwhile enterprise to keep daily or weekly count of people who would be alive, but for their primitive beliefs, or somebody else's. To keep the contest fair, I promise to keep close watch on the numbers of people strapping bombs to their chests and hopping on packed buses because they're highly rational and have a belief in free will and secular ethics.

Posted by aalkon at 02:10 AM | Comments (12)

Not A Democrat, Nor A Republican, But A Realist

Not A Democrat, Nor A Republican, But A Realist
Richard Forno is a Realist, and this is his "Manifesto" -- an excerpt from his new book, Weapons Of Mass Delusion: America's Real National Emergency. It makes more sense than anything I've read or heard in a long time. If he were running -- for governor, for president...for anything -- I'd vote for him in a white-hot second. Click that link up there! It's worth reading.

Posted by aalkon at 01:40 AM | Comments (1)

Mac Like Me

Mac Like Me
Isn�t it time you got rid of that uninnovative Windows thing that�s just one big motel for viruses? Here�s a story of a guy who switched to a Mac:

�...everything is more instinctive. However for someone used to using Windows, such as myself, it�s a difficult transition, you end up hunting for programs that you don�t need to hunt for, because they�re right in there for you, you just don�t realise it because it normally isn�t there. This is best illustrated with something that I discovered quite by accident with iTunes. I had downloaded an MP3 file, (www.mookee.com if you�re interested), and played it using iTunes. To my utter delight, it moved the MP3 file from where it was, renamed it to the same style as my CD ripped music files, and had added it to the library, not tacked it onto the end of my play list, or overwritten my play list with just that one song. To achieve such an effect on Windows you have to download a third party MP3 player, and possibly an add-on to do that for you. It is small, nice, differences like this that make using OS X such a pleasure. What was once a chore in Windows is a breeze in OS X.

This bit from the comments section, posted by �Bob Jones,� explains it all:

"The only problem with Microsoft is they have no taste... I don't mean that in a small way -- I mean that in a big way, in the sense that they don't think of original ideas, and they don't bring much culture into their products... So, I guess I am saddened, not by Microsoft's success -- I have no problem with their success; they've earned their success for the most part -- I have a problem with the fact that they just make really third-rate products."

-- Steve Jobs; Triumph of the Nerds/PBS documentary interview (May 1996)

Posted by aalkon at 12:44 AM | Comments (7)

September 03, 2003

A Peace Of Dynamite Strapped To A Vest

A Peace Of Dynamite Strapped To A Vest
What are they smoking over there at The Christian Science Monitor? They just put out an unsigned editorial, criticizing Israel for coming down a little too hard on the Palestinians, who have, get this..."generally lived peacefully within Israel's democracy"!! I think if, say, WASPs, in our country, were running around blowing up buses, we'd shut down a few Connecticut golf courses, too.

Posted by aalkon at 08:39 AM | Comments (11)

Enough About Me, What Do You Think About Me

Enough About Me, What Do You Think About Me?
Well, the way I think, that is. Read the column "Clod Is In The Details," linked from the excerpt below, that I just posted on the front of the site:

Why wait until you have a relationship with a woman to take her for granted? Take her for granted right from the start!...more>>

Feel free to post your comments here.

Posted by aalkon at 08:01 AM | Comments (9)

Presumed Guilty

Presumed Guilty
An amazing story by A.C. Thompson about a wrongful conviction overturned.

(via Romanesko)

Posted by aalkon at 06:18 AM | Comments (1)

September 02, 2003

George, Unzipped

George, Unzipped
Psychologist Oliver James analyzes the President.

(via Metafilter)

Posted by aalkon at 05:58 AM | Comments (1)

September 01, 2003

Something Frivolous To Read When You're Done Bitch-Slapping Me Over Global Warming

Something Frivolous To Read When You're Done Bitch-Slapping Me Over Global Warming
Six Questions asked by Cecile DuBois, and answered by Amy Alkon, intelli-bimbo -- my new name for myself this week. Cecile is only 14, but she's been accused (on Luke Ford's site) of being something along the lines of a "dissolute 46-year-old LA Times writer" -- quite a compliment, I think, if you omit the LA Times part.

Posted by aalkon at 11:30 PM | Comments (4)

Now You CO2 It, Now You Don't

Now You CO2 It, Now You Don't!
In 1996, the EPA looked to science to account for global warming:

Recent scientific evidence shows that the greenhouse effect is being increased by release of certain gases to the atmosphere that cause the Earth's temperature to rise. This is called "global warming." Carbon dioxide (CO2) accounts for about 85 percent of greenhouse gases released in the U.S. Carbon dioxide emissions are largely due to the combustion of fossil fuels in electric power generation. Methane (CH4) emissions, which result from agricultural activities, landfills, and other sources, are the second largest contributor to greenhouse gases in the U.S.

These days, the Bush administration appears to look to lobbyists, mainly, for its "science." Andrew Gumbel reports in Britain's Independent that the administration has just decreed "that carbon dioxide from industrial emissions - the main cause of global warming - is not a pollutant," excising "a 28-page section on climate change from an EPA report," and "ignoring a report by the US Academy of Sciences that argued that the evidence of climate change could not be ignored":

The Bush administration appears to be guided by a leaked memo by the political consultant Frank Luntz, which advised: "Should the public believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."

Don't know about you, but I prefer to err on the side of breathing, summer and winter temperatures that aren't falling off the ends of the thermometer, and not submerging big chunks of the planet.

Posted by aalkon at 09:27 PM | Comments (10)

August 31, 2003

The Old Guard Is Still Guarding The Henhouse

The Old Guard Is Still Guarding The Henhouse
In an LA Times Magazine story, Ms. Magazine proves it's still out of touch after all these years, despite its "mandate to remind American women that feminism isn't dead, isn't irrevelant..." Before they even published their first issue, they ditched their first choice of editor, former OC Register investigations editor Tracy Wood, because (among other things) she didn't parrot the old guard's moldy old party line:

(Wood) uses the slang term "grrl" as an example. To Wood, the word was an empowering term for young women. But, she says, to many at the foundation it was a sexist term. "To me, that was young woman teen slang, and that was it," Wood says. "But to women who had come through the movement and fought the battles, they didn't care how you spelled it, it was still the word 'girl.' And they had had such a fight against that word. You know, 'How are you girls doing?'�the patronizing approach to women, those kind of nuances. To me, they were just part of life..."

...just as they are to potential Ms. readers under 40, the kind they're unlikely to have many of if they cling to the old "we are victims" approach to feminism. Perish forbid that they should allow dissent between the generations (which might make the magazine interesting enough to read), or allow anyone to write anything about Ms. that might not be one big, wet, victim feminist-loving kiss. --Amy Alkon, humanist

Posted by aalkon at 07:15 PM | Comments (3)

August 29, 2003

Moore Than Ten Commandments

Moore Than Ten Commandments
Judge Roy Moore forgot a few, says Christopher Hitchens:

I wonder what would happen if secularists were now to insist that the verses of the Bible that actually recommend enslavement, mutilation, stoning, and mass murder of civilians be incised on the walls of, say, public libraries? There are many more than 10 commandments in the Old Testament, and I live for the day when Americans are obliged to observe all of them, including the ox-goring and witch-burning ones. (Who is Judge Moore to pick and choose?) Too many editorialists have described the recent flap as a silly confrontation with exhibitionist fundamentalism, when the true problem is our failure to recognize that religion is not just incongruent with morality but in essential ways incompatible with it.

(And incompatible with reason, too.)

Posted by aalkon at 03:42 AM | Comments (2)

Celebrities Are Pimpled, Too

Celebrities Are Pimpled, Too!
See?!

Posted by aalkon at 02:31 AM | Comments (4)

August 28, 2003

Jew Know Who

Jew Know Who
Who's to blame when priests have sex with young parishoners? Could it be...the priests?! Not according to Cardinal Meridiaga, the archbishop of Tegucigalpa, Honduras, "one of a few likely" candidates to succeed Pope John Paul II. Meriaga blames "the Jewish media," writes Alan Dershowitz in an LA Times op-ed piece.

This was an unusually speedy bit of finger-pointing for the church, which, of course, kept its fingers in its pockets for decades instead of pointing them at the rest of the pedophile priests. Is the Pope denouncing Meridiaga's hate-inspired words? Naw, he's too busy wagging a finger in opposition to gay people who want the right to formally declare their love for each other.

Posted by aalkon at 08:15 PM | Comments (8)

Lingua Blogga

Lingua Blogga
Three bilingual French/English blogs I like are: Merde In France, Blogorrh�e.net, and Emmanuelle.net. Voyez pour votre-meme!

Merde In France is very controversial now because it recognizes that socialism and its ensuing idiocy is bringing France to its knees. As I wrote to Merde-man:

"Enfin, quelqu'un qui voit que l'emperor est nu!" (rough translation: "Somebody finally told the emperor we don't want to look at his jiggly white ass").

--Amy Alkon, francophile and frequent France-goer who thinks France had better wake up before it tilts so far left everybody falls into the Seine and drowns

Posted by aalkon at 07:35 PM | Comments (0)

If It's Good For The Goose...

If It's Good For The Goose...
Is the foie gras process bad for the ducks and geese? In Wednesday's LA Times Letters To The Editor section, Norm Drexel, in Christchurch, New Zealand, responded to a story about foie gras-inspired vandalism around San Francisco. Drexel doubts that Cem Akin, a PETA researcher mentioned in the story, has actually witnessed the gavage of geese (the feeding process by which foie gras is produced). Drexel explains:

I don't pretend to be able to read a duck's mind, but they show no obvious signs of fear before or distress after feeding. When brought into the pen, they push to be first in line.

Hmmm...kind of like the flabby crowd ill-advisedly shoving to "Supersize It" at 7-11 -- but with webbed feet. Unfortunately, it doesn't sound like the LA Times reporter who wrote the story ever left her desk to -- forgive me -- take a gander at any ducks or geese...or (sigh) bothered to phone even one objective expert. (I call this "interactive newswriting" -- where the story isn't altogether told, leaving the reader to fill in the blanks. What fun!)

In this case, it leaves the big question -- is gavage cruel or not? -- hanging over the story. I don't know the answer, but I did find a couple corroborations of what Drexel wrote...here and here. So, should PETA change its name?...to PIPA?..."People For The Inaccurate Portrayal Of Animals?" It does have a cute sort of Mexical-Italian ring to it. But does it have the ring of truth? That is the question.

UPDATE: Look what happens when you put a little reporting into the mix! Here are a few words from Andrew Gumbel's story in the UK's Independent:

Mr. Jaubert said his adversaries were picking the wrong target. The Californian duck farm, operating under the name Sonoma Foie Gras, was free-range. Animals spent almost all their lives outside, he said, except for the final period of grain-feeding in air-conditioned buildings. "This is extremely good treatment, certainly compared to the way the big chicken producers behave with their animals," he said.

Mr. Manrique, who comes from Gascony, the heart of duck country in south-west France, has been an ambassador for foie gras for years. "Force-feeding is really the wrong word," he told a group of cooking students in San Francisco a couple of years ago. "The geese see the food we offer them and run after us. They say, 'Give me more'."

Such remarks may not sit well with the "meat is murder" crowd, but science is beginning to show that he may not be entirely wrong. An article in the journal British Poultry Science in 2001 found "no significant indication that force-feeding is perceived as an acute or chronic stress by male mule ducks".

Posted by aalkon at 03:02 PM | Comments (3)

A Cure For Sex

A Cure For Sex
Children, of course! A horror story by Lisa Carver.

Posted by aalkon at 09:23 AM | Comments (2)

August 27, 2003

Shocked, Simply Shocked

Shocked, Simply Shocked
That's how I feel because Crispin Sartwell has yet to respond to my e-mail offering to spray paint my opinion (of his LA Times op-ed rationalizing graffiti) on his garage. (See Monday's posting.) I've e-mailed him again. Perhaps he's on vacation. Surely, he stands behind what he wrote, and it will be only days before he gives me a date to come over and spray-paint "Crispin Sartwell is a blithering idiot" on his garage door. What's good enough for Mr. Coca-Cola is surely good enough for Mr. Crispin...right?

August 27, 2003

Dear Crispin,
Hey, I'm still waiting to hear when I can spray-paint my opinion of your op-ed piece on your garage (or other area of your house or apartment). You do stand behind what you wrote in that op-ed, don't you?
--Amy Alkon

Posted by aalkon at 08:09 AM | Comments (7)

Column Quote Of The Month

Column Quote Of The Month
I'm getting a lot of thank you notes from men for these lines I wrote in my Advice Goddess column:

�Men are simple creatures. Give the average guy a hamburger, a naked girlfriend and a wide-screen TV, and he�s happy. Throw in a Universal Remote, unfettered access to his friends, and time alone to use, fix, or stare at mechanical objects, and he�s delirious with joy. Sounds pretty simple, huh -- find a good guy, let him be, and he�ll probably be good right back?�

Posted by aalkon at 08:07 AM | Comments (14)

Where Toilet Seat Covers Come From

Where Toilet Seat Covers Come From
I guess they have yet to glue on the little plastic eyes.

Posted by aalkon at 07:27 AM | Comments (4)

August 26, 2003

Happy Sphincter

Happy Sphincter
Is there any other kind? How's your sphincter today? (Note: That was a rhetorical question.)

Posted by aalkon at 01:14 AM | Comments (3)

August 25, 2003

Eat The Rich

Eat The Rich
The logic-impaired Crispin Sartwell writes on the LA Times Op-Ed page that �defacing� billboards �should be allowed� because �advertising is the public expression of wealthy people and organizations. Graffiti is the public expression of people who are more or less broke. And that is exactly why advertising is authorized and graffiti is eradicated.�

Um, no. It�s because graffiti is a trespass on property rights. Apparently, professor Sartwell doesn�t think wealthy people and organizations are entitled to property rights simply because they have money. Of course, no person, no matter how big or little their bank balance, has the right to deface the property of another. Doing so isn�t freedom of speech -- it�s theft via vandalism -- just as it would be if I spray-painted �Sartwell Is A Blithering Idiot� on his garage door. Fortunately, for Sartwell, I�m a property rights-respecting libertarian -- but even if I weren�t, I�m sure he�d just stand in a window and salute and wave as I sprayed.

This in no way means that a person who opposes certain advertising messages -- me, for example -- is silenced. That person is free to express her opposing opinion by earning money or by collecting it from supporters of her cause and buying her own billboard -- an idea that�s always tempted me. She�s also free to come up with a low-cost creative way to get her message across, whether it�s picketing the billboard while wearing a message on a sandwich board or printing up a snarky, opposing message on business cards and tucking them under the windshield wipers of mammoth SUVs. The right to do so falls under First Amendment protections for free speech. In Sartwell�s defense, I haven�t read the Constitution lately, so if somebody�s tacked some amendment on it granting freedom to deface other people�s property, please let me know.

By the way, a little cleverness in putting out an opposing viewpoint is the quickest route to free publicity (read: free advertising -- something commercial entities aren�t likely to get). My own anti-SUV campaign was chronicled in a number of newspapers -- in America and around the world -- and on radio shows across America. Total cost: $35 plus tax for business cards at Staples, and $12 a month for the voicemail number printed on the card.

UPDATE: My email to Crispin Sartwell, sent 4pm PST, is below. I eagerly await his reply!

Dear Crispin,
Assuming you stand behind what you wrote, when would be a good time for me to come over and spray paint how I feel about your op-ed on your garage door (or elsewhere on your house or apartment if you don't have a garage door)?
--Amy Alkon

Posted by aalkon at 12:28 PM | Comments (27)

The No-Food Diet

The No-Food Diet
But, don�t call it dieting; they�re detoxifying, whisper followers of the latest fad diet -- fasting -- in this un-bylined New York Times story. Who knows where the food-free search for serenity may lead? Well, maybe your fasting coach. If it�s Natalia Rose, lucky you! -- you could be going to Barneys. That�s where she takes those who enroll in her long-weekend fasting workshops, so they�ll be �focused on Narciso Rodriguez, not what they're putting in their stomachs." You certainly won�t want to focus on what you�re taking out of your wallet, since not eating can cost much more than eating -- especially if you go to the spa that charges up to $3,484 a week to send you to bed without your supper. (Clearly, eliminating solid food only melts away pounds, not gullibility.) Too bad the pounds will probably come back:

As a way to lose weight, long-term fasting can even be counterproductive, for it causes the body to conserve energy. "Our body makes adjustments and socks away the calories more when you come out of the fast," said Dr. William Hart, an associate professor of nutrition and dietetics at St. Louis University. "You defeat the purpose of weight loss, and you'll gain weight."

Not to worry. Once you do, it�s Enema Time! Unfortunately, this part of the adventure doesn�t involve a pit-stop at Barneys.

UPDATE: Emmanuelle wonders if Arnold could do with a little less solid food. See for yourself.

Posted by aalkon at 01:46 AM | Comments (8)

August 24, 2003

One More Reason Not To Call Yourself A Feminist

One More Reason Not To Call Yourself A Feminist
Someone might think you are a member of NOW, which actually intends to back scandal queen and senatorial joke Carol Moseley-Braun for president. Sadly for NOW, California gubernatorial joke candidate Gary Coleman, who's had only one brush with the law (for socking an autograph hound) and has yet to disappoint in politics, has the wrong chromosome. About Mosely-Braun's "disappointing representation" as a senator from Illinois, the Chicago Tribune wrote:

"...her legislative accomplishments have been few and, even more troubling, she has gained a reputation for being inattentive to basic constituent services."

Hmmm...Could this NOW endorsement be a Republican-backed plot? Or did the Republicans just get lucky?

Posted by aalkon at 04:33 PM | Comments (1)

Spammers Unplugged...And Bare-Breasted

Spammers Unplugged...And Bare-Breasted
This blog item is dedicated to everyone who spent hours deleting Sobig e-mail from their mailboxes.

A man reveals how he got revenge on the spammer lady who forged his domain name. Here are a few related links, including a more, uh, intimate look at the ladies clogging your e-mail box with spam (scroll down for the naked links).

Posted by aalkon at 12:01 AM | Comments (6)

Will Black Lung Be The New Black

Will Black Lung Be The New Black?
In this AP story by John Heilprin, The White House takes heat for urging the EPA to fudge post-9/11 environmental safety reports, misleading New Yorkers -- most notably, those living in Tribeca and around Wall Street -- into thinking �there was no health risk from the debris-laden air after the World Trade Center collapse":

President Bush's senior environmental adviser on Friday defended the White House involvement, saying it was justified by national security.

(Thankfully, he didn't say "if New Yorkers knew what they were breathing, the terrorists win.") Still, according to Heilprin's story, The White House did seem a bit more concerned with cleaning up press releases than telling the truth about cleaning up downtown New York:

The White House �convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones� by having the National Security Council control EPA communications in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, according to a report issued late Thursday by EPA Inspector General Nikki L. Tinsley.

Maybe lower Manhattan residents can fund their chemo treatments by selling T-shirts: �My country got reassuring press releases and all I got was this lousy lung cancer!� They might not be alone for long. As Julian Borger writes for The Guardian, we could all be sucking more pollutants very soon:

The Bush administration plans to open a huge loophole in America's air pollution laws, allowing an estimated 17,000 outdated power stations and factories to increase their carbon emissions with impunity.

"My country...hack, hack, cough, cough...tis of thee..."

Posted by aalkon at 12:01 AM | Comments (6)

August 23, 2003

The World Wide What?

The World Wide What?
In one of this year's frolicking adventures in overshare, we learn that "www" is sometimes short for the "World Wide Won�tcha Look Up My Butt?"...home to way too much information about other people�s sphincter issues. (Sorry to say, I forget where I found this link...if only I could say the same about this girl's "anal fissures.")

Posted by aalkon at 11:50 PM | Comments (1)

Have You Been To Breakup Hell?

Have You Been To Breakup Hell?
In a recent Sex In The City, Berger broke up with Carrie via Post-It note. Have you experienced breakup via Fedex or discovered you were no longer seeing somebody after they blocked your email and phone calls? I'm collecting horrible, humiliating breakup stories, and I'd appreciate if you'd post yours or others' you've heard about in the comments section just below:

Posted by aalkon at 12:16 AM | Comments (6)

August 22, 2003

Would You Pay Someone $150,000 A Year To Poison Your Dog?

Would You Pay Someone $150,000 A Year To Poison Your Dog?
Yesterday�s Page One LA Times story, profiling a chick with a plastic surgery hobby who walks celebrities� dogs, seems to end with one or more of the dogs sneaking some of her latte:

Each time she escorted a dog to his home and returned to her car, a pair of dogs took over the front seat. She shooed away Hugo and Sophie, two German shepherds.

Lever put the key in the ignition and eyed her coffee cup.

"Who," she asked, "has been drinking my latte?"

Now, to be fair, it�s unclear from the way this is written whether she�s just pretending the dogs drank from her latte, or whether they actually did. One hopes she�s not so focused on how �fancy� she is (to borrow a Marnye Oppenheim word) for being a celebrity dog service provider, that she forgets coffee is poison for dogs. Happily, the milk in a latte usually just makes dogs leave brown puddles on the new white sofa...which is almost as appealing as a dog walker who drops more stars� names than a �producer� without a deal.

Posted by aalkon at 07:56 PM | Comments (8)

August 21, 2003

Estrich Print-Wrestles Arianna

Estrich Print-Wrestles Arianna
Susan Estrich doesn't just think Arianna's a bad candidate for governor, but a bad candidate for mommy -- who's been "recalled" by her own children:

This is, after all, the woman who runs against oil interests and lives in a mansion financed by oil money, rails against pigs at the trough and pays no taxes, runs as an independent and supports a guru. She's even got a documentary crew following her for the campaign. I wonder if they filmed the children moving out.

Meee-yow!

UPDATE: Arianna claws back, through her press secretary.

(via LAObserved)

Posted by aalkon at 03:35 PM | Comments (1)

August 20, 2003

Just Say Gno

Just Say Gno
Paul Krassner writes, in New York Press, about his adventures in publishing, including his first acid trip:

When I told my mother about LSD, she was quite concerned. "It could lead to marijuana," she said. Mom was right.

Posted by aalkon at 11:06 AM | Comments (3)

Conspiracy Theory Of The Week

Conspiracy Theory Of The Week
Commander Rapaport needs our help! I got an email (described in detail here) from a guy who claims, among other things, to have gotten �4-5 Congressional Medals Of Honor.� I love this. If you believe his claim, Congress is now tossing them around like popcorn. I like that he�s not quite sure of exactly how many he�s gotten. Four to five? Something in that neighborhood.

Me: Nobody has "four to five" Congressional Medals Of Honor. Please prey on somebody who'll believe your story. That person is not me.

�The Commander� emails back: If this case was not at least partially on the level do you think I would be walking around and alive and with out lawsuits. Piece of shit excuse for a news reporter.

Me: I'm not Woodward and Bernstein, you idiot. I'm not even a reporter. Some CIA dude. Note that I'm called "The Advice Goddess," and I write a humorous (I hope) love advice column. This is not top-secret information. There's a big, long bio page on my Web site.

If geniuses like this are indeed working for the CIA, it's no wonder they can't find Osama Bin Laden.

Posted by aalkon at 01:08 AM | Comments (2)

The Powerpoints Of Customer Disservice

The PowerPoints Of Customer Disservice
Beware, Houston Doubletree Hotel, of dissatisfied customers with bandwith to burn. A hilarious tribute, in PowerPoint, to Houston Doubletree Hotel hell.

(via Buzzmachine)

Posted by aalkon at 12:49 AM | Comments (3)

August 19, 2003

The Thug Culture

The Thug Culture
City Journal's John C. McWhorter says hip-hop holds blacks back:

Many writers and thinkers see a kind of informed political engagement, even a revolutionary potential, in rap and hip-hop. They couldn�t be more wrong. By reinforcing the stereotypes that long hindered blacks, and by teaching young blacks that a thuggish adversarial stance is the properly �authentic� response to a presumptively racist society, rap retards black success.

Posted by aalkon at 01:40 PM | Comments (4)

August 18, 2003

Bush-League Science

Bush-League Science
As a kid, I read a story about a man engaged in target practice who�d shot a dozen perfect bull's-eyes into a wall. An army officer approached him and asked how he�d managed to score so well. "It�s easy," said the man. "I shoot first, and draw the bull's-eyes afterward."

This article by Nicholas Thompson in Washington Monthly details how the Bush administration does much the same thing -- taking a position on an issue based on politics or religion, then trolling for snippets of scientific data to support it:

"The administration's stem-cell stand is just one of many examples, from climate change to abstinence-only sex-education programs, in which the White House has made policies that defy widely accepted scientific opinion."

The administration also has a tendency to appoint "religious conservatives whose political credentials are stronger than their research" credentials. Check out the voodoo approach to women's health issues:

"For example, on Christmas Eve 2002, Bush appointed David Hager--a highly controversial doctor who has written that women should use prayer to reduce the symptoms of PMS--to the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Commission."

One wonders if he suggests the same solution for men whose prayer-treated, PMS-ing wives and girlfriends are chasing them around the house with an ax.

Posted by aalkon at 12:53 AM | Comments (5)

August 17, 2003

Meet Robo-Potty!

Meet Robo-Potty!
For a shiny heinie, the Japanese bathroom fixture with a brain.

Posted by aalkon at 10:06 AM | Comments (7)

Timing Is The Only Thing

Timing Is The Only Thing
At this point, Gray Davis would sign legislation allowing oysters the right to drive semis. (Wait, can oysters vote?) Gays and lesbians can. Which is why, as Daniel Weintraub writes:

Gov. Gray Davis has promised to sign landmark legislation granting marriage-style rights, benefits and responsibilities to gay and lesbian domestic partners, according to a gay rights activist who participated in a conference call with a top aide to the governor on Saturday.

The gay rights bill is at least the third controversial measure that Davis has promised to sign since he came under fire in the recall. He also said he would sign a bill to give driver�s licenses to illegal immigrants, and another measure expanding financial privacy protections for consumers. In the past, Davis has almost never agreed to sign legislation before it reached his desk.

Great that he�s signing it -- even if it isn't because he has anything resemblng a spine, let alone an opinion that didn�t come from rent-a-pollster.

Posted by aalkon at 02:06 AM | Comments (3)

August 16, 2003

That�s Mr. Cassandra To You!

That�s Mr. Cassandra To You!
Here�s my favorite whiny writer-man, Carey Roberts, sniveling that no feminist has repudiated the words of the following rad-fem male-bashers who think the planet could do with a few fewer men:

"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race."
--Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future--If There Is One--Is Female

"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males."
--Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001

Roberts even bores us with a little Catherine MacKinnon:

"In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape.�

But, he leaves out my favorite Andrea Dworkin quote:

�In seduction, the rapist bothers to buy a bottle of wine.�

Why aren't women leaping from their chairs to speak out against these remarks? For the same reason nobody gets too excited when a man on the subway wearing green antennae insists there�s a giant pink bunny eating all the passengers in the next car. Of course, unlike Carey, the average subway rider doesn�t equate antennae man to Hitler, or connect the rider-munching imaginary bunny to predictions that women are about to take a big sponge and wipe men off the face of the earth. The guy could find a global conspiracy against men on a flea�s ass. A girl flea, of course. And you know how nefarious they are!

Posted by aalkon at 01:44 AM | Comments (11)

Dr. Laura: "Yuh Nev-uh Write, Yuh Nev-uh Call!"

Dr. Laura: "Yuh Nev-uh Write, Yuh Nev-uh Call!"
Dr. Laura has renounced Orthodox Judaism; apparently because she wasn't getting enough fan mail from Jews, says this Forward article by Lisa Keys:

Schlessinger began her August 5 program by noting that, prior to each broadcast, she spends an hour reading faxes from fans and listeners. "By and large the faxes from Christians have been very loving, very supportive," she said. "From my own religion, I have either gotten nothing, which is 99% of it, or two of the nastiest letters I have gotten in a long time. I guess that's my point � I don't get much back. Not much warmth coming back."

Yeah, but how do the Buddhists, Seventh-Day Adventists, and Hari Krishnas stack up? Come on Krishnas, shake those finger cymbals...show the love!

(via my old New York Daily News colleagues, Rush & Molloy)

Posted by aalkon at 12:10 AM | Comments (6)

August 15, 2003

Spike Lee Sued By Sara Lee

Spike Lee Sued By Sara Lee
Andy Borowitz bakes up a tasty report:

�Pie-maker Sara Lee today slapped filmmaker Spike Lee with a $90 million dollar trademark infringement suit, claiming that the director was unfairly benefiting from a positive association with the company�s mouth-watering array of pies, pastries and assorted breakfast treats.

Geoffrey Stimpson, a company spokesman, said that Spike Lee�s attempt to piggyback on Sara Lee�s good name was doomed to failure.

�Nobody doesn�t like Sara Lee, but plenty of people don�t like Spike Lee,� Mr. Stimpson said.�

Lawyers from Sara Lee also noted that the company owns the word �pie,� and �demanded that Mr. Lee remove the letters P, I, and E from his first name �immediately.��

(via Volokh.com)

Posted by aalkon at 09:21 AM | Comments (3)

Asbestos: Ignore It And Maybe It Will Go Away

Asbestos: Ignore It And Maybe It Will Go Away
That seemed to be the post-9/11 EPA approach to cleaning up my old neighborhood in lower Manhattan. According to a Salon.com story by Abrahm Lustgarten:

�In a January 2003 draft report of a scathing, as yet unreleased assessment of the EPA�s response in lower Manhattan, the agency�s own Inspector General�s office concluded that the EPA did not have the proper information to assure residents that the air was safe to breathe, that the standards the agency set for asbestos levels were unusually low and inconsistent with EPA regulations, that the clean-up was compromised by cost-cutting, and finally, that the Bush administration played an unusual and inappropriate role in editing and shaping all of the information released by the EPA to the public.�

Posted by aalkon at 08:46 AM | Comments (1)

It's A Man's World...

It's A Man's World...
And we're celebrating...even doing "The Law Book Limbo."

Posted by aalkon at 07:45 AM | Comments (2)

August 14, 2003

Emmanuelle Looks At Arnold�s Willie

Emmanuelle Looks At Arnold�s Willie
In France, �Arnold And Willy� is not a headline about the California governor�s race, but the French title of �Different Strokes,� starring the California governor candidate Gary Coleman...not to be confused with �Arnold and Willie,� a photograph starring the naked California governor candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger. Still confused? Emmanuelle shows and tells (almost) all. (The English translation is in yellow below the French.) For the naked truth, visit Daniel Radosh.

Posted by aalkon at 01:46 AM | Comments (12)

Is My Eyeliner Running?

Is My Eyeliner Running?
These are words you never want to hear from your boyfriend -- unless, of course, you�re his boyfriend, too. Jean-Paul Gaultier launches makeup for men:

"'We're sure the first men to buy it will be trendy, gay guys,' admits Le Male's product manager Stephane Goret-Dervailly. 'But pretty soon it will be used by men who just need to present themselves well, who want a solution in the bathroom when they wake up looking tired. Fifteen years ago we weren't talking about skincare for men at all. So this is pretty revolutionary.'"

Well, call me counter-revolutionary, but the day my boyfriend starts dipping into my eyeshadow and humming "I Feel Pretty" is the day my boyfriend becomes my ex-boyfriend.

(via Gawker)

Posted by aalkon at 01:07 AM | Comments (10)

August 13, 2003

Ted Williams, Baseball Legend And Human Popsicle

Ted Williams, Baseball Legend And Human Popsicle
According to Sports Illustrated columnist Rick Reilly, the late Ted Williams is �spending his time in a one-story cement building in a warehouse district next to the Scottsdale, Ariz., airport, frozen, upside down, waiting for science to bring him back from the dead.�

Of course, they don�t say �dead� there at Alcor Life Extension Foundation, �America�s largest cryonics company.� They call it �the end of his first life cycle.� They also refuse to say whether or not Williams is one of their frozen guests. But, according to Williams� daughter, that�s where he�s spending the end of his first life cycle -- in a tank �with at least two other bodies and probably eight severed heads.�

Late-breaking severed head report: Sports Illustrated now reports that Ted's head and body are being stored separately while his son is dunned for freezing costs.

(via Romenesko�s letters page)

Posted by aalkon at 08:49 AM | Comments (3)

Pin The Hose On The Fireman

Pin The Hose On The Fireman
This bachelorette party game comes in two fabulous flavors -- white on one side, African-American on the other! Sadly, the Penis Pinata and Pin The Macho On The Man only come in Caucasian.

Posted by aalkon at 08:23 AM | Comments (5)

A Consenting Petri Dish...

A Consenting Petri Dish...
...Is hard to find. A lesbian couple encountered major hassles from Continental Airlines when they tried to take their children to Mexico, without �written permission from the children�s father�:

�To convince check-in employees that the children had no father, Quattrochi had to explain in front of the children and other passengers that they were conceived with donated sperm. Still, the women said, Continental staff refused to let them board the plane.�

Posted by aalkon at 07:19 AM | Comments (2)

August 12, 2003

The Height Report

The Height Report
Just when you thought everybody who could whine about how hard they have it already had...fellow tall person John Leo plants tongue in cheek to write about Tall, a new magazine, just for us, and addresses the many hardships we, the, uh...�uncommonly elevated,� endure:

�Depicting tallness as evil may well be the last safe prejudice to have in America,� and �One of the vexing problems for the height-consciousness movement is that most people think tall people are doing well and should have no complaints.�

Here�s a bit more from Leo on the tragic hell of everyday life as a tall person:

�ABC's '20-20' pointed to research showing that women, corporations and children all prefer tall people. But this fails to account for the outright anti-height discrimination in everyday life. A nontall person may say, 'How's the weather up there?' (Correct reply: 'You'll find out when you grow up.') or 'Do you play basketball?' (Possible retorts: 'Do you play miniature golf?' and 'Are you a jockey?') And, as we all know, the cry 'Down in front!' devastates many tall and vulnerable teens. It's always hurtful to be looked upon as a visual obstacle."

But, tall is not lost:

"This is why activists are demanding a height-friendly college curriculum (reading �Wuthering Heights� is a must). On the agenda too are height-themed dormitories where tall and pro-tall students can mix their distinctive cultures. Maybe a doctorate could be offered in tallness studies.

There is even talk that dismissive phrases like �that's a tall tale,� which sadly associates height with lying, may be declared hate speech by the Irish parliament or even by the whole European Union.�

Of course, being tall can�t be anywhere near as painful as being a rich, famous, movie star. Unfortunately, that segment of the magazine market already appears to be glutted.

Posted by aalkon at 03:25 PM | Comments (17)

August 11, 2003

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Under Construction, But Don't Let That Stop You
My fabulous uber-techno boyfriend is working on my site in hopes of making it more readable for all the poor people who aren't on Macs. Please excuse any debris. Snide remarks about my immaturity for the Mac superiority crack go to your lower right.

Posted by aalkon at 07:17 PM | Comments (7)

Aliens Ate My Brain!

Aliens Ate My Brain!
The problem with idiots who believe in aliens is that the aliens who supposedly kidnap them for experimentation seem to do just about everything to them but sterilize them. Hence, this website featuring the drawings of children whose parents take them seriously when they tell them they shared their lunch with little green men:

"...children who were abducted by aliens for the alien purpose of creating a new race of alien/human hybrids. The drawings show different aspects of the alien abduction phenomenon and include cruel medical procedures performed on children, children boarding alien spacecraft with other aliens, children playing with alien/hybrid children so the alien/hybrids can learn how to be human, and children being taken by aliens against their will..."

At least the alien-deflecting �thought screen hat� (scroll below the drawings) is relatively nondescript; perhaps preventing children who wear it from a lifetime of teasing for being the offspring of blithering idiots.

Posted by aalkon at 12:05 AM | Comments (4)

Not Just Walken, But Stepping In It

Not Just Walken, But Stepping In It
Need somebody to skim your pool, feed your cat, or alphabetize your CDs? Christopher Walken�s your man! Fametracker points out, with the movies Oscar winner Walken�s agreed to be in (Kangaroo Jack, Country Bears, Privateer 2: The Darkening, and yes, Gigli), it�s clear he�ll do just about anything if you ask him.

Posted by aalkon at 12:02 AM | Comments (3)

The Economics Of Innocence

The Economics Of Innocence
Tyler Cowen looks at the Kobe case from an economics perspective:

"Should economists think that Kobe Bryant is innocent? Don't we teach our students, first and foremost, that incentives matter? Didn't Kobe have huge and obvious incentives not to do it? Wouldn't an attention-seeker victim have some incentive to lie and stretch the story? Even if, heaven forbid, a guy had rape as his goal, rather than sex, wouldn't an economic model predict he would pick a different state and county? Yet I have asked a few economists, market-oriented economists, the kind who believe in the power of incentives, and they all think Kobe is guilty as charged (admittedly my sample is not huge)."

Something's wrong with the perma-link to this specific piece. To read Cowen's entire post, go to Volokh.com, Sunday, August 10, third entry down.

Posted by aalkon at 12:00 AM | Comments (2)

August 10, 2003

Why Can�t Boys Be Girls?

Why Can�t Boys Be Girls?
Christina Hoff Sommers writes about failed efforts to "sensitivity train" boys into girls:

�An �equity facilitator� tried to persuade a group of nine-year-old boys in a Baltimore public school to accept the idea of playing with baby dolls. According to one observer, �Their reaction was so hostile, the teacher had trouble keeping order.� And then there was Jimmy. At age 11, this San Francisco sixth grader was made to contribute a square to a class quilt �celebrating women we admire.� He chose to honor tennis player Monica Seles who, in 1993, was stabbed on the court by a deranged fan of Steffi Graf. Jimmy handed in a muslin square festooned with a tennis racket and a bloody dagger. His square may be unique in the history of quilting, but his teacher did not appreciate its originality and rejected it.

A 2001 special issue of Scientific American reviewed the growing evidence that children�s play preferences are, in large part, hormonally determined. Researchers confirmed what parents experience all the time: Even with counter-conditioning, boys and girls gravitate toward very different toys. ...The entire anthropological record offers not a single example of a society where females have better spatial reasoning skills and males better verbal skills, where females are fixated on objects and men on feelings, or where males are physically docile and females aggressive.�

A quote in her piece from Lionel Tiger, one of my favorite anthropologists, sums it up pretty well: �Biology is not destiny, but it is good statistical probability.�

(via Arts & Letters Daily)

Posted by aalkon at 12:19 PM | Comments (11)

Feminist Proper-ganda

Feminist Proper-ganda
And while we're on Christina Hoff Sommers, here's an example of what happens to girls who don't "talk feminist."

Posted by aalkon at 11:33 AM | Comments (19)

August 09, 2003

Toe Way Out

Toe Way Out
Forget governor. If I were queen, you wouldn�t have people inflicting themselves on you in public -- on their cell phones or in other rude (and/or violently disgusting) ways. Well, not for long, anyway. I would pass a royal decree that businesses would not only have to provide wheelchair access, but an �out� for people assaulted by the bad manners of others. Not to worry -- this would actually play out in a democratic matter. The �audience� being forced to look at or listen to something dreadfully dull or vile would vote on whether the �performer� gets the hook. Only this wouldn�t be a hook, but a trap door. Down the hatch, boor!

Warning -- those with weak stomachs should not read on: Friday afternoon, I had the distinct displeasure, to put it mildly, of watching a guy pick his toes!! in the Starbucks on the Santa Monica Promenade. This was not a homeless wacko, but a middle-aged, grey-bearded chunko white guy wearing flip-flops, accompanied a zaftig, ponytailed J.Crew-schlumpy girlfriend; herself in dirty white flip-flops. The girlfriend was getting coffee when I marched over and told the guy, �I�m not one to do this -- just go speak to strangers in public places...� (okay, so that�s, perhaps, the lie of the century), �but you need to stop picking your toes RIGHT NOW! RIGHT NOW!� He did stop (picking dead skin off his toes)...and, from then on, just resorted to...ugh...fondling his toes a little -- like he was simply dying to get back to picking them. He was still toe-fondling right in my eyeline, so I changed tables. I took a huge table (having moved from a tiny one I�d taken initially, in hopes of leaving the larger ones for groups of people). What this meant, ultimately, was that a very nice-looking family (at least, they didn�t look like toe-pickers) had no place to sit. All because there are no trap doors for vile toe-pickers at Starbucks. ...Just a little something you might consider if you get to wondering who should be queen.

P.S. If, for some reason, I am not available to become royalty, I would nominate Cathy Seipp to take over the monarchy, since she�s equally unwilling to put up with vile crap like this. In fact, upon hearing of my idea, she filled in the part I left out: the moat under the trap door filled with piranhas.

Posted by aalkon at 11:04 PM | Comments (3)

August 08, 2003

Mean Landlord Won�t Let You Get A Dog?

Mean Landlord Won�t Let You Get A Dog?
Well, read your lease closely. Does it say �no pets� or �no dogs�? Because the second best thing to a black lab might be a rust-colored goat. Naturally, this link was spotted by the inimitable Ken Layne, who seeks to deny his poor wife her dream of a dog to run with, in hopes of getting the lawn mowed gratis, plus bargain goat cheese.

�What is a dog?� he asks (and answers)-- �a loud, stupid shitting machine. Nobody needs that.� Here�s Ken�s �yes to goats� argument:

�Goats are not only smarter and funnier than dogs -- they'll eat all the weeds in our back yard, and maybe even produce that expensive goat cheese my wife always buys at the Trader Joe's. (I'm not sure exactly how this works, but in my mind the goats will actually produce those 8 oz. packages of "Silver Goat" and put 'em in the fridge while we're sleeping.)�

Posted by aalkon at 11:30 AM | Comments (3)

August 07, 2003

Medicine For Morons

Medicine For Morons
Health food stores are a bad place to go for cancer advice? No! Really? According to a Reuters story by Anthony J. Brown, MD:

�Health food stores offer breast cancer patients a variety of recommendations that are seldom useful and, in some cases, harmful.

A Canadian study found that a total of 33 different products were recommended for breast cancer, none of which has been established as an effective treatment for the disease.

More often than not, advice at health food stores probably does not affect a patient's ultimate outcome, but sometimes it may be harmful, study author Edward Mills, from the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine in North York, Ontario, told Reuters Health.

For instance, �one employee actually suggested discontinuing Tamoxifen to a patient," he said. Tamoxifen is a common treatment for breast cancer that has been shown in numerous studies to improve survival.��

In the above study, research assistants posed as customers �and asked employees what they would recommend for their mother with breast cancer.�

Here�s what I�d recommend for such customers: that their mother adopt another child -- one with the sense not to shop for cancer cures where they shop for their PMS tea and their wooden footsie rollers. �Oh, just take a little milk thistle, and that tumor'll be gone in a jiffy!�

Posted by aalkon at 04:05 AM | Comments (5)

Advice Columnist For Governor?

Advice Columnist For Governor?
No, not me. Advice columnist and fomer child star Gary Coleman. A Bay Area alt weekly, The East Bay Express, is running him against �The Governator� and the rest of the motley crew chomping to unseat Gray. Susan Goldsmith interviewed me about the Coleman candidacy:

�Amy Alkon...believes Gary still has room to grow as a dispenser of online advice. But the Los Angeles-based writer and voter loves the idea of having a governor willing to roll up his sleeves and fix things. �It's smart to pick somebody who's committed to solving problems instead of somebody who's committed to kissing the hands of people who've greased their palms,� Alkon says. �As an advice columnist you have to be decisive, which is already a step up over the highly indecisive Gray Davis. And when Gray Davis does get decisive, he always makes the wrong decision. I don't see how Gray Davis is, in any way, superior to Gary Coleman.��

East Bay's Chris Thompson compares Gary with Gray: "Their names are almost identical, but they couldn't be any more different."

LAW ENFORCEMENT EXPERIENCE

Gray: Junior high hall pass monitor

Gary: Security guard

HIT TV SERIES

Gray: None

Gary: Diff'rent Strokes

DIVERSITY

Gray: Some of his best friends are ...

Gary: Black and beautiful

ENERGY

Gray: Bungling caused blackouts

Gary: His humor is electrifying

CAMPAIGN SLOGAN

Gray: "I want your money."

Gary: "None of the above."

EDUCATION

Gray: Class size matters

Gary: Class matters

HEALTH

Gray: Awaiting his personality transplant

Gary: Survived kidney transplant

INDEPENDENCE

Gray: Sold out California to deep-pocketed campaign contributors

Gary: Will govern California on his own terms

CRIME

Gray: Not a pro

Gary: Not a con

Posted by aalkon at 01:34 AM | Comments (2)

August 06, 2003

Where There�s Smoke...

Where There�s Smoke...
Researchers think dosing on vitamin C could help protect non-smokers who are frequently exposed to second-hand cigarette smoke. I find use of a high-powered squirt gun to be much more expedient.

Posted by aalkon at 08:05 PM | Comments (2)

"Jailbait And Switch"

"Jailbait And Switch"
Cruel.com calls it. Members of the site Perverted-Justice.com "(troll) the Internet posing as underage girls, then (post) chat transcripts and all of the information provided by the wanna-be sexual predators who turn up on the hook." Here's a typical creep -- photo, phone number, and all. Unbelievable stuff.

Posted by aalkon at 02:07 AM | Comments (2)

Heavy Meddle, Washington Style

Heavy Meddle, Washington-Style
The really big threat to the institution of marriage is politicians who want to put their greasy little hands all over it. So says yet another smart article by Wendy McElroy, suggesting, as I have, that �what constitutes a marriage should be determined by contract between the consenting adults involved, not by government.�

She lets GLAD respond to the notion that gay people should make do with the civil union solution adopted by Vermont:

"Civil unions are a good first step, but they don't go far enough. ...Gay and lesbian couples want and need what everyone else has -- the right to receive the full protections bestowed by the state and federal government that come through marriage." A main difference between a marriage and a civil union is that the former has an automatic claim on various federal entitlements.�

I don�t think marriage makes sense for our times, but if straight people are allowed to not make sense, gay people should be allowed to not make sense, too. Here�s more of what McElroy had to say, rather eloquently, about it:

"Politicians should be stripped of the power to dictate which consenting adults may marry or the terms of those marriages. The only proper concern of law should be to enforce the contract and to arbitrate any breach that occurs.

In performing this function, it should give no more weight to the sexual preference of those involved than it gives to their skin color -- that is, none at all. The only �entitlement� that should accompany marriage is the enforcement of the terms of that contract.�

Posted by aalkon at 01:49 AM | Comments (1)

Who Says Gigli Isn�t Great Entertainment?

Who Says Gigli Isn�t Great Entertainment?
Just read all the hilarious quotes from reviews, like this one by Nell Minow:

�I had a flicker of a thought that the mundane inanity...might be some Samuel Beckett-style commentary on the existential void. Then I realized that watching the movie put me closer to the existential void than they ever were.�

(via Gawker)

Posted by aalkon at 12:40 AM

August 05, 2003

Horny Puritans Need Sex Toys, Too

Horny Puritans Need Sex Toys, Too
Milford, CT, is in an uproar over their new, Clean, Well-Lighted Sex Shop, the Penthouse Boutique.

"We are not a right-wing puritanical community," the mayor said in a New York Times article by Mark Santora. "But I coach kids' baseball, and I have people come up to me all the time saying this is not something we want in our community."

Of course they do. Then they throw on their trench coats and dark glasses and go shopping.

Posted by aalkon at 08:24 PM

Is That A Laptop In Your Bomb, Or Are You Just Happy To See Me?

Is That A Laptop In Your Bomb, Or Are You Just Happy To See Me?
Oh, happy day! The airport security geniuses are going to pay special attention to electronic devices like cameras...and laptops. Great idea -- in concept. Many of the screeners I�ve encountered not only couldn�t find five sticks of dynamite if I duct-taped them to my forehead, they probably couldn�t find Bin Laden himself if they were seated next to him in an Al Quaida training camp. One clueless female screener who �examined� my computer at LAX a few months ago seemed she�d be challenged just using a telephone with a dial pad. Slapping my keyboard with her big, ham-fisted gloved paws, she was shocked when this caused items on the desktop to open:

Miss Ham Fists: �I said I was sorry I deleted the book you were writing, didn�t I?�

(Okay, it wasn�t that bad -- but it could have been if I weren�t a micro-managing bitch.)

Posted by aalkon at 12:12 AM | Comments (1)

Straight Eye For The Gay Guy

Straight Eye For The Gay Guy
This would be the show in which the straight guys advise the gay guy on how to propose to his boyfriend. Andrew Sullivan hopes, in Time Magazine, that it will someday qualify as �reality TV,� but worries that there will be a backlash against gays.

Posted by aalkon at 12:01 AM

August 04, 2003

Hurricane Latonya

Hurricane Latonya
Where are those African-American hurricane names?! Apparently, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) doesn�t have much going on in Congress so she�s focusing on really important issues, like a lack of hurricanes named Keisha, Deshawn, and Jamal. �All racial groups should be represented,� said Lee, as reported by TheHill.com�s Bill Thomas. According to Thomas:

�The World Meteorological Organization began naming tropical storms after women in 1953. That made sense to scientists at the time who thought women and storms were both unpredictable. After feminist groups protested, men�s names were added in 1979.

The National Weather Service says hurricane names are derived from languages spoken in areas that border the Atlantic Ocean, where such storms occur. Yet that doesn�t explain why Gaston, Ernesto and Cindy were chosen and Antwon, Destiny and Latonya were passed over.

Lee said she hoped in the future the weather establishment �would try to be inclusive of African American names.��

I think we all should get ours. Being post-Jewish, I certainly won't rest 'til I see Hurricanes Sol, Sylvia, and Irving.

(via Volokh.com)

Posted by aalkon at 03:56 AM

David Shaw�s �Gee Whiz!� Moment Of The Week

David Shaw�s �Gee Whiz!� Moment Of The Week
LA Times media critic David Shaw discovers that the personals are considered an acceptable way for single people who aren�t drooling psychiatric wards to meet one another. Maybe Shaw�s just too old and stuffy to know that just about every single-and-looking person on the planet has, for several years, been hurling personals ads into print and onto the �net with reckless abandon. Naturally, in all-too-typical LA Times fashion, he had to wait for The New York Times to stamp personals ads �cool," in �Online Dating Sheds Its Stigma as Losers.com.�

Go to it, David!
To explore this shocking development, Shaw turns to the obvious choice: �the pages of the alumni magazine published by the country�s most prestigious institution of learning, Harvard University.� On page 97, he discovers a personals ad for a woman who dares to compare herself to �Sela Ward with a touch of Kate Jackson and a dash of Jaclyn Smith.� Yes, Virginia -- Harvard meets episodic television. Oh, horrors! In those 14 TV star-studded words, plus �more than a dozen other ads that also invoked Hollywood names as the ultimate enticement,� Shaw reads, writ large, the decline of western civilization. Oh, please.

David, darling...(may I call you "darling," or will such condescending familiarity lead you to yet another upsetting revelation -- that we are no longer living in Victorian England?) Never mind. Let�s stick to this week�s biology lesson: Men -- even those who attended �the country�s most prestigious institution of learning� -- have an overriding preference for beautiful women. Hollywood women tend to be especially beautiful. Because they are famous, their faces are known to a wide variety of people -- unlike the beautiful girl who works in the coffee bar down the road. Thus, it makes perfect sense for a woman to compare herself to a famous beautiful woman or beautiful women -- assuming she�s trying to inspire a man to go out with her, not give her an English literature exam.

No, looks aren�t everything. But with men, they�re primary. �Should� this be different? Perhaps. But it isn�t. And that�s why you don�t hear a lot of men standing around at parties whispering to each other, �Get a load of the personality on that chick!� or, to phrase it a little more �continentale� for David Shaw�s benefit: �I say, old chap, that damsel over yonder has a marvelous set of...lobes, don�t you think?

Contrary to David Shaw�s �ooh, cooties� approach to pop culture, being educated and intelligent doesn�t mean you need to put up a wall between yourself and �low culture.� My media critic friend Cathy Seipp is living, breathing, syndicated column-writing proof of that. Perhaps because she isn�t exactly insecure or concerned with what anybody thinks of her, she can enjoy pop culture (in addition to loftier fare) then turn it into something new -- a comment on itself, the way we live, and/or issues in society. This makes Cathy fun -- and fun to read -- unless, of course, your self-image depends on advertising your aggressive avoidance of any printed works that aren�t heavily footnoted and written in Middle English.

Posted by aalkon at 02:03 AM

Underrated Dates For Geeky People

Underrated Dates For Geeky People
Go to a big, fabulous library and sit next to each other reading. It�s totally hot. Really. My boyfriend and I spent Saturday afternoon in the downtown LA Public Library, a majestic place. I wrote my column (or rather, started writing my column) and he researched 1930s �Oklahombres� -- a nifty name for outlaws in Oklahoma from that time -- plus other old-time bandits. The most interesting looking books I saw in his stack were Oklahombres, Particularly The Wilder Ones, by Evett Dumas Nix, as told to Gordon Hines, and The Bandit Kings -- From Jesse James to Pretty Boy Floyd, by Roger A. Bruns.

From the �ya learn something new every day� file: Apparently, the U.S. Army experimented with camels (riding them, not slicing them up and putting them on lab slides) just before the Civil War. I don�t think it ended well, but you�ll have to read the book after my boyfriend returns it to know for sure: Noble Brutes, Camels On The American Frontier, by Eva Jolene Boyd.

Full disclosure: There were some serious scenic issues, most notably, the well-dressed guy with a salami-width, three-and-a-half foot dredlock sprouting out from behind each ear; the two, elasticked together into one disgusting, matted tail at butt-level. Dreddo kept strolling back and forth, back and forth, the entire time we were there -- despite the telepathic messages I directed his way, suggesting I was eminently capable of long-distance projectile vomiting.

Posted by aalkon at 01:54 AM

August 03, 2003

Amy Sneaks Into The LA Times Again

Amy Sneaks Into The LA Times Again
Here�s my letter to the LA Times Calendar Editor, printed in the August 3, 2003 Sunday Calendar section:

LETTERS
Of sex and force

Contrary to the Sandy Banks column David Shaw quotes in "If the Accused Is Named, the Accuser Should Be Too" (July 27), rape is not a crime motivated by violence but a crime motivated by sex. Banks was just restating the same-old same-old put out there by Susan Brownmiller and others without lifting a brain cell, a book or a telephone to investigate that claim. There's actually a book filled with data showing that rape is motivated by sex � "A Natural History of Rape, the Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion" by biology professor Randy Thornhill and anthropology instructor Craig T. Palmer (MIT Press, 2000). After looking at mountains of data, they view rape as biologically based but not inevitable. Like me, they suggest that the victims can sometimes prevent rape by acting prudently and reasonably (say, by recognizing that going up to a hotel room with a famous basketball player probably won't result in a friendly game of checkers). Of course, this kind of thinking does run contrary to feminism's infantilization of women.

Amy Alkon
Santa Monica
Amy Alkon, the Advice Goddess, is a syndicated columnist in over 100 newspapers.

The Evolutionary Basis For Rape
Using scientific methodology and reason, Thornhill and Palmer show (in well-documented detail) that there's an evolutionary basis for rape; that rape is a sexual act -- most likely an evolutionary adaptation that originated as a way for men to spread their genes.

Thus, although rape can be violent, this doesn�t mean a man�s motivation to rape is violence. Thornhill and Palmer note that "rapists rarely engage in gratuitous violence, defined as expending energy beyond what is required to subdue or control the victim and inflicting injuries that reduce the victim�s chance of surviving to become pregnant or that heighten the risk of eventual injury to the rapist from enraged relatives of the victim (all ultimate costs of rape)."

Thornhill and Palmer explain that there�s a difference between "instrumental force, (the force actually needed to complete the rape, and possibly to influence the victim not to resist, not to call for help, and/or not to report the rape) and excessive force (which might be a motivating end in itself). Only excessive force is a possible indication of violent motivation. Use of forceful tactics to reach a desired experience does not imply that the tactics are goals in themselves (unless...one is willing to argue that a man�s giving money to a prostitute in exchange for sex is evidence that the man�s behavior is motivated by a desire to give away money). Here again the crucial distinction between goals and tactics is blurred when rape is referred to as an act of violence."

Thornhill and Palmer understand what they�re up against -- years of ingrained feminist propaganda that "the patriarchy," violent TV shows, and nasty old American culture are to blame. "Debates about what causes rape have been evaluated not on the basis of logic and evidence," they observe, "But on the basis of how the different positions might influence people to behave." What the propaganda purveyers don't understand is key: It's the actual truth about why some men rape that will have the greatest influence on whether or not they do, and on whether or not women can avoid being raped (and feeling stigmatized if they are).

Posted by aalkon at 02:24 AM | Comments (8)

Highly Enjoyable Review Of A Highly Unenjoyable Movie

Highly Enjoyable Review Of A Highly Unenjoyable Movie
James Verniere writes in the Boston Herald, �I can't be the only person wishing Affleck and Lopez would just skip the wedding and go straight to the divorce, thereby sparing the lives of thousands of innocent trees.� He continues with a helpful sidebar:

The five most appalling things about "Gigli."

*Ben Affleck (Larry Gigli) says, "In every relationship, there is a bull and a cow," while attempting to "convert" Jennifer Lopez (Ricki) from a lesbian to a heterosexual.

*Affleck says, "I love my penis," while debating the virtues of male and female genitals with Lopez.

*Lopez entices Affleck to have sex with her by saying, "Gobble, gobble. It's turkey time."

*Lopez's hysterical dejected lesbian lover slashes her wrists, which, of course, is how all hysterical lesbians would behave.

*Kidnapped mentally retarded teenager Brian (Justin Bartha) does a spastic dance of joy.

Posted by aalkon at 01:29 AM

August 02, 2003

The World Is Not Your Ashtray

The World Is Not Your Ashtray
Like me, Chris Woolson is sick of people turning the roads and highways into their own personal trash dump by tossing cigarette butts, food wrappers, and other crap from their cars. Here's an excerpt on the topic from one of my old columns:

"Like many of my friends, I�ve always been a minor revolutionary. When I�m not picking fights with drivers of environment-blackening battleship-sized SUV�s (�Your vehicle says a lot about you, and this one screams �extremely small penis��), I�m berating people who toss their cigarette butts on the ground: �Hey, loser...the world is not your ashtray!�

A man after my own little activist heart, Woolson's done something about the litter thang -- creating the site litterbutt.com, for drivers to report the license plates other drivers they see mucking up the planet. Do your part! Report a litterbutthead today!

Posted by aalkon at 09:48 AM

Hopelessly Nostalgic For A Bob Hope Who Didn�t Exist

Hopelessly Nostalgic For A Bob Hope Who Didn�t Exist
Was fondly remembered "funny man" and "family man" Bob Hope either one of those things? He never was very funny during my lifetime. Christopher Hitchens is one of very few media voices telling the unfunny truth about Bob Hope. Well, part of it. The other night on CNN�s Larry King Live, Bill Maher alluded to the rest of the untold truth -- how Hope's media-manufactured legendary status as one of America's great family men covered up his legendary status as one of Hollywood�s great �dogs.�

Here�s a bit of Hitchens on Hope:

�To be paralyzingly, painfully, hopelessly unfunny is not a particular defect or shortcoming in, say, a cable repair man or a Supreme Court justice or a Navy Seal. These jobs can be performed humorlessly with no loss of efficiency or impact. But to be paralyzingly, painfully, hopelessly unfunny is a serious drawback, even lapse, in a comedian. And the late Bob Hope devoted a fantastically successful and well-remunerated lifetime to showing that a truly unfunny man can make it as a comic. There is a laugh here, but it is on us.

Give a man a reputation as an early riser, said Mark Twain, and that man can thereafter sleep until noon. Quick, then�what is your favorite Bob Hope gag? It wouldn't take you long if I challenged you on Milton Berle, or Woody Allen, or John Cleese, or even (for the older customers) Lenny Bruce or Mort Sahl. By this time tomorrow, I bet you haven't come up with a real joke for which Hope could take credit.�

Here�s one of the rare mentions in print of Hope�s infidelities:

"Though untrained in acting, Barbara Payton nabbed a starlet�s contract with Universal Studios in late 1948 and did a few bit parts, but the studio dropped her the following summer after word got around that she was having an affair with married man Bob Hope. She had met Hope in March 1949 at a hotel party in Houston, becoming something of a Hope groupie by following him around the country for several weeks as he made personal appearances. Upon their return to Hollywood, the actor allegedly set her up in a little love-nest on Cheremoya Avenue, for which he promptly purchased all the necessary furnishings, including, in the words of one tabloid, "...a king-size double bed that was the set for many rollicking good times." The couple�s sex fling, however, would last just six months � ending abruptly when Payton began pressuring him for large amounts of money to help cover her living expenses. Hope�s advisors reportedly paid her off with a handsome sum � with the stipulation that she keep quiet and disappear."

Posted by aalkon at 03:18 AM

August 01, 2003

The Case For "Airing Dirty Laundry"

The Case For "Airing Dirty Laundry"
Syndicated columnist Cathy Seipp peers into the San Francisco dog mauling case and the Kobe case and comes up where I do -- concluding that rape victims� identities shouldn�t be kept out of the media:

�...yes, rape is violating and dehumanizing - but no more so (and probably less) than being torn apart like a rabbit caught by hounds. To suggest otherwise buys into the notion that sexual assault - alone among all kinds of assault - somehow contaminates its victim. The media has no business indulging this kind of thinking.�

Posted by aalkon at 02:44 PM

The Same Old New Math

The Same Old New Math
Even U.S. Tax Court nominees can�t figure out out their tax bill. The Senate Finance Committee made Bush Tax Court nominee Glen Bower, formerly a director of the Illinois Department of Revenue, file amended returns for 1999, 2000 and 2001 "to eliminate improper deductions for entertainment, gifts and meals." According to an AP story by Mary Dalrymple, it seems Bower didn�t even realize his deductions were improper until the senators reviewing his nomination pointed it out to him. "The committee found questionable deductions for unreimbursed employee expenses during its initial inspection early this year. Bower prepared amended returns and submitted those to the committee, and the panel found more improper deductions."

That didn�t stop Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) from blowing hot air on Bower�s behalf:

"It is rare we get the benefit of someone who has made tax law, administered tax law and judged tax cases to serve on the Tax Court -- certainly good qualifications."

(He forgot "and almost succeeded at tax evasion." Don�t these guys have a crumb of shame?)

Going on the (perhaps generous) assumption that Bower isn�t an unrepentant sleazebag, it�s apparent that the tax code is so difficult that even the tax experts can�t figure out what they can and can�t deduct. One more reason why we should have sales tax instead of income tax.

Posted by aalkon at 10:34 AM

July 31, 2003

THIS SITE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION

THIS SITE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Wear your rhinestoned hard-hat.

I'm switching over to Moveable Type with an RSS feed, so I'll have permalinks. Here are my blog entries from July and before -- soon to be replaced in their old home on the side of the page.

BLOG ARCHIVES July 16-30, 2003

July 1-15, 2003

June 16-30, 2003

June 1-15, 2003

May 11-31, 2003

Posted by aalkon at 09:28 PM

The Holy Roller-In-Chief

The Holy Roller-In-Chief
Blogger and crime writer Roger Simon chokes on Bush�s sinner-speak:

Bush: "I am mindful that we're all sinners and I caution those who may try to take a speck out of the neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own," the president said. "I think it is important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts."

Roger Simon: "Sinners?... Whoa! I thought we had separation of church and state in this country. What about those of us who don't believe in 'original sin?' Hey, George, I'm not a perfect man, but I don't think of myself as a 'sinner.' More to the point, I don't think of homosexuals as 'sinners' either, just people with a different sexual orientation from me. This kind of belief reminds me of the very thing I thought we were fighting -- primitive fundamentalism. It comes from the same retrograde value system that wants to restrict stem cell research."

I�m with Roger. I�m also with gays and lesbians who shouldn�t be denied the rights available to heterosexuals who can marry. (If they are, they should at least get a huge tax break for not having access to full-service citizenship.) I�m also for a registered partnership system in this country -- like the PACs in France -- which grants rights to both gay and straight people in committed partnerships if they simply ask for those rights by signing a PACs declaration.

Yes, the issue actually goes beyond gay marriage. In addition to gays and lesbians who can't get married thanks to legions of religious fanatics who think like our Fundamentalist-In-Chief, there are vast numbers of committed partners in this country, gay and straight, who are denied the numerous rights married taxpayers get simply because they don�t wish to partake of the religiously based fantasy forever of marriage. ("Fantasy forever" because, for so many people who marry, the reality of "forever" frequently doesn�t outlast a cheap pair of shoes.) How about some rights for us rational realists, Mr. Bush? Separation of church and state, anyone?

(via Instapundit)

To sign a petition in support of marriage equality, click here

Posted by aalkon at 10:20 AM

Today�s Icky Press Release

Today�s Icky Press Release
Wrap your husband around your little finger -- dead or alive!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
A Forever Memorial
Memorial Diamonds are Natural Diamonds infused with the cremated remains of the loved ones. This is an Enternal Remembrance to be passed through the generations. To create this precious Heirloom, 5 grams of cremated remains are incorporated for eternity within the diamond. This everlasting memorial can be ordered at selected funeral homes in the USA and Canada. You are kindly invited to visit our website and please feel free to contact us for further information, we remain at your complete disposal.
Sincerely,
Memorial Gems Laboratories

No...please tell me they didn�t just say "we remain at your complete disposal."

Posted by aalkon at 10:19 AM

Eat Farmed Salmon, Get PCBs Free!

Eat Farmed Salmon, Get PCBs Free!
That�s cancer-causing PCBs, and they�re in a whole lot of farmed salmon, according to this report from the non-profit Environmental Working Group.

Farmed salmon are often fed contaminated fish food, plus they�re fattened up, which means they retain more PCBs than those wild-swimming waif salmon. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that some stores are taking this Salmon plus PCBs deal seriously:

Wild Oats, a 100-store natural and organic supermarket chain, based in Boulder, Colo., is not waiting for the FDA. Starting next week, it will sell farmed organic salmon from the west coast of Ireland, which it says tests as low for PCBs as wild salmon because the company uses feed made of fish taken from clean waters within a 30-mile radius of its farm.

Whole Foods Market, a 145-store natural and organic foods supermarket with stores in the Seattle area, is also looking for farmed salmon with lower levels of PCBs.

(via Plastic.com)

Posted by aalkon at 10:18 AM

July 30, 2003

Fucked Family Values

Fucked Family Values
"It would be far fetched to argue that the Fuck family has not made its way into mainstream society," argues Colorado public defender Eric Vanatta on behalf of a boy who swore at the principal after getting caught smoking in the boys bathroom. Vanatta defends the boy with an exhaustive study of the "F-word" in these court papers posted on The Smoking Gun.

Don�t miss Vanatta's chart comparing 'net hits on Fuck (24,900,000), Fucking (24,700,000), Fucker (735,000), and Mom (9,040,000). Then there�s the bottom line: "...not whether Fuck is a desirable or attractive word, or whether a juvenile should be calling his principle a fucker or a fucking fag..." but whether "the use of the words fucker and fucking...amount to criminal conduct in this particular context."

Our hardworking public defender wisely points to Cohen v. California, 1971, which allows speech (even "vulgar" speech) so long as it�s not likely to lead to violence on the part of the person it�s directed at. Vanatta highlights the relevant passage from the Cohen v. Cali Supreme Court decision: "...one man�s vulgarity is another�s lyric. Indeed, we think it is largely because governmental officials cannot make principled distinctions in this area that the Constitution leaves matters of taste and style so largely to the individual." (Sometimes you just gotta love those Supremes.)

Epilogue: "Sadly," The Smoking Gun reports, "Vanatta never got the chance to argue his motion before a judge. Because ten days ago he cut a plea deal that deferred prosecution of his client for four months--if the kid stays out of trouble during that period, the charge gets dismissed."

Posted by aalkon at 08:39 PM

Feeling Left Out Of All The Lesbian Chic?

Feeling Left Out Of All The Lesbian Chic?
Come out of the closet as heterosexual! And, speaking of closets, here�s just the thing to wear for your first �straight pride� march. And don't forget the ugly bumper stickers to go with all your ugly new clothes. (The only thing the "movement" seems to be missing is a talented gay designer to create attractive attire.)

(via Metafilter)

Posted by aalkon at 08:32 PM

Love On The Run

Love On The Run
Inspired by the Malaysian Islamic court decision allowing a husband to divorce his wife by cell phone text message, Simon Jefferey jotted down a few of the ruder lover-leavings in an article in The Guardian:

Billy Bob Thornton
Ended his co-habiting relationship with fellow actor Laura Dern by marrying Angelina Jolie. "I left our home to work on a movie and, while I was away, my boyfriend got married and I've never heard from him again," (Dern) explained.

James Brown
A "mutual decision was made by both parties", according to a full page advertisement in the entertainment magazine Variety that announced Brown's divorce from Tomi Rea. It was illustrated with a photograph of his family with Goofy at Disneyworld.

John Donne
Seventeenth century poet and clergyman who was separated from his 17-year-old beloved after her uncle had him imprisoned for marrying a minor. From jail he wrote the lines: "John Donne, Anne Donne, undone."

Matt Damon
The US actor dumped Minnie Driver - whom he had met filming Good Will Hunting - live to the American nation on the Oprah Winfrey chat show.

Posted by aalkon at 08:30 PM

July 29, 2003

How Average Is Your Penis?

How Average Is Your Penis?

(via Lena Cuisina)

Posted by aalkon at 08:45 PM

Is It BuyMusic Or StealMusic?

Is It BuyMusic Or StealMusic?
Musician Jody Whitesides says BuyMusic.com, the new music site that�s aping the iTunes model, is ripping him and other musicians off:

Here's what I've deduced... BuyMusic.com (which I will refer to as BM) got their "vast" music library of 300,000 plus songs from a company called the Orchard. The Orchard is a distribution company that has consistently shafted artists by not paying them for CD's sold nor returning unsold CD's or cancelling contracts. So, without the express consent of what is likely lots of the Orchards catalog, BM has put it up for sale at the bargain price of $.79 a song.

So now, they can tout they're selling tracks at $.79 and they can say they have a library of music of over 300,000 songs. But what they don't tell you is that it comes from musicians/bands that were not asked for permission, and who will likely not see a penny of any sale made through BM. By their very own site policy they are committing copyright infringement. They have done this to lure PC/windows users to their site in hopes to sell the few major label aquired songs they do have, at a price that is much higher than Apple's $.99.

Note: BuyMusic.com isn't viewable on a Mac without a browser hack to turn off Javascript. (Ha! Like Mac users aren't going to zip past their lousy site right on over to iTunes.)

Posted by aalkon at 10:17 AM

July 28, 2003

Tough Times For Scam Artists

Tough Times For Scam Artists
You almost want to phone CollegeCamChc275 and give her all your credit card numbers. Poor dear can�t even afford separate screen names for separate scams. Yes, she�s forced to use the same screen name to trick elderly grandmothers out of their credit card numbers that she uses to lure horny mouthbreathers into watching her �study� nude. Here's the un-spell-checked (see �belive�) Instant Message for gullible grannies I got from her come-hither horny boys screenname:

CollegeCamChc275: Hello AdviceAmy, this is Whitney Forrester from America Online's Community Actions Team (C.A.T). We have reason to belive that a hacker has gained access to your account. We need to speak with the main account holder. Please call our toll free hotline at (503) 267-3743. Thank you- Whitney Forrester Employee ID: 67170113

On a positive note, CollegeCam is clever enough to incorporate the acronym, �C.A.T.� and the "Employee ID" number -- amping the believability of her message for anyone who�s both retarded and suffering from a recent concussion. The same goes for that �toll-free� number with the 503 area code. You want to scam me, don�t also insult me by treating me like a total bleeding idiot.

Posted by aalkon at 08:59 PM

Whole Foods Employee Instructs Half-Witted Shoppers

Whole Foods Employee Instructs Half-Witted Shoppers
My favorites from this Best Of Craig�s List posting from a Whole Foodster:

*Food is for SALE at Whole Foods. On the days when there aren't samples out exactly when you get out of yoga for you to feed yourself and your toddlers and your au pair for free, you can still purchase some of what you sampled yesterday. Judging by what you drive, you can afford it.

*Having ongoing, localized headaches? Oh sure, the 23 year old with the lip ring is the first person I'd go to.

*You goad: How can you work here? Doesn't Whole Foods bust unions? So don't shop here. Go bug Safeway for organic caperberries.

Posted by aalkon at 08:58 PM

You Can't Read Her In The Los Angeles Times

You Can't Read Her In The Los Angeles Times
Luckily, The New York Times doesn't seem to have any seventh-grade grudge-type compunction about publishing crack political columnist Jill Stewart's views about the Gray Davis recall on their op-ed page. (All who want Jill herself to mud-wrestle Arianna Huffington for the governor's job, say "aye.")

(NYT reg. required)

Posted by aalkon at 08:57 PM

Flight Of The Underparented Child

Flight Of The Underparented Child
Note to traveling parents: If you are at the airport in a crowded flight lounge, and I am there, too, in that same crowded flight lounge, please feel free to hurl yourselves to the conclusion that I have zero desire to hear your child�s musical toy repeating the same song four hundred times while I�m waiting to get on the plane. Yes, please just take it on faith.

Posted by aalkon at 08:56 PM

Gray And Grayer

Gray And Grayer
Disputing the intelligence of the (California Gov.) Gray Davis recall effort, Bill Maher, on his HBO show, Real Time, says when you elect a guy you should be "stuck with him":

"He�s the governor, not some dude you married in Las Vegas."

Posted by aalkon at 08:55 PM

July 27, 2003

New York, New York

New York, New York
Where I've been the past four days, and why blogging has been rather "lite." Here are three thousand words about my trip:

New York Babies

New York Babe

New York Me

Posted by aalkon at 09:01 PM

July 26, 2003

How Do You Take Your Pot -- Smoked Or In A Suppository?

How Do You Take Your Pot -- Smoked Or In A Suppository?
Health Canada puts out directions for medical marijuana use -- from doobies (�not recommended�) to doing it up the butt (one of their handy-dandy suggestions). Their pot users manual also suggests baking it into cookies as a healthier way of getting baked. (Having the Canadian national health service put out this info -- well, it's kind of like having your mother instruct you in the right way to fasten your rubber hood.)

(spotted on Reason.com)

Posted by aalkon at 11:02 AM

July 25, 2003

Kentucky Fried Car

Kentucky Fried Car
A small but increasing number of people -- including some in the U.S. military -- are filling their cars with old grease from fast food joints. According to this Wired story, they�re "running their diesel engines off either straight vegetable oil, known as SVO, or vegetable oil that has been converted to diesel fuel, or biodiesel." (They don�t mention what effect a diet high in saturated fat might have on your transmission.)

Posted by aalkon at 11:04 AM

July 24, 2003

How Much Will You Charge To Get Interrupted During Dinner?

How Much Will You Charge To Get Interrupted During Dinner?
Tyler Cowen suggests on Eugene Volokh's blog that telemarketers pay to irritate the shit out of us. Good idea, I think. The cost of waking me from my afternoon nap is now $3,012.50, not including tax. Any takers?

Posted by aalkon at 11:06 AM

July 23, 2003

The Kobe Wars

The Kobe Wars
There's a very interesting discussion about the Kobe Bryant rape case and related issues on Kevin Roderick's LAObserved, one of my favorite blogs. Here's an excerpt from my post from this discussion:

"One of my problems with feminists (and I'm not a feminist, but a humanist) is their infantilization of women. Ted's remark calls to mind my thoughts when the William Kennedy Smith rape trial was in progress: that nobody should be raped, certainly not -- but that a woman has a responsibility to act intelligently as far as her safety goes. If you go to the Kennedy compound late at night with one of the boys, what do you think is on the agenda, checkers in the library? Come on. Again, I'm not saying anybody should be raped, or that it's not horrible when someone is. Just that women need to fight the infantilization by the feminists and expect to look after their own safety by being reasonable and sensible about where they go and with whom."

Posted by aalkon at 11:10 AM

Sports Stars Need More Than Condoms For Protection

Sports Stars Need More Than Condoms For Protection
They'll probably nickname it "The Kobe Release." That would be the handy, wallet-sized legal document I'm predicting all the big sports stars will whip out for chippies to sign before they have sex with them. The document will affirm, among other things, that the sex is consensual, the girl is of age, and the only compensation she�s going to get for her troubles is a big, bad bounce on the mattress (or wherever else they�re doing it).

Note: It's only a threesome if the notary stays in the room after the fun starts.

Posted by aalkon at 11:09 AM

Film Critics As Nannies

Film Critics As Nannies
In this Salon review of "How To Deal," Charles Taylor complains about fuddy duddy critics like Joel Siegel, who went on Good Morning America to warn parents to keep their daughters out of the new Mandy Moore movie. Why? As Taylor quotes from A.O. Scott�s New York Times review: "How to Deal' is rated PG-13. Teenagers have sex. Old ladies smoke pot. Deal with it." Taylor takes it from there:

"America is willfully naive and hopelessly hypocritical about teen sexuality. We bemoan teen pregnancy rates and pretend to be worried about the threat of AIDS and then do everything we can to keep teenagers from getting sexual information or access to contraception and abortion. Trashing the already tenuous separation between church and state, we allow the religious right and other social conservatives to promote abstinence programs in schools. The abstinence advocates ignore the fact that teenagers will have sex, in hopes of instituting some Christian summer camp utopia where, instead, teens will hold hands at the malt shoppe.

The result is predictable. When you tell kids that condoms are no guarantee against AIDS -- instead of telling them that condoms are their best defense against AIDS if they are sexually active -- you are tacitly telling teenagers that there's no point in using condoms. We don't tell kids who take driver's education that the only guarantee of not being killed in a car accident is to never get into a car; we give them information that will increase their chances of being safe."

Posted by aalkon at 11:08 AM

July 22, 2003

Welfare For Rich Kids

Welfare For Rich Kids
You, too, can (and will) send a rich kid to college -- after his or her rich parents hire a sleazy financial planner to help them hide all their assets. The parents sock the dough into their house or an annuity, and the public kicks in for their little slacker�s tuition at Brown. Sweet, huh?

By the way, I don�t think those who don�t have kids should ever have to pay the tuition (including that from K-12) of those who do -- unless the kids' parents are genuinely scraping the poverty-line. You choose to have kids? You pay for them -- socks, juvenile hall incidentals, school tuition, and all.

Posted by aalkon at 11:12 AM

Should The "Bambi" Hunts Be Banned?

Should The "Bambi" Hunts Be Banned?
Two words: consenting adults.

Posted by aalkon at 11:11 AM

July 21, 2003

Terrible Tenants Can Be Great Passive-Aggressive Fun!

Terrible Tenants Can Be Great Passive-Aggressive Fun!
In this Slate pre-vacation classic, Jodie T. Allen has a few things to say to her former renters, like:

"I don't want to be intrusive, but if your guests do get into another knife fight or whatever, it's really easy to get the blood splatters out of the white frilled curtains if you wash them in cold water right away. (You can just throw them in the washing machine, if the kids' sandy clothes haven't stripped the gears yet.)..."

Posted by aalkon at 11:15 AM

Not Another Dull Request For Love Advice

Not Another Dull Request For Love Advice
It came in just after the e-mail from the panties sniffer, who was thrilled to announce:

"I recently discovered a conventional term [Barosmia] for the fetish I have and that is arousal by the natural odor of an adult woman."

Oh, goody. Thanks for sharing.

At least he didn�t ask me to be the Barosmia PR lady:

"Hi Amy, I am writing a novel. I am not a writer but I do have someone to assist me with the revising and some researching. I believe my novel is something you have been waiting for. I live in the city of Santa Monica and I am a low income parent with two boy. I would like to submit my synopsis to you hoping that you may be able to help me bring it to life and possibly promote my book. I guarantee you won't regret it. This book will blow your hair way back!"

ME: Was there any trash you wanted me to take out or laundry you wanted me to do?

Cathy Seipp writes wittily, as always, about this sort of thing:

"...When people, especially men, learn I am a freelance writer, I seem to be wearing a T-shirt that reads: 'Let Me Be the Handmaiden to Your Genius.'"

Posted by aalkon at 11:14 AM

Internet Personals For Married Cheaters

Internet Personals For Married Cheaters
Philanderers.com

Posted by aalkon at 11:13 AM

July 20, 2003

Ford Counts Backward

Ford Counts Backward
Ford gets worse miles than ever in its new SUVs -- contrary to its pledge to raise the fuel economy of its SUVs by 25 percent between 2000 and 2005. This doesn't stop William Clay Ford from paying lip service, in a New York Times article, to the environment and the friends and families of soldiers: "But I do reaffirm our commitment to continue to work toward improving the fuel economy of our S.U.V.'s and, indeed, to cutting greenhouse gas emissions across our entire range of vehicles." Yeah, yeah, yeah...

But, Bill...you've already raised fuel efficiency...and safety -- time and time again -- as have the other car companies. Yes, you've done it every time you've produced a new mini-van. Mini-vans are highly fuel-efficient, highly safe vehicles with a low center of gravity and a wide wheel base, making them very tough to roll over. See...you car company boys can build them safer and less polluting -- if and when you want to.

To anybody considering investing in a road-hogging, gas-guzzling, gigundo new Ford SUV: If you can afford a brand new SUV, you can afford an Insight or a Prius, or one of an increasing number of hybrid cars on the market. Just remember what to ask yourself if you do buy an enormo SUV: What's the MPG? As in -- how many dead Marines Per Gallon to fill the tank on that thing?

(NYT reg. required)

Posted by aalkon at 11:17 AM

Is PETA Feathering Its Nest With Contributor Dollars?

Is PETA Feathering Its Nest With Contributor Dollars?
Numbers cruncher and database detective Trent Stamp tells Allison Overholt, in Fast Company, that PETA gets "an unflattering two-star rating" for the amount of money that actually goes to the cause. Other organizations are worse. According to Stamp�s nonprofit organization, Charity Navigator, the Multiple Sclerosis Association of America spends "more on fund-raising than they do battling MS." An MSAA spokewoman claims they�re "working hard to �rein in costs.'" (I�m sure they�re verrrry motivated, too!) Here�s more from Overholt�s piece on PETA's divvying of dollars:

"Compared with other animal-rights groups, Stamp reports, a smaller percentage of PETA's dollars goes to protecting animals. PETA general counsel Jeff Kerr counters: '[Charity Navigator's] board is made up of marketing people from the pharmaceutical industry -- of course they hate us.' Stamp doesn't shy away from the criticism. In the end, he wants donors to take a closer look at the finances of their favorite cause. And if that scrutiny breeds greater efficiency -- even if it drives some charities out of business -- well, that's fine with him."

(via Instapundit)

Posted by aalkon at 11:16 AM

July 19, 2003

Boohoo For Telemarketers

Boohoo For Telemarketers
Farhad Manjoo makes big, phoney libertarian sniffles on Salon that the government has regulated the telemarketers out of business. Take it from this libertarian: He�s wrong. There�s been no government prohibition against telemarketing. What the government has given the public is merely voluntary access to a giant no-trespassing sign -- same as door-to-door solicitors see at my house.

Telemarketing is paid for by us -- the people receiving unwanted calls. Just as Monica Harrington points out in an angry letter to Salon, I pay for Caller ID mainly so I might have a chance of avoiding telemarketing calls. When telemarketers cleverly manipulate their number so it doesn�t appear on my Caller ID, I pay with my time and aggravation. And, I pay in missed calls that I do want -- when an automated telemarketer leaves such a long recording on my machine that it runs out my tape. (I can�t have voicemail, because I�m often in Paris, and it�s impossible to get American voicemail messages with a Parisian phone card -- the # sign deactivates the call.) And why should I have to get voicemail -- just because the salespigs with the autodialer at Bid2000 think repeatedly irritating the crap out of me will get me to an auto auction, when it just gets me to make yet another complaint about them to the California attorney general?

Harrington makes another good point:

"Perhaps we should all be able to 'refer' our calls to the people, like Farhad, who want them. I'm happy to send my calls, my 87-year-old mother's calls, and my airline pilot neighbor's calls (he likes to nap in the daytime so he's ready for late-night departures) to Farhad. I'm sure with a little time, I could come up with hundreds of other referrals, and those wonderful telemarketing jobs can be saved."

Another Salon letter writer knocked the Manjoo's notion that telemarketers are no different than the people who solicit for money at the airport. Wrong again, Manjoo. The Hari Krishnas aren�t chasing you through the airport, calling your name, forcing you to have a conversation with them, and making you late for your plane. If you don�t want to buy a flower, you just breeze past.

Too bad the bill exempts those making political calls and others -- another fine example of sleazy government self-interest. Of course, there�s still redress on the part of consumers. For example: anybody who calls me asking for my vote probably guarantees that they will not get it.

(required: watch an annoying commercial to read Manjoo�s Salon Premium story. Access to letters to the editor is free.)

Posted by aalkon at 11:18 AM

July 18, 2003

Reading Is Fundamental(ly Suspicious)

Reading Is Fundamental(ly Suspicious)
A tipster reports a dangerous character to the FBI. This dangerous character turns out to be an �underemployed� book shop clerk, Mark Schultz. His dangerous character-type activity? Reading a printout in a coffee shop of an alt weekly article, "Weapons Of Mass Stupidity," critical of Fox TV. The FBI pays Schultz a visit.

(via Romenesko)

Posted by aalkon at 11:20 AM

DWN (Driving While Ninety)

DWN (Driving While Ninety)
Don Barrett writes on the LA Times op ed page about taking the car keys away from his 86-year-old father after the DMV let him cheat his way to a passing grade on his driving test. (LAT reg. required -- try laexaminer for both sign-in and log-in.)

(via LAObserved)

Posted by aalkon at 11:19 AM

Reporter Comes Out Of The Closet As...Canadian!

Reporter Comes Out Of The Closet As...Canadian!
...After The White House leaks news of his citizenship -- and the news that he's gay to the Drudge Report. In Lloyd Grove's Washington Post column, the reporter, Jeffrey Kofman, calls his life "an open book." "A network insider was less sanguine about the White House tactic: 'Playing hardball is one thing. But appealing to homophobia and jingoism is simply ugly.'"

(via Romanesko)

Posted by aalkon at 11:18 AM

July 17, 2003

Hairy Palms, Healthy Prostate

Hairy Palms, Healthy Prostate
Masturbating frequently may protect men from prostate cancer, according a team of Australian researchers. (Especially if men are the ones doing the masturbating.)

Posted by aalkon at 11:22 AM

Family Feuds Died Down?

Family Feuds Died Down?
Find long-lost relatives to fight with by searching ellisisland.org.

(via Metafilter)

Posted by aalkon at 11:21 AM

July 16, 2003

Pay Thousands Of Dollars To Learn Everything You Don�t Need To Know To Have A Successful Career In The Film Industry

Pay Thousands Of Dollars To Learn Everything You Don�t Need To Know To Have A Successful Career In The Film Industry
David Weddle, Sam Peckinpah biographer and episodic television writer/producer, sends his daughter, Alexis, to UCSB film school for $73,000-plus -- and it turns out to be his own very expensive lesson in what's become of film theory. (Roger Ebert, whom he interviews, calls (neo) film theory "a cruel hoax for students, essentially the academic equivalent of a New Age cult...") Here�s what Weddle says about a little sample of his daughter�s coursework:

"The prose was denser than a Kevlar flak jacket, full of such words as 'diegetic,' 'heterogeneity,' 'narratology,' 'narrativity,' 'symptomology,' 'scopophilia,' 'signifier,' 'syntagmatic,' 'synecdoche,' 'temporality.' I picked out two of them�'fabula' and 'syuzhet'�and asked Alexis if she knew what they meant. 'They're the Russian Formalist terms for 'story' and 'plot,' she replied.

'Well then, why don't they use 'story' and 'plot?'

'We're not allowed to. If we do, they take points off our paper. We have to use 'fabula' and 'syuzhet.'' Forget for a moment that if Alexis were to use these terms on a Hollywood set, she'd be laughed off the lot. Alexis wants a career in film." more>>

(LAT reg. required - try laexaminer as login, password)

(via Metafilter)

Posted by aalkon at 11:23 AM

Canadian Schools Are Stoopid, Too

Canadian Schools Are Stoopid, Too
Sounds like this renegade Canadian teacher will soon be forced to sit in the corner, then write 300 times on the blackboard, "I will not help my students after school, I will not help my students after school..."

Chris Lackner reports in the National Post that English and history teacher Jack Nahrgang, this year's winner of the Stewart Award for excellence in teaching, "will be investigated for breaching union protocol." Nahrgang's offense? Breaking a union rule "only allowing teachers to provide extra assistance to students during a 15-minute window before or after class."

(via Cathy Seipp bud Joanne Jacobs)

Posted by aalkon at 11:22 AM

July 15, 2003

My Uncle Is Not A Monkey

My Uncle Is Not A Monkey
I had to check three times for signs this anti-evolutionary Web site wasn't a parody, because it�s just too hilarious to be real. It celebrates winners of the Fellowship Baptist Creation �Science� Fair.

In the elementary school division, "Cassidy Turnbull (grade 5) presented her uncle, Steve. She also showed photographs of monkeys and invited fairgoers to note the differences between her uncle and the monkeys. She tried to feed her uncle bananas, but he declined to eat them. Cassidy has conclusively shown that her uncle is no monkey."

In the high school division, Jonathan Goode scored second place for his project, "Women Were Designed For Homemaking." Clever Jonathan "applied findings from many fields of science to support his conclusion that God designed women for homemaking: physics shows that women have a lower center of gravity than men, making them more suited to carrying groceries and laundry baskets."

(via Cruel Site Of The Day)

Posted by aalkon at 01:48 AM

July 14, 2003

Eugene Volokh Has His Way With The "Gay Sex Is Unnatural" Argument

Eugene Volokh Has His Way With The "Gay Sex Is Unnatural" Argument
Our favorite constitutional law prof explains a thing or two (or eight) to anybody who tries to trot out the argument that gays shouldn't be married because "gay sex is unnatural":

"...Arguments that try to enlist seemingly neutral concepts such as "nature" or abstract logic as a support for opposition to homosexuality or homosexual marriage do not strike me as plausible. On closer examination, they generally turn out to be ways of hiding one's religious, moral, and practical judgments, rather than as a genuine supplement to or foundation for those judgments."

Posted by aalkon at 12:59 PM

Why Can't Gay People Be Miserable, Too?

Why Can't Gay People Be Miserable, Too?
�Why should only straight people suffer through the family fights, expense, pettiness, grudges, and stress of planning a wedding?� asks self-proclaimed "conservative" columnist Rondi Adamson, in the Christian Science Monitor.

Posted by aalkon at 02:01 AM

"Don�t Hate Yourself Because You�re Beautiful"

"Don�t Hate Yourself Because You�re Beautiful"
Heather Havrilesky on self-esteem for gorgeous people: "Maybe you have the kind of ass that causes five-car pile-ups. That doesn't mean you have to get all down on yourself about it."

Posted by aalkon at 01:00 AM

July 13, 2003

�Imagine A Corporation Run By The Meanest Kids From High School...�

�Imagine A Corporation Run By The Meanest Kids From High School...�
At Enron, "the ones who were able to claw, cheat, or charm their way to the top of the class, as long as it was a relatively average class," were the people in power. Marianne Lavelle reviews Enron whistleblower Sherron Watkins� tale of "a company too obsessed with maintaining its cool style to actually get around to running a business of substance." Here�s more:

"For all its talk of 'Enron smart,' the company never attracted the cream of the crop from the Ivy Leagues; its business was too obscure, and located in Houston, of all places. Instead, it drew its talent from a peculiar pool of Midwestern overachievers. It was important, in this bunch, to run with the right clique (the traders, not the asset managers). Competition was brutal, not only over deals, but over 'deal toys,' obscenely expensive crystal knickknacks purchased from Neiman Marcus to commemorate such triumphs. Grown executives would hyperventilate over the pressure to stage the best skit at a company dinner. In his heyday, Skilling once ruminated over a new motto for Enron, 'the world's coolest company.'"

Posted by aalkon at 02:24 AM

The British War On Drugs Isn�t Working Either

The British War On Drugs Isn�t Working Either
"It is self-defeating to make criminals out of addicts," says this London Observer editorial.

From another Observer piece:
A retired British surgeon, 70, calls "for ecstasy and other recreational drugs to be legalised in a bid to stamp out violent crime fueled by the drugs trade." Dr. Connie Fozzard "believes it is time for a public debate over 'nanny state' attitudes," and says the government should be "treating people as adults and not treating adults as children in their own homes."

(An election or two of representatives who vote on issues according to common and scientific sense, instead of by sticking their fingers up to figure out which way the political wind is blowing, wouldn�t hurt either.)

"Prohibition should be banned," writes Arnold Kemp in an Observer opinion piece. "In the Twenties, US Prohibition stimulated the production and consumption of booze and gave gangsterism a massive financial injection. Less malignantly it spawned the jazz age. In our own times, we have seen the massive failure of drug interdiction. It has corrupted police forces across the world and given violent gangs a route to wealth. It has spawned demented policies like Plan Colombia. Drugs, or the addict's need for them, more often than not lie behind crimes like robbery and assault."

But, really...does the war on drugs make any difference?
"In the words of a senior Customs officer, its present position is evidence of staggering, long-term defeat: 'We've been working our socks off for years, seizing more and more hard drugs; bringing more and more people to court. But we have to face the reality that all this effort has had absolutely no effect on drug availability. We've got to be honest about the fact that we've been failing for the last 25 years.'"

And here�s an interesting (yet unsupported) idea from another Observer piece:
"There are other arguments for maintaining the status quo" (continuing the war on drugs). "Some investment professionals hypothesise that there are so many 'narcodollars' pumped into the US stock market that legalisation would lead to their withdrawal and the collapse of the US and world economy.

Regardless of legal status, the drugs industry remains near the peaks of high finance. The extent to which these funds prop up world stock markets will always be unknown..."

Posted by aalkon at 02:13 AM

July 12, 2003

How About A War On Stupid Drug Laws?

How About A War On Stupid Drug Laws?
Linda Obst, who produced Sleepless In Seattle, The Fisher King, How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days, and is now in production on The Hot Zone, was arrested in Texas on Sunday for carrying �a small amount of pot.� Obviously, it�s slippery slope, pot smoking -- leading to a hugely successful career as a prolific and respected movie producer.

Posted by aalkon at 02:32 AM

Nice Evangelical Christian Guy Seeks A Third Wife

Nice Evangelical Christian Guy Seeks A Third Wife
(While still being married to the first two.) And a woman claims polygamy is "The Ultimate Feminist Lifestyle": "It's a rare day when all eight of my husband's wives are tired and stressed at the same time."

(via Metafilter)

Posted by aalkon at 02:30 AM

July 11, 2003

No More Nanny State

No More Nanny State
�The plan is to legalize almost everything and let adults be adults,� writes Ed Cone. �Let�s commit ourselves to becoming a nation of grown-ups, with an eye for accounting, a respect for complexity, and a well-developed sense of humor. It�s time for the emerging libertarian majority to make itself known. That�s libertarian with a small �l� � an ideal of personal freedom, not a political party. Parties serve their own ends, that�s one reason for the rebellion.� More from Cone�s piece:

"Liberty is going to have to mean letting other people do things you don't approve of. If you want to smoke dope and your neighbor wants to smoke cigarettes and the guy across the street wants to give a gun to his boyfriend as an engagement present before their lavish church wedding, nobody can be telling the others what they can and can�t do.

Respect everyone�s privacy and maybe you�ll end up treating everyone with respect. A lot of energy is spent arguing about issues of personal choice, stuff the government really doesn�t need to be regulating. It benefits politicians and the media to keep re-fighting the culture wars, but it distracts them from more important things � which is one reason those fires are continually stoked. Without the covering enfilade from ideologues on all sides, it should be harder for our public servants to lie to us."

(via Instapundit)

Posted by aalkon at 02:41 AM

July 10, 2003

Granny Gimme

Granny Gimme
Rich old people don�t need our help at the pharmacy cash register, writes Kerry Howley in Reason. �Why not means test?� asks Jay Caruso. Wealthy old people aren�t the only ones who shouldn�t be getting a free or subsidized ride. For all the handouts to people in need of all ages, how come there are no handbacks when handout recipients strike it rich? Take Alisa Valdez-Rodriguez (previously best known for her embarrassing crash-and-burn 3,400-word LA Times resignation letter), who got Medicaid while writing her strike-it-rich first novel. Quoting from The Weekly Alibi, �Alisa, her husband and baby were living with her father. Medicaid paid maternity expenses.� Okay, Alisa, so we helped you in your time of need. Now you�re riding on a $500,000 book advance. Where�s the money we fronted you? We want our money back!

Posted by aalkon at 09:41 AM

Recall Mayor Hahn

Recall Mayor Hahn
And the entire LA City Council if they vote for Hahn's idiotic LAX traveler inconveniencing plan. Nick Madigan reports in The New York Times that Hahn seeks to ban cars from the airport "and force airline passengers to check in for their flights and board trains to their planes at a new facility a mile east of the terminals." It's an effort by Hahn to "thwart terrorists," or rather, look like he's thwarting terrorists. According to a RAND Corporation study at which Hahn turned up his nose, "concentrating all passengers in the new check-in location, to be called the Ground Transportation Center, would actually increase the number of casualties in a terrorist attack." Doesn't the City Council have better things to do than make travel out of LAX slower and more inconvenient -- say, keeping willing lap-dancers from servicing their willing customers? Just one more reason to believe that the LA city government's secret LA motto is "Visit Las Vegas!"

Posted by aalkon at 03:44 AM

July 09, 2003

Liars Left And Right

Liars Left And Right
Ann Coulter is �a kind of inverse (Michael) Moore: where's he's ugly and ill-kempt, she's glamorous and impeccably turned out,� writes Andrew Sullivan. He contends �American politics has been badly damaged by the scruple-free tactics� of �these shameless hucksters of ideological hate.�

Posted by aalkon at 01:49 PM

"The Lies Spoiling Organic Food"

"The Lies Spoiling Organic Food"
�Leery of ingesting tasteless, rock-hard supermarket fruit and hormone-laden chickens raised in a space the size of a Palm Pilot�? as Thane Peterson writes in Business Week. Me, too. That�s why, with very few exceptions, I only buy food labeled "organic" -- organic produce, poultry raised without hormones, and grass-fed, hormone-free beef from New Zealand.

I used to think paying more for food labeled organic meant buying into a scam -- until I spent a month in France, where the food is free of pesticides, giganticizing chemicals, and hormones. Beyond the fact that a strawberry that isn't injected with crap to make it the size of a grapefruit tastes amazing, I noticed a real difference in my health after a month eating food free of Frankensteinian meddling: a clearer head and great skin and improved overall health.

Too bad sleazebag legislators and food producers are trying to �jigger the rules so that foods can carry this designation that otherwise wouldn't qualify.� For example,�Georgia chicken producers convinced Representative Nathan Deal (R-Ga.) to add a rider to the 2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill allowing chicken farmers to use regular feed if organic feed got too expensive. Never mind that the resulting chickens wouldn't be "organic" by any reasonable definition.� Representative Nathan Deal? Indeed. Who's his chief of staff, Sally Sell-Out?

Then there�s a �new federal law allowing wild fish to be labeled organic -- a measure that was quietly slipped into the bill passed to fund the Iraq war, at the behest of Alaska Senators Lisa Murkowsky and Ted Stevens.� Sweet. Sure all wild fish are, of course, organic -- if you consider mercury and carcinogenic PCBs organic fish feed. Murkowsky�s aide, Bill Woolf, �says this could be easily dealt with by testing the fish before they're marketed, but the law doesn't contain any provision for testing.�

Posted by aalkon at 01:47 PM

July 08, 2003

How Young Is Too Young For Nipple Piercing?

How Young Is Too Young For Nipple Piercing?
Ask the four-year-old getting her butt tattooed. Please don�t send me �Frankly, I�m aghast!� mail. This site can�t be real. But then again...it probably could. Which is the scariest thing for me. Some entertaining comments about it on Metafilter:

�I mean, I hate children as much as the next guy, but torturing and permanently scarring the little buggers seems a bit out of line, don't you think?�

�Anyone forced to get a Strawberry Shortcake or Garfield tattoo won't be happy about it in later life, I guarantee you that.�

Posted by aalkon at 09:12 AM

�History Has Been Hard On Wacky Chicks�

�History Has Been Hard On Wacky Chicks�
notes Cathy Seipp, in her column about Simon Doonan�s new book, Wacky Chicks. While Wacky Chicks might seem quite nutty they are actually �the opposite of nuts: they have simply found a way to make the world bend to their rules rather than vice versa.�

Historically speaking, being a Wacky Chick tended to increase one�s chances of persecution:

"'Burnt at the stake, or eaten by wolves while doing interpretive dancing in the woods,' Doonan writes, 'The Wacky Chicks of yore were often victimized horribly for their kooky ways.'"

Posted by aalkon at 09:12 AM

June 30, 2003

Amy Alkon, Godless Harlot

Amy Alkon, Godless Harlot
Okay, say there is a god. Don�t you find it a little disconcerting that the guy who goes by names like �The Supreme Being� reportedly needs constant reassurance that people like him? And how about the notion that he�ll go eternally postal on you if you don�t spend a pretty good chunk of time on your knees with a bunch of his other peeps, insisting, �God�s a great guy! God�s a great guy!�? Sure, go with god, if that�s what makes you happy. But, if I were picking somebody to worship, I think I�d align myself with somebody who felt, well, above that sort of thing.

Posted by aalkon at 08:27 PM

The Size Of His Parents' Bank Account, Not The Color Of His Skin

The Size Of His Parents' Bank Account, Not The Color Of His Skin
Economic affirmative action makes sense.

Posted by aalkon at 07:09 PM

A Class Actress On Movie Star Worship:

A Class Actress On Movie Star Worship:

"Acting is the most minor of gifts and not a very high-class way to earn a living. After all, Shirley Temple could do it at the age of four." --Katharine Hepburn

Posted by aalkon at 07:05 PM

May 31, 2003

Trends In Hair Down There

Trends In Hair Down There
(Even straight boys are ripping it off!)

Posted by aalkon at 08:30 PM

The Other Double Standard

The Other Double Standard
�Why is it that women complain when men leave the toilet seat up, but men don�t complain when women leave it down?� writes Thomas Simon. �Why do we always hear the phrase �innocent women and children� but never hear about �innocent men� or �men and children�?� more>>

(Link spotted on ifeminists.com.)

And here's my take on the toilet seat issue.

Posted by aalkon at 08:20 PM

Just like O.J.'s still trying to find the real killer...

Just like O.J.'s still trying to find the real killer...
American cigarette companies are "trying to find a way to reduce the harm associated with our products by reducing the level of harmful constituents that smokers inhale," in the words of death-stick spokes-turd Brendan McCormick. more>>

Posted by aalkon at 01:48 AM

May 30, 2003

This Week In Love Problems

This Week In Love Problems
In writing each week�s column, I come up with a bunch of funny lines, many of which never make it into print. A line from last week�s brainstorming that ended up on the editing room floor is �A man who spends more time in the bathroom than you do is a man who should have a boyfriend of his own"...perfect, it turns out, for a letter that came in today�s mail:

Dear Amy,
I desperately need your help. I don�t know what to do. I have a relationship with a woman I work with. I stay at her place a few nights each week and I�m falling in love with her after only three months. Last night she was showing me her family pictures and it freaked me out because I recognized her father. In fact, I know her father quite well. You see, for the last six years I have lived four days a week at my place and three days a week in a nearby city in my deceased mother�s home. At my place, I live as a man. I live as a woman in my mother�s home. As a transvestite I have been seeing this woman�s father for over a year, and I love him also. We have talked about living fulltime together. I have had sexual relations with both of them the same day and it would hurt both of them if they found out. What do I do? I don�t want to hurt either of them. However, I would like to live fulltime as a woman and enjoy my femininity. The only thing I have thought of is to invite the woman over to my place for dinner and be all dressed up in my feminine persona and see what happens. I would love to live with both of them. Please help. (Signature and city omitted)

*Just a note to anyone wondering if I make up stuff like this: I�m not that talented.

Posted by aalkon at 07:51 PM