Medical Malpractice Is Standard Operating Procedure
The headline on the LA Times story should bring a big "Duh!" in anybody with two brain cells to rub together. It's "Sleep-deprived doctors should not perform elective surgery, physicians say." Eryn Brown writes for the Los Angeles Times:
Hospitals should not allow surgeons to perform elective procedures on patients if they have been awake the previous night taking calls, a trio of physicians argued in Thursday's edition of the New England Journal of Medicine.Until hospitals institute rules to keep potentially sleep-deprived doctors away from operating rooms, they said, surgeons at least owe it to patients to let them know when they have had fewer than six hours of sleep and give them the opportunity to postpone their procedures.
The consequences could be complicated and expensive -- how hard will it be for patients and doctors to reschedule and who will pay for operating room downtime? -- but those costs could be offset by reduction in medical errors, the authors wrote.
...Dr. Charles Czeisler, a sleep expert who co-wrote the essay, has argued for years that doctors' inhuman sleeping habits endanger patients. But getting physicians to change their work culture has been nearly impossible -- in many hospitals, all-nighters remain a badge of honor.
Whose? The hospital CFO's? What resident or doctor wants to stay up 30 hours -- and be responsible for people's lives under those circumstances?
ygadbois comments on the LAT's site:
During residency, in one of the most malignant specialites Ob/Gyn, at one of the shadiest programs in the US, Newark Beth Israel, I can say that I agree, 100% with this article. I can't tell you how many elective procedures I was scheduled to perform after being awake for 27-30 hours straight. It was unfair to the patient. It was unfair to me. I can't recall any of the procedures I performed during that time. Only way I can recall if I go to my case log and see it listed as one of my procedures. I would NEVER subject my family, loved ones, and patients to such a surgeon. No wonder we are having a liability and malpractice crisis in this specialty. I really hope reform is REALLY within reach. Stop with the rhetoric and act on this...please! This process should be implemented on the training level and fostered so that ethical and consciencious surgeons are produced.
American Campuses: Not-So-Free Speech Zones
No, it isn't just outside of America where attempts to censor are rampant.
Ann Snyder blogs of some examples within the USA -- all of them fought by FIRE (great organization -- Foundation for Individual Rights in Education -- dedicated to defending free speech rights on college campuses):
Far from being bastions of free thought and critical inquiry, our universities, through speech codes, security fees, and other tactics, begin the "political correctness" indoctrination process early, teaching young Americans what they may and may not say (READ: think). Naturally, included in the realm of the verboten is expression deemed critical of Islam.Student group slapped with "security fee" for Wilders event:
In October of 2009, the student organization, Temple University Purpose (TUP), sponsored an event with Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, who currently faces prosecution for "hate speech" in the Netherlands. Several weeks later, the group received charges for an additional "security fee" for the event. Charging extra security fees for a controversial event because of a potential hostile reaction from the audience has been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court because it financially burdens speech. Citing this precedent and through dogged persistence, the FIRE succeeded in having the fee withdrawn.College Republicans investigated for fake flag "desecration" at anti-terrorism event:
In 2007, San Francisco State University's College Republicans were subjected to disciplinary action for stepping on mock Hezbollah and Hamas flags as part of an anti-terrorism event. With help from the FIRE, the witch-hunt was ended and students escaped punishment. Later, with the assistance of the FIRE's Speech Codes Litigation Project and the Alliance Defense Fund, the College Republicans delivered a little disciplinary action of their own, raising and winning a constitutional challenge to the university's speech code."Portraits of Terror" art exhibit censored:
In 2006, then Penn State student, Joshua Stulman's exhibit "Portraits of Terror" was pulled by the university just three days before its opening. According to FIRE President, Greg Lukianoff, the exhibit was censored "twice: first because administrators didn't like what it had to say, and later out of fear that violence would ensue if his artwork were shown on campus." The FIRE has helped raise awareness of the incident through writing and a short documentary. Is there anyone out there with the courage to show this exhibit?
Maintaining free speech on campuses is an important part of maintaining it in general. Free speech about Islam is particularly endangered. Legal Project's Adam Turner blogs:
•On Sunday, October 3, the Washington Post and other newspapers chose to rerun an old Non Sequitur cartoon by Wiley Miller rather than use Miller's submission for that day. The papers' objection - Miller's use of a "Where's Waldo?" gag that replaced Waldo with Muhammad, which was meant to satirize the media's hesitancy to offend radical Islam. The Post's Style Editor Ned Martel defended his decision, saying the cartoon "seemed a deliberate provocation without a clear message." However, as Reason magazine reasoned, cowardice seemed the more likely culprit.•On Sept. 11, in East Lansing, Michigan, an unidentified man burned a Koran and scattered its ashes and torn pages outside of the Islamic Center. The response from the police - a full court press to track down this man, including a ridiculously excessive $10,000 reward for information relating to his capture. When the man voluntarily turned himself in, however, the Assistant City Attorney chose not to prosecute, not in the name of First Amendment freedoms but because there was no basis for trespass and "(f)rom a littering standpoint, my understanding is that no one would consider a desecrated version of the Quran as litter. That would be potentially insulting and provocative."
•In a follow up to the Koran burning case that started it all, Gainesville, Florida hit fringe pastor Terry Jones with an $180,000 fee for security costs. This in addition to his insurance being canceled and website being taken down. And Jones never even went through with the burning, ceding to the Administration's warnings that American troops would become targets in the Middle East. (I thought they already were?) If this fee is enforced, Jones will undoubtedly go bankrupt, and those contemplating a similar act will have been suitably 'warned' not to exercise their constitutional right to do so.
•Molly Norris, the Seattle cartoonist whose "crime" was merely sponsoring "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" has "gone ghost" -- changed her name and identity and abandoned her livelihood - at the insistence of the FBI after Islamists marked her for assassination. Have many members of our government or the Western press stood up to defend her speech from the radical Islamists? Nope. Will any but the most courageous cartoonists be willing to take on radical Islamists in the future? Nope.
In modern Western society, religious persons of almost every faith have had to accommodate themselves to offensive speech targeting their religion. Ask any Christian, Jew, Hindu, etc. But one religion alone - Islam - is protected from criticism these days. And everyone knows why Islam is so protected. If the adherents of Islam are offended, you see, the offenders of Islam will be targeted for death. Today, cowardice rules, and, as a result, Islam is untouchable by commentary or criticism.
Just like Sharia law demands.
This is the last day for FIRE's big fundraising push of the year. If you have even $5 or $10 to donate, you can do it here: https://myfire.thefire.org/SSLPage.aspx?pid=202. In Milton Friedman's words:
Over the course of a long lifetime, I have witnessed a serious decline in tolerance and respect for freedom of speech in the academy. FIRE is currently the most effective force countering that trend. It deserves the support of every believer in a free society.
Harlan Ellison On Writers Being Asked To Work For Free
He makes great points -- and really, they're about any professional being asked to give it up for nothing. He handles it just right:
Neuroplasticity
On the recommendation of engineering professor and Evil Genes
It's a very interesting and eye-opening look at the brain -- debunking the widely held notion that the brain is a machine with specific parts for specific actions, and when one of those parts is damaged, there's no hope for recovering the ability to perform that action. Per Doidge's book, when parts of the brain are damaged, it actually seems that other parts can be trained to take over. More on neuroplasticity here.
I'm just 125 or so pages in, but it's well-written, and seems to be well-founded in evidence, and it's sometimes very moving, as the book is not just dry science laid out but stories told about pioneers in neuroscience and the patients whose lives they've changed. In one particularly moving case, a woman who was deemed retarded ended up going on to get her Ph.D. and helping children who were similarly diagnosed change their brains so they could function.
Other books I recommend: Gary Taubes' Why We Get Fat, which is like Good Calories, Bad Calories-lite, meaning the language and references are pretty much a breeze for the average person, where GCBCC was a pretty tough read for some. Just yesterday, I got yet another e-mail thanking me for pushing Taubes' and Dr. Michael Eades' work here -- an e-mail from a woman who'd dropped 45 lbs. with ease, thanks to reading their work and learning that it's carbohydrates that cause the insulin reaction that secretes fat.
And as always, if you haven't read my book, I hope you'll buy I SEE RUDE PEOPLE: One woman's battle to beat some manners into impolite society. It's only $11.53, brand new, with Amazon's discount at the link above. (New copies go against my advance, and help me keep writing...and eating.)
Truly Loco Parentis
A school district bans all sweets on campus. Even those your mother gave you before you left for school. Yes, Little Debbies will be confiscated. Madeline Holler blogs at strollerbaby:
All public schools in the St. Paul school district will be, by the school year's end, sweet-free zones. That means no more cookies, cinnamon rolls or cakes for dessert with school lunches. Little Debbie's snack cakes will be confiscated from home lunches. And concessions for school fundraisers can't include hot chocolate or brownies.No birthday cupcakes.
The St. Paul school district's ban on sweets is an effort to live up to a wellness policy that parents, school administrators and teachers agreed on -- but didn't really act on -- four years ago. It's an effort to fight child obesity but also to get the district ready for the Child Nutrition Act, signed recently by President Obama, which could impose stricter rules on schools than simple soda bans.
The ban, which also includes fat- and salt-laden snack foods, isn't expected to dramatically lower the districts 40 percent obesity rate. But it's an effort, administrators say, to begin doing things differently. Teachers will come up with new ways to reward students other than with pizza coupons. Parents will have to find something other than cupcakes to bring in for a birthday celebration.
And let me just say, I only eat something with sugar in it -- a scoop of dark chocolate homemade gelato -- about once a week, because I know the research shows that sugar is basically poison for the human body. But, a school district doesn't get to mandate how parents feed their children. Or shouldn't get to.
By the way, my mother was a health food nut, and I was not allowed to have sweets (or really anything that tasted very good) throughout my childhood, which Gregg refers to as "The Gruel Years." It turned me into a raging sweet-aholic. I don't think that would've been the case had my mother just given us a cookie now and then.
Yelp For Escorts
Of course, people tell me everything, and a friend whose marriage broke up, and who I sense hasn't had sex in quite some time, told me he's been seeing escorts. Best of all, he said, there's a Yelp.com-like site where there are reviews of the girls -- theeroticreview.com.
Reviews are at the bottom of the page -- you have to click that you're over 18, then tell it USA and what city -- pick USA and Los Angeles to see what my friend saw when he was looking for a girl.
The girl he ended up seeing was in one of those apartments at Playa Vista. $250 for an hour -- cheaper than NYC, where I have a friend who kept having hysterical women banging on his door at 3 am, sobbing, "Is that all I was to you?!"
I advised him, and advised him, and advised him to start seeing escorts (I hate when people keep asking the same question over and over and I keep giving them the same advice).
My New York friend finally listened to me, and then complained, "Why didn't you make me do this sooner?" Grrr! Oh, and price comparison-wise, in NYC, he was paying $400/session for these hot Brazilian women.
UPDATE: You don't have to become a member to read the reviews; just click on the "Reviews" tab at the top (after you click "Agree" on the big paragraph that you're not under 18 or whatever).
The reviews tell you what a girl will do and other details, and if you go down to the bottom, (after choosing city, etc.) on the page you get to, that's where the guys say things about their experience. Ignore the "VIP Only" and just click the "View" tab, and you'll get guys' opinions of the girls and their experience.
The Protection Racket
Sure, government's protecting you -- right out of your money and your ability to get credit, writes John Stossel:
Finally! Protection! A new bureaucracy will stop greedy credit card companies from unfairly penalizing you. And it won't threaten the credit business. Yippie!How has it worked out?
Not so well. George Mason University Law Professor Todd Zywicki points out that the new restrictions hurt more consumers than they help.
Since the Card Act passed, mortgage and Treasury bill rates have dropped a little, but credit card interest went up -- from 13 percent to nearly 15 percent. Some banks also stopped offering credit to some people. JPMorgan Chase cut off 15 percent of its customers.
So the real result of this "consumer" regulation? "Hundreds of thousands of people can't get cards who used to be able to have cards, and all the rest of us now have to pay more," Zywicki said.
But maybe the people who can't get credit cards are better off because they couldn't handle credit wisely?
"Just to say they don't have a credit card doesn't mean that they don't have credit," Zywicki retorts. "They'll just go to more expensive places -- the local payday lender or the local pawn shop."
And pay a lot for credit. Payday lenders make small short-term loans, sometimes just till payday. But the annual interest is nasty -- often more than 500 percent. Several states have outlawed payday lenders. The politicians say they do it to help low-income people. But again, their "help" harms. The lenders' former customers complain that the payday lenders were their only way to avoid missing a bill payment -- and maybe having the lights shut off.
ATT's Don't Text While Driving Documentary
Do you really need to read or send that text while going 55 mph or more? You're taking your eyes off the road, and that can be devastating to you or that bicyclist who goes through your windshield because you text "LOL" to your friend:
Further Adventures In Zero Sense
Radley Balko blogs at reason about a high school girl who's been suspended for the rest of the school year because of a lunchbox mixup that conflicted with ridiculous "zero tolerance" policies at her school. From WRAL:
Ashley Smithwick, 17, of Sanford, was suspended from Southern Lee High School in October after school personnel found a small paring knife in her lunchbox.Smithwick said personnel found the knife while searching the belongings of several students, possibly looking for drugs.
"She got pulled into it. She doesn't have to be a bad person to be searched," Smithwick's father, Joe Smithwick, said.
The lunchbox really belonged to Joe Smithwick, who packs a paring knife to slice his apple. He and his daughter have matching lunchboxes.
...The teen was initially given a 10-day suspension, then received notice that she was suspended the rest of the school year.
She was charged with "misdemeanor possession of a weapon on school grounds."
The picture of the dangerous weapon is here.
Lettermarking
Lesson in government for the new century: How to be an elected scumbag while pretending to be on the side of small government, and against earmarks.
Per Wonkette, here's how professed earmark-hater Mark Kirk does it -- by writing to a Federal department to ask for money for his district (in the case mentioned, the Department of Education, which responded by dispatching $1.1 million in porkulus money):
This is apparently called "lettermarking" when it is requested in a letter and "phonemarking" when done over the phone. So, are earmarks made by a member of Congress literally dipping their ear in ink and using it to write the appropriation on the legislation? Perhaps they should get more credit than we thought for that.But a New York Times review of letters and e-mail to government agencies from members of Congress shows that the practice is widespread despite the fact that both President George W. Bush and President Obama have issued executive orders instructing agencies not to finance projects based on communications from Congress.Who you going to listen to, the boss of the boss of your boss, or the people who pay to keep your bureaucratic department running? Actually, it doesn't matter, because unless your part of the bureaucracy is a hot-button issue, it will perpetuate itself forever, whether it needs to exist or not.
Go read the entire article at the NYT link. Scummy, scummy, scummy!
An Art School Where None Of The Admissions Are Based In Artistic Merit
Let's make school as little like the real world as possible, with no standards whatsoever! An LA Times editorial notes the idiotic admissions policy at LA's new downtown arts school:
As Times staff writer Howard Blume recently reported, the school is required to accept 70% of its students from the immediate neighborhood, and none of its admissions are based on merit. Local students are picked by lottery; those from other neighborhoods in the district are enrolled on a first-come, first-served basis. The district doesn't even let parents know about the program in its materials on school choices.Students who get in will no doubt have a fine experience, but that's not the same as building a great arts school. Garcia is right to demand that the long-underserved students from this impoverished neighborhood should have special access, but her formula is upside down. Thirty percent of the spots should go to students living nearby, and the rest to students from throughout the district. And all students should be selected by audition or portfolio review. Admission to a potentially unique school should not happen by chance or by which parents heard of it first.
Milton Friedman On Libertarianism
Brilliant and fascinating thinker, and above all, a defender of freedom. These videos are not that long, and absolutely worth watching.
Part One of Four:
Part Two Of Four:
Agree or disagree with him on government regulation of pharmaceutical companies?
Part Three Of Four:
He talks about obesity and government mandating of packaging information here. Of course, it seems the government has been largely responsible for the obesity epidemic by putting out "science"-based information on health -- telling people that they should eat a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet: exactly the diet evidence has shown for hundreds of years makes people fat.
Part Four Of Four:
How limited should government be? Friedman says which government departments should be abolished:
And finally, here's a wonderful debate somebody put together with video of Naomi Klein and remarks from Friedman's that rebut them:
Ungifting Is The New Regifting?
John P. Mello, Jr., writes for PC World:
Amazon.com has filed a patent for returning unwanted gifts before a recipient receives them, a system that would eliminate the need for regifting.The system allows Amazon members to create a sort of blacklist for gift-givers. When people on the list attempt to send a gift to the member, it triggers an e-mail alerting the member of the action. If the member doesn't want the gift, he or she can return it before it's sent. That saves the member the time and hassle of returning the physical gift. It also saves Amazon the cost of processing the return.
There's a horrified gasp or two about this in stories about it because we're not used to this technological ability to keep the unwanted gift from ever hitting our doorstep. We don't want to believe people are regifting what we give them -- or never even allowing the gift to reach us. But, as hostile as it might seem to bar Auntie Gert's gifts, if she doesn't know, why is it a problem?
UPDATE: Oops! A little late now, but I just did Patt Morrison's KPCC show, talking about my views on this new Amazon patent, and why it actually isn't the end of civilization as we know it. The episode should be up sometime soon -- not sure when -- at KPCC.org.
Your Border Collie Wasn't Bred To Herd Your Couch
People make fun of me for having a three-pound dog, but she's the right size and temperament for my little house and writer's life. I've trained her to use a litterbox, to sit or lie down on command, and to not bark unless there's danger. She likes to sit on my lap while I'm writing or reading a book, and spent many hours doing both today and tonight. (She turns around and backs up like a tiny bus to let you know she wants to be picked up -- it's the cutest thing.)
All in all, she fits very well into my life. This is not the case with some dogs and their owners.
There was an unbelievable story in the WSJ by Michael M. Phillips about people who don't seem to match dogs' inclinations to their home environment -- in this case, border collie owners who are forced to rent time for their bored dogs with flocks of sheep:
Border collies, first bred along the frontier between England and Scotland, are compulsive herders, with instincts so intense they sometimes search for livestock behind the television when sheep appear on screen, says Geri Byrne, owner of the Border Collie Training Center, in Tulelake, Calif. Left unoccupied, they'll dig up the garden, chew up the doggie bed or persecute the cat.Herding experts--yes, there is such a thing--say it's increasingly common for people who get border collies as pets to wind up renting or buying sheep just to keep their dogs busy. "It's something that's snowballing all the time," says Jack Knox, a Scottish-born shepherd who travels the U.S. giving herding clinics.
Each day, an average of 18 dogs visit Fido's Farm outside Olympia, Wash., their owners paying $15 per dog to practice on the farm's 200-head flock of sheep. Herding revenue at the farm is up 60% over the past five years, says owner Chris Soderstrom, who bought the farm in 2004.
WSJ commenter Christina Kielich wrote:
As Donald McCaig, the famous dog writer, has said, if you don't give your dog a job, he'll find one, and chances are you won't like it. I know of people who left their border collie in the kitchen to go to a movie and came back to find their entire tile floor chewed up.
Why You Can't Argue With A Creationist
Evolutionary psychologist David Sloan Wilson on ScienceBlogs on people who believe, sans evidence, in creationism and god:
The concept of an intervening god--a powerful supernatural agent who creates things in the same way people create artifacts, takes an active interest in the affairs of people, and actively intervenes to alter human affairs--is a perfectly good scientific hypotheses. It generates testable predictions, at least insofar as one knows the powers and will of such a god. It was the prevailing scientific theory for centuries, starting when science emerged as a recognizable cultural institution. The problem with the intervening god hypothesis is that it lost--again and again--for our understanding of the physical universe, the geological features of the earth, and life on earth....Beliefs are often accepted and defended, not because they are factually correct, but because they are useful for the community of believers. That's true for other beliefs that are manifestly false as factual claims, from religions, to political ideologies, and even atheistic beliefs, as I recount in my atheism as a stealth religion series.
Still, we need to explain why the "rejecting creationism is unfair" claim is so successful, when it can be so easily dispatched. Consider the phenomenon of biological mimicry, whereby species resemble their background or masquerade as other species to escape detection by their predators and prey. An insect mimicking a leaf can be astonishingly convincing, right down the mid-vein and fake chew marks along the edges, but it's easy enough to recognize as an insect with enough scrutiny. Mimics depend upon the fact that their predators and prey are too busy to recognize them for what they are.
So it is for the "rejecting creationism is unfair" argument. It sounds like it makes sense, but only for those who don't have the time or expertise to seriously consider it. That's why it fails to pass muster among actual scientists but still manages to survive among the general public and especially among those who would like it to be true. Unfortunately, that's the arena where important decisions are made, such as whether to give creationism "equal time" in our public schools.
...Scrutiny is the friend of an authentic scientific position and the enemy of a mimic.
In this fashion, creationists who have been fairly excluded from the scientific playing field, as surely as the chess player who has lost his king or the losing basketball team after the final buzzer, still inhabit the comment section of my blog and other low-scrutiny venues, where they complain bitterly about being unfairly excluded. The next time you hear this tedious complaint, just reply "checkmate" or "game over".
How Easy Is It To Defeat The Pornoscanner?
BoingBoing's Cory Doctorow blogs Leon Kaufman and Joseph W. Carlson's "An evaluation of airport x-ray backscatter units based on image characteristics," published in the Journal of Transportation Security (fulltext PDF here). An excerpt:
It is very likely that a large (15-20 cm in diameter), irregularly-shaped, cm-thick pancake with beveled edges, taped to the abdomen, would be invisible to this technology, ironically, because of its large volume, since it is easily confused with normal anatomy. Thus, a third of a kilo of PETN, easily picked up in a competent pat down, would be missed by backscatter "high technology". Forty grams of PETN, a purportedly dangerous amount, would fit in a 1.25 mm-thick pancake of the dimensions simulated here and be virtually invisible. Packed in a compact mode, say, a 1 cm×4 cm×5 cm brick, it would be detected.The images are very sensitive to the presence of large pieces of high Z material, e. g., iron, but unless the spatial resolution is good, thin wires will be missed because of partial volume effects. It is also easy to see that an object such as a wire or a box- cutter blade, taped to the side of the body, or even a small gun in the same location, will be invisible. While there are technical means to mildly increase the conspicuity of a thick object in air, they are ineffective for thin objects such as blades when they are aligned close to the beam direction.
No Titty Grab, Thanks
Gregg said it best when he e-mailed me the link:
I feel safer because a rape victim with a pacemaker was dragged off by the cops, don't you?
A woman was arrested at the Austin airport after refusing to let the TSA workers grope her breasts in the name of security. From KVUE.com, Jim Bergamo writes:
Hirschkind said because of the device in her body, she was led to a female TSA employee and three Austin police officers. She says she was told she was going to be patted down."I turned to the police officer and said, 'I have given no due cause to give up my constitutional rights. You can wand me,'" and they said, 'No, you have to do this,'" she said.
Hirschkind agreed to the pat down, but on one condition.
"I told them, 'No, I'm not going to have my breasts felt,' and she said, 'Yes, you are,'" said Hirschkind.
When Hirschkind refused, she says that "the police actually pushed me to the floor, (and) handcuffed me. I was crying by then. They drug me 25 yards across the floor in front of the whole security."
An ABIA spokesman says it is TSA policy that anyone activating a security alarm has two options. One is to opt out and not fly, and the other option is to subject themselves to an enhanced pat down. Hirschkind refused both and was arrested.
Other travelers KVUE talked to say they empathize with Hirschkind, but the law is the law.
"I understand her side of it, and their side as well, but it is for our protection so I have no problems with it," said Gwen Washington, who lives in Killeen.
"It's unfortunate that that happened and she didn't get to fly home, but it makes me feel a little safer," said Emily Protine.
In other words, what Emily and Gwen were saying is "Baaa...baaaa..baaaa."
Ladies, you aren't safer, just more likely to give up more of your freedoms without a peep.
Here's the video:
Here's another woman who did get sexually violated at the airport:
The Rutherford Institute has filed suit against the TSA, insisting that Americans do not shed their privacy rights when entering an airport or boarding a plane:
"No American should be forced to undergo a virtual strip search or subjected to such excessive groping of the body as a matter of course in reporting to work or boarding an airplane when there is no suspicion of wrongdoing," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "To do so violates human dignity and the U.S. Constitution, and goes against every good and decent principle this country was founded upon."
Details of the travelers on whose behalf they're bringing the suit at the above link.
FYI, The Rutherford Institute is a civil liberties organization that provides free legal services to people who have had their constitutional and/or human rights violated.
Finally, a guy e-mailed me this -- an account of how you can supposedly file sexual assault charges against TSA screeners. Any lawyers want to weigh in?
Health Savings Accounts Now Require A Prescription For OTC
As of January 1, the cost of over-the-counter meds won't be reimbursed unless you get a prescription. From the IRS:
Q. How are the rules changing for reimbursing the cost of over-the-counter medicines and drugs from health flexible spending arrangements (health FSAs) and health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs)?A. Section 9003 of the Affordable Care Act established a new uniform standard for medical expenses. Effective Jan. 1, 2011, distributions from health FSAs and HRAs will be allowed to reimburse the cost of over-the-counter medicines or drugs only if they are purchased with a prescription. This new rule does not apply to reimbursements for the cost of insulin, which will continue to be permitted, even if purchased without a prescription.
My Q. How will doctors be compensated for all these calls every time somebody needs an Advil?
Finally, Some Cities Are Charging The Freeloaders
The Catholic Church has obscene wealth and vast landholdings, yet they and other religious and non-profit institutions have been allowed a free ride in cities and states across America. Not any more. Ianthe Jeanne Dugan writes for the WSJ that some state and local governments are slapping nonprofits with fees:
The issue is on display in Houston, where some flood-prone roads are in such disrepair that signs warn drivers, "Turn around, don't drown."Houston's taxpayers in November narrowly voted to adopt a "drainage fee" to raise at least $125 million a year toward the cost of improving roads and storm-water systems. The city will charge fees to property owners, and it won't grant exceptions to churches, schools and charities.
The city has been tightening its budget. "We're cutting up the city's credit cards," says Mayor Annise Parker. "Everyone who contributes to drainage issues has to share in the cost of correcting those issues."
A number of groups--including schools, businesses, churches and senior citizens--are demanding exemptions. "We'll defeat this," says David Welch, of the Houston Area Pastor's Council, who plans to lobby state legislators in January. "This is really a tax. It is the first time that churches would not be exempt from property taxes," he says.
Yay. Churches and other organizations benefit from having safe roads and police and fire departments, and should join the rest of us in paying for them.
By the way, why do you think it is that priests aren't allowed to marry? Could it be that the Church doesn't want any wee mouths to feed (and inherit) cutting in on their vast riches?
It's time to end tax exemptions for those who use the roads and services the taxes pay for. If we don't, the rest of us are effectively paying for other people's causes.
A Letter You'd Never See Today
Barry Petchesky at Deadspin calls it "The Greatest Letter Ever Printed On NFL Team Letterhead."
Are You As Smart As A Shanghai Fifth Grader?
Unlikely, if you're an American one.
On international standardized exams, Chinese high school students ranked first in science, reading, and math. U.S. students were 17th in reading, 23rd in science, and 30th in math -- perfect for a beautiful future in bending over and picking lettuce.
Where Are All The Mistresses Of The Universe?
Apparently, few women admit to being ambitious. I was a bit amazed by that, because I always have. In fact, I'm kind of proud of it.
Yet, Leslie Bennetts writes for ELLE that in all her years of interviewing people, only one woman has ever admitted to being ambitious:
I've listened to countless famous women deny they were ambitious, at least for themselves, although many allowed as how they wouldn't mind accomplishing worthy things on behalf of others. Even those whose names were household words claimed to have no interest in power. Power? Eek! The very word elicited such alarm that you'd think I was prying into some shameful secret.Nor am I the only journalist to observe such reactions; to hear many women tell it, their careers are propelled mainly by coincidence and good fortune. "Things sort of happened," said Drew Gilpin Faust when The New York Times asked how she became the first woman president of Harvard University. When Jennifer Granholm was asked by The Detroiter where she gets the energy that helped her become governor of Michigan, she replied, "I don't know. Lucky, I guess."
Whatever their level of attainment, women typically portray themselves as passive and reactive rather than as game-changers--as if their success flowed from outside forces rather than their own ability to pursue clear goals effectively. Men have less trouble owning up to their intentions, not to mention formulating them in the first place. One survey showed that 46 percent of male political candidates, versus 28 percent of female ones, agreed with the statement "It was entirely my idea to run." Another study demonstrated that women are also more likely than men to attribute agency to others: Twenty-two percent of women but only 14 percent of men said, "I had not seriously thought about running until someone else suggested it to me."
Listen to the way Hillary Clinton described her reaction when Barack Obama asked her to become his secretary of state: "I was stunned," Clinton told a women's magazine. "I really was very unconvinced.... I just really had a lot of doubts, and I kept suggesting other people. 'Well, how about this person! How about that person!'"
Even when they reach the top, women balk at owning their success. "I don't think of myself as a businesswoman," Oprah told Fortune--a remarkable statement coming from the richest self-made woman in America and the country's first black billionaire.
Former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice couldn't even acknowledge her own intelligence. "You graduated from high school when you were 15. At what point did you know you were a very smart girl?" Oprah asked her in O magazine.
"Never," said Rice.
One explanation:
Power is perceived as enhancing a man's desirability; as former secretary of state Henry Kissinger--a paunchy, bespectacled older man known for dating improbably beautiful starlets--once observed, "Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac." But women tend to be neutered by elevated status. "Even highly successful and ambitious women, like CEOs I've interviewed, are loath to identify themselves as ambitious because they feel it desexualizes them," says Anna Fels, MD, a psychiatrist and author of Necessary Dreams: Ambition in Women's Changing Lives.
Your thoughts? And your thoughts about your own experiences?
Stuff They Don't Tell You In "How To Escape From Terrorists" Books
If they're going to hack off a piece of your body, suggest the ear. It turns out there are prosthetic ears.
Napolitano's Folly
Hey, Janet! Just saying things are rosy isn't the solution. Chris Elliott blogs that Napolitano had the nerve to say on a CNN "State of the Union" interview:
"Everything is objectively better than it was two years ago, particularly in the aviation environment."
Excuse me. My boyfriend is having his balls fondled by strange men in the airport every two weeks, we aren't the least bit safer, and things are "objectively better"? Right.
In case any of you missed it (and because it's just so great a remark, and one I hope you'll use), Gregg being Gregg, he wanted to say to the guy doing it, "You have beautiful eyes."
Here's the actual "objectively better" -- the way the Israelis do it, from a David Rose story in the Daily Mail.
An "Islamophobe" Or A Savior Of Muslims?
Phyllis Chesler's piece about Jamie Glazov is subtitled with his quote:
"I fight for a world where young Muslim boys and girls are not brainwashed and forced to blow themselves up. Does this make me anti-Muslim or pro-Muslim?" says author Glazov and finds himself out in the cold.
His quote in context:
"Radical Islam is now the greatest threat the West faces. We are, as Norman Podhoretz has noted, in World War IV. We face totalitarian and religious zealots who seek to establish an Islamic caliphate worldwide. They hate freedom and liberty, and so they hate and need to destroy the United States and Israel the most, since these two nations are the bulwarks and representatives of freedom in the world."
They also hate women: "...it is obvious that woman-hatred is intertwined with Islamic terror. The more fanatical and violent the Islamic terrorist and his milieu, the more misogyny you will find there...to fight for women's rights under Islam is also to stick a dagger into the heart of Islamic jihad."
Where Islamic gender apartheid is allowed to flourish, cancerous, violent extremism is destined to follow.
Glazov does not mince words about what is wrong with Islam in the 21st century. But there is a difference, he insists, between being blunt and being bigoted.
"This is not about demonizing Muslims or attacking Muslims," he writes. "We are the allies of Muslims. I consider myself pro-Muslim. Muslims are the victims of Islam and its totalitarian structures. I spend a large part of my life fighting for the rights of Muslim women who suffer under Islamic gender apartheid. Does this make me anti-Muslim or pro-Muslim? I fight on behalf of Muslims who want to live in freedom and who don't want to suffer the harsh punishments of Sharia Law. I fight for a world where young Muslim boys and girls are not brainwashed and forced to blow themselves up. Does this make me anti-Muslim or pro-Muslim?"
Buy The Way...
Year-End deals at Amazon.
Thanks again -- so much -- to all of you who shopped through my Amazon links. The kickbacks Amazon gave me from your purchases allowed me to give a bonus to my enormously deserving editorial assistant, and I'm really grateful for that.
Can't You Just Give The Money To Charity?
And not grow out your eyebrow hair?
David Moye writes for AOL that feminists have declared December "Decembrow," and are encouraging women to grow out their eyebrows into a monobrow, inspired by guys who grew mustaches to raise awareness and funds for prostate and testicular cancer:
The other inspiration came from, of all places, Tajikistan, after Adelman read an article in the Global Post about how "unibrows" are the latest trend in that country. In fact, some women in Tajikistan whose brows aren't bushy enough are resorting to herbal remedies or eyebrow pencils in order to get up to a socially acceptable level."These women in Tajikistan are rocking the unibrow, and we thought Decembrow would be a great way to comment on the beauty norms in different places," Adelman said.
This is a subject that interests Adelman very much, as a great deal of her writing addresses cultural standards that create a less-than-healthy body image for women and girls.
"We all could benefit from being open-minded about looks," she said. "I see [Decembrow] as a lighthearted and playful way of bringing attention to the way cultural ideas of beauty affect all of us."
We all could benefit from being "open-minded" about looks IF the standards they call "cultural ideas of beauty" were actually cultural, and IF preferences for physical features weren't largely the same across borders and cultures -- with small variations like the weird monobrows that seem popular with a few women in Tajikistan. (I wrote about that here.)
My quote about all the sneers about "Western standards of beauty":
Wolf and her feminist sob sisters bleat about the horror of women being pushed to conform to "Western standards of beauty"--as if eyebrow plucking and getting highlights are the real hardships compared to the walk in the park of footbinding and clitoridectomy.
About the whole monobrow thing, Laura Donovan writes for The Daily Caller:
Penny Nance, the CEO of Concerned Women for America, was unsure of how and why "Decembrow" will help further the feminist movement."While I applaud the effort to raise awareness and funds to stop prostate cancer, I find it curious that feminists would choose to embrace facial hair and mostly wonder how that is different than any other month of the year."
And finally, don't forget Sailer's Law Of Female Journalism:
The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking.
And regarding Tajikistan, feminists might focus less on the state of women's brows there, and more on how they're treated. It's always amazing to me how feminists sit in their homes and apartments in America, a place where they have more rights and freedoms -- and comforts -- than anywhere else in the world, and bleat about how great it is in the non-Western world.
A Very Jack Bauer Christmas
Just love this -- Jack Bauer interrogating Santa Claus:
Yes, "24" was a cartoon, and the last season was so ridiculous, I couldn't have suspended my disbelief enough if I'd used a winch and 3,000-foot cable, but I loved it.
Favorite character: Chloe the frowning nerd.
Most unbelievable aspect of the show: The way Jack would bellow "send it to my PDA!" and whatever it was -- maps, plans, the entire contents of the Pentagon -- it was there immediately, and there was never any problem with AT&T.
My favorite TV show that's still on is "House."
My TV addiction that is no longer on: "The Shield." Gregg bought a boxed set -- The Shield: Complete Series
Yeah, I know. But, she's a Yorkshire terrier, and she likes getting dressed up.
Via @EdMorrissey
HSBC: The "C" Is For "Clueless"
Somebody I follow on Twitter retweeted this guy:
@NoahPollak I saw this HSBC ad today at the Athens airport. It says that Iran treats women better than US. Truly outrageous. http://twitpic.com/3itdpm
It's really fun to make films in Iran -- if your idea of fun is being "confined him to a very small cell where (you) can hardly move." Being a woman is lots of fun, too.
Stuff They Don't Tell You In Those "Succeeding In Business" Books
Yes, "80 percent of success is showing up." The other 20 percent is bludgeoning the guy whose job you want and hiding the body from the authorities.
What Happens When You Steal a Hacker's Computer
Loved this. Via Gizmodo, great story of a dumb thief and Zoz, the hacker who tracked him down and got his computer back. (The story starts around 3:15 in the video, so you might want to slide ahead to that point):
Hello, Thief
That's what we call people who steal, and if you are among those people who download pirated music without paying for it, you are stealing, which means you are a thief.
There's a piece in the Telegraph/UK, "My generation's illegal download habit is deeply depressing" by Suze Olbrich. Olbrich asks, "How can so many people think it's OK to download music for free?":
The BPI announcement that a billion songs were downloaded illegally in 2010 confirms that it is becoming more and more difficult for recording artists to convince anyone to pay for their music. I was discussing this issue with a group of friends when I uncovered vehement resistance within my generation (twentysomethings) to the idea that people should pay for music they consume. I had mostly spoken about the issue of illegal downloads with people in the music industry who believe that music is of value and ought to be paid for. I hadn't discussed it in depth with friends and had wrongly assumed that all reasonably minded, cultured, music-loving people would understand that music posted online has taken creativity, perseverance and money to produce and that it seems fair to remunerate the creator for their efforts should one enjoy them enough to download. I was surprised I even had to spell this out. We are not of a generation that grew up with free music - we spent our teenage years buying CDs. so what happened in the last decade that erased any feeling of obligation or even will to pay for music?
Because it's easy to steal something doesn't mean it's right. Because certain recording artists are rich doesn't justify it, either. Same goes any resentment you might feel for their megabucks recording companies. You don't want to support them, don't listen to their music. But, don't just steal it. Or, you're a common thief who belongs in jail, just like a guy who steals your TV.
The Government Is Your Mommy
Jacob Sullum and reason.tv on the ridiculous Four Loko ban:
The Healthy Way To Give Yourself Diabetes!
Mary Forgione writes in the LA Times about a little exchange our self-appointed food nanny-in-chief had with a kid she met:
"Last week, First Lady Michelle Obama held a holiday reception with children, parents and staff at the Children's National Medical Center in Washington, D.C. Chit-chatting with the kids, the subject of healthy breakfast came up. From the transcript:Child: What's your favorite thing to eat for breakfast on Christmas morning?
Mrs. Obama: Oh, wow, that's a good question.
Child: I usually eat Honey Nut Cheerios. (Laughter.) Mrs. Obama: OK, we're not going to do any advertisements. (Laughter.) But that is a healthy breakfast, it is."
As those of you who read here know, per Gary Taubes, the science (not the "science" put out by our government) says that it's carbohydrates -- sugar, flour, starchy vegetables like potatoes, apple juice -- that cause the insulin secretion that put on fat.
Taubes excellent, soon-to-be-published (and easy-reading) follow-up to "Good Calories, Bad Calories," "Why We Get Fat," will be out in a few days. Other sources of dietary science are Dr. Michael Eades and Dr. William Davis, a cardiologist.
Oh, and here's Dr. Davis on Cheerios and more foods that nitwits like Michelle Obama think are healthy:
Oatmeal yields high blood sugars. Even if your fasting blood sugar is 90 mg/dl, a bowl of oatmeal with skim milk, walnuts, and some berries will yield blood sugars of 150-200 mg/dl in many people.Cheerios yields shocking blood sugars. 200+ mg/dl is not uncommon in non-diabetics. (Diabetics have 250-350 mg/dl.)
Fruits like apples and bananas increase blood sugar to 130 mg/dl or higher.
Odd symptoms, such as mental "fog," fatigue, and a fullness in the head, are often attributable to high blood sugars.
A subset of people with lipoprotein(a) can have wildly increased blood sugars despite their slender build and high aerobic exercise habits.
Once you identify the high blood sugar problem, you can do something about it. The best place to start is to reduce or eliminate the sugar-provoking food.
More from Dr. Davis:
Cheerios does not 1) reduce risk for heart disease, nor 2) reduce cholesterol.It does, however, cause blood sugar to skyrocket and increase the small type of LDL--you know, the type that causes heart disease.
I do like Michelle Obama's fashion sense. In fact, I think she usually looks terrific, and, more than a few times, I've seen her in an evening dress or skirt I'd buy (but for what her husband's done to further trash the economy). She should stick to being a role model for dressing well, and keep her mouth shut about what people should eat.
Santa Grove
Gregg looked up at The Grove yesterday, and here's what he saw: 
photo by Gregg Sutter
Today's Angrymail
I got this e-mail -- apparently in response to an old column.
What are you, a man disguised as a woman? Give me a break!
It is a myth that men and women are "equal"?
Men are paid still higher for the same job. There is still a double standard. Men can fool around but a lot of them want their wives "pure". A woman should give a man golf clubs??? Come on lady!!! You must have never had a child!!! You want equal? Then let's share child bearing and have men be pregnant for 4.5 months!!!
If they break the engagement, it's a stigma on the woman who is now "used."
She should keep the ring, she "earned" it.
My response:
it's a stigma on the woman who is now "used."What happened, time machine broke and you got stuck in 1950?
Women don't negotiate for higher salaries -- they typically take what they are offered. Men tend to negotiate. Women tend to take years off to have children. This impacts salary, as does leaving at 4 to pick up the kids. Yet, there's this article in Time: "Young, Single Childless Women Make More Than Men."
Ooopsy!
If men were paid more for the same job, wouldn't everyone hire women? I mean, why pay more?
Regarding the child-bearing thing, if being pregnant is horrible for you, use birth control and adopt.
Why are you so angry?
And which column are you talking about? It's an old one. Where did you read it?
Hmmm...might've been this one. Nope...golf clubs reference is here, in "Seconds On Carats":
If you're from a country where your daddy won't get the same number of goats if you've done the impure act, then sure, when a groom-to-be hightails it, some bling should change hands. But here, the whole ring thing is weird to me. If men and women are equals, how come the guy has to give the girl an engagement ring but nobody expects her to buy him engagement golf clubs or an engagement boat? Even weirder is the impulse to hang on to the ring after the engagement is kaput. It's a failed relationship, not a failed revenge plot. Acting vindictively says you weren't so much in love as you were desperate to be loved. You are what you do, and there's a high road to take here, and it doesn't lead to Benny's Pawn Shop.
Pot Robertson
Even Pat Robertson wants to decriminalize pot:
And, he makes some good points!
13-Year-Old Boy Busted For Possession
Of a marker. In yet another example of the danger of overlegislation, from The Smoking Gun:
DECEMBER 22--A 13-year-old boy was arrested Friday for using a permanent marker while in class at his Oklahoma City middle school, a violation of an obscure city ordinance.According to an Oklahoma City Police Department report, the boy was spotted "in possession of a permanent marker" by Roosevelt Middle School teacher DeLynn Woodside. The 50-year-old educator told cop Miguel Campos that the student was "writing on a piece of paper, which caused it to bleed over onto the desk."
Campos reported that he allowed Woodside, a seventh grade math teacher, to "sign a citation" against the boy, who was then transported to the Community Intervention Center, a juvenile holding facility. A police sergeant subsequently "booked the marker into the property room."
A good thing he apparently didn't draw boobs, or they probably would've booked him as a sex offender, too.
Thanks, kishke
Santa's Reindeer Eat Your Christmas Gift For Somebody?
Amazon gift cards
Thanks so much to everybody who's shopped through my Amazon links. Your purchases enabled me to give my editorial assistant a well-deserved Christmas bonus, and I truly appreciate that.
The Free Market At The Supermarket
Previously, "The government couldn't tell a company selling tainted spinach to take it off the shelf," said a CNN reporter just now, crowing about the new "food safety" law.
Meanwhile, government regulation already in place didn't stop the sale of salmonella-tainted eggs.
As for whether such regulation is needed, would YOU shop at a grocery store that sold tainted spinach? They can't wait to get the stuff off the shelves, lest they lose all their customers and get sued in the wake of their departure.
Not Neutrality
Robert M. McDowell lays out the real deal in the WSJ -- and yet again, it's an example of the near-constant encroach of government. In short, as the headline goes, "Net neutrality' sounds nice, but the Web is working fine now. The new rules will inhibit investment, deter innovation and create a billable-hours bonanza for lawyers." McDowell writes:
Tomorrow morning the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will mark the winter solstice by taking an unprecedented step to expand government's reach into the Internet by attempting to regulate its inner workings. In doing so, the agency will circumvent Congress and disregard a recent court ruling.How did the FCC get here?
For years, proponents of so-called "net neutrality" have been calling for strong regulation of broadband "on-ramps" to the Internet, like those provided by your local cable or phone companies. Rules are needed, the argument goes, to ensure that the Internet remains open and free, and to discourage broadband providers from thwarting consumer demand. That sounds good if you say it fast.
Nothing is broken and needs fixing, however. The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Its nature as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks defies top-down authority. Ample laws to protect consumers already exist. Furthermore, the Obama Justice Department and the European Commission both decided this year that net-neutrality regulation was unnecessary and might deter investment in next-generation Internet technology and infrastructure.
...It wasn't long ago that bipartisan and international consensus centered on insulating the Internet from regulation. This policy was a bright hallmark of the Clinton administration, which oversaw the Internet's privatization. Over time, however, the call for more Internet regulation became imbedded into a 2008 presidential campaign promise by then-Sen. Barack Obama. So here we are.
Here's reason.tv with the simple, logical explanation of why net neutrality regulations are bad in "Will Net Neutrality Save the Internet?"
I haven't understood why people think it's a good thing that the government would demand heavy users of the Internet pay the same rate as light users, and whether regulating cell phones along similar lines is next. That would be what would destroy innovation (and business) -- not allowing the free market to play out.
Gregg got me an iPhone and put me on a "family plan" with him. I barely make any cell phone calls. Mostly, they're to him, so they're free. I occasionally call my sister, and text my neighbor maybe 15 times a week, and probably text Gregg about 30 times a week.
Before I had the iPhone, I had a phone plan grandfathered in at ATT: the lowest price, $39.99. If there were "phone neutrality," the government would be demanding that I pay the same rate as the heaviest users. If companies want to charge higher rates to heavy users of the Internet (like me -- I'm on all day) -- that should be their prerogative. If competition isn't stifled -- if, for example mobile broadband carrier Time-Warner's monopoly in my neighborhood doesn't continue -- it's my prerogative to switch to a company that gives me a better deal.
A Governor Who Took Notice Of The Second Amendment
Increasingly, overlegislating is being used to jail innocent people. It happened again in New Jersey, but something wonderful has happened. Amanda Carey writes at The Daily Caller that New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who I'd vote for for president in a hot second, has commuted the sentence of Brian Aitken, a 27-year-old man arrested in New Jersey in 2009 after police found unloaded guns, legally purchased in Colorado, in the trunk of his car:
New Jersey law requires residents who want to transport firearms legally to request a permit from a local law enforcement office and produce a letter stating why it is necessary for them to carry a gun.Aitken's attorney argued that his client was innocent of any offense because the firearms were legally purchased (at a Bass Pro Shop), properly stored, and unloaded. And though New Jersey has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, Aitken's attorney said his client did not violate any law because he was in the middle of moving residences between two states.
Nonetheless, Aitken was sentenced to seven years in prison in August. His supporters say the judge refused to accept evidence supporting his defense. He was convicted of the same kind of felony a criminal who had bought guns with intent to commit a crime would have faced.
Christie has reduced his sentence to "time-served." A commenter on The Daily Caller writes:
Where is the pardon? A guy bearing his constitutional right and his sentence is commuted? He can't vote, he won't be able to carry a gun again ever. This is crazy. Pardon him now.Chrisite didn't do the right thing, he did the easy thing.
Well, it's still better than nothing, better than could have been expected from most politicians, and I hope Aitken will petition to have himself pardoned.
UPDATE - From David Rittgers at CATO:
While a full pardon seems more appropriate - the judge in this case should have given the jury instructions on the "moving exception" that protected Aitken - this is at least recognition of an injustice and relief for one man and his family.
I Like This Guy On Twitter
He was following me (@amyalkon if you're so inclined), and I just followed him. He's a Houston taxi driver. Check out his picture. Here's one of his tweets:
@alexthedriver Hmmm. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but the Houston Dairymaid at the farmer's market should look more...dairymaid-ish. #biggerboobsImean
Problem With Comments Now
They seem to be going to the middle of a post. My server company and Gregg are on it.
UPDATE: Comments appear to be working. Something got screwy with the time settings on my site. Comments should post at the end of comments strings now, not in the middle, as they were.
I'm Not Your Friend, And It Isn't Good News
I'll preface this by saying that I LOVE trains, and I would absolutely love to be able to take a high-speed train from Los Angeles to San Francisco.
I'd also love to be eating the finest T-bone steaks at every meal, and I'd love to have a personal chef and a driver. But, times are tough for me in the wake of newspapers closing, and California is broke and getting broker, and the national debt is through the roof. I've responded by cutting back across the board, and California and the nation...
Well, I got this e-mail from our elected hairdo in the Senate, aka Barbara Boxer:
Dear Friend:I just want to follow up with some good news about a message I sent you recently. U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has announced that he will redirect up to $624 million dollars to California for high-speed rail.
As you may recall, some states that received federal funding commitments for high-speed rail are now planning to cancel their projects. In November, I joined Senator Dianne Feinstein in urging Secretary LaHood to transfer those resources to California for our high-speed rail projects.
I applaud Secretary LaHood for responding to our request and allowing the state of California to utilize these additional funds for advancing high-speed rail. No other state is as ready, as able, or as determined to develop a high-speed rail system in the near future.
This is great news for California, which has made a strong commitment to high-speed rail and the jobs it creates.
As Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and a member of the Commerce Committee, I am working with my Senate colleagues and the Obama Administration to increase federal investments in high-speed rail because I know that this will create jobs, ease congestion, reduce pollution, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
Obscene. And the more you know, the more obscene it gets. Check out this article in the Mercury News by Mike Rosenberg, "California to spend another $1.2 billion to extend first leg of high-speed rail":
After coming under attack for approving a multibillion-dollar "train to nowhere," California will spend another $1.2 billion to bring the line closer to "somewhere," that is, from the outskirts of Fresno to an area near Bakersfield.The California High-Speed Rail Authority board voted unanimously Monday to extend construction of the first segment of track across as many as 120 miles in the Central Valley at a cost of up to $5.5 billion.
Under the plan that gives the state the most bang for its buck, the high-speed rail authority could build tracks from a blip on the map near Madera, north of Fresno, to Shafter, a town of 25,000 about 10 miles north of Bakersfield. But if construction costs mount, the tracks would only extend for about 90 miles and reach no farther south than Allensworth, home to a "handful of families" next to a Census-designated place called Earlimart, population 6,583.
Wonderful. Be sure you read the rest at the link. Oh, and by the way, from what I've read in the past, the LA/SF leg at least won't really be "high-speed."
From Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, "The coming collapse in the state budgets":
...the Great Recession didn't cause this budget insanity, it merely exposed it. The overspending has been going on for decades, especially in places like Illinois, California, and New Jersey, as well as ridiculous union contracts that have California spending more on its public employees than it does on the entire state-owned public university systems it operates. Illinois has gotten so bad that landlords are evicting legislators from their business offices and police officers attempting to put gas in the tanks of their patrol cars have their state credit cards declined at the pump.Chris Christie makes it clear when discussing the rail project he had to cancel. "We don't have the money," Christie explains, "we literally don't have the money."
Mr. Christie...will you please be my U.S. Senator? And my representative everywhere else?
P.S. For U.S. Senator, although I'm a registered Independent, I asked for a Dem ballot and voted for Mickey Kaus in the primaries, and then Ms. Hairdo's opponent in the general election. Like and respect Mickey (though we don't agree on everything), and I didn't like Carly Fiorina, but I thought she (or my dog) would represent me and California far better than Boxer. Oh, and I'm serious about my dog, simply because she would be incapable of saying "Aye" to vote for any spending increases.
Pedal To The Meddle
I've blogged before about this, but there's a good point in the Economist piece, "Not all tragedies are preventable":
LEGISLATION that bears the name of a victim of a particular crime or accident is often bad legislation. That's because lawmakers, feeling the pressure of an emotionally-charged constituency, tend to overreact, instituting a broad and aggressive policy in response to a specific, perhaps rare problem. And so it is with the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2008, which directs the secretary of transportation to take measures to protect children in and around parked vehicles. The act is named after a two-year old who was tragically run over by his father as he backed into his driveway in 2002. Over the weekend the Wall Street Journal reported on the latest outcome of this legislation: starting in September 2012 new cars will be required to expand their field of view in an effort to reduce blind spots on the sides and rear of vehicles. This will effectively require carmakers to install rear-mounted video cameras.The policy is not cheap, as the Journal reports.
...Let's do the math. If we stick to the low end of the estimate and say the rule will cost carmakers $2 billion a year, and assume that it will fulfill its potential and save 100 lives a year (having never used a rear-mounted camera, I can't comment on its effectiveness), then the cost of saving each life comes out to $20m a year. Is it worth it?
"There is no more tragic accident...", says Mr LaHood, displaying the type of emotional mindset that often leads to poor policy--if there is truly nothing more tragic, then cost is hardly a concern. But there are plenty of terrible tragedies that befall children each year in America, from accidental drownings to the consumption of poisonous products, and increased regulation could probably decrease the number of deaths caused by a range of products. Sensible policymakers consider the costs and trade-offs of such regulation, which is why scissors are not illegal and electrical outlets still exist.
But, will even 100 lives be saved?
ChimeraFun comments at The Economist:
This regulation is bunk based on no true statistical analysis. Does someone really think that 100 lives could be saved? It will take 10 years to achieve a roughly 50% market saturation of vehicles with backup cameras as used cars work their way out of the system. At the ten year mark how many of the older backup cameras will still be working? That means in ten years if every backup camera made still works and people execute at 100% we might save 100 lives and countless injuries. Most likely however it won't improve our safety significantly over where we are now since many backup cameras will break and just having a safety feature doesn't make someone a safer driver.
And from somebody who says he/she has a rear camera, Mhbear's comment:
Unlike your correspondent, I do have a videocamera at the rear of my car. My experience is that it can distract me from using rear view mirrors and wing mirrors that, to be honest, give me a wider and better view of what is happening behind (except for the small area directly behing the rear bumper). Rear cameras are great for helping me to park and I am grateful for having one but they are hardly a universal panacea.
via @walterolson
Ricky Gervais Asks The Right Question
In an essay in the WSJ Gervais writes:
Why don't I believe in God? No, no no, why do YOU believe in God? Surely the burden of proof is on the believer. You started all this. If I came up to you and said, "Why don't you believe I can fly?" You'd say, "Why would I?" I'd reply, "Because it's a matter of faith." If I then said, "Prove I can't fly. Prove I can't fly see, see, you can't prove it can you?" You'd probably either walk away, call security or throw me out of the window and shout, ''F--ing fly then you lunatic."This, is of course a spirituality issue, religion is a different matter. As an atheist, I see nothing "wrong" in believing in a god. I don't think there is a god, but belief in him does no harm. If it helps you in any way, then that's fine with me. It's when belief starts infringing on other people's rights when it worries me. I would never deny your right to believe in a god. I would just rather you didn't kill people who believe in a different god, say. Or stone someone to death because your rulebook says their sexuality is immoral. It's strange that anyone who believes that an all-powerful all-knowing, omniscient power responsible for everything that happens, would also want to judge and punish people for what they are. From what I can gather, pretty much the worst type of person you can be is an atheist. The first four commandments hammer this point home. There is a god, I'm him, no one else is, you're not as good and don't forget it. (Don't murder anyone, doesn't get a mention till number 6.)
...So what does the question "Why don't you believe in God?" really mean. I think when someone asks that they are really questioning their own belief. In a way they are asking "what makes you so special? "How come you weren't brainwashed with the rest of us?" "How dare you say I'm a fool and I'm not going to heaven, f-- you!" Let's be honest, if one person believed in God he would be considered pretty strange. But because it's a very popular view it's accepted. And why is it such a popular view? That's obvious. It's an attractive proposition. Believe in me and live forever. Again if it was just a case of spirituality this would be fine.
"Do unto others..." is a good rule of thumb. I live by that. Forgiveness is probably the greatest virtue there is. But that's exactly what it is - ‐ a virtue. Not just a Christian virtue. No one owns being good. I'm good. I just don't believe I'll be rewarded for it in heaven. My reward is here and now. It's knowing that I try to do the right thing. That I lived a good life. And that's where spirituality really lost its way. When it became a stick to beat people with. "Do this or you'll burn in hell."
You won't burn in hell. But be nice anyway.
Hand Job
Glove store, rue de Rennes, 75006, Paris:
This store window was just filled with fun gloves like the red polka-dotted ones. The French have their failings, but in my Bronx-expat friend M.'s words, they do three things really well, "The Three F's": "Food, Fashion, and Fucking."
M. is married to a French woman, and has lived there, in Paris, for maybe 20 years now, but there's plenty of "the wop from the Bronx" (as he calls himself) in him still.
When I was there, he gave me this really nice Monoprix shopping bag with French words all over it. Cool! I'll take it to Trader Joe's.
To my surprise, he coveted Gregg's really ugly Ralph's (supermarket) bag, which Gregg promptly gave to him. M. told us he wants American grocery bags (the kind you keep), the tackier the better. I just mailed him the one I got in the mail from LADWP (Dept. of Water and Power), and Gregg bought him THE most tacky one at Ralph's supermarket the other day, with a Woody (station wagon) and a surfboard on it, which I just dropped in the mail. He'll just love it. I guess a guy just needs an antidote from really cute polka-dotted everything all the time.
Undercover At A Gay-To-Straight Conversion Camp
Alt weekly writer Ted Cox (no pun intended) writes at The Good Men project about his weekend at Christian gay-to-straight conversion camp:
What the staff members and other Journeyers didn't know was that I was attending the weekend undercover. I'm straight. I'm also an atheist. By that February evening, I had been undercover in the so-called "ex-gay" movement for just over a year. Before signing up for the $650 JiM weekend, I had attended weekly support-group meetings and weekend conferences geared toward Christian men and women desperately trying to overcome their same-sex attractions. I am currently writing a book about my experiences posing as a same-sex-attracted Christian man--"SSA man," in the lingo.My motivation for undertaking this wild project stems from several factors. First, I was raised in the Mormon church, which has taken the lead against equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians. It's been 10 years since I left Mormonism, and I feel a particular need to stand up against the church's well-funded opposition to marriage equality. (I wonder what Mormonism's polygamous founder, Joseph Smith, Jr., and his successor, Brigham Young, would say about the "Marriage = 1 Man + 1 Woman" bumper stickers slapped on so many Mormon minivans.)
Second, while the ex-gay movement has publicly declared they can bring "freedom from homosexuality," there's no evidence that someone can change his or her orientation through these religiously motivated programs. Rather than turning straight, the men and women I met throughout this project dealt with a cycle of repression, backsliding into sin, then shame, guilt, and repentance. These programs collect hundreds of thousands of dollars each year on a promise they can't deliver.
Third, these programs are dangerous. Ex-gay watchdog groups document the stories of men who, after years of failed attempts to become straight, resort to suicide. Later I'll introduce you to Eric, a fellow JiM attendee who would hook up with men on Craigslist and then go home to his unsuspecting wife. For many men in ex-gay programs, often their wives, friends, family, and church members have no idea they struggle with SSA.
What I saw and experienced at JiM both enraged and disturbed me. I had trouble staying in character as I watched one man, as part of his therapy, act out beating his father to death with a baseball bat--just one of several "Are you kidding?" moments. How anyone could believe that a JiM weekend could turn a man straight still baffles me.
A bit from his experience:
The Guide leans back and opens up his legs. I scoot between his thighs, turn away from his face, and lean back while he wraps his arms around me. I flash back to a night months before, when a then-girlfriend held me the same way. She lit candles. We drank wine and later had sex.At the Guide's direction, the other men from the group place their hands on my arms, legs, and chest. This is so they can impart their healing masculine energy to me.
Then the music starts. How could anyone ever tell you / That you're anything less than beautiful?The Guide whispers in my ear how I used to be the Golden Child, how everything was wonderful before someone hurt me, how I put up walls to protect myself, and now it was time for those walls to come down.
Like so many times that night, I'm trying not to crack up. To use another children's tale, I feel like the little kid in The Emperor's New Clothes. Except this time, instead of pointing out that the emperor is parading down the street in his birthday suit, I want to stand up and scream, "Are you fucking kidding?"
No Labels: Loads Of Hypocrisy And Contradictions
George Will writes in the WaPo about the ridiculous "No Labels" movement, which, unfortunately, is not a movement simply to take a seam-ripper to the back insignia patch on your Lucky jeans. Will writes:
No Labels purports to represent a supposedly disaffected middle of the ideological spectrum. Some No Labels enthusiasts speak of eliminating "political retribution," presumably meaning voters defeating candidates with whose positions they disagree. No Labels promises to police the political speech of the intemperate.
Hmm, already I'm not liking it. American politics is, as a reason video put it the other day, about the assholes being heard, or at least getting their chance to speak their piece.
I was particularly amazed at this "mush" (as he called it) that he quoted. It's the mission of the No Labels-ites:
To achieve a government of "the vital center" that "makes the necessary choices" and "common sense solutions" to put America "on a viable, sound path going forward," with "free and open markets, tempered by sensible regulation," a government that "empowers people" with "world-class education" and "affordable health care - provided that it does so in a fiscally prudent way," and with "fact-based discussions."
How do you fit that many contradictions in a single paragraph? Very impressive. It bespeaks somebody who lives in their head in a reality approximating that of a highly idealistic and painfully earnest 12-year-old.
More good stuff from Will:
Although the people promising to make No Labels into a national scold are dissatisfied with the tone of politics, they are pleased as punch with themselves. If self-approval were butter, they could spread it across America, if it were bread. They might cover the country with sanctimony as they "overthrow the tyranny of hyper-partisanship." But aside from No Labels' policy bromides, and its banalities about playing nicely together, how might "nonpartisan" discussion proceed concerning complex and consequential matters such as those preoccupying Judge Hudson?"Hyper-partisanship" is deplorable, but partisanship is politics. What would it mean to have a "nonpartisan" position on the issue with which Hudson has dealt? People have different political sensibilities; they cluster and the clusters are called parties. They have distinctive understandings of the meaning and relative importance of liberty, equality and other matters. Politics is given weight, and motion is imparted to democracy, by intensely interested factions composed of people who are partisans of various causes.
...No Labels, its earnestness subverting its grammar, says: "We do not ask any political leader to ever give up their label - merely put it aside." But adopting a political label should be an act of civic candor. When people label themselves conservatives or liberals we can reasonably surmise where they stand concerning important matters, such as Hudson's ruling. The label "conservative" conveys much useful information about people who adopt it. So does the label "liberal," which is why most liberals have abandoned it, preferring "progressive," until they discredit it, too.
The Latest In Stupid Supposed Trends: Man-Repeller Clothing
I mean, a lot of women wear it, and have for years, but I'm guessing most don't really know any better and the rest have some sort of unresolved issues (perhaps just being a consumer of college feminism). Irina Aleksander writes for The New York Times:
LEANDRA MEDINE, a fashion blogger who lives with her parents on the Upper East Side, was thumbing through the hangers in her bedroom closet on a recent Monday morning, pulling out the sort of items that she calls "sartorial contraceptives": a blouse with erect shoulder pads from Zara; a floral, curtainlike blazer by Zimmermann; high-waisted lime green trousers by Opening Ceremony; drop-crotch utility pants; an ostrich-feather miniskirt; a cape.Since April, Ms. Medine, 21, has been publishing photos of herself wearing these pieces on her blog, the Man Repeller, as well as shots of similarly challenging recent runway looks: fashions that, though promoted by designers and adored by women, most likely confuse -- or worse, repulse -- the average straight man. These include turbans, harem pants, jewelry that looks like a torture instrument, jumpsuits, ponchos, furry garments resembling large unidentified animals, boyfriend jeans, clogs and formal sweatpants.
Glossy magazines have taken notice. Lucky has asked Ms. Medine to guest-blog. Harper's Bazaar assigned Ms. Medine a feature in its December issue titled, "Can You Be in Fashion and Still Get a Man?" And women in New York who have become fans of her blog have begun using it as a verb, as in, "I am totally man-repelling today."
"I'm really happy that people understand that man-repelling is a good thing," Ms. Medine said, seated on a velvet blue sofa in her parents' living room.
I guess it's the only way she can get attention -- to proclaim the glory of not getting any male attention.
via Kate Coe
Loved This Story
Via MetaFilter, Santa comes early and anonymously:
Someone left a $125 Target gift card on our car either this morning or last night. Who???So my wife found this gift card on her car this morning. It was in an envelope, and was addressed to "The Brocktoon Family". We have no idea who did this. We aren't terribly social people, and we can't think of anyone we might have "touched" recently who could actually afford to do this (we certainly couldn't). Who or what organization might have done this, or how would we go about tracking this person down?
I did find it a little jerky that they're looking to track the giver down.
So, this Christmas and beyond, got any plans to do small kindnesses for strangers? Anybody done something like this for you?
What Is Feminism?
Carolyn Glick writes in the Jerusalem Post:
...At its most basic level, the feminist label has never been solely or even predominantly about preventing and ending oppression or discrimination of women. It has been about advancing the Left's social and political agenda against Western societies. It has been about castigating societies where women enjoy legal rights and protections as "structurally" discriminatory against women in order to weaken the legal, moral and social foundations of those societies. That is, rather than being about advancing the cause of women, to a large extent, the feminist movement has used the language of women's rights to advance a social and political agenda that has nothing to do with women.So to a large degree, the feminist movement itself is a deception.
The deception at the heart of the feminist movement is nowhere more apparent than in the silence with which self-professed feminists and feminist movements ignore the inhumane treatment of women who live under Islamic law. If feminism weren't a hollow term, then prominent feminists should be the leaders of the anti-jihad movement.
Gloria Steinem and her sisters should be leading to call for the overthrow of the antifemale mullocracy in Iran and the end of gender apartheid in Saudi Arabia.
Instead, in 2008 Ms. Magazine, which Steinem founded and which has served as the mouthpiece of the American feminist movement, refused to run an ad featuring then foreign minister Tzipi Livni, Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch and then speaker of the Knesset Dalia Itzik that ran under the headline, "This is Israel."
It was too partisan, the magazine claimed.
Leading feminist voices in the US and Europe remain unforgivably silent on the unspeakable oppression of women and girls in Islamic societies. And this cannot simply be attributed to a lack of interest in international affairs. Islamic subjugation and oppression of women happens in Western countries as well. Genital mutilation, forced marriage and other forms of abuse are widespread.
For instance, every year hundreds of Muslim women and girls in Western countries are brutally murdered by their male relatives in so-called "honor killings."
...Former Dutch parliamentarian Ayaan Hirsi Ali was forced to flee Holland and live surrounded by bodyguards for the past six years because she has made an issue of Islamic oppression of women and girls. The Left - including the feminist movement - has treated this remarkable former Muslim and champion of women's rights as a leper.
IF ALL the feminist community's policy of ignoring Islamic oppression of women did was keep it out of the headlines it would still be unforgivable. But the fact is that by not speaking of the central challenge to women's rights in our times, the organized feminist movement, and the Left it is a part of, are abetting Islam's unspeakable crimes against women and girls. It does so in two ways.
Tyranny unchallenged is tyranny abetted.
Luj posted a great comment that's somewhat related to this post above, and I posted the line on Facebook:
"Ethnocentricism: Because my culture really is better than yours"--from a T-shirt worn by one of my blog commenters
Somebody following me made a remark that I took to reflect a problem with the quote. (It's somewhat obtuse, so I could be wrong.) He wrote, simply:
It's Latin for "ass-hat."
My response:
People who claim cultures with no running water and lots of running sewage (or women getting their clitorises filed off) are an improvement on ours should load their belongings on their donkey and head off there.
via Instapundit
Dietary Assumptions
Good Calories, Bad Calories author, investigative science journalist Gary Taubes, who is responsible for probably 500 to 1,000 pounds of rather effortless weight loss among people who comment here, has started blogging. Here's an excerpt from his latest post, "Calories, fat or carbohydrates? Why diets work (when they do)."
This concept of low-carb diets being good for some people and low-fat for others is invariably reinforced by the fact that most of us know someone who has lost weight and kept it off on Weight Watchers or after reading Skinny Bitch or some other popular low-calorie diet book. As a result, we assume that dieting isn't a one-sized fits all endeavor and that everyone is different - perhaps metabolically and hormonally, as well - and that what works for me won't necessarily work for you, and vice verse.So what does this have to do with controlling variables or even understanding the concept of controlling variables?
What researchers like Gardner and his colleagues do in these diet trials (and it's the same thing most of us do when we think about those people who succeed on conventional diets or after reading diet books like Skinny Bitch) is make the assumption that a diet that is described as a "low-fat diet" is low in fat only and that's why it works. And they also make the assumption that a diet that restricts total calories works (if it does) because it restricts total calories. Another way of saying this is that we all tend to assume -- researchers and lay people alike -- that when someone embarks on a low-fat diet, the only meaningful variable that changes in their diet is the fat-to-carbohydrate ratio. The ratio gets smaller. Fat consumption goes down and carbohydrate consumption goes up. And, by the same token, when someone tries to simply eat less, the only meaningful variable that's changing is the total number of calories they're consuming.
The most extreme or perhaps egregious example of this thinking was the recent publication by Gary Foster and his colleagues, comparing low-fat diets, as they described them, to low-carbohydrate diets. The title was "Weight and Metabolic Outcomes After 2 years on a Low-Carbohydrate Versus a Low-Fat Diet." And here was the conclusion as stated in the abstract:
Successful weight loss can be achieved with either a low-fat or low-carbohydrate diet when coupled with behavioral treatment. A low-carbohydrate diet is associated with favorable changes in cardiovascular disease risk factors at 2 years.
So the way the media and the nutrition community treated this was as further evidence that nutrient composition of the diet makes little difference in weight loss -- maybe low-carb works for some of us, but low-fat works for others -- although, in this case, maybe low-carb had some modest advantage when it came to heart disease risk factors.
But if you read this article carefully, you'd have noticed that there was another significance difference between the "low-fat" and low-carbohydrate diets. The low fat diet was a low-calorie diet also -- "A low-fat diet consisted of limited energy intake (1200 to 1800kcal/d; less than or equal to 30 % calories from fat)," the authors explained. The low-carbohydrate diet was not calorie-restricted. And if Foster and his colleagues were being either intellectually honest or good scientists, they'd have defined the two diets to make this clear. Not "low-fat" vs. "low-carbohydrate", but "low-fat, calorie-restricted" vs, "low-carbohydrate, calorie-unrestricted."In other words they'd have acknowledged that there was at least one other variable that was different between the two experiments and had to be taken into account when interpreting the results -- the amount of calories the subjects were instructed to consume. As we'll see, there were also other variables that were changing, but this one -- how much food can be consumed if desired -- is a whopper.
It's a whopper because it begs this question: is it the total calories consumed that is the variable determining weight loss? And, by the same token, is it the calories consumed (or expended) that determines how much weight we gain?
In this case, both diets resulted in roughly equal weight loss but those subjects randomized to the "low-fat" diet were instructed and counseled to semi-starve themselves (eat a maximum of 1500 calories for women, 1800 for men), while those counseled to eat low-carb were counseled and instructed not to worry about how much they ate and, one hopes, as this was an Atkins diet being prescribed, eat until they were full. So if weight loss is the same in both groups, doesn't this suggest, at least, that weight loss can be independent of whether dieters semi-starve themselves or eat to satiety? And, if so, of course, wouldn't you rather get to eat to satiety?
I have a review copy of his soon-to-be-published book, Why We Get Fat, and it's excellent. I'm about 100 pages through, and only haven't finished it because I've had a busy week. It's a breeze to read, while GCBC was tough for some people who don't have a science background, and it lays out, in the most simple terms, why much of what people believe about dieting, how to lose weight, and exercise, is not based in evidence -- and lays out what is.
In a quote I've retyped from page 10:
...The science itself makes clear that hormones, enzymes, and growth factors regulate our fat tissue, just as they do everything else in the human body, and that we do not get fat because we overeat; we get fat because the carbohydrates in our diet make us fat. The science tells us that obesity is ultimately the result of a hormonal imbalance, not a caloric one -- specifically, the stimulation of insulin secretion caused by eating easily digestible, carbohydrate-rich foods: refined carbohydrates, including flour and cereal grains, starchy vegetables such as potatoes, and sugars, like sucrose (table sugar) and high-fructose corn syrup. These carbohydrates literally make us fat, and by driving us to accumulate fat, they make us hungrier and they make us sedentary.This is the fundamental reality of why we fatten, and if we're going to get lean and stay lean we'll have to understand and accept it, and perhaps more important, our doctors are going to have to understand and acknowledge it, too.
The book is also a fascinating expose of a vast swindle made largely on the American people by the medical and research establishment. It's sick to think of how many lives have been compromised, how many people's health has been ruined, how many women have not been able to find a man, because they have eaten the way doctors, the government, researchers, and the AMA have told them to -- eaten the low-fat, high-carb diet that has only served to make them fat.
"Sicko Doesn't Meet Cuban Propaganda Standards"
That's the perfect headline on Jesse Walker's reason blog item about Michael Moore's Oscar-nominated film about how wunnnderful medical care is in Cuba compared to the US. Turns out it's not so wonderful; in fact, as Amelia Hill writes in the Guardian, the film can't be shown in Cuba, lest people there revolt over lies in it:
The revelation, contained in a confidential US embassy cable released by WikiLeaks , is surprising, given that the film attempted to discredit the US healthcare system by highlighting what it claimed was the excellence of the Cuban system.But the memo reveals that when the film was shown to a group of Cuban doctors, some became so "disturbed at the blatant misrepresentation of healthcare in Cuba that they left the room".
Castro's government apparently went on to ban the film because, the leaked cable claims, it "knows the film is a myth and does not want to risk a popular backlash by showing to Cubans facilities that are clearly not available to the vast majority of them."
Sicko investigated healthcare in the US by comparing the for-profit, non-universal US system with the non-profit universal health care systems of other countries, including Cuba, France and the UK.
...The cable describes a visit made by the FSHP to the Hermanos Ameijeiras hospital in October 2007. Built in 1982, the newly renovated hospital was used in Michael Moore's film as evidence of the high-quality of healthcare available to all Cubans.
But according to the FSHP, the only way a Cuban can get access to the hospital is through a bribe or contacts inside the hospital administration. "Cubans are reportedly very resentful that the best hospital in Havana is 'off-limits' to them," the memo reveals.
According to the FSHP, a more "accurate" view of the healthcare experience of Cubans can be seen at the Calixto Garcia Hospital. "FSHP believes that if Michael Moore really wanted the 'same care as local Cubans', this is where he should have gone," the cable states.
A 2007 visit by the FSHP to this "dilapidated" hospital, built in the 1800s, was "reminiscent of a scene from some of the poorest countries in the world," the cable adds.
The memo points out that even the Cuban ruling elite leave Cuba when they need medical care.
This is how it works in communist and socialist systems: all people are equal, only some people are more equal than others.
Maybe She Should Sue Her Gynecologist, Too
For not holding her down and implanting her with Depo-Provera, because this woman, Monet Parham, is clearly unfit for the most minor rigors of parenting: saying no, and saying no, and saying no again, until it's clear that the answer is no.
My mother, on the other hand, had no problem saying no to us. In fact, she was so good at drawing the line at what we could and couldn't have and where we could and couldn't go that it seemed ridiculous to even ask. For example, as kids, we didn't beg my mom to take us to McDonald's. It would have made about as much sense as asking to grow a second head or take LSD.
The times, oh, they have a-changed. Overlawyered's Walter Olson has a piece in the New York Daily News about a mother, represented by the advocacy group, The Center for Science In The Public Interest (or as Walter calls it, "Busybody Central"), who's suing McDonald's:
What's Parham's (so to speak) beef? "Because of McDonald's marketing, [her daughter] Maya has frequently pestered Parham into purchasing Happy Meals, thereby spending money on a product she would not otherwise have purchased."You're probably wondering: How is this grounds for a lawsuit? No one forced Parham to take her daughters to McDonald's, buy them that particular menu item, and sit by as they ate every last French fry in the bag (if they did).
No, she's suing because when she said no, her kids became disagreeable and "pouted" - for which she wants class action status. If she gets it, McDonald's isn't the only company that should worry. Other kids pout because parents won't get them 800-piece Lego sets, Madame Alexander dolls and Disney World vacations. Are those companies going to be liable too?
The center's longtime shtick is to complain that businesses like McDonald's, rather than our own choices, are to blame for rising obesity. So let's take Happy Meals as an example. When you buy one, you get a string of choices. Milk or soda? (Is that really a hard choice for a parent worried about nutrition?) You can swap out the fattening French fries for "apple dippers" with caramel sauce and plenty of kid appeal. But your choices do not end there. If you think the scoop of fries is too big for a kid serving, you can tell the kid to share it with the grownup on hand, namely you. (You're the grownup. You make the rules.) You can even, shocking as this sounds, toss the surplus French fries into the disposal bin.
Ah, the lost art of parenting!
The truth is, per what the science (as opposed to the "science") says, if you want your kid to be healthy, just give them the cheeseburger and throw out the bun. No fries, no apples with caramel dipping sauce, no shake. Or those things only on very special occasions (because denying kids everything probably makes them want to binge on them when they're out of your sight).
For the actual science on how to eat, and why cutting carbs will likely have you dropping pounds like rocks off a truck (sans exercise, sans starvation), read Gary Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories, and his excellent (and far easier reading) new book, which I'm halfway through, Why We Get Fat. Dr. Michael Eades, a friend of Taubes and mine, is also an excellent source, blogging frequently on evidence-based eating. Follow Eades on Twitter at @DrEades, and Gary Taubes at @GaryTaubes. Taubes' brand new blog, which I'll soon be posting an excerpt from, is here.
I eat bacon-cheese Angus burgers, no bun, from time to time, although I prefer In-N-Out burgers (protein-style, with cheese), which I eat at least once or twice a week. Clearly, just as "Busybody Central" contends, eating such junk has made me wildly obese!
Yodeling Offends Praying Muslims
So say Austrian judges, reports the Austrian Times:
An Austrian has been fined for yodelling while mowing his lawn, according to a report.The Kronen Zeitung newspaper claims Helmut G. was told by a court in Graz, Styria, that his yodelling offended his next-door Muslim neighbours.
The Muslim neighbors, the story says, accused the guy of trying to mock them and the Muslim call to prayer with the yodeling. The man said he was just yodeling a few tunes because he was in a good mood. He was fined 800 euros after the judges said he could have been trying to mock them. (Hellooo, madness!)
Gregg points out that, in Mars Attacks!, yodeling is what makes the aliens' heads explode. Hmm, sort of a reverse jihad!
A commenter calling herself Anna Nym left a remark on the site with, she says, more news from Austria (like about how the neighbors played a recording of their Friday "prayers" -- I believe she means the Muslim call to prayers):
Quite a short article here, so let'ss add some facts from the homebase:1.) the infidel Friday: This, which was originally a "over the fence-quarrell" lastet from 2009 to summer 2010 YES, the muslim neighbours did have a recording of their Friday Prayers on high volume to listen to it in the garden every FRI/12.pm and yes Herr Helmuth G. did yodel, sing lawn-mowing and making noise in other "creative ways" every FRI/12.pm. Significant thing here is, the muslim neighbours STOPPED their noise after some weeks. Mister G. did not! And so, after a time and a Mister G. who did not want to talk or stop, the muslim neighbours did something very austrian/western: they called Police.
2.) the more infidel reporting of Mister G.: As every learned Austrian know, if a austrian policeman has to aussekoffern wegn so an Schaas bec. of a neighbour quarrell at holy midday time (midday time is kinda holy in Austria, i don't know for muslim world though) he will get pissed...very pissed with the originator of (his) midday peace interuption- so after dunning Mister G. FIVE TIMES to keep it down at midday, the police reported Mister G. to the districts attourney bureau bec. of defying a officers orders - so not the muslims reported him, the police did (The neighbours said, they wanted a amicabe solution)! Anyway Mister G.s case was dismissed and got into a so-called Diversion
More here.
Cute yodeler here:
Muslim call to prayer here:
Assholes! (What Makes This Country Great)
It's actually the right to be an asshole that makes this country great, per this reason.tv video with a bunch of people weighing in on what is the biggest threat to free speech:
Telling The Ugly Truth
There's this notion that if a man loves a woman, he "should" lust after her as well. Unfortunately, male sexuality just doesn't work that way. In fact, it's enormously uncooperative with that point of view.
Even more unfortunately, feminism sold women a bill of goods -- that "should" lust after you business above. According to many feminists, and those who've had their thinking poisoned by them, it's actually seen as offensive to try to make yourself look good "just to get (or keep) a man." Well, I don't know about you, but I want love and a partner, and I happen to be into heterosexual male partners, so I've always tried to make myself look attractive to them.
Oh, and I should point out that even though Andrea Dworkin is dead, and feminism is no longer quite as harsh as it was when I took women's studies back in 1983 as a freshman at the University of Michigan, it has seeped into mainstream culture in a most ugly and damaging way. Women who have never even heard of Dworkin or MacKinnon have lapped up their notions about what they should and shouldn't have to do in a relationship.
I'm working on a column now, a response to a guy whose wife needs to understand that she needs to take care of her looks -- to look good -- to be attractive to him. She does these icky things like leaving the bathroom door open when she's taking a poop, picks her zits to the point that they're open sores, and cuts a fart and then comes to bed -- and expects the guy to be all sexed up for her.
Yeah, I know -- ick.
The problem is, when he explains that certain things turn him off, she gets all offended.
The question is, have any of you guys had any luck communicating to a woman under similar circumstances that she needs to take care of herself and not show all in order to be attractive to you?
Life Under Islamic Law
Violence against women in the Sudan:
More on the flogging at Hot Air.
Leave It To A Bunch Of Nerdy Yids
The Stuxnet virus, speculated to have originated in Israel, set back Iran's nuke program by two years, says a German computer consultant. Yaakov Katz writes for the Jerusalem Post:
"It will take two years for Iran to get back on track," Langer said in a telephone interview from his office in Hamburg, Germany. "This was nearly as effective as a military strike, but even better since there are no fatalities and no full-blown war. From a military perspective, this was a huge success."Langer spoke to the Post amid news reports that the virus was still infecting Iran's computer systems at its main uranium enrichment facility at Natanz and its reactor at Bushehr.
Last month, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nation's nuclear watchdog, said that Iran had suspended work at its nuclear-field production facilities, likely a result of the Stuxnet virus.
According to Langer, Iran's best move would be to throw out all of the computers that have been infected by the worm, which he said was the most "advanced and aggressive malware in history." But, he said, even once all of the computers were thrown out, Iran would have to ensure that computers used by outside contractors were also clean of Stuxnet.
"It is extremely difficult to clean up installations from Stuxnet, and we know that Iran is no good in IT [information technology] security, and they are just beginning to learn what this all means," he said.
When you hate the Jews, and ran them all out of your country, it's a little difficult to go hire Yoshi the freelance computer nerd to fix your problem.
Jewish Nobel prize winners versus Arab/Muslim ones here. I try not to think about how the cure for cancer, Parkinson's, M.S., and other diseases may have died with some nerdy Jew during the Holocaust.
The Wymyn Have Their Granny Panties In A Wad!
Apparently, my thoughts on beauty (and my piece in Psychology Today) are a subject of some concern at the University of Maryland. I got this e-mail yesterday:
In a message dated 12/14/10 4:18:13 PM, mhale2@students.towson.edu writes:Greetings
As a student of feminism, sociology, geography and history, I can guarantee that beauty standards have changed over time, space, and identity. I'm sure you've heard all of these arguments before, but I found your assessment of the nature of women's beauty to be reductionist, essentialist and outright ignorant. Rather than accepting the androcentric world of beauty standards, we must work for a society in which beauty is understood as fluid and subjective. Indeed, it is both of those things now, but members of the "feminine-industrial complex" like yourself capitalize on our insecurities.
Also, the French are notable for their feminist, postmodernist and poststructuralist intellectual movements in ways that that Americans can't begin to fathom.
Long story short, you totally suck. Thanks for making academics look like ass holes.
Sincerely,
Madeline Hale
on behalf of college feminists in the state of Maryland
My response:
My failure to parrot feminist talking points has been a cause of outrage. You're a little late in the game, but your e-mail is exceptionally entertaining. My article must have been a subject of conversation in the mustachioed mines of feminism. I love that.My assessment of beauty is based on piles of cross-cultural data -- science as opposed to ideology (what your beliefs are based on). Beauty standards are amazingly consistent across time, borders, and cultures. If you read science instead of that man-hating poison spreader Andrea Dworkin (Ding-dong, the witch is dead!), you'd be able to acknowledge that.
What I'm doing is being honest with women: Beauty matters. You'll increase your opportunities, in love and in life, if you do the best you can with what you have. You can decide not to do this, but you should accept the opportunity costs of going ungroomed.
How tragic that you're at a university and sucking down feminism when women fought for equal rights and you have the opportunity to study something of value, like science or engineering, like my engineering prof best friend (who's a woman). I took women's studies at the University of Michigan and learned that all men are hateful rapists and oppressors. What a load of tripe. My dad taught me ethics and sent me to college and told me I could do anything men could do (within reason -- I'll never play for the NBA). More men should be so oppressive.
"Also, the French are notable for their feminist, postmodernist and poststructuralist intellectual movements in ways that that Americans can't begin to fathom"
(Because they're incomprehensible gibberish to anyone with a rational thought in their head.)
I go to France often -- just got back last week -- and know what utter unfounded crapthink that is, and try to avoid fathoming it, save for when I need a good laugh.
"Long story short, you totally suck. Thanks for making academics look like ass holes."
Feminist academics, for the most part, make themselves look like "ass holes" without an ounce of help from me. But, I'm always thrilled to be a burr under the saddle of nonthink.
And thanks, this was amusing. -Amy Alkon
UPDATE -- Madeline wrote back:
In a message dated 12/14/10 5:08:48 PM, mhale2@students.towson.edu writes:
Thanks for your prompt reply, I'm glad to know discourse like this is readily available.For the record, I'm a geography student studying disaster mitigation...as for women's studies, I feel that it has a magnificent application in terms of research. Women's studies majors know how to research basically everything within humanities and social sciences at least at a basic level.
But I realize that while I would not have the power to convince you otherwise, I did need a good rant. Thank you for being a willing sounding board. I suppose I'm not done though:
1. Feminism does not equal man-hating. My man-hating is simply a function of personal experience and was not brought on by academia or ideology. Before you say it's because I need to increase my lipstick usage, my problem comes from condescention not from not getting laid.
2. Nothing wrong with grooming. More people should do it--male and female and everyone in between. The spectrum of "acceptability" may be worth examining, however.
3. Not all feminists are Dworkinites. But that was a really mean-spirited comment, just sayin'.
4. I'm glad anorexia amuses you. Regardless of the so-called science behind your assessment, it's extremely cynical to resign yourself to fulfilling male fantasies...particularly when said fantasies are socially constructed.
5. For whom do wake up every morning? Please say yourself. If you claim it's for a dude, I'm sad for you. Perhaps rather than making "romantic partnership" a life goal, we could all stand to reconsider what life is all about (those of us who have the privilege of leisure time, that is).
6. Way to be heteronormative. And Cisnormative. How do you account for cultures that have more than two genders? How do you account genderqueer people? How do you account for people attracted to people of the same sex or for whom gender is a non-issue in a partner?
Thanks
Madeline
My response:
"Discourse" is for "ass holes." This is an e-mail exchange.Anorexia "amuses" me? Hello?
Male "fantasies" are not socially constructed, but you're so busy filling your head with ideology, you can't imagine that there are well-done cross-cultural studies showing that men across cultures prefer the same things in women: those things that are indicative of the woman being a healthy candidate to pass on their genes. Some of these include youth, neotenous features, an hourglass figure, symmetrical features.
"Way to be "heteronormative." Oh, what a load of horseshit. Most people are heterosexual. I'm friendly with one woman who's transgendered (she used to be a man), but magazines don't want to publish articles written for five people in the population. If they did, they'd go broke.
You use all sorts of ridiculously complicated terminology -- "Cisnormative." It's a sign that you're 20 and kind of an asshole. My best friend is a tenured professor of engineering. She is one of the smartest people I know, but is also very secure with herself, so she explains complex science using the simplest terms. When you feel okay with yourself, your goal is communicating, not trying to sound really smart (while simply coming off really insecure). I outgrew my asshole phase in my early 20s, although I wish I could go back and apologize to all the people I tried to impress with my knowledge of impossibly big words.
I'll post this e-mail along as an update to the one I've already posted on my blog. Read the comments, and try to learn from them. -Amy Alkon
UPDATE: She writes back:
In a message dated 12/15/10 12:00:05 PM, mhale2@students.towson.edu writes:Two words: Al Kinsey
I've had my fun now. Perhaps when I grow up I'll be just like your one engineering friend who's a woman. Until then, I'll enjoy my pretentiousness as much as possible. I hope you enjoy yours.
My response:
Look, you should be learning the rudiments of intelligent debate in college, and this e-mail reflects that you are doing anything but. "Two words: Al Kinsey"?Huh?
Beyond the disturbing way you apparently find use of big words and obtuse references a substitute for intelligent debate, unless you knew Alfred Kinsey, and he was your uncle, referring to him as "Al Kinsey" is a little weird. I knew Dr. Albert Ellis (who, with Aaron Beck, founded cognitive behavioral therapy), so I sometimes call him "Al" as I did jokingly in life. Aaron Beck, however, is someone I only met in passing, so when I spoke to him, I referred to him as "Dr. Beck."
It's unfortunate you only send these little hit-and-run e-mails to me, and don't participate in the discussion on my blog about the notions you put out. My commenters are very smart, and they'd do what you're supposed to be doing in college -- challenging ideas you hold to see if they hold water. -Amy Alkon
Public Servants Will Soon Have Servants -- On Our Dime
Tim Pawlenty in the WSJ on "Government Unions vs. Taxpayers." He proposes three solutions:
Reformers would be wise to adopt three overriding principles.First, we need to bring public employee compensation back in line with the private sector and reduce the overall size of the federal civilian work force. Mr. Obama's proposal to freeze federal pay is a step in the right direction, but it falls well short of shrinking government and eliminating the pay premium enjoyed by federal employees.
Second, get the numbers right. Government should start using the same established accounting standards that private businesses are required to use, so we can accurately assess unfunded liabilities.
Third, we need to end defined-benefit retirement plans for government employees. Defined-benefit systems have created a financial albatross for taxpayers. The private sector dropped them years ago in favor of the clarity and predictability of defined-contribution models such as 401(k) plans. This change alone can save taxpayers trillions of dollars.
The moral case for unions--protecting working families from exploitation--does not apply to public employment. Government employees today are among the most protected, well-paid employees in the country. Ironically, public-sector unions have become the exploiters, and working families once again need someone to stand up for them.
If we're going to stop the government unions' silent coup, conservative reformers around the country must fight this challenge head on. The choice between big government and everyday Americans isn't a hard one.
Well, it isn't for me.
Racism Against The Right People
Racism's apparently okay if you're talking about white people, as this UCLA professor is. From YouTube, "UCLA Professor Kent Wong: DREAMers Will Replace "Those Old White Guys" in Congress":
Transcript:
On December 13, at the Levitt Pavilion in the historic MacCarthur Park, UCLA's Kent Wong gave another exhilarating speech at "The DREAM Act is alive" vigil held where he expressed his admiration to DREAMers, their evolution of this country and generation, and how will go on to do many great things with their lives and for this country."I'm proud of the DREAMers who have changed the course of this country," Wong said. "I am so proud of the DREAMers who have take over the chambers of the US senate, who have taken over the office of John McCain... Who have marked on foot from Florida to Washington, DC."
"We will win the dream act soon -- very soon," he exclaimed. "When that day comes, we will celebrate with millions and millions of people of people across this country who are standing with you tonight. Who stand for justice, who stand for democracy and equal opportunities for all."
"When that day happens, the young people of the DREAM Act movement, will go on to accomplish and do great things with your lives," he said. "You will go on to become lawyers, teachers, doctors and members of the US congress to replace those old white men... You are the hope and future of this country. You are hope and future of your generation."
Wong has been the backbone and the driving force behind DREAM Team LA, who has encouraged the youth to protest, and fight for their rights. And yes, we will soon celebrate the passage of the DREAM Act! It is the right thing to do for our youth.
Disturbingly, Kent Wong is the director of the UCLA Center for Labor Research and Education..."where he teaches Labor Studies and Asian American Studies."
Replace what he said, "to replace those old white men," with "to replace all those blacks," or "all those Jews" or "all those Chinese," and see how appropriate it sounds.
Discrimination on the basis of color, even the color white, is disgusting, and should be a thing of the past.
Medical Insurance Is Not Car Insurance
If you choose to drive a car, your state can demand that you have car insurance. You can also choose to walk, ride a bus, or ride a bike, and buy no insurance.
The Federal government was trying to make you buy health insurance simply because you exist. Unconstitutional, said a judge in Virginia. I've seen a lot about this, especially discussing it on Constitutional grounds, but Nick Gillespie's take over at reason resonated with mine:
In the wake of U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson's ruling yesterday that compelling people to buy health insurance is unconstitutional, defenders of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (i.e., ObamaCare) are fond of pulling out car insurance mandates. If the state can force you to buy car insurance, the argument goes, how can it not be able to make you buy something so much more important, like health or medical insurance?To wit, this piece in Mother Jones by Nick Baumann about the state of Virginia's successful challenge to the mandate, and the sillythink comparing it to car insurance:
In the state of Virginia (ahem), for example, drivers who refuse to purchase auto insurance have to pay the state $500 a year. In making this claim, Hudson has "rewritten the Commerce Clause," Tim Jost, a professor at Washington and Lee University law school,told reporters on Monday....Should the feds be able to require people to buy insurance for health care, a universally used good that society is expected to (and does) provide? Or does the Congress of the United States have less power to regulate health care than the Legislature of the Commonwealth of Virginia has to regulate who pays to fix your Jetta after a fender-bender?
Baumann notes that a couple of other federal judges have upheld the mandate and that the case will certainly reach the Supreme Court. But he frets that the "conservative" majority may reject an expansive reading of the Commerce Clause that "allows Congress to regulate economic decisions, not just economic activity." Which, to be honest, puts us in the realm of a Rush song, fer crying out loud.
(Sidebar: Based on the court's ruling in the medical marijuana case Gonzales v. Raich case, in which the Supes ruled that non-commercial, homegrown marijuana affected interstate commerce, Baumann might rest easy.)
He further worries that Hudson's ruling "shows how the court could neuter the entire federal government" and blood the path to the "slippery slope to the libertarian paradise" of, well, you know, limited government.
We can only hope.
As I said last night on the rollicking, smart and funny show John Phillips does on KABC, the government doesn't get to make you buy stuff. Not shoes, not handbags, not boats, and not health insurance.
Here's a good reasonTV video Nick linked to -- "Wheat, Weed, and ObamaCare: How the Commerce Clause Made Congress All-Powerful":
Limit government, limit government, limit government. Government will not save you. Government is dangerous and needs to constantly be curbed.
Warrantless Searches
People who wonder why I'm always so wigged out about the excessive passing of laws need to read stories like this Radley Balko piece in reason, "The SWAT Team Would Like to See Your Alcohol Permit - How police use regulatory inspections to conduct warrantless searches":
In August a team of heavily armed Orange County, Florida, sheriff's deputies raided several black- and Hispanic-owned barbershops in the Orlando area. There were more raids in September and October. According to the Orlando Sentinel, barbers and customers were held at gunpoint, some in handcuffs, while police turned the shops upside down. A total of nine shops were raided, and 37 people were arrested.By all appearances, these raids were drug sweeps. Shop owners told the Sentinel police asked where they were hiding illegal drugs and weapons. But in the end, 34 of the 37 arrests were for "barbering without a licence," a misdemeanor for which only three people have ever served jail time in Florida. Two arrests were for misdemeanor marijuana possession. Just one person was arrested on felony drug and weapon charges.
The most disturbing aspect of the raids, however, was that police didn't bother to obtain search warrants. They didn't have to. The raids were conducted in conjunction with the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation. Despite the guns and handcuffs, under Florida law these were licensure inspections, not criminal searches. So no warrant was necessary. Such "administrative searches" are a disturbingly common end run around the Fourth Amendment.
...But the Fourth Amendment requires that searches be "reasonable." If using a SWAT team to make sure a bar isn't serving 19-year-olds is considered reasonable, it's hard to imagine what wouldn't be.
...Most Americans probably believe they can't be searched, handcuffed, or have a police gun pointed at them without probable cause. But courts have consistently found that the Fourth Amendment affords less protection for businesses, their employees, and their patrons than it does for private homes. Get caught in the wrong bar, barbershop, or pool hall at the wrong time, and you could find yourself subjected to an "inspection" that looks and feels suspiciously like a search.
How God Snuck Into Government Symbols
(In reason we trust.)
Equal Treatment Or Special Treatment?
Wayne State University law prof and evolutionary psychologist Kingsley Browne has an interesting take (and a well-founded one, if you read his excellent book, Biology at Work
Women seek to be treated equally to their male counterparts at work. In fact, the federal law Title XII, which is invoked in sexual harassment cases, interprets harassment as a form of sexual discrimination--of treating women differently than men. And while some women have had to endure foul, crude or sexually raw working conditions in the form of language, intimidation or degradation, Browne argues that men have long subjected each other to the very same abuses at work.He continues: This behavior is a part of the male tool kit for competitive situations-a means of weeding out the strong from the weak that dates back to the era of hunter-gatherers.
The upshot is that if women want to be treated as true equals, then they better get used to it.
"When someone wants to challenge or disrespect someone, they tend to chose words that they know the person will be upset by. A fat person might be called fat, a homosexual person gay. For a woman it might be her gender and sexuality that's the real dig. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's motivated by sex. Sexual names don't have to equal sexual animosity," Browns concludes.
Come again?
"Men grow up accustomed to large hierarchical groups in which they struggle to be top dog," says biological anthropologist Helen Fisher, professor at Rutgers University and sex expert. "They tease, they degrade, they give each other bloody noses. Men are used to putting each other down," she says, and even attacks on each other's sexuality--particularly their heterosexuality and masculinity--is commonplace.
She refers to "dominance matching" in men. "Men seek power. And beyond their predisposition to aggression or put-downs as a means of achieving it, men expect their opponent to turn around and give it right back."
Women, she continues, are not brought up that way. Instead of hierarchical groups, women are more concerned with being "in" or "out" of social cliques. Once on the inside of a social group, women seek harmony. Rather than meeting social discord head on, fighting for dominance within a group, women instead tend to throw in the towel.
Or march to human resources and file a complaint.
And I'll ask you to weigh in on the questions Casserly posts at the end (I guess they're mainly directed at women from the way they're written, but feel free to answer them no matter who or what you've got in your pants):
Do you think you've been primed to think you're being sexually harassed by every man who treats you poorly? Is it fair to say that women wanted to be treated equally? If that means putting up with questionable or uncomfortable language, do you still want it? Or would you rather be treated like a lady? And if so--what does that mean for women's lib?
Sunday In The Pork With George
My dietary note in response to a friend's dinner invitation:
"I'll eat just about anything if you wrap it in bacon, even if it's roadkill or died of old age."
How To Brainwash Children Into Ignorance
Sick stuff (and by the way, per the whack-job's utterly ridiculous claims in the video, there's no physical evidence that Job existed, but plenty of evidence the dinosaurs did -- carbon-dated, too!):
As commenter cigarlounge1 wrote on YouTube:
Have You threatened your children with eternal damnation today?
From The Evidence Against Creationism -- Refuting Creationism:
CLAIM: 75% of children raised in Christian homes leave their faith by about the age of their first year of college. This is because they are taught to doubt Genesis in school.•Regardless of its accuracy (which I question), this claim is interesting in that it represents one of the major concerns of creationists. The interesting thing is that the creationists themselves may be setting up a situation that gives these children a reason to question their faith. The creationists teach (often in church) that the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old and that all life was created within a few days. When a child who was taught this sees the overwhelming evidence for an ancient earth and common ancestry of life, he or she immediately becomes aware of the fact that they were taught material in church that is entirely false. When they see how wrong the church is on these matters, it is not very surprising that some might begin to question the teachings of the church on other matters, including the basic tenets of the faith. It is for this reason, if nothing else, that young earth creationists should take a long, hard look at the claims they make (young earth and no common descent). It is their own children that they may be setting up to fall away from their faith as long as they continue to teach these ideas that are so easily shown to be false.
See also the nitwitty creationist geologic timescale, at the link above (see "Creationism's Geologic Time Scale" in the left menu, near the top). And always a good site: 50 Simple Proofs That God Is Imaginary.
More Ridiculous Tripe On Facebook
Last week it was a campaign to have people change their photos to cartoons, as if that would do a damn thing against child abuse. This week it's this:
Your car is Japanese. Your pizza is Italian. Your beer is German. Your wine is Spanish. Your democracy is Greek. Your coffee is Colombian. Your tea is Chinese. Your watch is Swiss. Your fashion is French. Your shirt is Indian. Your shoes are Thai. Your radio is Korean. Your vodka is...Russian. And you complain about your neighbor being an immigrant?" Copy this if you are against racism!
My response:
My car didn't come to the country illegally.We're all immigrants. I only have problems with the illegal ones -- those who are costing California $10 billion-plus a year. If you don't, feel free to direct your entire salary toward their living, medical, and (ideally) their deportation expenses.
Pssst...as Milton Friedman said, you can't have open borders in a welfare state. Also, it isn't 1810. We're kind of full-up these days.
Why I Almost Never Write Magazine Pieces
This is probably hard to believe for anyone who's never written for a magazine, but it's all too true. I wrote recently for Psychology Today, but only because the experience there was entirely the opposite of the one I've had writing for other magazines -- and entirely the opposite of this one:
Is your industry starting to seem like this?
Fine Jewelry For Smart People
I personally like huge plastic and glass jewelry, and I don't think I've ever spent more than $20 on a pair of earrings. In fact, my favorite earrings -- the ones I wear every day -- are plastic ones I got for $2.99 at H&M in Paris a few years ago, and fixed with a needlenose pliers (removing the windy bits around the findings so they wouldn't look cheap). The ones I wear on my book cover I bought for $9.99 (they've might've been $5) at DNA on Rose in Venice, and similarly went to work on with my little pliers.
But, I still look at other people's real jewelry, especially the antique kind. I admired the antique-looking ring of a close female friend -- a woman I really respect as a smart, savvy person -- and she told me, "The stone is fake. The setting is 14 carat gold." And I thought she -- and her husband -- were even smarter and cooler than I already thought.
The gem industry is such a racket. You spend thousands on a rock somebody dug out of the ground? When you could have a fake rock that sparkles just fine? I was reminded of this when somebody bought "lab-created" ruby earrings in a 14k gold setting through my Amazon links (and thank you -- much-appreciated). Turns out there's a whole store of this stuff on Amazon
A caution: If your wife is one of those who expects real, be rather careful about whether you get her fake and tell her about it. My friend and her husband are a team in ways not a lot of couples are, and are of a similar mind about how stupid it is to buy a real diamond when you can get a fake one and add an addition on your house with the money you saved.
(Of course, you can also buy 1,000 copies of my book, I SEE RUDE PEOPLE: One woman's battle to beat some manners into impolite society, and give them out as Christmas presents. I need to sell 15K more, and pretty pronto, so any buys will be much-appreciated!)
P.S. Only new copies (only $11.53 with Amazon's discount) count against my advance, or count as book sales.
The One Who Didn't Get His Testicles Felt Up
Jessica Heslam and Joe Dwinell write for the Boston Herald about a kid who snuck into the wheel well of a jet and ended up falling to his death:
The grieving mother of a North Carolina teen -- who "likely" plummeted from the sky over Milton after toppling out of a Boeing 737 wheel well -- slammed airport security last night, saying her boy should have been stopped on the tarmac."I thought that after 9/11 there would be more security, especially on the ground," said Jonette Washington, mother of 16-year-old Delvonte Tisdale.
"He was a good kid. He wasn't really going to Boston. He was trying to get to Baltimore to get to me," she told the Herald.
In a stunning announcement, Norfolk District Attorney William R. Keating said yesterday it's "likely" the teen climbed into a wheel well of a jet in Charlotte, N.C., on Nov. 15 and fell to his death over Milton at about 9 p.m. Keating said a neighbor heard "a loud crashing noise" around that time.
Aviation experts told the Herald that jets bound for Boston coming in from the south drop their landing gear right over Milton.
"He somehow hid himself in the wheel well of a commercial airliner," Keating said. "It's a major breach of airport security that seems to have occurred."
..."He was coming home to me," his mother said. "He tried to get home."
Why was he separated from his mother? Child of divorce? I'll try to find out more.
It's tragic that this happened to the kid, but a testament to what I've been saying: Regarding all the pornoscanning, gropings and other security theater, just about any commenter on this site could sneak through -- or sneak something through -- if they were at all motivated.
Yo, Dustin, The Eighties Called. They Want Their Snobthink Back.
In terms of the stories I hear and my friends and neighbors' experiences of how tough things are in this economy, anyone who throws a party at all these days is a successful swell (or is speeding their way to Chapter 11). Yet, in a New York Times piece by Tim Murphy about a girl hiring a bartender for a party -- a girl living in an apartment just bigger than a shoe closet in Williamsburg, Brooklyn -- a guy had this to say:
"In my opinion, if you don't have a bartender at your party, you're a loser," said Dustin Terry, who lives a floor below Ms. Argiro and said his job was to get models and Saudi royalty into hot clubs. "The bartender brings class and sophistication.""If you can't afford to hire a bartender," he added, "you shouldn't be having a party."
That seems to be the consensus of a growing crowd of 30-something New Yorkers who wish to signal they've graduated from post-collegiate squalor to young professional coming of age. No matter how small their abodes, they won't invite friends over for cocktails without the assistance of a bartender -- even if there's barely room for the bartender to stand.
What really signifies maturity is starting to save money so you won't be eating cat food -- or as much cat food as the rest of us (if the economy is forever in the crapper) -- at 80.
Also, being frugal has become cool. In fact, you hear people bragging about it -- me, for one. Somebody at some event Gregg and I were invited to took one look at my outfit and another look at my glasses and assumed about my groovy glasses, "Alain Mikli?" (which, even discounted, go for hundreds of dollars...like four hundreds).
"Nope," I bragged. "$14.99 Borghese reading glasses from CVS, with a prescription that was $35 plus $4.95 shipping from eyeglassdirect.com."
(And you can get even cheaper glasses from zennioptical.com.)
via Instapundit
Guess Who's President Again?
In one of the weirder moments of the week, I turned on CNN and saw a president who seemed in charge, comfortable, presidential, even. (It was Bill Clinton, who'd taken over a press conference from Obama, who said he had to leave because he was late to a Christmas party.) Bizarre.
The New York Times' Michael Shear with more here.
Nobody's Buying The Ronni Chasen Murder Story
Via @kausmickey, from Deadline Hollywood, about the police's lone gunman on a bike in Beverly Hills theory:
Police said the TV crime-fighting show America's Most Wanted "played a crucial part in this investigation". A tip came into the AMW studio and the show put BHPD in contact with the tipster who wishes to remain anonymous. "And we're going to respect that, as is America's Most Wanted," Publicker said. "There is the possibility that the tipster will be entitled to the reward money."Responding to media questions, Publicker also gave more information about Smith and the crime. "We believe that his mode of transportation was by bicycle," said the sergeant, who indicated that the police theory at present is that Smith was riding a bicycle -- his only means of transportation, according to his neighbors -- when he shot and killed Chasen in a robbery gone horribly wrong. The police said they don't think Smith ever even came into the car or touched Chasen's purse after she crashed into the lightpole, so he came away with no money. Publicker did reveal a bicycle was found at Smith's suicide scene and it was taken into custody by the Los Angeles Police Department and will be turned over to BHPD. "Preliminarily, we believe it was a random act and we believe that Ms. Chasen was going to be the victim of a robbery," Publicker added. He agreed with one reporter's scenario that Smith came up alongside Chasen on a bicycle and shot her at the corner of Sunset and Whittier in Beverly Hills around midnight. "It's still an ongoing investigation, but we believe he was intending to rob her," Publicker noted.
The police probe is about "60%-70% done" as of today, said Publicker but there is a lot of information that still needs to be obtained. "We want to eliminate every possibility that other people were involved." But Publicker also said about Smith that "the detectives were able to do numerous interviews, and from the information obtained in the interviews, it appears that he did act alone." the sergeant also noted that "there was a question posted earlier whether Mr. Smith knew Ms. Chase. It does not appear at this time that there's any connection between the two. ... And we do not believe he was a paid hit man, no." However, what is surprising is that Smith had the presence of mind to cover up his involvement in the crime because, Publicker noted, "there were no shell casings found at the scene of the crime."
Commenters on another story say there would be no spent shell casings if the killer used a revolver. I'm no gun expert, and Gregg's asleep, so I have no idea.
Merry Kickbacks, Uh, Christmas
These hot Xmas deals
A Visit With Gregg's Balls
My boyfriend just got TSA-groped at Detroit Metro. "It's really creepy," he said. He told me he was tempted to say to the guy, "You have beautiful eyes."
You Can Kill Somebody By Running Them Over
Or slitting their throat with an art-class scissors. But, a teenaged Montana hunter, Demarie DeReu, is potentially facing expulsion for having her hunting rifle locked in her trunk on school property. Bob Unruh writes for WND about the latest "zero tolerance" policy disaster, quoting Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, who said he was contacted by the student's mother:
He said DeReu, 16, is an honor roll student, a member of the Columbia Falls High School student council and a varsity cheerleader.She's also a hunter.
"Although she had no intent to break any rules or laws, or harm anyone, Demarie is at risk of having her college education derailed and maybe even being identified forever as a domestic terrorist," Marbut reported.
It was over Thanksgiving that she went hunting with family and friends, but when she returned home forgot her unloaded hunting rifle was cased and locked in the trunk of her car.
She later parked in the school parking lot but when she heard a "contraband dog" was to be working the lot, she remembered her unloaded rifle and volunteered the information to school officials.
..."She will possibly have her life derailed because a bunch of school idiots insist that she must be subject to an irrational, 'zero tolerance' policy about guns in schools that does not countenance lack of bad intent. The theory that people with malice will be intimidated into good conduct if people without malice are punished in lieu of them is idiocy at its finest," he said in his written documentation of the situation.
via ifeminists
Let's Call A Rapist A Petunia
And maybe call a murderer "an ice-cream cone."
Politically-correct nitwit Frances Crook, head of the Howard League for Penal Reform in the UK, says that it's "insulting" to call people who break the law "offenders," and hinders their rehabilitation, and they should no longer be referred to as such. From UKNews:
She said: "Someone who commits an offence is not an offender, they are someone who has done something. The action does not define the whole person. They may also do good things and they will certainly fit into other categories that can offer a different definition like parent or friend. By insisting that the offence overcomes all other parts of the person we are condemning them to a sub-human category for whom there is no hope."Earlier this year the UK Drugs Policy Commission said stigmatising words such as "junkie" are a big obstacle to recovery for drug users.
Oh, please.
I'm of the mind that admitting exactly where you've gone astray is the first step to maybe getting back on the path to living a productive and ethical life. That is, if you've only been hurting yourself. If you've been hurting -- or killing -- other people, maybe you belong in a cage for life. Some people do.
It gets better:
Research conducted for the Howard League found many prisoners said the first step to a crime-free life would be to lose the label of being an offender.Professor Mike Nellis, of the University of Strathclyde, said "offender" became popular in the 1960s as an alternative to criminal, delinquent and lawbreaker. He said the word offender is "relatively neutral" and does not carry some of the highly emotive baggage of other terms.
You know, if you're a murderer -- if you take another person's life and they're dead and you're still here -- well, I think you deserve "highly emotive baggage." And then some.
via ifeminists
Hi-Tech Pickpocketing
It's not just passports with RFID chips that can be read. Credit cards can be RFID-skimmed by somebody standing next to you if you have the little symbol they show at the end:
You can try the old tinfoil-in-the-wallet trick, or you can get a wallet lined with nickel-impregnated nylon that blocks all RFID transmissions. In our tests, it worked.
A good thing, since Boing Boing's Zeni Jardin shows how you can use $8 worth of eBay gear to read credit card data (be sure you wait through the breaks):
Get 'cher RFID-blocking
Aaron Sorkin Doesn't Understand Where Meat Comes From
I didn't vote for Palin's team (nor Obama's), and I didn't think she was qualified to be vice-president (nor do I think Joe Biden is, nor do I think Obama is or was qualified to be president).
Now, that we've gotten that out of the way, I can get back to making fun of Aaron Sorkin.
Does he think meat originates in those little plastic-wrapped packages in the grocery store, or does he think an actual living cow, pig or chicken was involved in the whole deal at some point? Because he has a really dippy piece on the Huff Po about some scene on Sarah Palin's reality show where she killed and dressed a Caribou (I think that's the term -- dressed -- although it always calls up for me a picture of somebody stuffing the thing's back legs into a pair of lacy granny panties).
Here's Sorkin:
"Unless you've never worn leather shoes, sat upon a leather chair or eaten meat, save your condemnation."You're right, Sarah, we'll all just go fuck ourselves now.
The snotty quote was posted by Sarah Palin on (like all the great frontier women who've come before her) her Facebook page to respond to the criticism she knew and hoped would be coming after she hunted, killed and carved up a Caribou during a segment of her truly awful reality show, Sarah Palin's Alaska, broadcast on The-Now-Hilariously-Titled Learning Channel.
I eat meat, chicken and fish, have shoes and furniture made of leather, and PETA is not ever going to put me on the cover of their brochure and for these reasons Palin thinks it's hypocritical of me to find what she did heart-stoppingly disgusting. I don't think it is, and here's why.
Like 95% of the people I know, I don't have a visceral (look it up) problem eating meat or wearing a belt. But like absolutely everybody I know, I don't relish the idea of torturing animals. I don't enjoy the fact that they're dead and I certainly don't want to volunteer to be the one to kill them and if I were picked to be the one to kill them in some kind of Lottery-from-Hell, I wouldn't do a little dance of joy while I was slicing the animal apart.
Aaron -- you aren't better than Palin if you just eat them.
And, by the way, my friend, food columnist Ari LeVaux, one of the sweetest men on the planet, kills deer with some frequency and makes some really delicious deer sausage out of them, which he feeds me when we have adjacent booths at alt weekly conferences. I can't say for sure, but I bet Ari does a little jig when he bags a deer. I sure would. Of course, in real life, I don't cook; I heat; and I can barely drag my ass to the supermarket, let alone the North Woods (besides, I'd have to wear really ugly shoes).
Government's Long, Chocolate-Covered Fingers
America's self-appointed nanny-state nutritionist-in-chief, Michelle Obama (and never mind that she has zero science background), is championing a bill to limit bake sales and other fundraisers in schools, writes Mary Clare Jalonick for the AP:
"This could be a real train wreck for school districts," Lucy Gettman of the National School Boards Association said Friday, a day after the House cleared the bill. "The federal government should not be in the business of regulating this kind of activity at the local level."The legislation, part of first lady Michelle Obama's campaign to stem childhood obesity, provides more meals at school for needy kids, including dinner, and directs the Agriculture Department to write guidelines to make those meals healthier. The legislation would apply to all foods sold in schools during regular class hours, including in the cafeteria line, vending machines and at fundraisers.
Day to day, I don't really eat carbs, because I see that the science (per Gary Taubes, Dr. Michael Eades, and other solid sources) shows that it's carbohydrates that cause people to be fat, and they also seem to cause a host of other health problems. Still, every week/week and a half or so, I'll have a chocolate gelato or a dessert of some kind, because...well, because it's no way to live, going entirely without chocolate or dessert.
I was raised by a mother who thought she was doing the right thing by feeding us (this awful) "health food." (Gregg refers to my childhood as "the gruel years.") My mother meant well, but she was a terrible cook, and a worse judge of human nature. Years of denial creates children that would sell their bodies on the street corner for a bag of m&ms. I didn't do that, and I never got really fat, but I did have a wee thing for chocolate, Twinkies, and all the stuff I was denied until I corrected it, sometime in my 20s.
Oh, and psssst!, Michelle! You stem childhood obesity by serving more cheeseburgers, fewer buns. Science, baby.
via Overlawyered
A Holiday Message From "The Religion Of Peace"
Kill the Jews, kill the Christians, every last one of them, the video says -- as is dictated in the Quran, a book meant to be taken literally and unquestioningly, not as allegory like the Bible is. (I'm no fan of religion and evidence-free thinking, but if you want to believe in something and you don't want the rest of us dead if we don't, hey, go with...uh, Zeus, the Great Pumpkin, whomever.)
Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook write about the video at PalWatch:
A video on official Hamas TV calls for Allah to kill Jews, Christians, Communists and their supporters. The video asks Allah to "count them and kill them to the last one, and don't leave even one."As Palestinian Media Watch has reported this call for the killing of non-Muslims was a regular pronouncement by both Palestinian Authority (Fatah) and Hamas political and religious leaders for many years starting in July 2000.
For years, sermons by religious leaders on official Palestinian Authority TV under Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas routinely presented the killing of Jews as a religious obligation and a fulfillment of the Islamic ideal.
Due to PMW's exposure of these sermons, which led to international criticism and pressure, Mahmoud Abbas, whose office controls PA TV, has been forced to prevent the broadcast of sermons calling for extermination of Jews on PA TV.
The latest sermon of this nature on PA TV was in January 2010.
Barbarians.
Two Monozygotic Heads Are Better Than...
On Martha Stewart (video worth watching at link), my fascinating friend, professor Nancy Segal, the premier twin researcher, on her studies on twins, plus giving some very interesting answers to some interesting questions. It's such a treat to hear Nancy talk about her research -- she came to an LA dinner of evolutionary psychologists I just arranged -- and now you can hear what she has to say as well. Even if you're not a twin, I think you'll find what she says very interesting. And even if you're not a twin, twin studies -- especially on monozygotic (identical) twins separated at birth -- can tell us a lot about ourselves, including teasing out information about nature/nurture.
Her recent book: Indivisible by Two: Lives of Extraordinary Twins
Her upcoming book: Someone Else's Twin: The True Story of Babies Switched at Birth
Her previous book: Entwined Lives: Twins and What They Tell Us About Human Behavior
An excerpt from Nancy's Psychology Today blog:
The reunion happened in Spain's Canary Islands. A thirty-five-year-old woman entered a shop and was greeted warmly by the assistant who believed she was her friend. But the assistant was rebuffed. The assistant later called her friend to follow up, only to learn that her friend had never been to the shop that day. The first woman returned several days later, and it was then that the assistant began to question her. A meeting was arranged--and it was clear that the two (the woman and the friend) were identical twins; this was later confirmed by DNA testing. To complicate things further, one of the women said that she had a twin sister, but that she was not identical. Eventually, it was established that one of the twins had been accidentally switched with a non-twin infant in the hospital's baby nursery. And it was disclosed that the identical twins had been conjoined and successfully separated, although the nature of their physical connection was not reported. Everyone's life was immeasurably altered by that chance recognition, and the various parties are suing the hospital for millions of dollars....Some people do not relish the idea of an identical other--and yet many people envy the closeness and intimacy that comes so naturally to most identical twins. A number of the reunited twins in our study had initial concerns about loss of identity or sense of self, but their worries faded fast once they got to know one another. As investigators, we were impressed with how similar the reared apart identical twins were, but it was never perfect similarity. It also surprises me that most identical twins think that they do not look alike--and yet many must if mistaken identity can bring some together.
A story about reunited separated twins who were torn apart (as part of a horrible study). Via NPR, from a story by Joe Richman:
What is it that makes us who we really are: our life experiences or our DNA? Paula Bernstein and Elyse Schein were both born in New York City. Both women were adopted as infants and raised by loving families. They met for the first time when they were 35 years old and found they were "identical strangers."Unknowingly, Bernstein and Schein had been part of a secret research project in the 1960s and '70s that separated identical twins as infants and followed their development in a one-of-a-kind experiment to assess the influence of nature vs. nurture in child development.
Now, the twins, authors of a new memoir called Identical Strangers, are trying to uncover the truth about the study.
...Peter Neubauer, a child psychiatrist, and Viola Bernard, a child psychologist and consultant to the Louise Wise agency, headed up the study.
Lawrence Perlman, a research assistant on the study from 1968 to 1969, says Bernard had a strong belief that twins should be raised separately.
"That twins were often dressed the same and treated exactly the same, she felt, interfered with their independent psychological development," Perlman says.
Lawrence Wright is the author of Twins, a book about twin studies.
"Since the beginning of science, twins have offered a unique opportunity to study to what extent nature vs. nurture influences the way we develop, the people that we turn out to be," Wright says.
Wright notes that the Neubauer study differs from all other twin studies in that it followed the twins from infancy.
"From a scientific point of view, it's beautiful. It's practically the perfect study. But this study would never happen today," Wright says.
Nancy Segal does the other kind of research, the ethical kind.
Assange Might Be USA-Hating Leaker
But he sure doesn't sound like a rapist to me. Richard Pendlebury writes for the Daily Mail/UK:
So it was that on the Monday, Jessica called Assange and they arranged to get together in Stockholm. When they did meet they agreed to go to her home in Enkoping, but he had no money for a train ticket and said he didn't want to use a credit card because he would be 'tracked' (presumably, as he saw it, by the CIA or other agencies).So Jessica bought both their tickets.
She had snagged perhaps the world's most famous activist, and after they arrived at her apartment they had sex. According to her testimony to police, Assange wore a condom. The following morning they made love again. This time he used no protection.
Jessica reportedly said later that she was upset that he had refused when she asked him to wear a condom.Again there is scant evidence -- in the public domain at least -- of rape, sexual molestation or unlawful coercion.
Jessica was worried she could have caught a sexual disease, or even be pregnant: and this is where the story takes an intriguing turn. She then decided to phone Sarah -- whom she had met at the seminar, and with whom Assange had been staying -- and apparently confided to her that she'd had unprotected sex with him.
At that point, Sarah said that she, too, had slept with him.
As a result of this conversation, Sarah reportedly phoned an acquaintance of Assange and said that she wanted him to leave her apartment. (He refused to do so, and maintains that she only asked him to leave three days later, on the Friday of that week.)
How must Sarah have felt to discover that the man she'd taken to her bed three days before had already taken up with another woman? Furious? Jealous? Out for revenge? Perhaps she merely felt aggrieved for a fellow woman in distress.Having taken stock of their options for a day or so, on Friday, August 20, Sarah and Jessica took drastic action.
They went together to a Stockholm police station where they said they were seeking advice on how to proceed with a complaint by Jessica against Assange.
According to one source, Jessica wanted to know if it was possible to force Assange to undergo an HIV test. Sarah, the seasoned feminist warrior, said she was there merely to support Jessica. But she also gave police an account of what had happened between herself and Assange a week before.
The female interviewing officer, presumably because of allegations of a sabotaged condom in one case and a refusal to wear one in the second, concluded that both women were victims: that Jessica had been raped, and Sarah subject to sexual molestation.
...Sarah next spoke to a newspaper, saying: 'In both cases, the sex had been consensual from the start but had eventually turned into abuse.'
Abuse? It seems like "an opportunity" is the real deal -- to game the system and act vindictively against a man.
A Brief History Of Banned Liquor Labels
Via @mleewelch, Esquire lays out a few of the labels the U.S. and Canadian governments have gone all prissy about. In one case, even the shape of the bottle is the problem. Example (photos at the link):
Dan Aykroyd's Crystal Head Vodka, 2010Offending label: The whole bottle is shaped like, well, a crystal skull.
Fallout: The Liquor Control Board of Ontario -- which bumps against Michigan and other northern states -- said the skull glamorizes death. Aykroyd reportedly said the ban makes his liquor more appealing.
Sexy? Well, Elizabethans do call orgasms "the little death."
Where you can get it: In specialty shops across the U.S.
Man Notices "Inadvertent Swastikas" On Old Navy Sweater
Phil Villareal at Consumerist must have had a slow blog day, because he posted an item about a guy who wrote in to say he'd spotted a swastika on sweater buttons (photo at the link).
The comment I left:
"Inadvertent swastikas"? Oh, how bloody ridiculous. Hey, Jeff: Go look in your breakfast cereal for hidden messages from aliens. If you look hard enough, I'm sure you'll find some.
The guy should worry more that he's shopping for grandpa sweaters than anything else -- unless the sweater is a gift for an actual grandpa.
Sure, those sweaters can be sexy on a man -- to a 88-year-old woman who hasn't gotten any for 46 years.
Our Nation-Building Right-Wing President
Oh, sorry -- did you think I was talking about George Bush? If so, you've got the wrong guy.
Heather Mac Donald writes at Secular Right of various ways that the left's answer to George Bush is just another George Bush:
I would love to see Dinesh D'Souza and all the other right-wing hysterics who are hawking the idea of Obama's scary Otherness explain how these diplomatic cables contribute in any way to their thesis. I would love to see them nominate their favorite dispatches that demonstrate Obama's efforts to undermine American power and to elevate socialism, Third World radicalism, and anti-colonialism over traditional American interests. To the contrary, the cables demonstrate a continuity of American foreign policy and discourse from the Bush to the Obama administrations. The Obama-era dispatches show the same assumptions about the need to maintain American supremacy as have been harbored by every previous administration. And I doubt whether Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld would have deplored the idea of gathering biometric or other identity information on fellow diplomats.
The Democrats and Republicans have more in common than any members of either party would like to admit. Politicians are politicians are politicians -- pandering sell-outs who'll bend over for whomever has the biggest basket of dollars. The Republicans talk small government but clearly have no intention of giving us anything resembling it. They haven't, and haven't, and haven't, and they just chattered about it yet again to get elected. My Senator doesn't represent my interests, our governor does not, and the president did not -- nor did the small government talking/big government-acting George Bush, who also talked about "no nation-building," then went about doing just that.
Where's "The Double Life Of A Car Thief?"
Zocalo, which puts on talks with authors and others in Los Angeles, just sent me an e-mail, subject-lined, "The Double Life of an Undocumented Student." Details here.
Come on...let's call an illegal an illegal here. The student isn't "undocumented," he's a lawbreaker.
The lawbreaker in question is Erick Huerta, described on Zocalo as "a journalism student at East Los Angeles College, DREAM Act activist, and community reporter for "Brooklyn & Boyle," laeastside.com, lataco.com and his personal blog justarandomhero.blogspot.com."
Huerta writes:
Sometimes I feel like a stressed-out comic book super hero, juggling multiple identities. Public opinion vilifies my kind, because people imagine that my kind spits venom or have two heads.
Oh, bullshit. We think you're in the country illegally, which you are.
Huerta continues:
I guess I should be inspired by Superman, arguably the most accomplished of all "illegal aliens." Literally, in his case, as he came from another planet as an infant because his parents wanted to give him a better life when his home world was annihilated. He landed on earth and was raised in the Midwest by a loving couple to become a symbol for truth, justice and the American way. Last time I checked, he was still working at the Daily Planet, getting by under the name of "Clark Kent." I hope that the e-verify system doesn't catch up with him someday; where would ICE deport him?
Superman, last I checked, was a fictional character. We don't deport fictional characters -- or illegal aliens who are arrogant enough to publicly announce themselves as such. The latter should change.
I'm no Superman, but sometimes I feel that's about where the expectations are set. I'm the oldest of four and like any other first-generation immigrant child, I am the chosen one, the one who is supposed to bring balance to the force -- err, to the family I mean -- by overcoming adversity, getting a college education and a well-paying job. I'm the one forever cursed to translate for my parents so they can navigate a foreign system. You can imagine how disappointed my parents were when they figured out I wanted to be a writer instead of a doctor, teacher or police officer.
Feel free to become whatever your illegal alien heart desires -- back in the country where you're legally entitled to live, which is not here.
I have lived in Watts, South Central, Compton, Inglewood (up to no good), Long Beach, Pico Union and Boyle Heights. My understanding and mastery of the English language and pop-culture came from my third parent, television. The Simpsons, comic books and sitcoms taught me how to act, speak and think like an American. I didn't understand who Jimmy Hoffa was, but I knew they buried him at Giants Stadium under the 50-yard line. I attended prison-modeled high schools that were right next to the projects, have high drop out rates and are made up of low-income Latino and African-American students. The only reason I graduated from high school on time was because I was one of those students that didn't make the teacher cry. I sat quietly in my chair as classmates got into fights, smoked weed in class and raised hell. I am a poster child for the "soft bigotry of low expectations."
No, the soft bigotry of unenforced immigration laws.
Senator Dipshit
Laws, potential prison terms, and capital punishment don't stop determined people from murdering, let alone from lesser crimes. But, never mind that. Senator Charles Schumer, in an utterly unsurprising bit of legislative grandstanding, pretends a law against saving full-body scans will stop TSA workers from doing exactly that.
Yeah, sure, with a potential penalty, they might be somewhat less likely to save airport porn of you or your kid (unless they're a pedophile now in just the right job), but when Beyoncé comes through, that shot has a very, very good chance of going into somebody's personal nudie celebrity photo collection.
Via Consumerist from a Boston Globe story:
Schumer has introduced legislation that would make illegal to store or distribute scanned images -- including images snapped using personal cameras or hand-held devices. Violations would be punishable by up to one year in prison and $100,000 in fines."Anyone who would try to use these images for purposes other than security should be severely punished,'' Schumer said.
Yeah, okay, mmm-hmm.
Consumerist also adds:
As you might remember from this summer, the U.S. Marshall's Service in Florida announced it had 35,000 scanned images saved at a courthouse in Orlando.
Oopsy! Of course, Schumer isn't interested in a real danger -- that TSA molestations of children, and the preceding child-lubing talk of how it's just a "game," may groom children to cooperate with sex predators. Daniel Tencer quotes Ken Wooden, founder of Child Lures Prevention, at Raw Story:
"How can experts working at the TSA be so incredibly misinformed and misguided to suggest that full body pat downs for children be portrayed as a game?" Wooden asked in an email. "To do so is completely contrary to what we in the sexual abuse prevention field have been trying to accomplish for the past thirty years."He added: "This policy is also incredibly insensitive to the countless victims who have already been traumatized by unwanted touching in their lives and could be re-traumatized by such pat-downs."
On Tuesday, TSA administrator John Pistole said the agency may change its screening rules for victims of sex abuse.
The question is, if you're a victim of it, will you have to have it noted on your ticket and your passport? Remember, we're at the end of privacy these days. Everything about you must be public knowledge...or, er...the terrorists win?
UPDATE: Will Senator Schumer pass a law against leering and humiliating passengers, too? (Baywatch Babe Donna D'Errico had some fun the other day at LAX.)
By the way, the problem isn't that low-paid TSA workers will take home photos, but that we are being scanned at all. I just posted a blog item about Al Qaeda supposedly talking about surgically implanting bombs in their gullible nutbag candidates to mass murder the rest of us.
Next Up: Exploratory Surgery Before Flying
Al Qaeda is now making noises about sewing bombs into their gullible nutbags.
Get Your Tubes Tied, Get A Job
I'd guess that a number of companies would prefer to hire a man over a woman because of the potential costs added by the latter. It's getting particularly bad in Australia, where the state has enacted a paid parental leave scheme.
Renee Viellaris writes for the Courier Mail, down under:
Queensland's Chamber of Commerce and Industry boss David Goodwin said small businesses - already hurting from the financial downturn - could not absorb the costs of filling out ''welfare papers'' and changing payroll systems. Some small businesses ''probably'' won't hire women of child-bearing age.''If you've got three staff and one goes on maternity leave, that's 30 per cent of your workforce,'' he said.
Eligible women will be paid $570 a week for up to 18 weeks and, after July 1, businesses will receive money from the Government to administer the scheme for workers.
Businesses will have to withhold tax under PAYG, provide pay slips and keep records for staff and the government.
In the past 16 months, the Fair Work Ombudsman has received 95 complaints from pregnant women, including many in Queensland.
The Ombudsman said allegations included:
•Working hours reduced or work status changed to casual because an employer said the woman was unreliable because of her morning sickness;
•Receiving a written warning about inappropriate dress due to pregnancy;
•Being bullied and harassed because they were pregnant.
•Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick said she did not believe paid leave would spark more discrimination but added: ''Where there is a propensity for confusion there is a propensity for discrimination.''It is a right and not a privilege for women to work during pregnancy. Pregnancy is seen as a total inconvenience for some businesses.''
And frankly, it is, and costly and debilitating -- especially for small businesses where there are just one or two workers, plus the entrepreneur/owner.
If I were going for a job as a 20-something today, I'd make it very, very clear that I am not a kid person and have no interest in ever having them. Maybe that would help, maybe that wouldn't. The truth is, pregnant women probably cost a business a good bit more -- especially those who get pregnant multiple times. What's your experience? Do businesses think twice before hiring women?
via ifeminists
My DNA Made Me Do It
Do you have slutty DNA? From NYC's CBS2, a study by an ev psych pal of mine, Justin Garcia:
Justin Garcia, a researcher from SUNY Binghamton took DNA samples from 181 college students and looked at the DRD4 gene and found a variable of a person's D4 gene makes them prone to one-night stands, infidelity and uncommitted sex."I know people who have done that, who said my father did it, my uncle did it, and I just couldn't help myself," said Vicki Justice of Ellaville, Ga.
And we heard that excuse over and over again, that this study is just an excuse for someone to cross the line into infidelity.
"It is not an excuse. There is never an excuse for bad behavior in terms of relying on our biology," Garcia said.
Still, even the study says there could be other reasons for a person's penchant for promiscuity.
Maybe they're just jerks.
"Many folks with this gene will never commit infidelity or have a one-night stand, and many folks without this gene will commit lots of infidelity and one-night stands," Garcia said.
...The researchers admitted they need a larger sample size to back up their findings. They said another study is planned.
Some Misconceptions About Islam
Corrected here.
Hoping To Hobble The U.S. Government
And, in turn, the US. Yes, more on Wikileaks. Gordon Crovitz writes in the WSJ that Wikileaks perp Julian Assange is no friend to America or Americans:
Whatever else WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has accomplished, he's ended the era of innocent optimism about the Web. As wiki innovator Larry Sanger put it in a message to WikiLeaks, "Speaking as Wikipedia's co-founder, I consider you enemies of the U.S.--not just the government, but the people."The irony is that WikiLeaks' use of technology to post confidential U.S. government documents will certainly result in a less free flow of information. The outrage is that this is Mr. Assange's express intention.
This batch includes 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables, the kind of confidential assessments diplomats have written since the era of wax seals. These include Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah urging the U.S. to end Iran's nuclear ambitions--to "cut the head off the snake." This alignment with the Israeli-U.S. position is not for public consumption in the Arab world, which is why leaks will curtail honest discussions.
Leaks will also restrict information flows within the U.S. A major cause of the 9/11 intelligence failures was that agencies were barred from sharing information. Since then, intelligence data have been shared more widely. The Obama administration now plans to tighten information flows, which could limit leaks but would be a step back to the pre-9/11 period.
Mr. Assange is misunderstood in the media and among digirati as an advocate of transparency. Instead, this battening down of the information hatches by the U.S. is precisely his goal. The reason he launched WikiLeaks is not that he's a whistleblower--there's no wrongdoing inherent in diplomatic cables--but because he hopes to hobble the U.S., which according to his underreported philosophy can best be done if officials lose access to a free flow of information.
In 2006, Mr. Assange wrote a pair of essays, "State and Terrorist Conspiracies" and "Conspiracy as Governance." He sees the U.S. as an authoritarian conspiracy...
...Or as Mr. Assange told Time magazine last week, "It is not our goal to achieve a more transparent society; it's our goal to achieve a more just society." If leaks cause U.S. officials to "lock down internally and to balkanize," they will "cease to be as efficient as they were."
The Road To Destroying Privacy
Dalrymple writes at City Journal about "What's Really Wrong With Wikileaks":
It is not, of course, that revelations of secrets are always unwelcome or ethically unjustified. It is not a new insight that power is likely to be abused and can only be held in check by a countervailing power, often that of public exposure. But WikiLeaks goes far beyond the need to expose wrongdoing, or supposed wrongdoing: it is unwittingly doing the work of totalitarianism.The idea behind WikiLeaks is that life should be an open book, that everything that is said and done should be immediately revealed to everybody, that there should be no secret agreements, deeds, or conversations. In the fanatically puritanical view of WikiLeaks, no one and no organization should have anything to hide. It is scarcely worth arguing against such a childish view of life.
The actual effect of WikiLeaks is likely to be profound and precisely the opposite of what it supposedly sets out to achieve. Far from making for a more open world, it could make for a much more closed one. Secrecy, or rather the possibility of secrecy, is not the enemy but the precondition of frankness. WikiLeaks will sow distrust and fear, indeed paranoia; people will be increasingly unwilling to express themselves openly in case what they say is taken down by their interlocutor and used in evidence against them, not necessarily by the interlocutor himself. This could happen not in the official sphere alone, but also in the private sphere, which it works to destroy.
Turkey-based journalist Claire Berlinski gets it exactly right, asking a friend who was jazzed by Wikileaks' supposed great service to transparency:
"Do you feel that way about your bank information and your PIN code?"The hypocrisy and double-standard of journalists, in particular, who fail to understand why the government must sometimes protect its sources of information is mind-blowing. Journalists, of all people, should understand this better than anyone else. Many sources would lose their jobs, their reputations, their liberty or their lives for talking to journalists on the record. If the people who spoke to us didn't think we could keep their names out of the story, they would never open their mouths again. Would that make the world more transparent?
Wag The First Amendment
Institute for Justice is going to bat for a woman who's having the Arlington, VA, government tarp over the (really cute) mural on the back of her business:
From IJ's John E. Kramer:
Why are American business owners so frustrated with the government?Look no further than a lawsuit filed today in Arlington, Va. Entrepreneur Kim Houghton has filed a First Amendment suit against local bureaucrats who want to turn a playful mural Kim had painted on the back wall of "Wag More Dogs," her canine boarding and grooming facility, into a government-issued sign.
The problem with Kim's mural from Arlington County's perspective?
The mural of cartoon dogs, bones and paw prints is an illegal "sign" in the opinion of a county official because its message has "a relationship" to the goods and services that the business provides. If the mural had dragons rather than dogs, Arlington County wouldn't have a problem with it. But because it features dogs and bones--and Kim's business deals with dogs--Arlington County considers the mural to be a sign, which is government-regulated.
Arlington zoning official Melinda Artman has given Kim three alternatives: 1) paint over the offending dogs and bones at Kim's own expense, 2) turn the private mural into a government sign by adding the words "Welcome to Shirlington Park's Community Canine Area" in four-foot-high letters, or 3) have her business shut down and face steep fines.
But Kim has decided to create a fourth alternative for herself: Represented by the Arlington-based Institute for Justice--a national public interest law firm with a long history of successfully defending the rights of government-menaced entrepreneurs--she has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to defend her rights and the rights of other small business owners.
"The First Amendment doesn't let the government play art critic, yet that is what's going on in Arlington," said Institute for Justice attorney Robert Frommer. "The Institute for Justice is fighting on behalf of Kim and other entrepreneurs like her nationwide--to free them from the arbitrary and abusive use of government power that stifles small businesses. No one should have to choose between their right to speak and their right to earn an honest living."
An AP story by Matthew Barakat here with this key bit:
Houghton's lawyer, Robert Frommer with the Arlington-based Institute for Justice, said the county can't be in the business of reviewing a mural's content and deciding for itself whether a mural is artwork or advertising. That's an unconstitutional infringement of free speech, Frommer said.Frommer said counties clearly have the right to regulate commercial signage. But the fact that Houghton's mural says nothing about her business places it outside the scope of any legitimate regulation.
"Whatever gray areas there might be (in distinguishing advertising from artwork), this mural is far from it," said Frommer, whose institute has filed numerous lawsuits challenging what it sees as overzealous regulation of small businesses.
I understand regulating signage if a billboard has a light blazing into somebody's home, making it impossible for them to leave the curtains open at night, but this case is about snitty bureaucrats, overlawyering, and speech-killing, and I'm opposed to all of the above.
Johnnie Walker, The Man Who Walked Around The World
A tale of what is possible under capitalism:
Walter Moore On The Facebook Campaign To Cartoonize For A Cause
The candidate *I* voted for for LA Mayor, and an eminently sensible guy posted this on his Facebook page about some stupid campaign people are participating in:
This just in: changing your Facebook photo to a cartoon character will not stop child abuse. At best, it will give you a false sense you're doing something. At worst, it will support sociological theories on group behavior, peer pressure and conformity.
More about the campaign here, in the NY Daily News, by Clarke Bowling:
A new social media campaign known as Childhood Cartoon Faces hopes to raise awareness of violence against children by encouraging Facebook users to ditch traditional pictures in favor of the cartoon images."Change your Facebook profile picture to a cartoon from your childhood and invite your friends to do the same," said the Campaign to End Violence Against Children, a Facebook page.
How utterly asinine.
Tax Fun To Come
The WSJ on "Alternative Minimum Mischief":
The dreaded Alternative Minimum Tax hike that usually whacks about four million upper-income households is scheduled to hit 26 million filers this tax year because Congress hasn't indexed the AMT income threshold for inflation. So a tax designed in 1969 to hit about 200 taxpayers may sock families with incomes as low as $60,000 a year. You know, "the rich." The average AMT surcharge will be about $2,000, according to ranking Republican Charles Grassley on the Senate Finance Committee.This Congressional abdication is too much even for IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman, an Obama appointee, who wrote a letter this week scolding Congressional leaders for playing politics with the tax code. Mr. Shulman warned that tax refund payments could be delayed next year for millions of filers and IRS tax forms may have the wrong information. Taxpayers may also face the frustration of having to file their tax returns twice. "I want to stress that it would be extremely detrimental to the entire tax filing season and to tens of millions of taxpayers if tax law changes affecting 2010 are deferred and then retroactively enacted in 2011," Mr. Shulman wrote.
Let's Have Parenting Instead Of Lawmaking
It's tragic that an average of 292 people -- mostly children and the elderly -- die in "back-over accidents," which are what the accidents are called in which drivers back over pedestrians.
But, I don't have a child or a driveway, and I drive a miniscule 1,900 lb. car, a 2004 Honda Insight hybrid that's slightly bigger than a Smart car. You'd have to be lying down taking a nap behind a parking space where I've parked my car for me to back over you.
Yet, if I were to buy my car new in the near future, there's a good chance I'd be paying extra for a backup camera. Angela Greiling Keane writes for Bloomberg that the government seeks to enact a law that they believe will reduce the deaths and injuries by almost half:
U.S. auto-safety regulators proposed requiring backup cameras on all new vehicles by 2014 to prevent drivers from backing over pedestrians, a rule that may cost as much as $2.7 billion...."There is no more tragic accident than for a parent or caregiver to back out of a garage or driveway and kill or injure an undetected child playing behind the vehicle," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement. "The changes we are proposing today will help drivers see into those blind zones directly behind vehicles to make sure it is safe to back up."
...In vehicles without a visual-display screen, rearview video systems cost consumers $159 to $203. For a car with a video screen, such as those used in navigation systems, adding a camera would cost $58 to $88, NHTSA said.
Oh, and let's remember that they can't legislate that drivers actually use these things, but maybe if the government forces manufacturers to include them in cars it will be helpful to the litigious.
Singing Instead Of Stripsearches At An Airport
T-Mobile-sponsored flash-mob at Heathrow.
At LAX today, as we came in from Paris, just a long wait at Customs, a nice Customs agent who admitted me (and told me I "seem happy"), and a longer wait by Gregg as he got sent through the agriculture line after admitting to bringing in a saucisson -- all wrapped up, but apparently, a great danger to the world as we know it. (We think they ate it after we left.)
My Kinda Café
Unlike in the coffee shops near me in the US, there are no screaming brats at this Paris café, only a rather dignified doggie.
My own doggie has been at "Camp Debbie and Glenn," as I call it, at my dear friend Debbie's, sleeping on a little pillow on her desk in the sun, by the fire with her two dogs and cat, and at night, between them in bed, and generally being fawned over during her every waking moment.
photo by Gregg Sutter
Expert Witness On The Federal Groperment
Unfortunately, this witness must remain anonymous, although I know who he is and I've deleted the name of the state he works for to protect his identity. Here are his thoughts on the new TSA procedures, excerpted from an e-mail to me:
I'm also employed as a regulatory biologist for the State of (deleted), and in some of our assumed Federal regulatory programs. My current placing is with environmental law enforcement and policy development, which allows me to channel energy in putting at least some things right.The current TSA 'regulations' have never really passed through proper medical or security protocols, which is why I am concerned with both the privacy and health issues that have been ignored. Most governmental policies are developed by using the Legislative Rules as a backbone; the agency will then develop procedures to establish the means that the the agency will carry out the Rules given to it.
In my opinion as a bureaucrat, the TSA procedures were heavily written by private consultants (not the norm) and adopted 'as-is' rather than being vetted through a normal review process by the parent agency.
It's also my opinion that trained interviewers, using existing training methods typical for law enforcement use, would be much more effective than poorly trained x-ray operators. Unfortunately, trained interviewers don't come cheap, and they are not as technologically sexy as machines. If employed as Civil Servants rather than contractual employees, they're also unionized and self-checking for abuses; they also can't be sold to contracting lobbyists due to what is left of Civil Service protections.
Wearing Shorts To The Opera Won't Get You Maimed, Beaten Or Murdered
You might not get in -- or, then again, you might -- but Christians or Jews in the USA and in Europe will not kill you for failing to dress up.
Phyllis Chesler takes on "The Feminist Politics of Islamic Misogyny," and a Muslim feminist professor at Columbia University (with all the freedoms of the West) who goes kissyface on repression of Muslim women as some form of multiculturalism that we're supposed to exalt.
The professor, Lila Abu-Lughod, writes this about the tablecloth with eyeslits that Muslim women are forced to wear (lest they be murdered or maimed):
Why are we surprised that Afghan women do not throw off their burqas when we know perfectly well that it would not be appropriate to wear shorts to the opera? If we think that U.S. women live in a world of choice regarding clothing, all we need to do is to remind ourselves of the expression "the tyranny of fashion."
Oh, please. I can choose to wear high heels and a tiny skirt or a burkha in America. I am free to do either or neither. I also have rights equal to that of a man, unlike women in Muslim societies, where they are property, and where it takes two women to equal a man. Ick.
Chesler writes:
Abu-Lughod criticizes Western "colonial feminism" as attempting to undermine local cultures and recommends that we continue to focus mainly on the "colonial enterprise." Why? Perhaps as a way of reminding Western thinkers -- heirs to the colonial adventure -- that, given their ancestors' past crimes, they dare not feel "superior" to the Islamic world, and above all, they dare not intervene to free Muslim prisoners from Muslim tyrants, jailers, and murderers. Indeed, Abu-Lughod is quoted in Beirut as saying that: "the easily sensationalized category [of honor killing] has the political effect of stigmatizing Muslim societies."I am among a handful of both Muslim and non-Muslim feminists who humbly but adamantly question this approach. The politicization of the feminist academic world, especially in terms of its "Palestinianization" and its anti-Americanism -- has become the universal point of view for feminist academics. Abu-Lughod, Leila Ahmed, Suha Sabbagh, and Gayatri Spivak all share a profoundly negative view of the West and its values. This is their real passion. They may study women for complex reasons, but they use their work to condemn the West again and again. Sadly, they are all speaking the same politically correct "feminist" language from which a universal concept of human rights for women has been utterly banished.
Check out another very interesting piece from Chesler.
Faces In The Crowd, Paris
A few from our walk the other day, in the Marais and thereabouts:
(Gregg says that last one is him at Galeries Lafayette, a big department store here that I had to run into yesterday.)
Stop Excusing (Or Laughing Off) Violence Against Men
Jan Brown, of the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women, writes at ifeminists:
For the past few weeks one of the the stars of MTV's hit show, "Teen Mom," Amber Portwood, has been the focus of a whole lot of media attention for her domestically violent behavior caught on tape towards the father of her toddler child Leah and boyfriend, Gary Shirley. Every news outlet from CBS to CNN to TMZ has written or spoken about the on-camera verbal and physical assaults that Amber has directed towards Gary. Gary, to his credit, has never physically retaliated.Although I don't know Gary personally I know thousands of "Gary's" in similar situations. Gary, like other men in these situations who do not hit women or defend themselves against a woman's violence, know the rules of the game i.e. if a woman hits you stand there in take it because if you defend yourself you're going to jail. There is no excuse for abuse, unless it's a woman doing the abusing.
For years women's violence against men has been ignored, minimized and excused. However, this young women's violence, caught on tape, has been hard to ignore or brush off. Had her violence not been caught on tape it's likely that it would still be going on behind closed doors and no one would be the wiser...men don't tell.
To view a 55 second clip of her physical and verbal abusiveness towards Gary click here And there is a lot more where that came from. One wonders how long the camera crew and producers would have let Gary get away with hitting, slapping, choking and berating Amber before stopping or reporting the domestic violence had roles been reversed.
Still some will choose to make excuses for Amber's verbal and physical violence because Amber is a female and Gary is a male. Nothing new there, those entrenched in domestic violence issues have been making excuses for women's violence for decades.
Take, for instance, Lynn Harris's article for Salon, "Is female-on-male violence on the rise? '"Teen Mom's"' Amber Portwood has turned a spotlight on women who hit. We take a closer look at the supposed trend," (catch the "supposed" innuendo there?). Ms. Harris claims that women use violence out of frustration to get attention i.e. women are weak and needy of attention, while men use violence to assert their power and control over women, i.e. to keep them in their place and subservient to men.
The notion that women supposedly have a good reason for their violence while men don't is crap, and rather sickening crap at that.
Where's Your .0078% Loan? Where's Mine?
The Fed has been helping the poor and downtrodden -- poor and downtrodden banks (nine of them foreign) in outrageous ways. Shahien Nasiripour writes for HuffPo on the new welfare mother -- the big, international Wall Street bank:
NEW YORK -- For the lucky few on Wall Street, the Federal Reserve sure was sweet.Nine firms -- five of them foreign -- were able to borrow between $5.2 billion and $6.2 billion in U.S. government securities, which effectively act like cash on Wall Street, for four-week intervals while paying one-time fees that amounted to the minuscule rate of 0.0078 percent.
That is not a typo.
On 33 separate transactions, the lucky nine were able to borrow billions as part of a crisis-era Fed program that lent the securities, known as Treasuries, for 28-day chunks to the now-18 firms known as primary dealers that are empowered to trade with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The program, called the Term Securities Lending Facility, ensured that the firms had cash on hand to lend, invest and trade.
The market was freezing up. Effectively free money, courtesy of Uncle Sam, helped it thaw.
The European firms -- Credit Suisse (Switzerland), Deutsche Bank (Germany), Royal Bank of Scotland (U.K.), Barclays (U.K.), and BNP Paribas (France) -- borrowed $5.2-6.2 billion in Treasuries 20 different times. The one-time fees they paid on each transaction ranged from $403,277.78 to $481,110. Deutsche led the way with seven such deals.
On each transaction, the fee paid for the 28-day loan is equal to a rate of just 0.0078 percent.
The first of these sweetheart deals began April 17, 2008. They ended nearly a year later on March 5. On that day, Goldman Sachs borrowed about $5.8 billion and paid just $450,000 for the privilege.
Let Them Eat Cakes
Sorry for the glare, but I found these cakes (sized to serve a dinner party of people) and the pastries too incredible to pass up, even in 23 degree weather on our way to an exhibition of torture devices and documents from the Bastille at the Arsenal.
Interestingly, while you could see (and I could read) that some people endured horrible torture at the Bastille, Voltaire seemed to have a really nice room there, complete with a nice bedspread and one of those long round pillows -- although it looked like he had to do some of his writing on the wall. Then again, unlike prisoners now in the USA, there were no widescreen TVs for Voltaire and ses amis behind bars.
Religious Nutter-Buttery
Nothing I love more than seeing that somebody has asked the same question of me and some other advice columnist and doesn't even bother to hide the fact. This person not only e-mailed me and three other columnists and didn't hide it, well, here's their letter:
I need your advice. I have two important questions. I posed as a celebrity and signed the celebrity up to receive many catalogs and mailings. The celebrity is the host of Ghost Adventures. Ghost Adventures is a popular show on the Travel Channel. The celebrity and I never met. I typed his name and mailing address on many websites for him to receive many mailings. The celebrity's mailing address is a fan mail mailing address. I wanted the celebrity to receive a salvation package, helpful christian magazines, christian catalogs, gospel tracts, an Exclusively Wedding catalog, a Get Married catalog, engagement ring catalogs, an American Wedding catalog, christian newsletters, etc. The celebrity is a lost soul. He is definitely NOT a christian. The celebrity needs major prayer on a daily basis. The host of Ghost Adventures must be saved eternally. He must become a born again Christian. I typed his name and mailing address on many christian websites so that he will receive helpful christian literature in his mailbox. I want the host of Ghost Adventures to receive many helpful Christian mailings in his mailbox because I am afraid he is going to Hell. Thank you for your understanding. He will receive many helpful christian mailings in his mailbox. Should I confess to the spiritually lost celebrity that I typed his name and mailing address on many christian websites? I am wondering if I should confess to the host of Ghost Adventures that I typed his name and his mailing address on many websites. Should I email my confession through the celebrity's MySpace page? The host of Ghost Adventures has a MySpace page. I need your godly advice. I am seeking godly counsel in this important matter. I am wondering if it is wise to email a confession to the Ghost Adventures host. Thank you for your consideration. The celebrity lives in Las Vegas, Nevada. Las Vegas is his hometown. I am looking forward to receiving your response.
As I write in my book I SEE RUDE PEOPLE: One woman's battle to beat some manners into impolite society, here's what I do to people who sign me up for a bunch of mailing lists.
Hitchens On Airport "Security"
In Slate, Hitchens writes:
In the Jeddah case, the lethal charge of PETN was concealed in the would-be assassin's rectum.Perhaps you can begin to see where, as they say, I am going with this. In order for us to take them even remotely seriously, our Homeland Security officials should by now have had no alternative but to announce a series of random body-cavity searches some months ago. At least that might have had a deterrent effect and broken the long tradition of waiting for the enemy to dictate all the terms, all the time. It is a certainty that this deadly back-passage tactic will be tried. It is equally a certainty that it will find us even more defenseless than before.
Let me recommend regular reading of the magazine Inspire, the flagship publication of AQAP. It is remarkable for its jauntiness and confidence and sense of initiative. The cover of the most recent issue shows the tail of a UPS jet with the headline "$4,200." That was the estimated outlay, for AQAP, of the toner operation that disrupted international air cargo for several days. Inside is a telling comment on the only countermeasure to be taken so far: the ban on toners of a certain weight. "Who is the genius who came up with this suggestion?" jeer the editors. "Do you think we have nothing to send but printers?" (Incidentally, I recommend this analysis of the latest issue of Inspire, written by Shiraz Maher of the International Center for the Study of Radicalization at King's College, London.)
The authors of this propaganda show a natural talent for psychological warfare. It is, one might say, "part and parcel" of the campaign they slightly unoriginally call "a thousand cuts." But the simplicity of that scheme is as self-evident as its cunning. By means of everyday devices and products, plus a swelling number of human volunteers willing to die and kill, they can strike at will and even afford to taunt us in advance. While we pay salaries to thousands and thousands of dogged employees to glare suspiciously at shampoos and shoes and toners, the homicidal adversary discards those means as soon as they are used and switches to another. How they must chortle when they see how sensitive we are to the "invasion of privacy" involved in a close-up grope or a full-on body scan. In preparing their own bodies for paradise, they know no such inhibition. If they guess that we will not even think about how to pre-empt the appalling anal strategy, they so far guess right.
...The new tactics and propaganda of the enemy show them to be both inventive and imaginative. The response of our security state shows it to possess no such qualities.
Is Schizophrenia Caused By A Virus?
Interesting article in Discover by Douglas Fox. An excerpt:
A simple neurological exam showed Torrey that schizophrenics suffered from more than just mental disturbances. They often had trouble doing standard inebriation tests, like walking a straight line heel to toe. If Torrey simultaneously touched their face and hand while their eyes were closed, they often did not register being touched in two places. Schizophrenics also showed signs of inflammation in their infection-fighting white blood cells. "If you look at the blood of people with schizophrenia," Torrey says, "there are too many odd-looking lymphocytes, the kind that you find in mononucleosis." And when he performed CAT scans on pairs of identical twins with and without the disease--including Steven and David Elmore--he saw that schizophrenics' brains had less tissue and larger fluid-filled ventricles.Subsequent studies confirmed those oddities. Many schizophrenics show chronic inflammation and lose brain tissue over time, and these changes correlate with the severity of their symptoms. These things "convinced me that this is a brain disease," Torrey says, "not a psychological problem."
By the 1980s he began working with Robert Yolken, an infectious-diseases specialist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, to search for a pathogen that could account for these symptoms. The two researchers found that schizophrenics often carried antibodies for toxoplasma, a parasite spread by house cats; Epstein-Barr virus, which causes mononucleosis; and cytomegalovirus. These people had clearly been exposed to those infectious agents at some point, but Torrey and Yolken never found the pathogens themselves in the patients' bodies. The infection always seemed to have happened years before.
Welcome To Islam
Could you imagine the outcry if textbooks given to Jewish children asked them to list the "reprehensible" qualities of Christians? Well, that's what a textbook used by Muslim children in the UK asks them to do about the Jews. Ella Pickover writes for the Independent:
Around 5,000 Muslim school children are taught from text books which claim that some Jews were transformed into pigs and apes, the penalty for sodomy is execution and teach the correct ways to chop off the hands and feet of thieves, according to Panorama...A spokesman for the programme said the pupils, aged six to 18, attend a network of more than 40 weekend schools across the UK which offer to teach the Saudi national curriculum to Muslim children.
Investigators found one book for children as young as six which asks them what happens to someone who dies who is not a believer in Islam. The correct answer is "hellfire".
They also found a text for pupils aged 15 which teaches about Sharia law and its punishments. It reads: "For thieves their hands will be cut off for a first offence, and their foot for a subsequent offence."
Programme makers said there are accompanying diagrams showing children where the cuts must be made.
Well, at least the children are learning something in school!
