Fascinating Mary

Return from hiatus/ (Ground) Zero Respect

2006-05-04T10:50:00.000-04:00

I'm returning from my hiatus (who knew buying a house and moving would be so time-consuming?), inspired by an experience I had this morning walking by the World Trade Center site, which tourists and outsiders refer to as "Ground Zero".

This venerable, supposedly holy spot is the site of many interesting displays of human behavior, including jubilant family photo-ops and teens fresh from field trips, mugging and posing like America's Next Top Model under the American flag. I have wanted to do a photo-essay of the spectacle for awhile, but haven't had time. Thank God for my camera phone, which allowed me to take this shot this morning.

That's right folks, this is the Texas Rotisserie chicken, in mid-dance/bounce under the Flag and a few feet from the twisted "cross" found in the rubble.

This coincides with an article I read this morning about a Museum expert who specializes in going into a Museum's storage collection, pulling out selected works, and placing them in non-traditional settings or arrangements. One of the observations he makes is that if third world art is placed in the context of a traditional "English" setting, with crown molding etc, visitors to the museum immediately recognize it as art and discuss it from an accessible viewpoint. When traditional European art is placed in a third world display setting (like the type of setting African art is traditionally placed in) it is greeted by visitors as foreign, and there is much less time taken studying the art, much less discussion, and a clear sense that the visitor is unfamiliar with the work.

So we are slaves to context. How sad that our mental slavery reaches such extreme proportions that we can happily regard a dancing chicken, as most passers-by seemed to do, on the site of such a massive proportion of human death and suffering. Just wait until we install some marble and fountains - then people will remember they're supposed to be crying.

Death for converting to Christianity

2006-03-24T17:48:00.000-05:00

Wow, I'm going to pat myself on the back here for being so darn topical... Check out this article about a Muslim in Afghanistan facing death for converting to Christianity. As the Harris book predicted, we established democracy and the people of Afghanistan elected religious nuts to run the government, leading to the institution of Islamic law. And Islamic law does explicitly state that you have to put converts to death... so what now?

This is just about the best possible challenge for the Bush administration. The Christian right is hysterical, saying we didn't spill our blood so that Christians could be put to death. They're crying out for religious freedom... they didn't really care when women were put to death for being raped, or when young men were accused of being gay - but being Christian?? That's when we need to step in and protect fundamental human rights.

What would Jesus do, Mr President?

More recommended books on Religion

2006-03-24T14:13:00.000-05:00

I sent the following question to my brother:

I'm enjoying "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris, but finding it simplistic and poorly executed. Can you recommend some good books about religion and the nature of God, and how we deal with religious-based irrationality on the level of government and society?

And he wrote back:

I enjoyed Karen Armstrong's books on the subject. Her A History of God and The Battle for God are good introductions to the history behind the development of the idea of God and of religious fundamentalism, respectively. If you want a learned Christian perspective on theological issues, especially responses to atheism/agnosticism that are more sophisticated that just popping out Anselm, Alister McGrath is the best I've found. He's an Evangelical Anglican, former atheist, and a virtual publishing industry unto himself; everything I've read of his is enjoyable, but his Dawkin's God specifically addresses a lot of standard atheistic arguments. The three books I mentioned are for the lay reader; I can suggest some more complex stuff if you'd like, but if you don't like reading sometimes esoteric philosophy the above will serve you well.

Religion: Destroying the World?

2006-03-24T12:08:00.000-05:00

I’m trying to alternate fiction with non-fiction, so after reading the Glass Castle by Jeannette Walls, an amazing story of her crazy, periodically homeless childhood, I picked up The End of Faith by Sam Harris, and I’m now more than halfway through. The book’s premise is that the world is being destroyed by religion, and only by actively criticizing religion and faith can we move forward to a world in which reason trumps unreason.

Despite the seemingly indefensible premise (honestly, in a world this religious, does his argument even have a chance?), the book is fairly persuasive for the first 75 pages. I found myself involuntarily cringing and internally protesting to the most basic assertions, only to find that my rational mind agreed with them. The book would benefit from a less snarky tone – all the “Obviously”s and “Needless to say”s are grating. When I was in law school, I was taught not to use such phrases in my analyses – if an idea was so self-evident, then there would certainly be no lawsuit. In the same vein, if religion were indeed so silly and stupid, we wouldn’t have so darn many people willing to die for it.

But the premise is clear – one day people will look back on us with the same wonder that we have when we look back on Ancient Rome and their Gods. He uses a hypothetical example of an excerpt from a Bush speech where he replaces all the references to God with the word “Zeus”. He points out that in an election for the American presidency, a devout Christian man with no experience in any sphere of government would win in a landslide over an agnostic statesman with a degree in rocket science. He continually hammers away at the point that there are many religions, almost all of which place “belief” at their center, with no justification for themselves other than that they make people feel better. Most of these religions also call upon their followers to kill unbelievers and truly believe that they are going to hell, or some form of hell.

Unlike other critics of religion, Harris posits that there is no such thing as a religious “moderate” – there are people who believe in their religion, and there are people who have been persuaded away from their religion as a result of exposure to reason. A moderate is someone who entertains a perfect kind of cognitive dissonance – I believe a man watches over me and protects me and will someday let me into his kingdom ,where I will meet everyone I love – but I also believe in a series of secular precepts that contradict the order of my “faith”.

It’s difficult to write about this book without creating a book report, but I feel I have to give some background before commenting.

What I’m getting so far is this:

I personally have been an on-again off-again Catholic for several years. Sometimes I go to church because church fills me a sense of peace and calm, but most of the time I stay away from it because the organized church itself fills me with dread and anger. I think to myself, “if only the church would accept X,Y,Z, then I would be religious again.”

But this book is making me re-think that assumption. Where is my sense of calm coming from when I walk into church? The sense of community, of friendly people willing to shake my head for no other reason than to express unity? From the synapses in my brain that were wired at age 6 and up in Catholic school to regard church as the only refuge from a loud, frightening, nonsensical world? Yes, most likely. So why do I feel that I must raise my own children to be wired to this irrational belief system, when they could easily join a volunteer group and be friendly with people, and meditate to feel that there is refuge from the world? Why do I feel bad for people who don’t have a connection to “God”, but instead have connections to actual principles of right and wrong, or the natural order of things?

I am beginning to think the answer is that I was brainwashed.

But back to the book:

There are numerous problems with this book – the first and most obvious is that he is clearly “out to get” Islam above all other religions, and it waters down his effectiveness as it comes off more like a vendetta than a well-thought-out assertion. About 2/3 of the book is devoted to notes, but he only has one note to support his assertion that the Israelis are a peaceful people besieged by Arabs – it’s a note from Alan Dershowitz’s book on the Case for Israel. That’s pretty pathetic scholarship. Don’t get me wrong – Harris criticizes Jews too, especially for their insistence that they are the “chosen people”. He’s criticizes everybody except the Jains and the Cathars. But it’s clear that he is really interested in whipping up fervor about Islam being especially militaristic, more than any other religion, and he specifically targets the Muslim world for being just like the fourteenth century Christian world.

There is certainly some real evidence that makes this analogy seem accurate – murders in the town square, rejoicing when throats are slit and when people are murdered for Allah, the subjugation of women (and sorry super-liberal folk, it’s not just a different world-view – it’s subjugation). But he gives no reason for dismissing the best explanation for this – that the Arab world was in fact on its way to becoming just as secular and cosmopolitan as the rest of the world, until Middle-Eastern governments came upon virtually unlimited resource wealth, no longer had to tax the people, and therefore no longer had to care about what they felt or thought. They set up government sponsored religious schools, created a generation of illiterate terrified women, and now in 2006 we are reaping the rewards of this disastrous political evolution. Harris insists that without religion, people never would’ve stood for this. But wouldn’t the government have come up with some other idolatry instead? Worship Mao? Harris calls communism a “political religion” – an easy way to get out of explaining how to keep people from following irrational leaders and philosophies in general. I don't buy the idea that Islam is especially violent when compared to Christianity. Christians have been awful and have used the Good Book to justify the Rack. In general, ferociously religious despots have used all religions as power-grabbing tactics, excuses to be indescribably cruel.

The best thing that could come out of this book for society in general is the assertion that it’s ok to criticize people for their religious beliefs. Harris correctly points out that there is no other sphere of public life that is as intensely guarded as the dogma of religion. It’s all right for people to justify their actions by saying “I believe this is what God wants me to do”, but we are not allowed to question them or their God. This is patently ridiculous. If religion is so important to people and the world, it’s necessary to question religion and force religion to evolve. Otherwise, people will riot over cartoons, as we saw recently, and the West will have no answer other than “Um, sorry we offended you.” It’s not acceptable to kill people over cartoons. It may be politically incorrect to say that, but it’s rationally correct.

One of the examples Harris gives of the absurdity of religion is also one of the things I’ve always had trouble with as a Catholic: the miracle of transubstantiation. This was something invented by papal decree in 1216 (and until hundreds of years later, it was illegal to own a bible – I never even knew that…) in which the Church represented that the communion wafer turned into Jesus’ body and the wine turned into his blood, and all the congregants had to drink it. This still happens in Catholic Church today, of course. The Catholic religion insists that a true Catholic must believe this happens. So everybody’s standing around eating Christ… now if someone came up to you and told you that their candy bar was actually a piece of Nicole Kidman, you would have them locked up. But because MANY people believe that the cracker is Christ, they’re not crazy. The only difference between sanity and insanity is whether your beliefs are held by the many or the few. What’s even better is that Harris points out that thousands of people were subsequently put to death by the Church for “desecration” of the host – because there are actually things worse than eating Jesus??

In short – good, thought-provoking book, many flaws, but still worth reading. It makes you want to read more about philosophy, the cognitive process of “belief” and action, and political and religious history. It also makes you wonder if maybe you should lose your religion…

America Afire

2006-03-20T11:58:00.000-05:00

Last week I finally finished one of the best books I've ever read: America Afire: Jefferson, Adams, and the First Contested Election. When I say it's one of the best, please keep in in that such pronouncements are always subjective. I generally consider "the best" of anything to be something that changes the way I think or feel about myself and my place in the world.

This was the kind of book that had the makings of a 25-page college essay on each and every page. I learned so many things about our post-Revolutionary history it made me feel embarrassed of my ignorance. It prompted me to buy several other books this weekend, a dubious action considering that I have to pack them up and move them in 3 weeks... but I couldn't help myself. Remember that this is coming from a person who prefers fiction and poetry, so in addition to the Jefferson biography American Sphinx and the famous TR biography The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt, I also bought Louise Gluck's Averno. I don't have the patience for writing that isn't entertaining and artful, so if a history book gets my attention, it must be somewhat intriguing.

Anyway, please read America Afire, take it out of the library or buy it at B&N. I will personally refund you your money if you don't learn anything new from it.

I would go into it a little more, but you will undoubtedly see the results of what I learned in upcoming posts. It's amazing how history repeats itself and is so present in our everyday life. We fail to see the most obvious connections. I wonder how historians can stand being around the ignorant public...

(the book refund offer is subject to the following terms and conditions: I am the sole judge of whether you learned anything. My judgment is final and not subject to change or oversight from any governing body. Nyah Nyah Nyah.)

Blinded with Science!

2006-03-17T14:44:00.000-05:00

Check out the scientific/political debate between Dave and I at What Does Dave Think and add your .02

Republicans: "Help us keep screwing everything up!"

2006-03-16T09:37:00.000-05:00

Au contraire, Chuck! I also received a fundraising letter from the Republicans - not an e-mail, but a physical copy of a letter. I suspect this is because I gave money to the USO.

It repeatedly talked about supporting President Bush and continuing the path we are on now. It did take a stand on a few issues, like protecting "life and marriage", but it didn't really say much else. I kept wondering what self-respecting Republican would believe "the path we're on now" reflects his or her values. Reading about Jeffersonian Republicanism, it's clear that the current Republican party is much further away from historical Republican values than the Democratic party. Republicanism is supposed to be about low taxes, minimal government interference in private life, NO standing federally-funded military, and few federal regulations trumping state's rights. And you know what? I BELIEVE IN ALL THOSE THINGS.

I also believe the Constitution guarantees certain rights to all Americans, so where the legislature tries to curb those rights, even when they are acting on the wishes of the majority of Americans, the judiciary must intervene. The state cannot take away rights guaranteed to all Americans. So there are minimal circumstances where the Federal government may intervene, but otherwise, they should get outta the way. (and as an aside, legislators should be much more educated and mindful of their state and federal constitutions, to keep them from continually passing unconstitutional laws that clog the Courts)

I think this is what most Americans believe.

Call me crazy.

Perhaps the lack of a Democratic identity stems from the fact that Democrats ARE a party defined by their opposition to Republicanism. Democrats are about MORE government regulation. More than what? More than what Republicans want. So it's virtually impossible to articulate a Democratic ideal without invoking Republicanism.

I would be very interested to hear what my mostly democratic readership would say the Democratic ideal is without reference to Republicanism. If Republicans didn't exist, how would we define ourselves?

PS - I called the local Republican party office to tell them to take me off their list. I told them I was a liberal lesbian and I had no idea how they found me. The teen girl on the other end of the phone chirped "We get names from other organizations. But I'll take you off our list. Thanks!"

Democrats: "Give us money so we can go down in even bigger and brighter flames!"

2006-03-15T15:34:00.000-05:00

This request for funds for the democratic part was sent to me by alert reader Cristina. Words in italics are mine:

Dear Friend,

In the next few days we cannot win the 2006 elections, but we can lose them.

What an inspiring message to start off with!

And, what you do in the next few minutes will be a critical factor in determining which outcome will occur.
You can simply hit the "delete" button and read the rest of your emails. Or, you can stand up and say enough is enough! America cannot take three more years of one-party Republican rule in Washington, D.C. Democrats have a plan to take control of Congress, but we need people like you in order to implement it. Join the movement for a Democratic Congress and read our plan for victory. Get the Plan for Victory: Join Us Today

I'm writing you today on behalf of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the Democrats' organization devoted to taking back the House of Representatives from Tom DeLay, George Bush, and their rubber stamp cronies. It's run by Representative Rahm Emanuel, one of our sharpest and most aggressive tacticians. The skills that he honed in the Clinton White House have made the DCCC more effective and potent than it's ever been serving as an umbrella for Democratic campaigns across the country.

The DCCC is in charge of recruiting strong, proud Democrats to take on entrenched Republicans, and independent analysts have looked across the country and found that we have almost three times as many serious challengers as Republicans do.

The DCCC is in charge of needling every corrupt, extremist Republican - one by one - and every day they are holding Republicans accountable for their betrayals of the public trust. From the national level in the New York Times to the smallest local paper, every Republican wakes up wondering which of their dirty deeds will be exposed today.

More than a million Americans have already joined us in the effort to take the House and put it in the hands of hard-working Americans instead of President Bush and his money men. But we will need an unprecedented movement to get our message out through Bush's bully pulpit and Karl Rove's propaganda machine -- we'll need you. Will you join more than a million Democrats across America in our effort to take the House and stop the Republican agenda in its tracks? Sign up now and we'll get you started with our in-depth 2006 Grassroots Campaign Plan for victory. Get the Plan for Victory: Join Us Today Charlie Cook is the dean of beltway conventional wisdom on Congress - let's look back at how he was talking a year ago...

"Democrats run the risk of becoming perpetual losers, with a self-defeating mentality to match." -- Charlie Cook, National Journal, 1/22/2005

Is it a good idea to call attention to this?...

Since then, the DCCC and Democrats in Congress have beaten back Republicans when they tried to gut the ethics process, (Except democrats tried to gut it too, just a few years before...) defeated them when they tried to privatize Social Security, (actually, half the house republicans were against this too....) and helped make Tom DeLay and George Bush anchors dragging down the entire Republican Party. (I think they managed that all by themselves!) Now we're up 12 points or more in the polls - and Charlie Cook is singing a different tune...

"In terms of the political climate, every indicator suggests that we could see a tidal wave in favor of the Democrats." -- Charlie Cook, National Journal, 11/19/2005

But with the first primaries starting now, Election Season has begun in earnest, and that means it's time to take it to the streets. In every state across the country we'll be working with people like you to knock off Republicans who have been putting the Republican money machine ahead of hard-working Americans day in and day out.

It's time for Republicans to pay the piper. Will you stand with us, or stand on the sidelines?

Get the Plan for Victory: Join Us Today

And when we win in November, President Bush and the Republicans will get the accountability they've been avoiding for so long. With Democrats in the majority, the priority of House Committees will no longer be covering up for the White House. Instead of Tom DeLay and Bill Frist sweeping things under the rug, we'll have Democrats like me, John Conyers, and Henry Waxman holding hearings and getting answers. The Cover-Up Congress will be no more.

Now finally, they mention what they stand for:

Instead of handouts to Big Oil and the Big Drug Companies, the priorities of the American people will come first. A Democratic Congress will make health care more accessible, make education more affordable, raise the living standards of American workers, unleash the potential of stem cell research, and a make serious drive for oil independence.

And that's it... no mention of the divisive issues from the last election, like the War, gay marriage, abortion, etc, since they are not united on any of these things... and no mention of how they plan to accomplish their priorities In fact, all of these goals, from reducing dependence on oil to making healthcare better to making education cheaper are all things Republicans are also promising to do. The only outlier issue is stem cell research, which they know a vast majority of Americans support.

But that all depends on us winning, and that depends on you. Help us make 2006 a year that will go down in history as the turning of the tide, the year when we took our country back from the Republicans who had abused it for so many years. A year we can look back on and "we were there, and we made it happen." Get the Plan for Victory: Join Us Today I'm looking forward to working with you as we prepare for victory in November. Thanks in advance.
Sincerely,
Nancy Pelosi
House Democratic Leader

Needless to say, I am not sending them a dime. In fact, dear readers, I am seriously considering voting for John McCain, should he become the Republican nominee for president. And just think, it's only 2006...

"Grand Canyon" remake wins Best Picture

2006-03-06T08:40:00.000-05:00

An amazing cast assembles for a thought-provoking, over-the-top story of people from different races and classes clashing and ultimately, learning from each other, set in Los Angeles. I loved this movie!...

Back in 1992, when it was called "GRAND CANYON".

And now, 14 years later, a passable movie called "Crash" is considered "edgy" and "daring" for having almost the exact same storyline. Have I been living under a rock? Since when is it edgy and daring to suggest that *gasp* good people are sometimes racist, that black people get pulled over too often, that health insurance companies are mean to people, etc.

These people should be locked in a room and forced to watch the entire first and second seasons of the Dave Chappelle show, and then they should recast their votes.

I would've been okay with any number of films winning over "Brokeback Mountain", including "The Constant Gardener" and even "Walk the Line", but having Best Picture go to a mediocre Grand Canyon remake is just annoying.

But I can't complain. I won the Oscar pool. I get to eat lunch today!!

Alabama joins the fight of constitution bashers!

2006-03-02T08:34:00.000-05:00

Alabama is the latest state to move toward creating laws banning abortion. Note that this is specifically designed to put forth a challenge to Roe, not simply to make statement, because 18 states already have invalid laws on the books banning abortion. Alabama technically doesn't need to make any laws banning abortion, because they already have them. Passing another law banning abortion is literally setting up a Supreme Court fight.

So who cares about Alabama? Who cares about South Dakota?

In a republic you can't just write off the poor states. If you have a constitution that guarantees certain rights to all citizens, you can't amend it to state "all citizens, except the ones in Alabama." Alabama has tried for a very long time to marginalize the rights of certain types of ctizens, so this is just one of many challenges. For 200 years, the Southern and mid-western states have always had interests vastly different from the coastal states, particularly the Northeast.

And as you all know, my prediction is that eventually Roe will be overturned 5-4, but there will be a caveat added that abortions must still be allowed in certain cases (rape, incest, danger to the mother) because the burden on the mother in those cases outweighs the newfound "rights" of the fetus. Abortion will still be completely legal in 10-15 states, and the Northeast will become an "abortion factory", causing a strange sort of conservative backlash here, particularly as an increased number of Southerners come to "visit" us. This will eventually lead (maybe 20 years from now) to a challenge in court against new Southern laws prohibiting women from travelling to other states for abortions, at which point a new version of Roe will be crafted by a new court.

So sometime before I die, abortion will probably be legal again everywhere. Anyone wanna bet me $5 (adjusted for inflation 20 years from now?)

Kids do the darndest things!

2006-03-01T15:30:00.000-05:00

A future Darwin award winner sticks a wad of gum on a painting at the Detroit Museum...

my favorite part: "He's only 12, so he didn't understand what he did, but he sure understands now!"

I'm right again...

2006-02-24T15:36:00.000-05:00

How fondly I remember the naive morons who wrote to me that a Bush 2004 victory would never mean that abortion would become illegal in the US.

HA HA HA HA!

Now that South Dakota has banned abortion, let the games begin!

Liberal media makes big deal about silly heart attack victim

2006-02-17T13:50:00.000-05:00

You gotta love the Republican spin machine, which seeks to turn a serious incident into an example of how liberal the media is...

Yes, that's right, I'm talking about the VP shooting someone. Why should we care about the VP shooting someone? Why isn't it just "his private business"?

Well, for one thing, because if the guy he shot dies, the VP of our country could be up on criminal charges. For another thing, the same VP has already been convicted of drunk driving twice, and there's been no formal investigation into the shooting yet, meaning that he could've been drunk off his a** - and that's definitely relevant to whether he should be running the country.

And finally, the guy he shot was not just a little bit hurt, as they first reported. He was in the ICU for at least two days, and once he was put in the step down unit, he had a heart attack.

You wanna see the kind of "minor wounds" birdshot at that distance will do to you? Go here.

So cheers to the Republicans, who made fun of John Kerry and said he wasn't a "real hunter" like Cheney. I guess if Kerry had shot someone, he could've joined their exclusive "real hunter" club.

So much for the liberal media.

The one time Bush could be helpful...

2006-02-09T20:19:00.000-05:00

How absolutely ridiculous is this????

Excerpt, quote from EU Justice and Security Minister:

"The press will give the Muslim world the message: We are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression," he told the newspaper. "We can and we are ready to self-regulate that right."

WHAT???

Leave it to the EU to come up with that one.

We're supposed to back down from freedom of speech because loonies are burning embassies over some cartoons in a Danish newspaper that no one reads?

Right now is when we really need some comments from a cowboy president. Something like "They're just cartoons. What the heck is the fuss about? People should worry about putting food on their families..."

The Cartoons

2006-02-07T14:05:00.000-05:00

For all you Free speech/democracy nuts out there, here is the wikipedia description of the cartoons. So far only one American newspaper, in Philly, has published any portion of the "offensive" cartoons, and they had protesters lining up outside... it looks like we're one day closer to being a religious dictatorship too!

Publication of the drawings
On September 30, 2005, the daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten ("The Jutland Post") published an article titled "Muhammeds ansigt"[10] ("The face of Muhammad"). The article consisted of 12 cartoons (of which only some depicted Muhammad) and an explanatory text, in which Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten's culture editor, commented:

The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule. It is certainly not always equally attractive and nice to look at, and it does not mean that religious feelings should be made fun of at any price, but that is less important in this context. [...] we are on our way to a slippery slope where no-one can tell how the self-censorship will end. That is why Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish editorial cartoonists union to draw Muhammad as they see him. [...] [11]

After an invitation from Jyllands-Posten to around forty different artists to give their interpretation on how Muhammad may have looked, twelve different caricaturists chose to respond with a drawing each. Some of these twelve drawings portray Muhammad in different fashions; many also comment on the surrounding self-censorship debate. In the clockwise direction of their position in the page layout:

The Islamic star and crescent partially symbolizing the face of Muhammad; his right eye is the star, the crescent surrounds his beard and face.

Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, with a lit fuse and the Islamic creed written on the bomb. This drawing is considered the most controversial of the twelve.

Muhammad standing in a gentle pose with a halo in the shape of a crescent moon. The middle part of the crescent is obscured, revealing only the edges which resemble horns.

An abstract drawing of crescent moons and Stars of David, and a poem on oppression of women "Profet! Med kuk og knald i låget som holder kvinder under åget!". In English the poem could be read as: "Prophet, you crazy bloke! Keeping women under yoke"

Muhammad as a simple wanderer, in the desert, at sunset. There is a donkey in the background.
A nervous caricaturist, shakingly drawing Muhammad while looking over his shoulder.

Two angry Muslims charge forward with sabres and bombs, while Muhammad addresses them with: "Rolig, venner, når alt kommer til alt er det jo bare en tegning lavet af en vantro sønderjyde" (loosely, "Relax guys, it's just a drawing made by some infidel South Jutlander". South Jutland as reference would, for a Dane, connote the feeling of something like the middle of nowhere).

An Arab-looking boy in front of a blackboard, pointing to the Farsi chalkings, which translate into "The editorial team of Jyllands-Posten is a bunch of reactionary provocateurs". The boy is labelled "Mohammed, Valby school, 7.A", implying that this is a second-generation immigrant to Denmark rather than the founder of Islam. On his shirt is written "Fremtiden" (the future).

Another drawing shows Muhammad prepared for battle, with a short sabre in one hand and a black bar censoring his eyes. He is flanked by two women in niqaabs, having only their wide open eyes visible. The subtle joke would be that if what is visible of the women and what is visible of Mohammed were subtracted from one another, then nothing would be left.

Muhammad standing on a cloud, greeting dead suicide bombers with "Stop Stop vi er løbet tør for Jomfruer!" ("Stop, stop, we have run out of virgins!"), an allusion to the promised reward to martyrs.

Another shows journalist Kåre Bluitgen, wearing a turban with the proverbial orange dropping into it, with the inscription "Publicity stunt". In his hand is a child's stick drawing of Muhammad. The proverb "an orange in the turban" is a Danish expression meaning "a stroke of luck": here, the added publicity for the book.

And in the centre:
A police line-up of seven people wearing turbans, with the witness saying: "Hm... jeg kan ikke lige genkende ham" ("Hm... I can't really recognise him"). Not all people in the line-up are immediately identifiable. They are: (1) A generic Hippie, (2) politician Pia Kjærsgaard, (3) possibly Jesus, (4) possibly Buddha, (5) possibly Muhammad, (6) a generic Indian Guru, and (7) journalist Kåre Bluitgen, carrying a sign saying: "Kåres PR, ring og få et tilbud" ("Kåre's public relations, call and get an offer")

Additional dangers of being an idiot: Having no sense of humor

2006-02-07T13:49:00.000-05:00

That's right, folks, the worst thing to happen to Islam in 1,000 years is upon us: evil cartoons.

The headlines are priceless: "Cartoon Violence erupts in Afghanistan", with quotes like this one from Akram Durrani, the chief minister of Peshawar:

"Nobody has the right to insult Islam and hurt the feelings of Muslims."

Nobody has the right to hurt the feelings of Muslims??? Has the entire world been taken over by 5-year old boys???

In response, an Iranian newspaper has launched a contest for Holocaust cartoons.

This sounds like a front page Onion article. But it's not.

Nevermind that the prominent Halloween costume in the US in 2005 was "priest with little boy". We need to be SERIOUS about Islam. Because, you know, everyone deserves respect, even dictators who stone women to death and hang gay people.

Death to the infidels! And that guy who writes Family Circus!

Betty Freidan and "Choice" feminism

2006-02-06T14:15:00.000-05:00

An interesting article in Salon on the death of Betty Freidan and recent debates over "choice" feminism (I referenced the controversial Hirshman article in an earlier post). It's also an excellent reminder of the danger of invoking the words of iconic figures as if you know or understand exactly what they meant... Hirshman's use of Freidan's words was misguided at best in her piece for the American Prospect, as demonstrated here....

Godless Opera-watching heathens

2006-02-03T12:17:00.000-05:00

First it's science, now it's opera... it seems conservatives just can't handle their kids "learning" stuff.

King's Lost Dream

2006-02-02T14:06:00.000-05:00

Fascinating article in Salon about a book on Martin Luther King's commitment to non-violence and his ability to reach across party and racial lines, something we seem incapable of doing today.

An excerpt:

Branch understands the almost inhuman effort required of people not to react violently when they live in constant fear for their lives. Reading "At Canaan's Edge," you understand exactly why Stokely Carmichael, arrested 27 times during his work with SNCC, finally came to the point where he yelled at a crowd of demonstrators about to be tear-gassed by state troopers, "You tell them white folks in Mississippi that all the scared niggers are dead!" You see why Carmichael and movement figures like SNCC's James Forman came to conclude that nonviolence would not help American blacks. More profoundly, you understand just how foolhardy a conclusion that was.

And an image that really struck me:

The first attempt at a march, on Sunday, March 7, 1965, resulted in the notorious scenes of Gov. George Wallace's Alabama state troopers and reserves on horseback ramming through marchers as they attempted to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge. ABC showed footage of the carnage that night, interrupting its broadcast of "Judgment at Nuremberg." (At the point ABC cut into the film, a German couple was explaining they knew nothing about the treatment of Jews under Hitler.)

Add to favorites

2006-02-02T10:26:00.000-05:00

Instructions:

1) Please create a link to this post in the "favorites" on your computer

Negroponte officially said today that Iran does not have nuclear weapons and does not have the material to create nuclear weapons.

2) File your taxes. Accept that about 50% of them will go to the war in Iraq.

3) When we go to war with Iran during the 2006 elections, and the Bush administration continuously makes vague references to Iran's "nuclear threat", and then the media and the Democrats act like they didn't know that the "nuclear threat" was bogus, you can click on the link you created.

4) Gnash your teeth and throw your computer across the room.

Brains vs Feet

2006-02-02T09:32:00.000-05:00

Now to the next problem, an offshoot of the "no brains" problem - no ability for grassroots mobilization.

But wait! You say. We have blogs! We have protest marches! We have hundreds, thousands of people active in politics! We give millions of dollars online!

But still, we're losing. Why?

In These Times has a cover article this month regarding the rise of progressive blogs, and how (or if) they are changing politics. There is no link to it yet, but I will provide the link once it is up. It's a rather scary account of the influence blogs have had over the political sphere thus far.

And the inevitable conclusion I come to after reading it is - very little positive influence.

Predictably, the most influential progressive blogs are run by educated white men who are completely unconcerned with reaching out to a wider base of poor or disenfranchised people. The article points out that due to the decline of organized labor, the democrats no longer have physical places to reach out to their constituencies. Republicans have churches, Elk's clubs, gun clubs, etc, but Democrats have no found similar semi-public spaces to deliver their messages. The theory is that blogs are replacing these spaces, but if the blogs are populated and perpetuated by a cultural elite, how will we ever recapture our progressive base?

The quotes from major blog authors are rather frightening, along the lines of "That's crap, if a black lesbian wants to write a blog, then go ahead, find people who want to read it." Also "We don't need those kinds of people reading, it's enough that smart people are working for them behind the scenes." (The quotes are actually worse than this, but I want to give you an idea, since the link isn't up yet...)

I've never been a fan of anarchy. I haven't been involved in a single project - or even a trip to the movies - that has been successful without leadership. We have no democratic leadership right now, but we do have this supposedly grassroots network of new good old boys who claim to bring people together, but in reality are just another symptom of the larger problem of being incapable of attracting the traditional disenfranchised Democratic base.

Nothing exemplifies this better than the current blog-world fight between Paul Hackett and Sherrod Brown. The "blogosphere" is abuzz with debate over who is better, who zoomed who, etc... In a sensible world with a strong Democratic leadership, one of them would stop this madness, step down, and for the sake of the party and the country, let the other move forward. Instead we have this fun debate about who's better. It's a blogger's dream! Who is more progressive! Who is more right about Iraq! Who pisses farther! In a world where Democrats actually won elections, progressives wouldn't be hunched around the meaty bone of an Ohio election like dogs, plotting for their own minute sub-categories of political ad nauseum. They'd be rallying around one guy.

Aside: Speaking of educated white bloggers, Josh Marshall's TPM cafe is running a blog series on both HSAs and Medicare Part D. While I have not read the Medicare Part D section yet, I both read and commented on the HSA blog, which you can find here.

Brains vs Spines 2

2006-02-02T09:28:00.000-05:00

Ok, so for those of you who do not look in the comments section, here is what I referred to in yesterday's post, which I am including because it is relevant to today's rant...

Dave's post:
Democrats Without Spines
The following is the list of Democratic Senators who voted to allow the Alito confirmation to go forward, rather than fighting it every inch like actual members of the opposition. Will somebody please do something to deserve our respect and votes?
Akaka (D-HI)Baucus (D-MT)Bingaman (D-NM)Byrd (D-WV)Cantwell (D-WA)Carper (D-DE)Conrad (D-ND)Dorgan (D-ND)Inouye (D-HI)Johnson (D-SD)Kohl (D-WI)Landrieu (D-LA)Lieberman (D-CT)Lincoln (D-AR)Nelson (D-FL)Nelson (D-NE)Pryor (D-AR)Rockefeller (D-WV)Salazar (D-CO)
As soon as I know, I'll post the names of the Democrats who actually voted for Alito. Because, if you haven't heard, he's in.
edit: They are Byrd, W.Va.; Conrad, N.D.; Johnson, S.D.; and Nelson, Neb.

My response:

Alito was confirmed back in 2004, when Bush won the election.
The senators who voted for Alito are generally from swing states. They voted for him to appease conservative voters who would not reelect them in 2006 if they had not voted to confirm Alito. Winning back the senate is seen as a more important goal than stalling an inevitable Supreme Court confirmation.
The Roberts nomination was lucky. Alito is exactly what we all knew Bush would nominate to the court. The "opposition" (Democrats) do not have the political power to change the eventuality of Alito.
Back in 2003, before Bush's second election, Part D legislation was passed, and everybody in the healthcare industry knew it was a disaster. But there was very little discussion of it. Now that it's too late to help people, the media and the Democrats are whining that Part D sucks. It's sucked since 2003, and could've brought Bush down then if it had been properly spun and publicized.
Alito sucked in 2003 too. But instead of publicizing the devastating effect on the Supreme Court a Bush win would have, the Democrats chose to focus on the one thing they were weak on - National Security and Iraq - because they bet that's all anyone would care about. So now we are stuck with Alito, and though it would be nice to pretend otherwise, there was absolutely nothing, not even those senators in your post, could do about it.

Now Dave:

I can't help thinking, though, that "there was nothing they could do about it" might turn out to be the legacy of the Democrats under George Bush. The 2006 elections may be more important than the Alito appointment; but how much ground are we willing to lose before then?
I understand that you have to pick your fights, but sooner or later, you do have to fight. Every time somebody critiques the Dems, it's for not having a plan, not stating their positions. Even fighting and losing would give the Left and Left-Center something to rally around. Otherwise we're just being conditioned for helplessness and futility.

Now me:

Disagreeing with other people can't be considered a plan. Voting against Alito isn't a plan. A plan would've been a strategy for what democrats want in the Supreme Court. "Protecting Roe" is not a plan. It's just a reaction. Do the Dems believe in expanding rights under the constitution? Do they want to call that "expansionism"? Do they want to market and characterize expansionism as the belief that our constitution protects us as the years go by, that it's not just a dusty meaningless document? Do the Dems want to talk publicly about their disdain for "originalism", pointing out in every speech, relentlessly, that if originalists had always been on the court we would still have segregation and slavery? That would be a position. Then they would be able to fight against Alito, by saying "we support expansionists who believe in equal rights for all, afforded to us by our Constitution, not originalists who take away rights."
Instead they say they are "against" things. They are "against" overturning Roe. Why? Because it's important to honor precedent? Then what about Bowers and Lawrence? Or maybe it's because a majority of Americans support abortion.... but that can't be right, because the very NATURE of the court is to be free of the democratic body and to make decisions, however unpopular, that accurately interpret the law. Maybe they are against overturning Roe because they think we have a right to privacy under the Constitution? Then why haven't they made legislative moves to amend the Constitution (as Bush has with marriage) to forever add privacy as an enumerated right?
Perhaps because they don't know why they are "against" overturning Roe. Perhaps because they lack the intellectual consistency to form any solid opinions about such things. But until they get that kind of consistency, they will lose, time and time again. Voters want to support causes, not complaints. I worry that this point is forever lost to current Democrats.

Now Dave again:

I'll grant the validity of your brilliant summation. Democrats have been doing nothing but reacting, instead of staking out their moral and philosophical ground. That's why we have so few real leaders in the Democratic party - and by-the-by, those that appear are usually the ones who CAN articulate a coherent position.
So we needs brains. And the Dems keep calling for feet on the ground. But I can still put out a call for spines, can't I?

Democrats: Spineless or Brainless?

2006-02-01T15:36:00.000-05:00

Check out the debate between David and I at David's blog, in reference to Alito's Supreme Court confirmation.

One less chick in power... The New York Times and Maureen Dowd must be right...

Insert profanity here

2006-01-27T15:51:00.000-05:00

Our government pushes through more cuts to the student loan program, which hasn't experienced an increase in the amount loaned to students since long before I went to college, although college costs have significantly outpaced inflation for at least 15 years.

Conservative pundit Ann Coulter "jokes" that Justice Stevens should be fed rat poison so that we can change current abortion laws. I guess that's what they mean when they say "pro-life".

American soldiers in Iraq have been kidnapping the wives of suspected insurgents in order to flush them out of hiding. "One American colonel suggested to another that they catch her husband by tacking a note to the family's door telling him 'to come get his wife.'"

In the last quarter of 2005, the economy slowed to its lowest growth in 3 years.

AP reports that, as usual, the gap between rich and poor is growing.

Be sure to read David's comment to my last post, and go to the link he provides for an Onion article detailing exactly how our long nightmare of peace and prosperity was over, thanks to Bush's election.

Maybe YOU'RE a threat to National Security too!

2006-01-26T16:13:00.000-05:00

From Slate:

The government has obtained information on all Internet search requests made in a week through Yahoo!, MSN, and AOL. Google is fighting a subpoena for similar information. The government says it's looking for use of material harmful to minors (porn); the companies apparently negotiated the information dump down from two months' to one week's worth of searches. It's unclear whether the government originally requested information that might identify users. Government's and companies' spin: Don't worry, it's just aggregated numbers. Civil libertarians' spin: This is the first time the feds have asked for data on everybody, not just suspects. Beware.

And President Bush said today that he believes his warrantless wiretapping is legal. This is how bad it's gotten, that he can say something like "Warrantless wiretapping is legal", and the press just uncritically reports it. Before Bush II was in power, the headline would've been "Bush argues illegal wiretapping is legal" or "Bush supports unconstitutional wiretapping". Now the headline is "Bush says wiretapping is legal". I guess now the masses will believe it.

I am disappointed that I have been so incredibly right about everything.

I nostalgically recall my debates with people over Bush and the Supreme Court ("Yes, he will appoint at least two new supreme court justices, and yes, his nominees will support overturning Roe"), my rants about the Patriot Act and the destruction of civil liberties ("The level of government surveillance on private citizens will increase exponentially, and will target all types of civil dissent"), my dire predictions about Iraq ("It will be a quagmire and will increase the number of terrorists in the Middle East), and so many other things...

Couldn't I have been wrong about SOMETHING?

I am a threat to National Security. Who knew.

2006-01-25T11:33:00.000-05:00

The latest from Alberto "We can torture if we want" Gonzales, putting forth "justifications" for warrantless searches that sound like something out of a sixth grader's playbook for Warcraft. At least Alito is intelligent... Gonzales tries to argue that warrantless searches are ok because there is a provision in FISA says there is a 15 day grace period following a declaration of war during which warrantless searches may occur. Um, last time I checked, the Iraq war was "over", not still mired in the first 15 days. How can Gonzales stand there with a straight face and say that a certain section of the law can be interpreted to mean one thing when the rest of the law clearly states the complete opposite -including the fact that you can get retroactive warrants in cases of emergencies! He should be disbarred.

Meanwhile, the typical right-wing defense of this tremendously indefensible position is that only evil people get trapped in the surveillance net. Ha ha. Several media outlets, including NBC news, reported that the Pentagon has been spying on gay groups at NYU law school, William Paterson College, and SUNY Albany because of their involvement in Don't Ask Don't Tell (Soloman amendment) protests. The government labelled the protests, which mostly involved "kiss-ins", in which members of the same-sex kiss each other as a form of protest, as a "credible threat to National Security."

The government is refusing to turn over documents relating to the surveillance.

I would not be surprised at all to discover that my own Law School was included in such surveillance, since we had annual mixers with OUTlaw, the NYU law group, and participated in city protest events.

So there we are folks. I am now a threat to National Security. I think Alexis and I will go stand in front of the World Trade Center site (still vacant, thanks to silly political bullsh*t) and kiss for awhile to celebrate this supposedly free country we live in. In case I disappear without a trace someday, you'll know why.

You might want to print this page out, in case the government erases it.

The Vatican gets something right

2006-01-19T15:58:00.000-05:00

One thing I will have to say about Catholicism - at least it has some nuance. Efforts by the press to lump all Christians into one shapeless mass are insulting and inaccurate. After all the hype about the Vatican rejecting evolution, the Vatican restates its support for evolution as a scientific theory and specifically repudiates intelligent design. My favorite quote: the debate in the United States was "polluted by political positions".

When was the last time you heard the Vatican criticize American politics for being too one-sided?

Who put the "overturn" in "overturning Roe"?

2006-01-13T16:05:00.000-05:00

*yawn* I'm shocked, just shocked, that Alito is about to sail into his Supreme Court seat. I'd also like to remind all y'all good people out there that it was the liberal members of the court who set Roe up for overturning. The roadmap for it may easily be found in Scalia's dissent to Lawrence v Texas. Scalia correctly lays out all the elements that the Court used to overturn Bowers v Hardwick, and ominously points out that Roe could easily be overturned on the same basis.

What's the moral of the story? That Lawrence is a bad decision?

Nope. Bowers was a bad decision. And so is Roe. It should've been based on equal protection. Wouldn't it be nice if we could get a well-written rock-solid decision allowing abortion, instead of having to hear all this gobbledy-gook about privacy rights?

Oh well!

Who's Going to Bring the Gatorade?

2006-01-13T13:24:00.000-05:00

Here's a thought-provoking article from the American Prospect addressing the infamous NYT magazine articles about the "epidemic" of women dropping out of the workplace. It brings up some disturbing points, and while I disagree with the recommendations, I can't help but wonder: How do we get more women in powerful, influential positions? The topic is especially resonant following the Alito hearings and Mrs Alito's outburst of crying, which the media says "humanized" Alito to the American audience.

In a strangely telling NYT article describing Mrs. Alito, a West Caldwell NJ mom said Mrs. Alito was a real "go-to person" at the Little League games their kids played together.

"If ever anything was needed, she was going to run right up and take the bull by the horns," Mr. Giordano said. "Who's going to bring the Gatorade? Who's going to deliver the uniforms? Who's going to make phone calls?"

Good questions...

Movies

2006-01-09T10:01:00.000-05:00

To counter my failure to go to the movies for the past couple of months, I went on a movie spree this past week. Here I will provide some reviews, for those of you who care:

Capote:
I find it difficult to imagine watching this movie without having read "In Cold Blood". The movie is set during the time that Capote wrote the book, and it starts off strong but ends in the same sputtering way that Capote's writing career ended. If you've read "In Cold Blood", you know that it's the novel that started an entire genre - the fictionalized non-fiction novel. You also know that the primary reason for the success of the book is Capote's ability to make the reader empathize with one of the murderers, Perry. As John Gardner observed in "The Art of Fiction", you can't write a successful novel without fully realizing the motivations of your primary characters, so "In Cold Blood" really was in the "great novel" category.

Capote was able to do this because he was in love with Perry, and this is the crux of the movie. Of course, Philip Seymour Hoffman did a good job, but there was something fundamental missing. I didn't really *like* him by the end. It was the typical "Who's the monster now?" role reversal trick that boring movies do. I couldn't tell if I was disappointed by the script or by Hoffman, but I don't think a best actor win is going to come from this one.

Chronicles of Narnia:
I'd heard a lot about this movie before I went to see it; how the production values were lacking, a fatal flaw in the post-LOTR world; how the kid actors weren't all that good; how it dragged in parts. But now that's I've seen it, I can say with confidence that what killed this movie was the script. The effect was Harry Potter 1 - fun, distracting, but too jumpy to flesh out any feelings. We are invited to determine the character of the older sister in a scene where she questions the intelligence of walking across a rapidly melting ice floe. The older brother exclaims "You're always thinking!" That's her moment of characterization, during which we are supposed to extrapolate her general tendency to over-think things. Give me a break. We are supposed to understand the motivation behind Edmund's brotherly betrayal in two short scenes where he is berated for "not doing what he's told." Older brother Peter is vaguely burdened by his assumption of the fatherly role, as we are informed by a slapdash scene where he is told by Edmund that "he's not dad!" It's like the writers of Three's Company were exhumed for a children's series.

Brokeback Mountain:
What can I say about this movie other than "WWWAAAAAHHHHHHH"? It was heart-wrenching, gut-crunching, and beautiful in every way. I can't think of a thing I would change. Utterly perfect. The scenes and characters have stayed in my mind since I saw it a few days ago, and I can't shake them.

Since Romeo and Juliet, the greatest love stories of all time have been about two people who are unable to be together because of some institutional barrier, whether familial, societal, economic, religious, or geographic, so forbidden gay relationships are perfect for the romance genre. Other non-mainstream films have addressed gay lovers who couldn't be together for various reasons (the most artful of which, "Aimee & Jaguar", about a Christian woman and a Jewish woman torn apart by the Holocaust in WWII Germany, comes close to Brokeback in its scale of human suffering), but none have had the scope and seering beauty of this movie. You must see it. Run out tonight.

I will refrain from making disclaimers like "It's not just a gay movie", because I find such things insulting. No one who watched "The Pianist", "Life is Beautiful", or "Schindler's List" said at the end "It's not just a Jew Movie!" If you go to the movies to see verbatim mini-capsules of your own life and your own experiences, you are a sad sack. If you are afraid a movie is going to cram a "message" down your throat, you are not afraid of a gay movie, you are afraid of a BAD movie. The distinction is important. Bad movies often have messages. Targeted audience is important too - imagine if "Cheaper by the Dozen" was primarily marketed to urban gays. It would become a bad "message" movie about how great nuclear families are...

Breeding

2006-01-09T09:24:00.000-05:00

The extreme right wing is a bunch of nutjobs, as we all know, but I've been thinking lately that the extreme left wing is no better.

When it comes down to it, a a fair amount of super-lefties believe that this planet would be better off without any people in it. Like "The poor trees! Their air would be better! And the poor animals! They wouldn't become extinct so much!"

This observation is prompted by an article I read in Grist, and some comments I've seen over the past year or two from lefties in various places.

One of the conclusions bandied about to rile us all up is that we should all stop breeding so that the world will be a better place. It seems this is also a sort of anti-establishment credo, to counter the dominant paradigm of children being the only hope for our future.

Now that I am the Big 3-0, I get more and more annoyed by anti-establishment bluster. It's cool to be anti-establishment... if you're right about what you're saying. Otherwise, you're just being young and stupid.

So I will say right here, once and for all, that an end to breeding is, hands-down, one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. The day that your species gets together and decides that the best thing for it is to die, you know you're in big trouble.

Fascinating Mary would like to go on the record as endorsing breeding. Breed, oh heterosexual and bisexual multitudes! To the homos I say, adopt, use sperm in a cup, hire surrogates! If you are reading my blog, it means you know me and you are my friend, making you statistically 99% more likely to have sensible, successful children. Be fruitful and multiply.

Thank you.

The War on Christmas - Operation Imaginary Storm

2005-12-29T16:43:00.000-05:00

I have spoken to multiple people in the past week who have all said that the "War on Christmas" was a topic of discussion at their Christmas meals. I have also attended client luncheons where the War was angrily discussed, and people vowed that they would continue to say "Merry Christmas!" everywhere they went, in spite of the repercussions.

What's funny about this is when I ask "Have you had problems with people who demanded that you say "Happy Holidays"?" the people always say "No". In fact, thus far, I have not run into a single person who says they feel compelled by any specific person or organization to say "Happy Holidays." When I ask what they're talking about with this whole "War on Christmas", they either agree that it's stupid ("But everyone's talking about it"), refer vaguely to a news report (usually Fox), or say that "Macy's says Happy Holidays to people now", as if Jewish people and atheists have never shopped at Macy's before this year.

My company says Happy Holidays to its employees because we have several Jewish employees... I say Happy Holidays to some people because I don't know whether they're Jewish or not. In NY, there's lots more Jews than in say, Kentucky. So we think about it a little more. I wouldn't say we "worry", we just think about it.

I mean, I wouldn't want to say "Congratulations on your pregnancy!" to a guy. I wouldn't want to say "Have a great honeymoon! to a single girl. I wouldn't want to say "Good job on your law school graduation!" to someone without a high school education. So why do I have to wish people a Merry Christmas if they aren't Christian?

While I haven't met a single individual with a personal experience documenting the "War on Christmas", I have seen some peripheral evidence. This evidence is usually bandied about as proof of the War's pervasive threat. For example "My town put up a Christmas tree and hung a "Happy Holidays" sign next to it, and then put up a menorah and hung a "Happy Hanukkah" sign next to it! Can you believe it! So we can celebrate Hanukkah but not Christmas!"

It's true that I have also seen this phenomenon. However, I would venture to guess that this has very little to do with the mythical war, and a whole lot to do with how incredibly stupid town councils are. I mean, these are people who spend all year developing programming for your suburban park gazebo, specifically for the 13 senior citizens who gather in polyester pants to boogie to the classic sounds of "The Great Boggers" and "Billy Melman and his Swingin' Jazz Tappers". When they decide how to decorate the town for Christmas, chances are they are listening to Rush Limbaugh and growling as they reluctantly light their menorahs, incorrectly assuming (thanks to Rush) that they are not allowed to acknowledge Christmas. (Go here to the decidedly conservative USA Today for a brief discussion of religious symbols in public areas - and the fact that are most certainly allowed to be displayed.)

If we could develop some sort of functional form of communication and education in the US (*gasp*), instead of our current system of propaganda and misinformation, maybe we could all learn to celebrate each other's holidays, respect our differences, and say what we want without fear. But since we're much more into overblown exaggeration and flat-out lying, the War on Christmas will rage on.

Onward Christian Soldiers!

Presents (Warning: Graphic Language and Adult Situations)

2005-12-28T15:25:00.000-05:00

Around the holidays, one of my favorite pastimes is meticulously evaluating the gifts I get. There seems to be a couple of major gift categories, as follows:
1) Stuff you specifically asked for or wrote on a list
If you are under 10 or over 30, this is usually the category of gifts you receive.

I am told that I am "hard to buy for", because I usually get the things I want long before anyone else can buy them for me. Thus, creative people who refuse to buy from wishlists need to be extremely resourceful to get me something from the next category of gifts:

2) Things that I either don't yet want or don't already have (also known as the "I wouldn't buy it for myself but I'd like to have it" category).

This category of gifts is the most difficult to come by. Sometimes this is stuff that you are shocked to enjoy, that you never thought you'd like. An example of this is the cheese ball my friend Charlotte gave me when we were in college. I thought "Why would I want a cheese ball?" But I really enjoyed it. Now I'm disappointed if I don't get a cheese ball. Additional examples are: A sweater that actually fits and looks good (this has never happened to me...), a kitchen gadget that actually does make life easier (such as a salad spinner), or a CD from someone that you never heard of that you end up getting really into.

3) What the F***? gifts

This category is usually dominated by clothes. Every year I get a bright pink acrylic body-hugging pullover that makes me look like a homeless person. This in spite of the fact that I wear the same non-pink, non-homeless outfit everywhere I go, just like a Peanuts character.

So one of my presents this year was the Best Lesbian Erotica of 2005. This was, in theory, a great idea. How can you go wrong with erotica? But when Alexis and I attempted to actually read some of it the other night, we remembered the fundamental problem with lesbian erotica, which I will attempt to explain here in a series of hypothetical excerpts:

Pg 4 - "Ricky clenched and unclenched her meaty biceps for Pat, the hot femme across the bar. She knew that her butch persona would drive the repressed sex kitten wild"
Pg 12 - "Someday soon Ricky would visit Pat's apartment on the upper west side. Pat was the ultimate conquest."
pg 86 - "Pat leaned seductively across the bar toward Ricky. She desperately wanted to be taken by Ricky and her lush lips."
pg 285 - "Ricky's strong hands flexed around her gin and tonic. 'Can I buy you a drink?', Ricky said huskily"
pg 456 - "Ricky fingered the lapel of Pat's Old Navy sweater, where a pattern of brown lilies of the valley was traced around her neck."
pg 785 - "Ricky thought about how she loved Lilies of the Valley."

And so on....

Alexis lamented that she hadn't bought me the boy-on-boy erotica, which goes a little more like this:
pg 1 - "Jim gripped his gin and tonic tight, poured it all over his already naked body, and instructed Derek to lick it off his giant c*ck"
pg 2 - "Tim began to lick Derek's b*lls as he f*cked Jim's tight a**. Derek looked down at Tim and said "Who are you?"
pg 2 1/2 - "They all came all over each other."

Now, why can't women write erotica like that? Even when there is a passionate tryst, there is usually some weird non-sexy thing thrown in, like broccoli or fisting (I'm sorry, dear reader, if you find fisting sexy, but it conjures up a gynecology textbook for me. If God had meant for someone's whole hand to go up there, he would've given us smooth stump hands shaped like zucchinis.)

The weirdest gift of the year award goes to my Uncle Brian, who gave me a signed, custom-framed picture of Uma Thurman (from her "Truth About Cats and Dogs" period). It is propped on top my living room curio until I can figure out what to do with it.

Maybe I can sell it and use the money to buy some gay men's erotica.

Republican Constitution-burning

2005-12-22T12:24:00.000-05:00

Our president has admitted to violating federal law by authorizing a warrant-less domestic surveillance program.

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requires officials to obtain a warrant prior to initiating surveillance. 15,000 warrants have been granted, and only 4 have been denied since 1979. You can even apply for one retroactively. But the Bush administration just didn't think it was important to comply with Federal law, or with the fourth amendment of the Constitution.

Bruce Fein, a former associate deputy attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, calls Bush "A clear and present danger to the rule of law". Nixon White House counsel John Dean called Bush "the first president to admit to an impeachable offense."

So... do you think all those highly principled Republican congresspersons who voted to impeach Bill Clinton will vote to impeach Bush?

This administration has officially admitted to doing the absolute worst thing I can possibly imagine - ignoring the Constitution and breaking federal laws - but because of politics, no one will do anything about it. Although there have been dark days during the Bush presidency, this is beyond what I thought anyone was capable of. We officially live in a fascist state. Our elected leader thinks he is above the law, and no one will hold him accountable.

I don't know my own country anymore.

Plugging Other Sites Again

2005-12-14T12:17:00.000-05:00

Ok, I need to stop commenting on other blogs, cause it takes time away from my own... but while I'm working on that, check out David's blog, now linked on the index to the right of this post. I got off my lazy computer illiterate ass and modified my index so it now includes links to my friends. So go read David's blog, which discusses the death of Stanley "Tookie" Williams.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

2005-12-13T11:00:00.000-05:00

I'm plugging Chuck's website again today because we've got a good discussion on DA,DT going on. Go there to read Part 1, and then read Part 2, which I've posted below:

Chuck:

Oh, it’s emotional on both sides. And again, I have no problem with students signing up to harangue the recruiter…that’s their choice and their right. I understood the core of that emotional, because gay people aren’t the only ones to feel like they have been treated that way. It may seem so, and it may be pronounced, but such emotions are not simply theirs and theirs alone. That’s a universal emotional response.

I admitted my point on the DA,DT policy was disingenuous. I am aware the military forced his hand, and that Clinton regrets it. Clinton never truly understood the military, and wanted to do what was right (which was allowing anyone to serve). It wasn’t bigots who pushed against it…it was realists. And I never bashed Clinton in this regard. I simply pointed out what I felt was a hypocrisy by quite a few.

It is not unfair for civilians to control the military. It is right. Where it has gone wrong is that so many civilians’ legislators simply do not understand the military, because they have no concept of it or the people who would join. I never rankle at civilian control of the military. Such is the great and wise Constitution, and I believe in it. The main issue is not nearly “keeping gays out”. The average soldier does not give it a second (or even a first) thought. The military is morale-driven, to an extent known only to firemen and policemen (possibly doctors and teachers). Such morale is the difference in LIVES…not money. Such morale must be maintained. We lose lots of rights in the military. Rights and responsibilities go together.

Why does the military practice this discrimination? Hatred? Misunderstanding? Not really. As I mentioned, in peacetime, it’s a morale issue. It shouldn’t be. My thought was straightforward…I don’t care. Black or white, straight or gay, male or female…shoot straight and be able to carry my body out, and you got my thumbs up. I have seen what happens when DA, DT is applied. I lost a sailor from my ship to it, and it really hurt the watchbill for about 18 months, causing lots of misery to other crewmembers. The military push against homosexuals was based on their sense of responsibility to morale. I hate that as well, and homosexuals have every right to be incensed and vitriolic.

As I understand it, the military pays your LS debt off to join for xx years. It also gets you actually practicing much sooner. I gave a tour to 30 JAGS when I was a duty officer during their Navy familiarization. They were hardly less sharp than the lawyers who spurn the military. I think we are both being emotionally blinded a bit by this :) And the military is upfront with their discriminations, which is far better than most employers. I don’t have a vision of LS’s like that…but I do see Harvard, Yale, and UVA as that type of LS. I’ve met enough grads from them to make that stereotype.

We fundamentally disagree on the intelligence difference between doctors/lawyers and senior military leaders. I’d wager the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is as smart as any head of any law firm (or hospital, or political group, or bank, or…) in the country. I don’t demand more respect from the highly educated. I think it’s due, but overall irrelevant. Perhaps taking the military seriously and not calling their leaders blatantly discriminatory and not highly educated will make them listen up! Do you see the impasse? The military already exceeds most other public services. For it’s many warts, it has tasted sacrifice far beyond that of any other civil service job. It has done tremendous good far beyond our personal abilities to defend or attack it.

As I’ve stated, I oppose DA, DT. I decried it throughout my career. I’ve seen it waste tremendous talent, and it chafes at my love of the Constitution. But the fears of military leaders remain. These leaders have not been assuaged by those that disagree with the policy. They have not even been addressed as realistic concerns by the gay community. And they are realistic concerns. I don't agree with them. They are rooted in ignorant bias. But they are real concerns.

My response:

on one point in your message - I think you misread me (or perhaps I was unclear) in the intelligence difference between doctors/lawyers and senior military leaders. I meant to convey that I believe there is NO intelligence difference. So I don't think we have a fundamental difference of opinion there. I am the first person to admit that there many people who don't even have GEDs that are truly brilliant. I don't have much faith in the ability of a capitalist democracy to reward intelligence (it generally rewards perseverence and motivation much more). So intelligence can come from any corner of the country, and the military is no exception.

The "gay community" is really a loose collection of not-for-profit organizations with very different missions, and I agree that few have addressed the DA,DT issue with much aplomb. Part of that is the problem of image - the moment HRC (Human Rights Campaign) makes any move to see the other side, they get accused of cow-towing and lose money from their base. It's the same problem every NFP has (you saw it with religious political lobbying organizations when Harriet Miers came to town). These groups do their best with minimal resources, but in the end, gay people are just like the rest of the country - a little knee-jerk, a little myopic, and very terrified of our government and some of our fellow citizens. Makes it hard to function properly.

Extreme Government Makeover

2005-12-12T08:20:00.000-05:00

Like a good American, I spent my weekend shopping for Christmas (and for myself) and decorating an oversized, extravagant Christmas tree. After half-finishing our Christmas cards and some eggnog (with rum for me, without for Alexis, who is still on antibiotics for some nasty bug that everyone except me has contracted), we settled onto our Crate & Barrel ™ couch to watch a two-hour holiday special Extreme Home Makeover (EHM) on our 32 inch Panasonic ™ TV, which receives $80 per month Comcast ™ digital cable.

Kurt Vonnegut has a fantastic book called “Fates Worse Than Death”, a series of autobiographical essays he wrote during the Reagan years, when he literally wanted to kill himself because of the direction the country was going. The book jacket for the hardcover (no longer available, so I can’t see an image of it on Amazon, and someone stole my copy long, long ago) described Vonnegut as a pessimistic optimist (or optimistic pessimist…), someone who expects so much from people and from the world that he can’t help but be continually disappointed. I often feel the same way, which is why I enjoy EHM so much. For exactly one hour I can ignore the baser side of humanity and focus on one good thing that was done for one deserving group of people, and watch them jump up and down with joy. It’s not like I want to be a sarcastic meanie. I cling to these little bits of positive energy, even if they are staged.

I know all the criticism, the fact that there’s a lawsuit by one family, and most importantly, that the show only helps homeowners, cutting out most of the poor families in this country, but I still think the show does some good. Besides, who can complain about yet another show beloved by Christian conservatives that is also filled with flamboyant gay men?

Anyway, last night’s episode was politically fascinating, especially considering it’s one of the most popular shows on TV. The premise of the show was that the team took one weekend to renovate a free health care clinic in South LA, but while the renovation was going on, the team members dispersed to find former families and help them “pay it forward” – help other people in need just like they were helped when they were in need. One of the EHM veterans was Luis, an Iraq war vet who lost his leg in a roadside bomb explosion and had his house renovated to fit the needs of his new disability. He brought EHM (and a non-profit organization, Homes for our Troops) to renovate the house of his friend Bobby, who had lost two legs in Iraq. As is standard practice on EHM, everyone was crying. Bobby’s house was renovated, and he even got a fishing boat.

In the next segment, EHM visited the house of a woman in South New Orleans who hadn’t been to her house since her Parish had been evacuated a month before. Miraculously, her house was still standing, and as her gesture of gratitude to “pay it forward”, she organized a clothing giveaway to needy families in MS, the state that had taken her in while she waited to move back into her house. Here’s the kicker – in pops Laura Bush, giving away clothes to people and talking about rebuilding New Orleans. We squirmed in our seats and refrained from throwing things at the TV.

Cut back to the LA clinic – We’re taken on a tour of the new facility, where the nurses and doctors and assistants are all crying and clapping their hands because gasp – they now have things like lockers and computers and new tables for their poor patients. The camera pans the clinic, focusing at least twice on signs on the wall that say “Health care is a right, not a privilege”, just ten minutes and 7 commercials away from the Laura Bush segment. The assistants are all given scholarships to nursing schools, since they couldn’t afford to go to school on their own. More crying and clapping ensues.

What’s the moral of this story? Although many liberals watch EHM and cringe for what they perceive as a Christian Conservative agenda, it seemed to me that the “liberal” view was all OVER this episode:
1) Support the troops by giving them adequate housing and rewarding their service and sacrifices, not by cutting their benefits.
2) Keep poor people from walking around without any clothes, and get the government involved in helping the people devastated by Katrina – in fact, get government officials to come visit.
3) Get people free healthcare.

What a shame that this is a show about ABC helping people, and not about our tax money helping people. A show about our taxes would probably be filled with stories of kickbacks, embezzlement, and R&D for smart bombs. Our tax money doesn’t make for good TV. I guess I should continue to buy products advertised on EHM, so EHM can continue to help people... this is the ass-backwards way we have developed for caring about people in America.

I'd better develop a crippling depression soon, otherwise I won't be able to consume all the anti-depressants they advertised...

A Holiday Greeting

2005-12-09T15:26:00.000-05:00

Sent to me today by a corporate compliance officer:

A Holiday Greeting

Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral, celebration of the winter solstice Holiday™, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all . . . and a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2006, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great, (not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country or is the only “AMERICA” in the western hemisphere), and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith, choice of computer platform, or sexual orientation of the wishee. By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms: This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her/himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.

Sincerely and with true holiday spirit,

The evolution of my political philosophy

2005-11-30T16:02:00.000-05:00

Re-reading my last post, the following occurred to me about my own aging process:

when I was 5, I thought all people were the same and everyone was essentially good

when I was 15, I thought all people were different, but everyone was essentially good

when I was 20, I thought all people were different, but everyone was essentially good, except wealthy white men

now that I'm 30 this week, I think all people are different, and everyone is essentially pretty awful, except me

Cultural shifting

2005-11-30T15:52:00.000-05:00

So here’s what I was thinking as I read the article referred to in my last post…

Pro-choice activists often point out that our high abortion rates are a result of our poor sex education… but I think our liberal paradigm of “it’s education, stupid” is essentially flawed. I am beginning to get off my Marxist horse and believe that our problems are NOT economic, but instead are cultural. After all, there are many wealthy nations filled with wealthy people (Saudi Arabia, for example) that are horrible places for their own citizens (women, for instance).

I have personally experienced sex education at its best in a middle class town where the cultural imperative was to avoid birth control. From sixth grade forward, sex ed was drilled into me and drilled into every one of my class mates – but we still had higher than average pregnancy rates… my classmates just didn’t think it was a big deal. Everyone was well acquainted with every form of birth control, right down to passing around spermicidal foam during class and being forced to put a little dab on our thumb and forefinger “to see what it felt like”. But the girls who got pregnant were the ones who sat in the locker room talking about being so sore from a night of f-cking that they could barely walk. They could’ve cared less about foam. It was all about short-term pleasure, in every part of their life, including schoolwork. They had been that way since they were 5. I know. I had been in class with them since then.

This reminded me of something my brother told me – I believe the Ambassador to Nigeria said this to him – “The governmental system in Sweden would work very well in Nigeria. First, change the government to a socialist democracy. Then send away all the Nigerians and import Swedish people.”

How does one change a cultural attitude, a value system? I think it’s very amusing that the single largest, highest-funded educational initiative ever, the “War on Drugs” was also such a complete disaster, and that no one attacked it more than liberals. So having a war on drugs won’t work, but a war on pregnancy waged by Planned Parenthood’s educational task force will? Or do we think that if WE had waged a war on drugs, we would’ve done a better job?

Some of the women described in this article made me sick. We wanted abortion on demand with no apologies, and we certainly did get it. Sexually active for 6 years with no birth control and then having an abortion because a big belly doesn’t go with your wedding dress? Four abortions because you forget to take your pills? And thinking it’s no big deal? That won’t go away with education. These women know perfectly well what to do. They just choose not to do it.

And I think, more than anything else, it’s because we’ve bred people to take no responsibility for their actions. We don’t have regulations – we have lawsuits. We don’t have universal merit-based pay – we have the lucky sperm club. We don’t have universal healthcare – we have every man for himself. Americans have been lead to believe that life is so unfair, so arbitrary, and so utterly ridiculous, that you might as well not even bother trying.

The right-wing has done a good job of creating a culture shift, and I think it is the NUMBER ONE reason they have so much power right now. They have created a cultural shift toward religion and fear, and they’re producing tons of new converts every day, either by birth or “re-birth”.

What have we accomplished? What is our message? “Do what you want and answer to nobody?” That’s not exactly inspiring. Articles like this make me understand in black and white why we are losing the values debate so pathetically.

Absence, article

2005-11-30T11:33:00.000-05:00

I got back from grandfather's funeral on Long Island last night, in case anyone was wondering about my absence from e-mail, phone, etc.

Here's an article that had me thinking a lot last night, sent to me by Beth.

Commentary to come later...

Born Without a Face

2005-11-22T07:44:00.000-05:00

Since none of my fair readers have come up with anything compelling thus far, I will pontificate on a rather disturbing show I watched last night on the Discovery Health channel. (If you're looking to be disturbed, just check out this channel - all sorts of creepy medical miracles.)

The show was called "Born Without a Face: Juliana's Hope", about a little girl in Florida who was literally born without 30-40% of the bones in her face. She's missing cheekbones, and eye sockets. She eats directly through her stomach, so she has never tasted food, and she breathes through a trach tube. She can't talk, and may never be able to talk, and can only hear if she has hearing aid implants.

The rest of her body works fine, so she can walk. She's two years old. Her parents are obviously crazy about her, and have a night nurse who takes care of her. She's already had over a dozen surgeries, and will probably have at least 30 more before she reaches adulthood. She's so immune to sedatives that the only thing that knocks her out is general anesthesia.

Throughout the documentary about her, all the people around her, including her doctor, are effusive about how much they love her and how great she is.

So I don't know why I just kept thinking "God, why would anyone keep this poor child alive?.."

I felt guilty for thinking it, but I couldn't shake it. I can't imagine the awful physical suffering she will have to go through all her life, not to mention the mental and emotional suffering. Maybe I am just not a strong enough person to be able to imagine living through what she will live through (or what her parents live through every day). It just boggles my mind.

I looked up the documentary on google and found a link to some random person's blog. The blog entry was a similar musing - how terrible this child's life must be now, and how much worse it is likely to get. And then I read the comments from the blog's readers. One reader commented on knowing a woman who had a preemie baby, and how the woman had decided that since the baby couldn't breathe on its own and its future was uncertain, that she would let the baby die. The reader criticized the mother for allowing that, since it was entirely possible that the baby would've come out relatively unscathed.

This really struck me, since Alexis was a preemie baby at a time when preemie babies didn't have the care and treatment that they have now. Keeping her alive probably cost a million bucks. Was it worth it? Well, I'd pay the million dollars myself.

So where do you draw the line? Do we argue that a preemie who has a chance of living a normal life should always be given that chance - and should our pro-life government pay for it? Do we argue that ALL life should be given a chance, but only at the parent's discretion, and then only dependent on the parent's means? What if a kid could get through with minimal damage, but only for a million dollars or more? If the baby without a face had been born to a welfare mom, do you have any doubt that the baby would've been sent home to die? How do we reconcile our commitment to human life with our patient-pay healthcare system?

Is Fascinating Mary still Fascinating?

2005-11-21T16:21:00.000-05:00

I apologize profusely for the week-long silence. I've been a tad busy. In fact, I have had work coming out of my proverbial ass. News and politics have ceased to interest me. Bush attacks opposition? *yawn* Cheney attacks Iraq critics? *yawn* GM to cut 30,000 jobs? Nothing new there. Sharon quits Likud to pursue "peacemaking"? Bit late, but thanks.

I am so focused on surviving the day that I can barely get up the gumption to rail against the establishment. Please help. Has anything made you mad lately? Write about it in my comments section. If your issue is a worthy one, I will make your rant an official post and craft a rant of my own, drawing on your rage to motivate myself.

Isn't that a song?

Everybody get together and wail on each other right now....

Chick Flicks

2005-11-14T08:41:00.000-05:00

An article from Alexis, and her comment:

I found this article particularly interesting because it is a corollary to an ongoing discussion I've had with friends about genre fiction. When is a book is both particularly "good" and adopted by a wide audience then it transcends its genre (dare I say ghetto?). I think this is also true of films. Most"chick flicks" don't deserve to escape the denigrating term. That said, it also angers me that there's a genre/term "chick flicks" but not "dick flicks".

And my comment back, which I am posting here because the last two movies I saw were North Country and Jarhead, and the juxtaposition of chick flick versus war movie has got me thinking:

The "chick flick" thing really aggravates me, because I can't remember the last movie about women that actually "transcended" the chick flick label according to the critical establishment, which leads me to the conclusion that movies about women (especially movies with positive messages about women, or movies that are devoid of physical violence) simply aren't considered capable of greatness.

Juts look at the last few years of movies that won best picture:
Million Dollar Baby - Woman attempts to make it in traditionally male-dominated sport, gets practically killed, considered heart-warming tale of personal triumph. Lots of blood and people getting beaten up
Lord of the Rings - Men search for rings so they can save the world, women are primarily love interests. Lots of blood, war content, and demons getting beaten up
Chicago - Musical version of a public murder trial - narrowly escapes being a chick flick, in spite of the gay singing, because it is about gangster-types
A Beautiful Mind - Crazy man is good at math, learns to control his craziness through loving his woman
Gladiator - need I even comment? Man fights war, gets screwed by bosses, gets back at bosses by winning the hearts of the people. Only presence of his wife is when we see her in flashback, and later, hanging from an archway. Lots of blood, war content, and animals getting beaten up.
American Beauty - Man is bored, adult women around him suck, only appealing woman is 15 years old. Man narrowly escapes sleeping with teenager, later we lament his death. All of the blood is at the end.
Shakespeare in Love - Shakepeare falls for a chick who is pretending to be a guy because that was the only way she could break into acting. He desperately needs to succeed with new play or face certain misery - being sent back to his wife.
Titanic - would've been a chick flick if it hadn't been for the last hour, where we get to see lots of people drown and die. The chick flick romance part is universally panned, but it wins acclaim for the technical accuracy of the death and drowning
The English Patient - Brainy movie about a guy haunted by a past romance, tended to by a hot nurse as he dies from wounds sustained in world war II
Braveheart - Mel Gibson dresses up in war paint and moons the English. Lots of blood, charging at things, leprosy, etc. Woman appears at the beginning and is horribly murdered, leading to lifelong quest for vengeance, culminating in loss of intestines.
Forrest Gump - mentally challenged guy participates in great historical moments because he is blessed with a good heart. Women around him are smarter, stronger, but have awful lives because they are not as sweet and kind.
Schindler's List - Man saves thousands from another man's death camps during a war. Lots of death and war content.
Unforgiven - Western movie with Clint Eastwood. (Women everywhere hear critical acclaim, watch movie and say "huh?")
Silence of the Lambs - chick makes it in the FBI by subjecting herself to psycho killer - lots of blood and shooting things
Dances with Wolves - Soldier discovers himself while out in the wilderness, learns new language and religion, lots of blood and war content.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point... there are a couple of movies that won in the last 30 years that could be classified as chick flicks (Terms of Endearment, Annie Hall) but they are sandwiched between movies like Rocky and The Deer Hunter. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to have blood and gore and violence, a guy sleeping with someone other than his wife, or a crazy/mentally challenged man who triumphs over adversity.

It may look like I haven't posted anything today, but...

2005-11-10T08:15:00.000-05:00

Check out the Nov 2nd post - we've got a slow, interesting discussion of the value of human life going...

On a totally different note, my pet peeve of the day:

When professional financial people refer to "moving into the next tax bracket" as if an increase in gross income could in some circumstances somehow lead to a lower net income. This is complete crap, and it's very important to understand why.

A tax bracket taxes you only on the income IN THAT BRACKET. So if you make $15K, you'll be taxed in the $15K bracket on that $15K. When you get a raise to $40K, the $15K is still taxed in the $15K bracket - it's only your new income that gets taxed in the new income bracket. SO YOU CAN NEVER LOSE MONEY if you get a raise. This is also why your tax forms come with a tax table - if your income were truly taxed by some flat bracket amount, then you wouldn't need a table to tell what 15% or 25% is...

The only exception is when there are deduction phaseouts with income caps (like student loan interest deductions).

If anybody tries to tell you otherwise, that person is a moron.

WWWD?

2005-11-08T13:15:00.000-05:00

I checked out David's blog today, which showcases a few pictures, including the one above, taken in my living room.

David's caption indicates that Wicket spares Vader in the end...

An interesting assertion reflecting our previous discussion regarding mercy and death.

Perhaps it is useful to consider the following when faced with momentous decisions:
What would Wicket do?

Death be not buried under other blog posts

2005-11-08T12:45:00.000-05:00

I'd encourage anyone who is interested in passionately disagreeing with me or with others to participate in the back-and-forth still going on in the Wednesday November 2nd entry. It's easy for comments to get lost in this forum, but hey, it's a free blog, so I won't complain...

Dating Nonsense

2005-11-08T08:40:00.000-05:00

Two weeks ago the New York Times Magazine had another silly article about trends among rich white women, written by the venerable Maureen Dowd, who manages to make many witty and astute observations in other articles that are not about her. Today in Salon.com, the juvenile and intensely annoying Rebecca Traister takes the top story with an article about Dowd's equally uncompelling book, with the predictable, inflammatory and unilluminating title "Are Men Necessary? When the Sexes Collide".

Forget, for a moment, the self-indulgence involved in having so much talent and devoting it to a book about how you can't get a date; forget that the primary hypothesis presented for the datelessness is that men are scared of "successful women", an extremely suspect conclusion considering that I would guess ALL people would be fairly afraid of dating a Times Op-Ed columnist who regularly eviscerates people in the newspaper version of the public square; the most important thing that Dowd's book and Traister's subsequent article shows us about the modern relationship between men and women is that we have absolutely no idea what we're talking about, and we're willing to listen to people who have even less of an idea.

How sad that powerful successful women sit around blaming society for their inability to find a mate. What is truly pathetic is these same women often come to the conclusion that they don't "need" someone to "complete" them. The single life then becomes a triumph of feminism. The fundamental message of all this is that people who are in relationships with men have given something up, or at least, are different kinds of people than the single girls like Dowd, who haven't managed to figure out how to capitulate their needs to someone else's.

What a load of crap. This speculation is steeped in gender stereotypes, even after all these years. Almost ALL people want and need someone to share their lives with. Statistics show that married people live longer, and are less likely to suffer from depression. This is true for both men and women. Single women are not triumphs of feminism - they are just single people. If they are happy being single, good for them. If they are unhappy, it's not because society taught them that they need a man to complete them. It's because they want a partner to share life with, just like most men do. The fact that simple biological imperatives are interpreted by successful women as failures of feminism is just more windmill-fighting. Feminism won women the right to be single, not the desire to do so.

Maureen needs to take a cue from a wealthy man I know who works at a prominent NYC non-profit: when he divorced his second wife, he knew he didn't want to spend the rest of his life alone, and he knew there weren't too many places he could meet someone. So he took out a full-page ad in a big city newspaper describing what he was looking for, and asking people to send descriptions and photos. He got a flood of responses, and met his third wife, who he married almost instantly. They're still married today, after several years together.

During this process, he didn't ask if his need for a wife made him "less of a man". He didn't wonder if society pressured him into wanting a relationship. He certainly didn't wail about women taking advantage of successful men, even though his second wife had clearly married him for his money and then cheated on him. The consistent whining to the tune of "what's the matter with men?" doesn't get anybody a date. It just gets you a cat.

I'll admit, when I was single for way too long, I wondered if maybe all of the lesbian world was to blame. Maybe there were no lesbians out there for me. Maybe lesbians were all too unattractive, or too crazy. Maybe the bisexuals would all go back to men in the end. If I had been an op-ed columnist, I most certainly would've publicly railed against all the women who didn't love me, just as Dowd does in her book. But in the end, the truth was, I just wasn't lucky. I didn't meet anybody because I just didn't. Sometimes it happens, and sometimes it doesn't. Control freaks like me and Maureen Dowd like to find the root cause so we can snap it in the neck and triumphantly dance over its dead body, but in this case, the dead body is your own. Energy expended on blaming society or culture is just another time-waster. Better to hop on an internet dating site and describe your love for long walks on the beach and high-end sushi.

When I started dating Alexis and she was (mostly unknowingly) playing by the "rules" that Dowd refers to with disdain in her book, I didn't think to myself "Good, when she plays hard to get I feel like more of a man." The reality was that our personalities meshed well, and her natural reactions subtly cued all of of my natural reactions in a complementary way. When she looked in her little calendar after an evening of hot and heavy action and slowly, casually wondered at the fact that she was busy for the next 3 weeks, even though she was unemployed, I thought "Ooh, I want that even more now!" And we played the little courtship dance in our own way, unencumbered by any self-help books that told us how proverbial men and women should act, since we were both women and therefore theoretically acted the same (ha!). It was my personality to give and her personality to withhold, so it worked. Both personality traits show up in both men AND women, so trying to categorize and predict outcomes in relationships through gender stereotyping is just a way to sell books, it's not a way to get married.

Unfortunately, there are many more people who read Maureen Dowd than people who read Fascinating Mary, so it looks like we'll be subjected to all this nonsense for a long, long time.

Leavin on a jet plane

2005-11-03T15:04:00.000-05:00

I'm off to California on business, folks, so entertain yourselves with the archives, and visit Chuck's brand spanking new blog at the following address:

http://bethoughtafool.blogspot.com/

which he swears he will post to soon, and this plug will hopefully be even more pressure to do so...

As long as we're tackling Big Issues...

2005-11-02T08:01:00.000-05:00

Gotta love the back and forth between Chuck and Alexis on the previous post regarding spousal notification and abortion! Now why don't the rest of you readers lift your hands off your wrist rests and get tapping?

Here's my big issue for the day, which is something I go back and forth about all the time: the death penalty. Believe it or not, I got to thinking about it this morning not as a result of a New Yorker or Washington Post article....I was thinking about it in relation to Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Like many kids my age, one of my favorite shows growing up was He-Man. Whenever He-Man had the opportunity to off the evil Skeletor, he instead saved Skeletor from peril and claimed "I'm not like you Skeletor. I value all life." I guess I was a cynical kid, because I thought that was crazy. Skeletor would always go out afterward and once again, try to destroy the universe. It seemed to me that if He-Man really cared about life, he would get rid of someone who was always trying to destroy it.

I got to thinking about this again as I listened to the soundtrack to the Buffy Musical episode (Spoiler alert, for anyone who hasn't watched Seasons 6 and 7...) The musical episode signals the official breakup of Willow and Tara, TV's best lesbian couple ever, and I still get teary on the subway when I hear Tara singing "Wish I could stay..." They eventually get back together, but almost immediately after their hot and bothered reconciliation, Tara is accidentally shot by the slimy nerd Warren. Willow goes ballistic, kills Warren in retribution, and almost destroys the universe, supposedly because she gets so filled with darkness after killing Warren that she can't control herself anymore.

Hence, the classic "You become evil when you sink to the level of evil" thing, the same thing I thought was stupid in He-Man when I was 8.

Now here' s why it got me thinking about the death penalty. Like most people I know, I don't believe in the death penalty as we know it because I think our legal system just can't handle doling it out. It's expensive and inefficient, and it isn't administered fairly. But that's a cop-out position from a moral standpoint, because it reveals nothing of how I really feel about the concept of the death penalty. As far as concepts go, I think there are some crimes for which death is an appropriate penalty.

After seeing the Warren death episode, I discussed it with a couple of other Buffy watchers (people who had seen it years before I did, because I came so late to the party), and I was surprised that I was the only person who really ENJOYED seeing Warren get toasted. I thought he deserved it. He didn't really have any redeeming qualities whatsoever, and the imaginary Buffy world was better off without him. I thought Willow's character could've done it, been a little haunted, but shouldn't have gone "dark" in the heavy-handed way the show wrote it. This prompted a discussion between Alexis and I over who I wouldn't mind seeing toasted in real life - like, for instance, pathological child molestors. Would I feel bad about being responsible for the death of a pathological child molestors? I can't be sure, but I sincerely doubt it.

So I'm wondering how many other folks out there feel this way about the death penalty - that in practice, it currently doesn't work, but in theory, it's just fine.

There is of course the issue of rehabilitation but isn't the truly rehabilitated perpetrator of a heinous crime the rare exception? And just because someone says sorry and does some good, does that mean they deserve to breathe the air and see the sun, when they've stolen someone else's chance to do so? (Here's where Jesus comes in for some folks...)

For the purposes of this discussion, ignore the question of who decides. In fact, imagine you are the one who gets to decide.

(Note that I've purposely focused on mostly fictional characters, because I'm interested in people's personal philosophy, gut feelings, personal opinions, not political arguments)

The legal perspective on spousal notification

2005-11-01T08:31:00.000-05:00

Chuck provided an interesting comment to a previous post concerning spousal notification requirements for women seeking abortions. He asserts that the failure to require spousal notification is a tacit admission that men have no responsibility toward their children. I will happily reply:

According to standards described by Justice O’Connor, restrictions on abortion cannot represent an “undue burden” on the woman. There are so many instances in which spousal notification could represent an undue burden that thus far, courts have struck down spousal notification laws.

Whether or not you agree with the undue burden standard, there are other arguments against spousal notification that are more morally clear. It’s important to understand the original ethos of the abortion rights movement (here I won’t use the cleansed “choice” movement terminology) – it is unacceptable for even one more woman to die because of anti-abortion laws. That’s a bright line rule, as we lawyers say. Spousal notification laws have the potential to lead to death from husbands who may kill their spouses rather than allow them to abort their children. Whether or not you think that kind of anger over such a thing is justified is irrelevant – the fact is, no person either male or female has the right to commandeer the body of another person for a period of nine months, creating in them a legal disability, an increased risk of serious health problems, and an inability to work. Acknowledging that one person has that kind of power over another, even within the context of the legal relationship of marriage, creates a form of legal bodily slavery that is patently unconstitutional.

The day science figures out how to create out-of-body pods in which to gestate offspring is the day spousal notification laws will become constitutional.

The politics of women's health

2005-11-01T08:26:00.000-05:00

An article on obstacles to the upcoming administration of a new cervical cancer vaccine among young girls, sent by Beth. Conservatives are concerned that administering the vaccine to young girls is tantamount to admitting they will have pre-marital sex.

My comments:

There are all sorts of misconceptions and assumptions about teen sex in this country, and they come from every corner of the political spectrum, not just from conservatives or the religious right. The point of truly effective public health is to be blind to those misconceptions and assumptions and do what is most efficient to stop the spread of disease. That is why it is so dangerous to not only have religious right advocates involved in public health decision-making, but also to have unrestricted market forces dictating the order of treatment.

It is clear that we have not come very far as a civilization when pharmaceutical companies dictate when and how millions of people will die, while spending incalculable resources developing drugs for diseases that already have multiple drug treatments. It's no wonder we have gotten to a point where we sit and debate whether teens deserve to die from cancer if they engage in pre-marital sex (regardless of the real financial cost of treating cervical cancer). We don't make decisions based on logic, we make decisions based on fear and incorrect information. We've elected officials who mirror our fears and our lack of knowledge. The amazing thing is that we still expect them to be better somehow, to anticipate the levee break when we just want more casinos and massage parlors. I think this is an approximation of the fall of Rome, eh?

Scalito

2005-10-31T09:31:00.000-05:00

Back in July before Roberts was nominated, in response to a debate among Alexis' friends regarding the nomination, I included a summary of Sam Alito from AP, which I will reprint here:

Sam Alito: (From AP): Dubbed "Scalito" or"Scalia-lite" by some lawyers because his judicial philosophy invites comparisons to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Alito, 55, has been a strongconservative voice in his 15 years on thePhiladelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals,which is considered to be among the most liberal.

On one hot-button issue, Alito was a lone dissenter ina case striking down a Pennsylvania law requiring women seeking abortions to inform their husbands. Alito argued that the Pennsylvania legislature "could have rationally believed" that married women might seek abortions because of perceived problems such as finances or a husband's prior opposition that could be rectified if the couple talked before an abortion. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which struck down the spousal notification requirement andreaffirmed the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

I think there's no question that this nomination will bring about a bitter fight among conservatives and liberals at a time when the Bush administration can ill afford to be fighting. There were better ways to appease the conservative base while keeping Dems happy. Bush could've at least nominated a conservative woman and hid behind the "dems hate women" defense. This move illustrates a real downturn from the savvy Roberts pick.

Dear Fascinating Mary 10.28.05

2005-10-28T17:02:00.000-04:00

Dear Fascinating Mary,

I have noticed recently that there are some days when you do not post to your blog. On those days I feel restless and irritable. For instance, on Columbus Day when you didn't post, I suffered a mysterious rash. I thought you would post every day, but now I feel lost and abandoned. I read other blogs, but then I feel shame. Please help me.

Signed,
Missing You

Dear Missing You,

I understand how hard it can be to go for a day without a new Fascinating Mary blog post. Fascinating Mary's readers crave her sage wit and astute commentary. But you must understand, although it is hard to believe, Fascinating Mary does not get paid for writing in her blog. In fact, her blog is an entirely altruistic service. And Fascinating Mary gets very sad when she notes that few of her admitted readers comment in a given week - it makes her feel just as lonely as her readers must feel when they see days go by without a post...

But rest assured, there will always be a Fascinating Mary. This is not a promise like the one from the Musical "Cats", which clearly was not "Now and Forever". There may be times when Fascinating Mary is out sick for a day, or in client meetings a day or two in a row, but there will always be a new post whenever possible. And Fascinating Mary would appreciate it if her readers would continue to check and comment as often as possible, and not give up simply because October and November are her busiest months at her other, less important job.

As for your rash, Fascinating Mary encourages you to review your sexual history and perhaps visit a professional. There are some things for which even Fascinating Mary cannot take responsibility.

Love,

Fascinating Mary

Can you pick out the activist judge in this scenario?

2005-10-28T16:52:00.000-04:00

Very interesting article in the New Yorker on Justice Breyer's attitude toward decision-making. What caught my eye was the stat in the excerpt below on the number of times Breyer struck down laws passed by congress versus the number of times Thomas has struck down such laws. Not surprisingly, the "activist" judge is Thomas. Conservatives are the ones who don't trust the will of the people or those elected by the people...

“The need to make room for democratic decision-making argues for judicial modesty in constitutional decision-making, a form of judicial restraint,” he writes. Neal Katyal, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, who clerked for Breyer in the mid-nineties, says, “Every single day you spend with him, you hear about how the courts should trust the political branches. He trusts Congress a lot more than the left did in the sixties and seventies, and a lot more than the right does today.” Indeed, according to an analysis by Paul Gewirtz, a professor at Yale Law School, and his student Chad Golder, of Supreme Court decisions between 1994 and 2005 addressing the constitutionality of sixty-four congressional provisions, Breyer voted to strike down laws twenty-eight per cent of the time—less often than any other Justice. Clarence Thomas voted to overrule Congress sixty-six per cent of the time, more than any other Justice.

Breyer’s accommodating attitude toward Congress represents a departure from liberal judicial tradition. “William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall had a vision of the Constitution as having these big ideals of equality and liberty which would require renovation of many social practices, so that they would require the criminal-justice system, or welfare, or education all be changed in significant ways to conform to their aspirations,” Cass Sunstein, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School and an admirer of Breyer’s work, says. “You can’t see any of that in Breyer. There is nothing in Breyer to show that he thinks there are many areas where the Constitution is properly used to renovate American society, no indication that he wants to move society or constitutional law in novel directions. Today, it’s the conservatives who want to use the law to make big changes in American society.”

Down with Miers! Long Live Miers!

2005-10-27T08:42:00.000-04:00

Ok, color me confused. When Harriet Miers was nominated, I got e-mails from all the lefty organizations telling me how evil she was, that she would eat my children and poo on the constitution, etc. Now that the nomination has been withdrawn, the same organizations are e-mailing me to let me know that a great injustice has been done, that Bush has capitulated to the right wing by allowing this to happen, and that the treatment of Miers was overly harsh because she was a woman...

I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense for the Dems to characterize this withdrawal as a great victory? "The incompetent Miers is withdrawn from consideration and a weak Bush administration is on the run". But no, the Dems are once again playing the victim and painting this as a right-wing victory. Who are we kidding? The fact that this weird born-again Christian nutjob isn't making it onto the supreme court is cause for us all to celebrate, not sit around with our left-wing hands up our asses and moan over the rather dubious concept that she had to back down because she has a vagina.

Raise a glass tonight over the success of left-wing ideology, since the democrats don't have sense enough to see a win when it's hitting them in the face.

Fun with Porn

2005-10-25T08:46:00.000-04:00

I’ve always been interested in pornography. I don’t necessarily mean that in the “I love to watch it/view it” way, but in the “what role does pornography play in society” way. As far as major unmentionable, unspeakable events and experiences go, sex is only rivaled by death. I don’t know who originally said it, but the first time I remember hearing the phrase “sex and death are the only things worth writing about” it was attributed to Erica Jong. (My 10th grade English teacher told me she loved “Fear of Flying”. Imagine my disappointment when I read it.)

On a recent trip to Toys in Babeland, I purchased Jenna Jameson’s autobiography “How to Make Love Like a Porn Star: A Cautionary Tale”. I think for the sake of irony, I will shelve it next to my feminist legal theory books when I’m done with it. It’s a well-designed package – stylized 50’s cover, lots of pictures, dramatic beginnings, unadorned, unsentimental prose. I nearly had a heart attack when I opened to one of the first pages and saw a picture of little Jenna in a bonnet sitting in a car seat, and saw the date – 1975. The year I was born. Jenna Jameson is retired, and we’re almost the same age. For some reason this hit me harder than Rimbaud or Jay Mcinerney. All this struggle, the years in college and grad school, and all along I could’ve just been lying down…

Like a lot of people, I have been unable to figure out where I stand in the sliding scale of reactions to porn. Sometimes it can be enjoyable. Other times I think it’s the scourge of the earth. From a statistical standpoint, it seems to have very little to do with the rate of reported rapes – in Japan the porn is way sicker than the porn we have here, but our rate of reported rape is 20 times higher… but I do find Catherine MacKinnon’s anti-porn treatises very convincing. It seems that the prevailing reaction to it in most circles I travel in is supreme ambivalence. The political ramifications of porn have taken the place of the visceral moral reactions, so that no one knows what they want from it or how they feel about it.

Even if we decided that porn was indeed a bad influence on society, how would we define porn? When I was 15, the Victoria’s Secret catalog was porn. Obviously my frame of reference has changed, but I doubt I would “know it when I see it”, the infamous Supreme Court standard for indecency courtesy of Justice Potter. I thought the Playboy catalog I inexplicably received in the mail a few weeks ago looked a heck of a lot like porn. I gasped when I pulled it out of my mail slot. But that catalog came unwrapped, unlike my Advocate magazine, with a cover of Melissa Etheridge talking about fighting cancer. So - mostly naked Playboy bunnies – decent – Fully-clothed lesbian with cancer – indecent. It’s a little confusing.

My most amusing recent encounter with porn involved my new computer. I ordered it from Dell, the evil empire, and the first thing I did when I got it was install iTunes. When you install iTunes for the first time, it browses your hard drive for music and miscellaneous media files. Imagine my surprise when it found two pre-installed porn videos on my hard drive.

Now as I’ve said, I do watch porn, so it wasn’t as if it was something I’d never seen (standard Hot Latinas and Boy-on-Boy action). But I was pretty pissed that either I had gotten somebody’s old hard drive, or more likely, some Dell software tech geek loaded this crap onto my computer as a practical joke. What if I had been a school, or a business? Or worse yet, what if he deliberately checked to be sure I was a chick and then loaded this crap on? So I wrote a letter asking them to investigate, and here’s what I got back:

Dear Ms. Clark,

Thank you for contacting Dell Online Customer Care. I understand your concern that you have found pornographic movies on your new Inspiron 6000.

Ms. Clark, please let me assure you that your Inspiron 6000 is a brand new laptop and not a refurbished one. Also, the hard-drive is brand new. Further, we at Dell follow all the compliance issues and all Dell laptops are installed with the only the proprietary softwares. Therefore, please be assured that pornographic material in your system has not been shipped from Dell.

However, I have forwarded this issue to our Compliance department and they will research in this matter.

Also, as a customer care courtesy and in appreciation of you being our valued customer, I offer you a coupon worth $50, which you are welcome to use in your future online purchase through www.Dell.com (Home Section).

I hope you will be pleased with this offer and send me the confirmation at it's earliest. Upon receiving confirmation, I will provide you the coupon code. If you have any other difficulty or concern, please get back to me, I will be more than happy to assist you. You are a Dell valued customer and your satisfaction is important to me. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to assist you. Your case number for this interaction is 115251554. Please keep this number for your records; it will help us keep track of this issue so we can better assist you if you have any further questions or concerns about your issue.

If you have any further questions or concerns, please visit the following website to contact us at: www.DellCustomerCare.com Thank you again for contacting Dell Online Customer Care.

Prakash

You can’t make this stuff up. They’re trying to buy me off for $50, which I can spend in the "Home" section. Obviously, the concern over porn at Dell is not to the level that their born-again Christian right-wing crazy president would probably like it to be.

It’s a shame Dell doesn’t sell porn, or I might take the $50 and buy some. That would be even more ironic than the Jenna Jameson/Catherine Mackinnon shelving thing.

Monday morning funnies...

2005-10-24T08:29:00.000-04:00

"Top Ten Reasons I Don't Date Republicans" by Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA)
10. The only time they believe in fiscal restraint is when the dinner bill comes.
9. His idea of getting to second base is fondling my stock portfolio.
8. He thinks that Emily's List is a call girl service.
7. His idea of oral stimulation is getting me to recite the Contract with America.
6. He thinks that white pantyhose and pearls are sexy--and you should see what he wants me to wear.
5. Because when Republicans say that they want to create opportunities for minorities, that means they want to date me and [her sister] Loretta.
4. Despite all the hype, I still can't find his weapon of mass destruction.
3. His pending prison term for political corruption is just another excuse for him to be emotionally unavailable.
2. Republicans are only interested in screwing the poor.
1. Because they make love like they make war: they lie to get in and don't have a plan for what to do once they get there.

North Country

2005-10-20T17:31:00.000-04:00

What I find interesting when I read movie reviews is the almost universal disdain for formula. This disdain always stems from the idea that formula is dishonest; people's lives are not formulaic, so by sticking to formula, movies are not reflecting the real world.

There are a couple of problems with this. The first is that most people do have rather formulaic lives. Formula exists because of its capacity to evoke empathy and personal recognition. It sells because people identify with it. The second problem is that when life deviates from the formula and produces something new and more "real", it is also usually more boring, depressing, or just plain despicable. It is not the type of thing you want to watch a movie about.

So this is my problem with other critical reactions to North Country. The movie is a fictionalized account of the first sexual harassment class action, based loosely on a book about the case. The case didn't have a particularly happy ending - it dragged on for 12 years, the women involved don't speak now, and no one knows how much money they got, but it probably wasn't much. For this reason, the movie deliberately ends near the beginning of the case, leaving the rest of the gory details for a quick screen shot at the end.

One of the writers of the book spoke to our private screening audience prior to the showing, and commented that the book had been rejected by 30 studios before the screenwriter for North Country came up with this formula. She also commented that she liked the movie, and that it managed replicate the feeling that Northern Minnesota was a character unto itself, which is how she felt about it when she visited there to do research.

So far, even the positive reviewers have said that the movie manages to somehow triumph over its own formulaic aspects. What I'm seeing is a massive gender bias that comes out when they discuss the formula... one tough girl who turns out to have a heart of gold, one shocking twist, one strong character felled tragically by disease, a couple of really good guys to juxtapose with the really bad guys... the really offensive reviewers compare the movie to something you'd see on Lifetime, or to a soap opera.

What I find ridiculous is that it doesn't occur to them that people actually do live like this. In my life I've seen shocking plot twists, really bad people, really good people, tough people with hearts of gold, and strong people who end up dying of terrible things... so is my whole life formulaic?

The only thing that makes one person's life more interesting than another's is not the events that occur in that life, but the way in which we talk about them to each other, the things we do to respond. In that sense, North Country is about things that happen to all of us, and the reactions of good people we can identify with. It's a movie worth seeing and worth talking about.

I'd write more, but I have to go back to my formulaic job.

Exclusive!

2005-10-20T08:08:00.000-04:00

Yes, it's been a long time since I've posted... the Man's got me beat down, that's for sure. But I swear that before the end of today I will post a movie review - an EXCLUSIVE movie review of North Country, being released tomorrow, because I went to the only PRIVATE SCREENING in the country for it, and dammit, I'm going to take advantage of my random privilege.

So stay tuned...

iProduct - You'll love it!

2005-10-14T14:26:00.000-04:00

As one of the mindless sheep who ordered the new video ipod the day it was announced, I really appreciated this parody ad proclaiming the virtues of the undetermined iProduct.

Comments on George Will article

2005-10-14T14:14:00.000-04:00

Here's an interesting point/counter-point between Chuck Mayer and I regarding a George Will article from Newsweek.

My response:

It's very nice that some conservatives are "coming out" as fiscal conservatives and denouncing the Bush Administration for their tax-cut-and-spend philosophy (oh how I wish the dems would start using that term), but I am annoyed that many conservatives are pretending they didn't see this coming when they supported Bush in the first place. Like Harriet Miers, Bush had no reliable political history to illustrate his claims to conservatism. In fact, he made most of his personal money off the results of government subsidies for his beloved baseball stadium. Bush was never a fiscal conservative.

But I refuse to have automatic respect for Will just because he happens to have the brains to be intellectually consistent. It appears we've gotten to the point where we are thankful if something a conservative says makes any sense at all. I appreciate the adherence to the conservative philosophy of spending cuts, even in the face of a leader who wouldn't know a spending cut if it hit him in the head, but that doesn't mean I agree with the philosophy, or even respect it.

Regardless of the garbage that has been streaming out of the media (which is neither liberal nor conservative - it's just money-obsessed), the disaster in New Orleans actually was partially the result of significant spending cuts on vital infrastructure. I know it's hard for conservatives to admit, but there are actually some things the federal and/or state government needs to spend money on - like roads, elementary schools, public health, police, firefighters, public infrastructure - and when you continually underfund those areas, you end up with big problems, and big pictures on the news that make us look like a third world country. What very few people are discussing is the fact that BEFORE the flood, those poor areas were already disasters. To get reporters to show up, just add water. (Rep. Richard Baker from LA was overheard telling lobbyists "We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn't do it, but God did.")

Is there pork? Yes, but too often an entire essential spending measure is thrown out for the bits of pork it contains. Unfortunately, most conservatives focus so hard on decreasing government "until it can be drowned in the bathtub" that their message loses all practical use. I'd love to vote for a conservative who wants to take away money from the ridiculous, useless "No child left behind" act - but give me some other solutions. Shifting money to the private sector just leaves poor, underprivileged kids without an education, increasing the population below the poverty line, decreasing the overall tax base and increasing crime.

Voters don't want warm and cuddly from either side. Conservatives seem to think that the hearts of liberals bleed because we've got some liberal altruistic guilt complex. I'm liberal not because I'm "warm and cuddly", but because I know the historically-proven danger of creating and maintaining deep class divisions like the ones we have now. If you don't want people shooting up your neighborhood or overthrowing your government, you better figure out some idea besides deeper spending cuts. One day, the chickens are coming home to roost.

Chuck's response to me:

I didn't send it out as a referendum on conservatism, simply a good look at the failings of this administration with respect to the traditional tenets of a conservative philosophy. The disaster in NO is not the product of either political party. During the huge boom in the 90's, states were getting ridiculous money. The levees were not a recent development. Local, state, and federal governments all conspired across the political spectrum to fail. I don't say that to blame the Dems. Or alleviate the utter failure of the Republican majority government now. Just to illustrate the larger issue of government funding.

As for conservatives not wanting to spend money on public services, I don't find that a very fair statement. The real dime's difference between the parties on these issues comes in where that line is drawn. Be it abortion (when does life start?), to federal spending/taxation (what to fund...the money is not bottomless, and it's not theirs), to the military (how much is enough). It seems they have pushed each other all the way to the extremes in each philosophy: the Dems want to tax away and spend on every program, the Republicans want to do no programs and let the chips fall where they may. Neither is right, so where is the line? Good politicians seek that out, good journalists ask good questions and force them too. We are bereft of both these days.

People have different reasons for the beliefs they have; what drives me and my comments and my opinions is the frank and honest exchange of issues, and no one has taken the lead on that. I agree with Mary that conservatives can't camp out now and complain about Bush if they dropped the votes for him. I can't be a liberal because I know the historic outcome of that philosophy as well:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage." - Alexander Tyler

You can spin that whichever way you choose (for, or against, either current political party). I simply included it to show that I believe neither philosophy is "correct". The logical conclusion of liberal government leads to a failure to give the people personal responsibility, and the failure of the right is to allow the haves to run roughshod on the have-nots. Hence the brilliance of compromise between believers in each (and all) philosophies, of finding the narrow pathway between dangerous oceans. Which politician is willing to do that? Which party acknowledges their own failures? Human nature itself is bent against us finding the better path. We are too busy fighting in the weeds, refusing to understand another POV.

Mercy Killings in New Orleans?

2005-10-14T08:44:00.000-04:00

Interesting article from Knight-Ridder discussing investigations into allegations of mercy killings in NO hospitals in the aftermath of the storm. I wonder how the Bush administration will deal with this... if it turns out to be true, would it have been better to simply let people starve to death, or suffer without their medications? Ironic that Terri Shiavo had half of congress mobilized to keep her from starving to death.

Duty to Withhold Payment From Alleged Slayer

2005-10-14T08:21:00.000-04:00

Every once in awhile, the benefits law newsletters I get have a sweet headline like the one above that I feel I must share... what's great about this one is that the text and comment are just as interesting. Ever think to yourself - "Hey, if I'm killed by my spouse and my spouse gets discovered and indicted for my murder, my spouse definitely won't get any of my money!" Ha ha ha ha. You should know things are more complicated than that...

Check to be sure your retirement plan or state has a "slayer" provision. That is, if you actually have a retirement plan... as Catbert once said, eliminating employee life insurance is actually a benefit, since it takes away the incentive to kill the employee...

(By the way, I actually got this question in 2003 from a client with a murdered participant.)

FIDUCIARY DUTY TO WITHHOLD PAYMENT FROM DESIGNATED BENEFICIARY WHO WAS
INDICTED FOR PARTICIPANT'S MURDER
[Atwater v. Nortel Networks, Inc., No. 1:04CV00503 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 6,
2005)] For a copy:
http://www.ncmd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Sep05/04cv503op.pdf
Shortly after the participant's death, her husband (who was the
designated beneficiary under her employer-sponsored pension plans) was
indicted for her murder. Following the indictment, the attorney for the
participant's estate contacted the plans about the benefits. The plans'
sponsor determined that in the absence of a murder conviction, the
husband was the proper beneficiary and made full lump-sum distributions
to the husband. Nearly two years later the husband was convicted of the
participant's murder and the estate filed a claim for the benefits. The
claim was denied and the estate sued.
Ruling on the estate's motion for summary judgment (i.e., judgment
without trial), the court held that the plan benefits should have been
paid to the participant's estate unless the estate had made an
intentional and unequivocal waiver of the benefits or the estate was
otherwise barred from making a claim for benefits (known as estoppel).
The court ordered a trial on the waiver and estoppel issues, but
otherwise ruled in favor of the estate. Noting that the law is not
settled on whether state slayer statutes survive ERISA preemption or
whether federal common law creates a slayer rule that "no person should
be permitted to profit from his own wrong," the court found that, under
either theory, the husband would have been barred from receiving the
plan benefits once he was convicted. The court then found that the
plans' sponsor had a fiduciary duty to withhold payment until the
criminal trial had concluded because the sponsor knew of the indictment
and it was foreseeable that the husband could be convicted. Finally,
the court found that the denial of the estate's benefit claim was
improper because it was unreasonable to pay the benefits to the alleged
slayer of the participant without waiting for the outcome of the murder
trial and without filing an interpleader action to obtain a judicial
determination of the proper beneficiary.
EBIA Comment: The court's opinion is a good discussion of the fiduciary
duty to act prudently in determining the legitimate beneficiary when
the named beneficiary is under a criminal indictment and to "initiate
an interpleader action if the proper beneficiary is unknown." This case
addressed a state slayer statute and federal common law--but note that
some plans by their terms include a "slayer" provision that denies
benefits to a beneficiary convicted of, or under indictment for, the
participant's death. For more information, see EBIA's 401(k) Plans
manual at Section X.C.1 ("Who Gets the Participant's Money?"); see also
EBIA's ERISA Compliance manual at Sections IX.L.1 ("Situations Where
Competing Beneficiary Claims Arise") and XXXIX.H.20 ("State Slayer
Statutes").
Contributing Editors: EBIA Staff.

swamped

2005-10-12T14:00:00.000-04:00

Hello loyal readers - I've been in back-t0-back meetings and have barely had time to get undressed from work before falling into bed, which explains my unfortunate absence from posting.

I'm still swamped with no end in sight... so my advice for today if you're looking for my trademark insight, is to go read wonkette instead, which has a great take on a strange thing Bush wrote once to Miers in a greeting card ("No more public scatology") What???

Dear Fascinating Mary 10.07.2005

2005-10-07T17:03:00.000-04:00

Dear Fascinating Mary,

I recently received a phone message from someone called, let's say, Yaz. Because that's her real name. Yaz is somebody I went on three dates with four years ago, and then never saw again. This was fine with me: she was kind of fun and interesting, but we never sparked, and that was that. I almost immediately met someone else, and we've been together for three-and-a-half years. But Yaz found my business card in a drawer after four years, looked me up on the internet, and wants to get in touch. There's presumably a horrible break-up story in there somewhere.

So here is my question: should I call her back? And if so, what is the best way to introduce the subject of my girlfriend into the conversation? I am leaning towards, "Hi, Yaz, I have a girlfriend now. Play any good D&D games lately??"
Sincerely,
Involved

Dear Involved,

Since you indicate that you only went out with Yaz 3 times, and since most of my readers don't sleep with their dates by the third date (unlike Fascinating Mary, who likes to get her milk without buying the cow) Yaz does not even qualify as an "ex". This means I cannot revert to my usual advice of staying the hell away from exes, and it makes your situation a tad more complex.

So Fascinating Mary immediately wonders: Why would you call her back? Is it sheer politeness? In that case, would you call anyone back that happened to call you? For instance, if an automated voice left you a message saying "You may have won a 3-night 4-day trip to Rwanda!" do you immediately call the 800 number left at the end of the message? Fascinating Mary thinks you probably wouldn't call that 800 number.

Perhaps, like Fascinating Mary, you are curious. Have you been on her mind all these years? Was she put into witness protection immediately following the third date, leaving her unable to contact you, pining for you? Did she end up dating only men that look and act like you since then?

Once you find these things out, you will be left to wonder: um, what now? So what if she liked you, or still likes you? So what indeed.

Really, Fascinating Mary can think of only two reasons to call her back:
1) To make your current sweetheart jealous. This is a perfectly acceptable and often used reason to contact former dating persons. In this case, be sure to mention Yaz frequently to your current girlfriend, and mention that Yaz was crazy about you. Explain that she sounded very unhappy in her voicemail, and you would feel bad if you didn't meet up with her. (This should inject some renewed vigor into your relationship. If you've always been wanting one, now is the time to buy a swing for the bedroom.)

2) To network. Perhaps Yaz has some business opportunities for you. This can be easily ferreted out during a quick cup of coffee or tea. There's nothing like the feeling of making money off an ex.

Finally, if you do choose to call her back, it's very easy to slip your current girlfriend in: when she asks what you're doing, where you've living, you say "I live with my girlfriend." Unless a man is gay, that only means one thing.

Alternatively, you could fail to mention your girlfriend entirely. If you do this, make sure your girlfriend is eavesdropping. That way you are sure to get the swing.

Love,
Fascinating Mary

Reflections on Public Transportation

2005-10-07T07:46:00.000-04:00

As anyone forced to take public transport in NYC is undoubtedly aware, we have been threatened again. There were armed state troopers waiting in front of the PATH station today handing out yellow cards with "Security Reminder" printed on them, including the toll-free number to call if you need to report "suspicious activity or unattended packages". A portion of Penn Station was closed for several hours this morning during rush hour due to a discovery of an unattended "suspicious green liquid" in a bottle. (People, please stop leaving your mountain dew lying around...)

The yellow card also describes in detail the measures that NJ transit has taken in response to the threats: increased number of uniformed patrolman, increased number of plainclothes officers, vehicular inspection points, K-9 bomb detecting teams (on loan from the NJ police), helicopter patrols, and most importantly they "worked and continue to work with the Department of Homeland Security and the NY Office of Counter Terrorism to ensure your safety". You remember the Dept of Homeland Security, right? They brought us the Hurricane Katrina Cleanup. Definitely in good hands.

A few weeks ago AM New York ran a story on the adequacy of the PA system in major NY subway stations. Apparently, as many as 40% of NY subway stations have no PA system to announce emergencies and evacuations to passengers stuck on platforms. Authorities in charge of the upgrades estimate that they won't be completed until 2009, observing that "Some people want it done faster, but this is just the way it is."

I'm reminded of the morning of September 11, 2001, looking out the window of my PATH train, which arrived at the WTC a minute or two before the second plane hit. As a result of the uncanny thoughtfulness of a single long-term PATH dispatcher who I would read about later in a New York Post article, my train was instructed not to open its doors. We rode away and I watched one lone, confused commuter on the empty platform recede from view. I wonder if she was one of the people who thinks PA systems are important to our security...

Given my overwhelming confidence in the powers-that-be, I was somewhat alarmed by the picture I saw in AM New York this morning of Mike Bloomberg riding the subway on the same day that the alerts were announced. All I could think of was "What if he gets blown up? Who will help us if we have no mayor? FEMA???" This picture, designed to comfort people, freaked me out entirely.

So today, instead of going up to meet Alexis on the Upper West Side, I'm going home to comparatively safe Rutherford, New Jersey (where a drive-by shooting occurred recently a few doors down from my friends Dave and Elisabeth - go figure). And if my fear and apprehension means "the terrorists have won", so be it. I'm not going to become one more stone-cold dead reason Bush should be impeached.

Stupidity

2005-10-06T17:50:00.000-04:00

It was a typical Clark Family evening - my brother was visiting from college and we were sitting at my dining room table eating Entenmann's Dulce De Leche cake straight outta the box, me with my beer and him with his heinous low-carb hard lemonade, playing gin with dirty playing cards. We were very distracted by the playing cards. Every time I dealt a new hand, I watched him get more and more disgusted. (For those who don't know, my brother is gay too, so for him, playing cards with naked women on them are not as fun as most guys would find them to be.) I kept offering to play with the National Parks playing cards, but he insisted we keep playing with them. It was the first time he had ever played gin, and I doubt he will forget how to play now.

My brother described his experience working for the thinktank of a gay and lesbian non-profit, which wil remain nameless to protect the guilty. They have him filing stuff and doing other boring things, which aggravates him because he has worked for courthouses and he's also an EMT, so if he's going to be spending his precious free time doing stuff for free, he'd better at least be doing something new or important.

Anyway, he's sitting in his cubicle, and the head of something or other dept emerges from his office and tells everyone a "scoop" - that Harriet Miers answered a questionnaire sent to her by a GLBT group in Texas many years ago, and that her answers indicated she sort of supported gay rights, a little bit (turns out she doesn't, but at the time, this was the scoop). He said to me "This was on the National Review Online for five hours before he came out and told everyone. They all said 'Great job!', as if he discovered something. I guess all I have to do to become a director at a major non-profit think tank is read other people's blogs."

Which is my topic for today, at this late hour - stupidity. Why is there so much of it? When I was a kid, I imagined that when I grew up, there would be rewards for the intelligent people. So not true! Mostly, the world is run by intensely stupid people.

So dear readers, help support my point by sharing your stories of the stupid people you work with, or stupid people you have to deal with on a regular basis.

And don't forget to send your questions for the advice column tomorrow. Don't worry, I won't be nearly as mean this week. Well, that's not true, but it's not like you have to send REAL questions about yourself...

Beer Poem

2005-10-05T17:40:00.000-04:00

I really want to go home, so to comfort myself, I googled beer. I got the reassuring picture above, which I am sharing with my readers.

If you look up "beer poem" in google, one of the sites that comes up is poetry connection.net, which provides the following poem in response, completely unrelated to beer:

Your dog dies by Raymond Carver

it gets run over by a van.
you find it at the side of the road
and bury it. you feel bad about it.
you feel bad personally,
but you feel bad for your daughter
because it was her pet,
and she loved it so.
she used to croon to it
and let it sleep in her bed.
you write a poem about it.
you call it a poem for your daughter,
about the dog getting run over by a van
and how you looked after it,
took it out into the woods
and buried it deep, deep,
and that poem turns out so good
you're almost glad the little dog
was run over, or else you'd never
have written that good poem.
then you sit down to write
a poem about writing a poem
about the death of that dog,
but while you're writing you
hear a woman scream
your name, your first name,
both syllables,
and your heart stops.
after a minute, you continue writing.
she screams again.
you wonder how long this can go on.

The Joys of Intellectual Inconsistency

2005-10-05T08:30:00.000-04:00

The Supreme Court is taking on physician-assisted suicide, which the Bush Administration believes should be prohibited and regulated by federal law. This is in spite of the fact that the people of the state Oregon voted overwhelmingly to support it.

Abortion, however, should be left up to the states, and not federal law, even though conservatives also consider abortion a "right-to-life" issue. People should be allowed to vote on that one, unlike Assisted Suicide.

Marriage, however, should be regulated by the federal government, because... well, I haven't actually seen a plausible argument for that one. Something about preserving the historical concept of marriage. People should be allowed to vote on marriage laws too, unless the people vote something other than what the federal law allows, in which case the federal law pre-empts it...

States should be allowed to regulate businesses... except healthcare. The federal government regulates that. Sort of. Sometimes.

If anyone can figure out any sort of logical pattern here, let me know.

Harriet Miers, in short

2005-10-05T08:15:00.000-04:00

Click here for some perspective on Harriet...

Bigger government vs Smaller government

2005-10-04T17:24:00.000-04:00

I've been in non-stop meetings all day, so today I'm reaching back into the archives for something I wrote before the disastrous Kerry-Bush election about how liberals and conservatives define themselves. The traditional definition is that conservatives believe in smaller government and liberals believe in bigger government, but I think that is changing, especially now that conservatives control every branch. Another difference noted was that conservatives believe in incremental change (or no change at all), and liberals believe in sweeping changes. I address both of these assertions below. This is also a preview for tomorrow's post, so stay tuned...

It may be that conservatives in general are interested in preserving the status quo, but Republican party conservatives today don't seem interested in incremental change. The examples of Republicans attempting to tear down tradition are legion. Bush and his fellow conservatives are intent on tearing down a tax code that has been slowly evolving for a century. Social security should be radically changed, according to conservatives. The Endangered Species Act, a bi-partisan attempt to protect irrecoverable resources that the majority of Americans want to preserve, should be scrapped. State control of marriage law, a principle we've abided by for centuries, should be eliminated. Protection of small businesses from monopolies, around since the great Republican president Teddy Roosevelt, should be quickly dismantled. Objective evaluation of tort cases by a jury of your peers should be replaced by federal caps on damages - essentially, the government should be able to tell you how
much your brain-damaged baby is worth.

The judiciary that conservatives have called "activist" is the same judiciary that made segregation illegal. You can't give the judiciary branch the right to create fair interpretations of the law without ending up with some decisions that conservatives might term "far-reaching." So whether or not you believe it is right to change laws to give people their civil rights slowly or quickly may define your politics, but then it often depends on what decision you're talking about. For example, a surprising number of conservatives believe that Brown vs Board of Education was a correct decision, in spite of how radical it was at the time.

The abortion example does get to the heart of an old-fashioned difference between conservatives and liberals - the federalists vs the anti-federalists. Conservatives have traditionally believed in states rights and small government, so Roe was viewed as a liberal federal intrusion on the natural progresssion of law in the states. It's interesting to note, however, that now that certain left-leaning laws have started to emerge in the states (such as pro-environment laws or laws regulating healthcare) conservatives suddenly eschew federalism and argue that states shouldn't have the right regulate. Conservatives argue that state healthcare regulation is pre-empted by federal ERISA law, and environmental laws are pre-empted by federal interstate commerce law.

So while the small government/big government or federalist/anti-federalist definition is tempting, it doesn't accurately describe the state of politics today. Whenever one group's prevailing view starts to win over another, the losing group starts championing state's rights (as progressives are starting to do now). It's no longer a game of keeping progressives from changing the age-old law of the land.

Another example is this idea of tort reform - some hospitals and doctors are starting to change the way they work for the better, by actually apologizing to patients for mistakes they make. One US hospital that did so saw a measurable decrease in the number of malpractice claims, and doctors said their relationship with patients significantly improved. So why do we need sweeping federal reform, increasing government size? Why not, as the conservative veiwpoint should lead us to believe, let this problem work itself out? Isn't this just a veiled attempt to limit the power of the judiciary, which is less beholden to the needs of corporations than other branches of government? How else do you explain conservatives endorsing more government regulation?

Bling

2005-10-03T14:48:00.000-04:00

For those of you into folk music, I have disappointing news:

Dar Williams' latest album is supremely mediocre.

I highly recommend diversifying your musical taste. What prompts this message?

I'm in the middle of listening to Kanye West's "Late Registration" for the first time. Yes, it was released August 30th, so I'm a little behind the times, but stop your playa-hatin'. I did manage to get the new Lil' Kim within days of its release.

L.R. is so good it makes me want to trade my entire Dar Williams collection in for some giant pants and some Canal St faux bling. (It must be faux, by the way, in recognition of West's brilliant "Diamonds are Forever" music video, which illustrates the horrific conditions under which our real bling is procured.)

All y'all can just thank the good lord that my girlfriend wouldn't let me leave me house with faux bling on.

The Asterisk

2005-10-03T08:07:00.000-04:00

I'm a little annoyed this morning.

I got my social security statement in the mail Friday, that document of your financial life which explains how your salary has progressed through the years, and how much money you would get from the gub'mint if you fell out of a tree and landed on your head. There is a line which explains how much social security your spouse would receive if you died. This is the benefit that someone might especially need if, for instance, they had stayed home and taken care of kids instead of accumulating their own SSA benefit. It's only fair that if you paid into a system for 40 years and died on the eve of collecting your benefit, your chosen life partner should receive a bit of the runoff.

That's the line that doesn't apply to me. I should write in and ask them to put an asterisk on it or something: *This benefit is only applicable to heterosexuals.
I guess if the SSA did that, people might get upset. It might be too "in your face".

Needless to say, if you're not falling in the heterosexual category, you'd better keep working, you'd better put your kids in day care, otherwise you could end up even more destitute than the schlub next door who barely manages to afford cat food with his SSA checks.

Since it's clear that the personal is political and vice versa, this brings me to today's great white hope, Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. After all, it's inevitable that the Supreme Court must eventually consider the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, the only federal law to ever regulate marriage, the same law that puts that invisible asterisk on my statement, even if I move to MA and get married at the P-Town city hall.

In National Review Online, David Frum noted, "She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met." That pretty much sums her up.

Between her vagina and her complete lack of a judicial record, she will sail through the fingers of congress faster than a greased pig at the county fair. The main compliment that's been afforded to her so far? Bill Frist says she "understands the importance of judicial restraint and the limited role of a judge to interpret the law."

I'm imagining my boss heaping me with such compliments: "Mary understands the importance of doing as little work as possible and not going above and beyond her duties. She believes in interpreting the client services contract to the letter, and not providing any additional services." Wow, would I get a fat bonus!

Meanwhile, Rudy Guiliani is mulling a presidential run. I'm sure the Democrats will find someone supremely uninspiring to run against him, or they'll simply give up and let Hillary Clinton run, so that the party can finally come crashing down and we can have a resurgence of some other party. I hear the Whigs are making a comeback. Hasn't everyone gotten pretty sick of our executive branch by now?

What all this means is that I have become resigned to that asterisk on my SSA statement. Here's my advice for today, even though today is not advice column day: Have lots of kids and make sure they feel obligated to take care of you in your old age, because at the rate we're going, even the heterosexuals among us will have little asterisks on their statement: *The system cannot take care of you. See Bush presidency for details.

An Advice Column For the Rest of Us

2005-09-30T07:35:00.000-04:00

Some friends and I were recently reflecting that the advice columns running in most national news outlets and magazines now are woefully inadequate to address the issues that face modern twenty and thirty-somethings. For example, a lot of newspapers are still running Ann Landers. Despite the sage wisdom she displayed when she was alive, she happens to be dead now, and the issues her readers wrote in about are getting a bit dated. Witness the first sentence of this question, highlighted today on one of the official Ann websites:

Dear Ann Landers: I have been married for 10 months and am still a virgin.

What? Do we even need to read the rest? Have sex. What other kind of advice could anyone possibly give here?

A new generation of advice columns focus on benign ethical dilemmas – gone are the days of emotional confessionals, readers sending tear-stained letters to their advice columnists thanking them for helping the reader to simply make it through the day. Now it’s all “Was I right to pay that ticket, even though it wasn’t really my fault that I forgot to remind my guest that I had alternate side of the street parking.” Yawn. There’s gotta be a happy medium.

Hence, the Friday Fascinating Mary post will be devoted to my new advice column. My credentials are as follows:

I have an advanced degree (sure, it’s in law, not psychology, but lawyers are way less messed up than shrinks anyway.)
I know a lot about beer.
I’ve slept with just enough men and women to give me perspective on that stuff, but not enough that you’re going to have to read some weird column about gerbils and watersports.
I make a lot of money for someone of my class and age, and in a capitalist economy, that gives one an inordinate amount of otherwise undeserved authority.

So here is the first installment of my ongoing advice column. The questions are based on situations both real and sorta real. Please send me your questions at philochs_76@yahoo.com.

Dear Fascinating Mary:

I recently went to a large party for a friend of mine. As is the custom among my friends, I brought a significant amount of beer with me to the party. I consumed only 4 of the beers I brought with me. When I left, the host offered to let me take some of the beer home. Was it acceptable to sleep with the host?
Signed,
Sore and groggy

Dear Sore and groggy,

It really isn’t appropriate to be an Indian-giver (Native-American Giver, for all you PC-types out there), so your big mistake here was bringing so much beer. Since you consumed four beers, it would’ve been appropriate for you to bring a 6-pack. Then your ratio of beer consumption to beer donation would’ve been 2:1. 2:1 is an appropriate beer consumption/donation ratio. The consumption/donation ratio you describe could be as much as 2:3 or more. Considering that fact, the host owed it to you to not only sleep with you, but to cook you breakfast in the morning.

Dear Fascinating Mary,

My ex-boyfriend recently got engaged, and he invited me to his combo bachelor/bachelorette party. Except for a brief 1-2 year period in which we slept together (thereby cheating on our girlfriends/boyfriends at the time), we have been “just friends” during the 5 years since we broke up. We’ve always gotten along pretty well and I really think he’s a good guy, except for when he used to cheat on me, lie to me, and tell me I was a snot. I haven’t met his fiancée yet because he hasn’t seen me in two years… in fact, he hasn’t seen me pretty much since they started going out.
Because of our relationship and past history, his brother contacted me and asked me if I could jump out of a cake at my ex’s bachelor party. How should I respond?
Signed,
Frosted Flake

Dear Frosted Flake,
If you would like to sleep with your ex one last time before he gets married, definitely agree to jump out of the cake. If however you’ve regained a sense of dignity during the time you’ve been broken up, then kindly suggest that his brother find an alternative ho. Remember the Fascinating Mary rules:
Things on the sale rack at Marshall’s are there for a reason
You broke up with your ex for a reason
Former strippers are good in bed

That’s all for today! Remember to send your questions. Thanks.

There's no crying in corporate america

2005-09-29T17:56:00.000-04:00

Shame on me for not posting all day. I was at an arduous client meeting.

Which brings me to the topic of Martha. Her new apprentice show is a strikingly accurate depiction of corporate politics. (I have to admit, I would love to work for Martha. I'm always attracted to powerful, evil women in a supervisory role.)

At one point, one of the female candidates said "I'm so disappointed with the way things turned out, I just wanna cry." Martha immediately turned her head toward the woman, thoroughly repulsed, and with a razor sharp smile said (I'm paraphrasing here) "You can't cry. You're a woman in business. If I saw you cry I'd fire you on the spot."

Awesome. Just awesome. There's no crying in baseball!

I admit, I've seen women cry in business situations, and like Martha, I also feel thoroughly repulsed, as if the woman was taking a dump in front of me. It's part self-protectiveness, the feeling that the woman represents all women when she acts like a pansy in front of important people, but I think it's also blatent, purposeful insensitivity. When I walk through the door at work, I have to turn off my fuzzy-wuzzy bear self, and I expect everyone else to do the same. It's just the way it works. If you shatter that sacred numbness, what's to keep from breaking down too?

We have a particularly difficult client, who shall remain nameless, who recently kicked one of my co-workers off her account and has driven the other one off through sheer meanness. This client said to me the following things, which I actually wrote down on post-it notes during a call with her because the comments were so outrageous:

Regarding another account manager: "I knew what that girl was about the moment I set my eyes on her."
Regarding her insurance company: "They think they can just dress trash up in a suit and send it to meet with me?"
Regarding her attempts at contacting her insurance company: "I just call and call and don't get anyone, so by the end I just have some secretary crying."

The guy in my office who landed the case can't stand the woman, and has very publicly expressed his dissatisfaction by yelling "I can't take her, I can't take her, f*cking bitch, I'm going to kill her." He's had these these screaming fits on a regular basis for four years. He was also just promoted to Director. He'd probably fit in perfectly at Martha's company.

What amuses me about these everyday work situations is that when my stay-at-home-most-of-her-life mom calls me up at work (because you know, it's not like I'm actually working when I'm there, in her mind), she asks me questions like "Do people who wear nicer suits get promoted more?' and "Doesn't wearing nice jewelry impress your clients?"

It's interesting to me that most people perceive corporate America as a civil place filled with professional people who do very little actual work, and just quietly maneuver around and stab people in the back. In fact, it's filled with very loud people who have no problem screaming at your face while they stab your soft tummy. I told my mother that they would rather I carry a machete than wear nice jewelry. She's thinking about going back to work, and I advised her to throw away "Dress for Success" and buy "Microsoft Word for Dummies", or simply prepare to be eaten alive.

My mother and Martha grew up in a world that told them both that their appearance would matter more than their knowledge. What a woefully dated view of corporations! Everybody knows what really matters: ability to aim the gun.

Watch the ultimate gunslinger take aim Wednesday nights at 8 on NBC!

Desperately Seeking...

2005-09-28T16:47:00.000-04:00

In a city of - how many people? 8 million? 9 million? - my company can't find anybody to hire. I am up to my ears in work. If you want to see more of Fascinating Mary, send help now. If you know anybody with a pulse and an IQ over 80 who is looking for a job, please e-mail me at philochs_76@yahoo.com. Otherwise, pretty soon all my blog posts will be this boring...

Les Miserables of Abu Ghraib

2005-09-28T07:53:00.000-04:00

Maybe it's because I don't watch TV news, but the story of the release of over 1,000 prisoners from the notorious Abu Ghraib prison seemed to get little notice in the U.S. Characterized as a goodwill gesture timed for Ramadan, the prisoners are supposedly "nonviolent" offenders.

Perhaps I am missing something, but I think this means one of two things:

1) The U.S. is detaining Iraqi citizens for minor offenses in a prison that does not meet the basic standards of human rights law, creating hundreds of modern day Jean Valjeans.

2) The U.S. has just released over 1,000 veritable criminals into an already unstable region.

Imagine if the U.S., to make up for the disproportionate number of black men in prison, released a thousand black men as a "gesture of good will". We would probably think of that as an admission of the injustice of our laws. But when it comes to Iraq, it seems nothing surprises us anymore.

A great place to see live music..

2005-09-27T17:26:00.000-04:00

For those of you in the NYC area, here's a great place to see live music that has inexplicably flown under my radar since it opened in 2003. Satalla bills itself as a "world music"venue, but they also have their fair share of American Singer-Songwriter types. I saw the legendary former Tannahill Weaver Dougie Maclean there last Wednesday for an amazing all-sing-along show. I can't say enough good things about the venue's setup - imagine a cheerier, more spacious Bottom Line (am I dating myself yet?) Plus, the food is decent and reasonably priced. Upcoming shows include a double bill of Amy Rigby/Jeffrey Foucault this Saturday, and Odetta on October 29th. Check it out.

Magnet Schools, Poor kids, and the Good Things About Segregation

2005-09-27T08:20:00.000-04:00

I picked up a copy of the Bergen Record on my way home yesterday, mostly to find the classified section and lament the housing prices (that's another story for another time...) When I flipped to the local section, there were two front page articles on my high school alma mater, the Englewood public schools. Actually, the articles were also about the Academies, a new magnet school housed in one of my high school buildings, which shares the campus with Dwight Morrow High School, my actual alma mater.

Englewood’s always been one of the Bergen Record’s favorite subjects; lots of contentious race and class issues, white flight, low test scores, etc. When I was there, the problems were crystal clear to me, my classmates, and most parents. We had more money per student than most school districts because our tax base was half-wealthy white people who didn’t attend the school, but our test scores were consistently the lowest in the county because we had a higher proportion of ESL and poor students than any other county. We had standout students who used every opportunity to excel – several of my classmates went on to become lawyers and doctors (click here to read a study one of my incredibly accomplished classmates co-authored) and miscellaneous professionals. We also had students who would later get kicked out of college for bringing guns or selling drugs. It was the full-range of human experience.

So the problem was that we had all kinds of students, not just the incredibly privileged kind that the rest of Bergen County had. But we didn’t do a “before and after” test. No one tested the level the students entered at and then tested how much they improved. There was no way to know how much of the academic difficulty was home and how much was the school. Of course, everyone blamed the school, because it was much easier to talk about changing the school than about changing the dynamic of race and class.

Needless to say, there have been an endless number of “fixes” levied since I graduated in 1993. The NAACP was fighting in court at the time to have the school “de-segregrated” by busing student back and forth between Tenafly and Englewood Cliffs. The school board, the only one in the county controlled by the (white) mayor and not the community, voted to “restructure” the curriculum, which meant taking away Ds and Fs and replacing them with “incompletes”, to accommodate the “different learning style” of black students. My class of 150 kids staged a walkout to protest the changes (probably similar to the walkout that happened just days ago.) The school went to hell in the proverbial handbasket.

Then the magnet schools came. Coincidentally, my sophomore year English teacher happened to be updating her address book recently, so we exchanged e-mails. She had this to say about her experience at the new magnet school, “The Academies”:

The program there has probably saved me. I had one of my worst teaching years right before the Academies came into Englewood -- all discipline, no teaching. All the teachers at DMHS were offered a chance to teach at the Academies, but I was the only one who signed on. Mr. Hurley and Ms. Axelrod were dragged into it, and Signorelli and David joined later. It's the kind of place that might have made a difference to a person like you -- a three day a week schedule for the core classes and electives like Yoga, Chinese, Forensic Science, Sociology, Astronomy, Microbiology, Environmental Science, Japanese, etc. -- any of which a student can
select.

Unsurprisingly, the story she tells is very different from the one being told in the Bergen Record. But nobody wants to hear about what's going right in Englewood, they just want to hear from the NAACP and the endless stream of critics who insist that whatever is going on, it's not fast enough and not good enough.

The liberal response to a poorly performing school district is to throw money at it. But Englewood had plenty of money. What it didn’t have was a student body that came in already equipped with everything they needed. Jonathon Kozol recently wrote a book about our “shamefully” segregated public schools, another well-intentioned knee-jerk liberal account of how we have failed black kids in the wake of Brown vs Board of Ed. The NAACP is still hacking away at Englewood, using them as an example of the failure of the mission of desegregation.

Here’s what none of us students could figure out: Why did we need to recruit white kids to become a better school? I doubt the NAACP or the well-intentioned white liberal folks realize just how demoralizing it is to tell black kids that the primary method society has developed for increasing their test scores is to send them some wealthy white kids. In 1993, Englewood was seeing a light at the end of the tunnel, and it was closed up completely by plans that wealthy white people developed in a back room somewhere.

I’m pro-segregation, if segregation means going to school with the people in your own community. Are there under-funded black public schools? Of course. But that’s a problem bigger than race, that’s about class. There are under-funded white public schools too. The real problem is that kids in poor town go to poor schools, and kids in rich towns go to rich schools, and it won’t be solved by busing anybody anywhere.

The Academies, and most magnet schools, are a souped-up version of a basic mode of education called tracking – take the best kids and stick em together to learn from each other, take the mediocre kids and put them together so they don’t drag everybody else down. The foolish part was that they had to create a whole separate school, because God forbid anyone suggest we “track” kids according to their abilities. Welcome to the New American Liberal Public Education, where we pretend that everybody can be an astronaut, that white kids make schools better, and money can solve everything.

What a shame that I graduated 12 years ago, and so very little has changed. Maybe Bergen County will give the Academies some room to breathe and succeed, but something tells me some well-intentioned meddling will bring it all crashing down again.

Bob

2005-09-26T07:45:00.000-04:00

Two weeks ago at Great Adventure, I spent an inordinate amount of money playing The Claw, my favorite amusement park/carnival game. The claw’s premise is that the player will feed the claw quarters (or sometimes, dollars) for the right to maneuver a specially designed metal claw into a pile of cheap stuffed toys each worth far less than the quarter. The special design of the claw means that the claw usually fails to pick up and procure anything, leaving the player frustrated and incapable of stopping. It is the worst kind of addictive amusement park game, the childhood equivalent of a slot machine.

While I was attempting to secure a cookie monster, I noticed that a mother and son pair next to me had managed to win 5 or 6 “Bob the Builders” in rapid succession. For those who are not up on these things, Bob the Builder is a handy Englishman in overalls, an unlikely character for cuddling who somehow enchanted all of England and half of America with his, um, building skills. He’s a man’s man. Or a boy’s man. Or something. His bulbous head is also perfect for the cylindrical reach of The Claw.

This Claw champion’s son was 2 years old, so blond that his eyebrows weren’t visible, and the kind of pudgy/curly cute that is usually reserved for Baby Gap ads or Disney movies. Each time his mother snagged a “Bob”, he clutched it protectively with his other Bobs, a process which became increasingly difficult as his stash of Bobs increased. At 7 Bobs, he reached a Bob saturation point and dropped a Bob, prompting him to let out a piercing, murderous scream of “My Bob!” that drowned out the screams from the nearby “Superman” roller coaster ride. His mother picked up the dropped Bob, and attempted to stuff it back into his Bob cluster, but the process was repeated several times in the next few minutes: concentrated attempts to stuff the Bobs together, invisible blond brow furrowing and tiny rosebud lips pursed forward in concentration, only to be followed by a rogue Bob tumbling to the ground, and that scream “My Bob, My BOB!” The mother, remarkably immune to screaming, continued to pick up each Bob, and procured even more Bobs, mumbling to herself, “Now let’s get one for cousin Ellie. And for cousin Nathan…” One can only imagine the carnage that occurred when the Bobs were distributed later amongst the family members.

I was thinking about the insatiable desires of youth as I watched this spectacle, and how our needs may change but our reactions change very little. At 2 we imbue our toys with personalities they don’t have, the things we want and need them to be. Our 6 or 7 Bobs are our support system, the friends that carry us through devastating loss (My bottle!) and painful learning experiences (I wet my pants!). But when we’re older and we finally have real people around us to help us through our trials and losses, we still wish to imbue them with qualities they may not have, and when we feel them slipping away, let’s be honest, we just want to scream out into the empty air “My Bob, My BOB!” And sometimes we do.

How many people have you known that have insisted their boyfriend/girlfriend/ husband/wife/best friend was really someone else in disguise. “Oh, he’s so different when it’s just the two of us…” or “You should see her when no one’s around.” I’m reminded of my insistence, at the age of 4, that my stuffed dinosaur Stanley got up and walked around when I fell asleep at night. How else to explain how tired he was in the morning?

I’ve come to realize that it’s our lot in life to clutch at our Bobs, to try desperately to keep them with us, and to be devastated when we lose them. The only real maturity we gain through life is the ability to see our Bobs for what they are, to accept them, and to know their gifts and limitations – or, alternatively, to know when to let them go.

Alexis and I were having our usual “laying around in bed on a Sunday morning” recently, and in the midst of a chatting marathon (and a recounting of the Great Adventure Claw experience) she hugged me and half-jokingly said “My Bob.” Our mutual Bob-ness is a great comfort, since it doesn’t involve the projection of all the things we wish we could have. I love that I can look at her and see who she is without a land–of-make-believe train rumbling down my mind, adding the parts I want and taking away the parts I don’t like. If there’s anything that keeps people together, it is the ability to love the Bob you’re with.

So now that almost everyone I know has made some physical or mental move forward recently, I wish for them all to have their great loves on their own terms, to clutch at their Bobs with renewed vigor, and to see them for all the wonderful things they truly are.

After all, if you can’t find life’s lesson at The Claw, where can you find them?

2005-09-23T07:31:00.000-04:00

OK, I'm going to take the slacker approach today, because I've been so busy working (unlike all those Ivy League Women in my prior posts...) that I haven't had time to write about the variety of things that have been burning in my brain all week.

Before deferring to the unoriginal material below, one funny aside: As I was sitting on the train this morning reading "Funny Times", I couldn't believe how many quotable, perfect articles and cartoons there were - my personal favorite was the cartoon spectacle of Bush flying in on a helicopter and airlifting (brain-dead) Terri Schiavo out of New Orleans, leaving behind drowning (not brain-dead) black people, with a caption describing the emergency session congress convened to ensure that Terri had enough food and water... nevermind those other (not brain-dead) people!

That's my first reference to New Orleans in this blog, which is intentional. What can anybody really even say at this point? The only salvation is that finally, amazingly, Americans have started catching on to the fact that our president is a giant Bozo. So what if he didn't cause the hurricane? Americans will blame him for it anyway. BWAHAHAHAHA.... whatsa matter Republicans, don't like tasting your own irrational voting bloc's medicine? I'm amazed Bush hasn't blamed the hurricane on Saddam Hussein.

So my cop-out alternative to providing a long well-written observation on life today is to provide this text directly from today's Salon.com war room blog, the ultimate source for US political info as it occurs. This post describes a situation so utterly vulgar, I can't even begin to comment...

This is going to hurt you more than it's going to hurt me
As Think Progress notes today, the $200 billion the federal government may need to pay for Hurricane Katrina could be covered entirely -- and then some -- by simply rolling back the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.
As we reported yesterday, House Republicans have another way to come up with the money: They want to carve $500 billion in spending out of the federal budget. How would they do it? Their "Operation Offset" plan is available online now and it's full of brave talk about the "tough choices" that will be required in these "tough times." We'll acknowledge that some of the choices listed therein are, in fact, pretty tough: If you don't want to roll back tax cuts for millionaires, you're going to have to tell Republican Rep. Don Young why he can't have his $200 million bridge to nowhere and America's seniors why they need to wait an additional year for help with their prescriptions.
But somehow, we get the idea that the House Republicans' plan isn't quite as painful -- for them, at least -- as they'd like to make it out to be. Like the Heritage Foundation, the House Republicans apparently see in Katrina an opportunity to advance some of their favorite policy goals and make some cuts that won't exactly bring tears to the eyes of the religious right or the corporate interests who support them. Some examples:
The Republicans would freeze funding for the Peace Corps, the Global AIDS Initiative, U.N. peacekeeping operations and a wide variety of third-world development programs; eliminate the EnergyStar program, eliminate grants to states and local communities for energy conservation, reduce federal subsidies for Amtrak, eliminate funding for new light-rail programs and cancel the president's hydrogen fuel initiative; eliminate state grants for safe and drug-free schools because "studies show that schools are among the safest places in the country and relatively drug free"; and eliminate the teen funding portion of Title X, which provides "free and reduced-price contraceptives, including the IUD, the injection drug Depo-Provera, and the morning-after pill" to poor teenagers.
Along the way, they'd find a way to punish -- or simply eliminate -- some of their enemies, real and imagined. They'd cut funding for the District of Columbia, eliminate funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, eliminate subsidized student loans for graduate students, terminate the Legal Services Corporation, eliminate funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and kill the National Endowment for the Humanities.
Of course, you can't balance the budget on the backs of PBS viewers, grad students and other outside-the-mainstream liberals alone. So the Republican plan also calls for "rational reforms to Defense and Homeland Security." Does this mean cutting weapons systems at the expense of big defense corporations? Well, no. But it does mean closing schools for the children of soldiers, cutting grants for local responders and offering National Guard members the "option" to purchase a less comprehensive healthcare plan.
We've all got to do our part. Or at least 99 percent of us do.
-- Tim Grieve
Print Email
Permalink [16:03 EDT, Sept. 22, 2005]

2005-09-22T08:20:00.000-04:00

Thanks to Ben for yesterday's comment and link to an anti-NYT article which points out that the article on women dropping out of the workforce is not supported by any credible statistics.

If you'd like to see some credible statistics on women in the workforce, check out the Bureau of Labor Statistics Databook on Women in the Workforce. In the spirit of the name of my blog, it's totally fascinating.

For one thing, the number of men with "flexible schedules" exceeds the number of women with flexible schedules, debunking the myth that women ask to be accommodated more frequently than men. The number of women who work part-time has decreased, and full-time working has increased, disproving the theory that there is a recent trend among women to go back to working part-time.

Another interesting chart details the distribution of the workforce by educational attainment. This chart illustrates dramatic shifts in the workforce over the last 40 years. In 1970, 36% of the workforce had less than a high school diploma, vs 9.7% in 2004. The chart basically flips, so that the majority in 1970 had no college experience, and the majority in 2004 has at least some college experience. A greater percentage of men comprise the "unskilled" (non-college educated) labor - underscoring the importance of a college education for a woman, who is less likely to end up with a job requiring less education.

How far we (haven't) come

2005-09-21T08:15:00.000-04:00

One could write a book about the various ideas presented in the NYT article referenced in my last post (“Many Women at Elite Colleges Set Career Path to Motherhood”), but by far the most disturbing part was this excerpt:

It is a complicated issue and one that most schools have not addressed. The women they are counting on to lead society are likely to marry men who will make enough money to give them a real choice about whether to be full-time mothers, unlike those women who must work out of economic necessity.

It is less than clear what universities should, or could, do about it. For one, a person's expectations at age 18 are less than perfect predictors of their life choices 10 years later. And in any case, admissions officers are not likely to ask applicants whether they plan to become stay-at-home moms.

It’s unclear what universities SHOULD do? In other words, there is an argument that future status as a mother might preclude one from participating in the high-compensation or high profile professions that an Ivy League education may lead to.

Where do I begin to deconstruct this? This is exactly the type of discrimination outlawed in the workplace, but we can debate whether we should allow such discrimination at colleges?

70’s feminism has gotten us the most simplified version of equality – if you are willing to act like a man from the 1950s, you can have a successful career. Other than FMLA and sex discrimination laws (both substantially a result of Catherine MacKinnon’s legal activism), there have been no major changes in the way our government treats motherhood, children, and the social construct of work. So you want to work part-time? Sorry, you’re worthless. Want to take off for a couple years? Sorry, you’re worthless.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen sex discrimination ruin the careers of people I work with every day. It is all directly related to this possibility or probability of pregnancy. Articles like this one, which apparently encourage these archaic views of parenthood as an obstacle, rather than a societal necessity that we need to encourage and enable, only further the problem.

Trends among rich white and asian women

2005-09-21T07:53:00.000-04:00

The NYT considers wealthy white and asian women a bellwether of modern women's political opinions, as evidenced by an article several months ago in the NYT magazine regarding changing attitudes toward staying at home with kids, and a more recent article you can find here.

Since I'm not wealthy yet (damn lottery...) and don't have a husband to support me, I have several meetings and conference calls today and don't have time to comment, but I hope to share my thoughts a little later...

Thoughts on Leprechauns

2005-09-20T08:20:00.000-04:00

The Leprechaun News in Rutherford, NJ, right next to the Rutherford train station, sold the winning $250 million lottery ticket. I know this because when I walked past today, there were handwritten pieces of paper tacked to the window that said "Where are you, winning lottery winner?" and "We sold the winning ticket!"

I forgot to buy a ticket. I remembered to buy beer from the corner deli the day that the numbers were picked, but I forgot to buy a ticket at the news stand.

I do agree, to a certain extent, that the lottery is a tax on stupid people... but there IS one person that won it, and it's not me, and it really depresses me this morning.

So what is it about having enormous amounts of money that is appealing? This seems like a "DUH!" question, but I'm serious. Different people want enormous quantities of money for different reasons. Some people just want to be able to give it to friends and family, for instance. There is an almost universal consensus that large amounts of money make it possible (and desirable) to quit one's job. Then there's travel, owning property, giving money to various causes...

But let's face it, all these things simply mean: control. The ability to not only do whatever YOU want, but to make others do what you want them to as well. With $250 million dollars ($125 after tax?), you not only get to buy whatever car you want - you get to walk into the dealership and have people scrambling to help you. You won't have to worry about the salesman taking advantage of you for your skin color or clothes or gender - who even cares? It's not that you get to be the same as everyone else. You get to be the best, without any work on your part. And that's frighteningly appealing.

Studies show that money does in fact make people happy. When people say "Money doesn't buy happiness", what they actually mean is that money will not buy you friends or a lover. But when you've already got those, then money pretty much buys away any other applicable depression.

I suppose it's no coincidence that when I was young I watched my parents endure endless abuse from my extended family just so that they could get a $20 bill to buy gas for the week. I watched as my mom's credit card got declined at stores, leading to tearful, humiliated retreats to the parking lot. The evenings were inevitably filled with angry tirades between my parents, my mother accusing my father of forcing her into a terrible life of deprivation, my father mumbling that in the end, it was her fault for spending money. Thus, being an adult appeared to be a horrific struggle against poverty, a trial of debasement that other people in our wealthy Bergen County suburb didn't have an acquaintance with.

So is it any wonder that I adore my high credit line? Like many greedy people who work in downtown Manhattan, I engineered my life around a simple goal: to make lots of money. (Some women engineer it so that they marry someone who makes lots of money - this is a great alternative, but it leads one to relinquish a certain amount of control.) And I couldn't help thinking this morning that the grand struggle of my life could've come to such a tidy end if I had simply remembered to buy a megamillions ticket instead of a six pack of Yuengling.

2005-09-19T16:43:00.000-04:00

Can you tell where the real article ends and my comments begin?

U.S. Pleased With Korea Nuclear Agreement AP - 2 hours, 43 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Monday that North Korea's pledge to end its nuclear weapons programs is a positive step, but he expressed some skepticism about whether Pyongyang will live up to its promises. "They have said — in principle — that they will abandon their weapons programs," Bush said. "And what we have said is, `Great. That's a wonderful step forward.' But now we've got to verify whether that happens." "The question is, over time will all parties adhere to the agreement," Bush said.

White House Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld reiterated this sentiment in his statement to the White House Press Corps. "We are certainly pleased with the results of the negotiations, but we remain skeptical that North Korea will complete the pledged disarmament. Ultimately, disarmament is immaterial, because the only reason we would invade them would be if they had a lot of oil or gold or something. Maybe some expensive herbs too, like myrhh. Something of biblical importance, you know? Because I mean, WMDs, that's really up to our Lord Jesus Christ to take care of."

Condeleeza Rice added, "If North Korea fails to produce WMDs, we will manufacture them any way we can. We will get the CIA and FBI involved if we have to. We will be certain that North Korea has WMDs down there before we acquire their myrhh by force."

AP news reporters seeking to uncover the meaning of Rice's statements were subsequently executed.

"Free Market" healthcare ain't free

2005-09-19T12:10:00.000-04:00

The trouble with our supposedly free-market health system:

I do fee analyses on major health insurance carriers for corporations looking to change their insurance benefits. I get a file of all the most utilized procedures for a group of participants, along with the fees that the carrier managed to negotiate for each procedure code.

Without revealing who the carriers are (and getting sued, since this is propietary data), check out this variation:
Radiographic procedure: $196.81 vs $400
Prostate specific antigen test: $13.69 vs $49.10
Office consultation: $125.76 vs $178.43

None of the variation is consistent, by the way. One carrier might be cheap for one thing, and expensive for another.

Meanwhile, the trend in healthcare is to go back to traditional coinsurance models - meaning that you pay a percentage of the cost of the procedure or office visit. Of course, since the cost is propietary data, you won't know until after you've gotten the bill whether you made the right choice in picking Aetna, BCBS, UHC, CIGNA, etc. In fact, chances are, you won't have a choice, since your employer probably only gives you one option (and rightfully so, since they have to take advantage of bulk purchasing power and consolidation of risk).

So according to the conservative model of healthcare reform, healthcare costs will decrease as Americans become more responsible consumers of healthcare by paying a share of the actual cost, even though consumers have no way of knowing what the costs are, because that info in propietary. And the difference in cost for consumers could be over 200%, depending on the decisions employers make, which "consumers" have no part of.

Sounds like Republican logic to me!

Rock is dead. Long live Rock.

2005-09-16T10:42:00.000-04:00

Rock music just isn’t being made anymore.

I joined one of a hundred million other Americans (not a scientific estimate) to hear the classics of my (parent’s) youth at the Rolling Stones concert at Giants stadium last night.

Truth be told, I have never been a huge Rolling Stones fan. It’s not that I don’t appreciate their greatness – I just haven’t had the inclination to sit and listen to them for the long periods that are required to memorize the songs. I am like a holiday-only Catholic – I can mumble my way through the hard parts, and then I sing a little louder when I get to the parts I know (“Hooooooonky-Tonk Woman”, “Thanks be to God”). This lack of familiarity enabled Alexis and I to simulate our future selves with stunning accuracy. (“What are they saying, dear? Huh? Was that cock, or rock?”)

We showed up as opening-act Alanis Morissette was finishing her set and thanking Disillusionment. The ghettoized third tier of Giants stadium in the swampy Meadowlands heat was vaguely representative of the tri-state area – biker dads, moms drinking beer and dressed in Chico’s, one woman with “I hate you” written in iron-on letters on her stretchy-pants butt. I was happy to have avoided the floor seats, where Republican guys with horn-rimmed glasses had just finished tailgating out of their SLKs.

I had a full view of the stadium from where I was, and my mild untreated PTSD ran through the usual scenarios. (Imagine a plane crashing into the stadium? Would it be better to wait out the stampede and hope the structure holds, or try to get out as soon as possible?) This was punctuated by my vision of a similar volume of people at the Superdome, with no running water and no electricity, and the realization that in New Orleans, the third tier was the Notorious Murder Zone. There’s more than one reason I stick to small venues.

While Alexis spent at least an hour wringing her hands over the unfortunate seats we had scored (third tier, last row, end zone), I appreciated the fact that we could still squish Mick Jagger’s head between thumb and forefinger when viewing him on the Sharp Jumbotron. There he was, sixty-something six-pack abs, running up and down the stage as if Jerry Hall was chasing him, and we couldn’t deny that we wouldn’t kick him out of bed. His greatness was underscored by an excruciating costume change break, during which Keith Richards um, sang, or something, and reminded us all that Mick Jagger is a magical force akin to Voldemort. (C’mon, you know he’d at least be in Slytherin.)

I was trying to figure out what made this music so much better, so much different, from the rock music that’s selling out stadiums today. I mean, when you’ve got a show on TV that pedals that idea that INXS was one of the great bands of our generation, you know you’ve got issues. Radiohead and Radiohead’s mentally challenged younger brother, Coldplay, are poor replacements for our parent’s rock and roll, however much I might enjoy listening to their nancy-boy falsettos when I’m feeling sentimental and drunk on white wine. Dave Matthews is what passes for a fusion of soul and rock, and it’s way more than a shot away from the raw edge of the Stones. Now we’re told that “edge” lies with new bands like the Franz Ferdinand. If you listen to them real close, you realize they’re what Blondie would’ve sounded like if they had been fronted by the lead singer of Softcell.

This is what I thought about as I swayed back and forth in a bad time-delayed rhythm to “You can’t always get what you want” – the jumbotron was a split second behind the action on stage, confusing the already-white crowd with poorly timed clapping. The spittle from an intergenerational mass of white folks glittered in the red and blue stagelights as everyone joyously proclaimed their complete impotence. We can’t always get what we want! We can’t always get what we want! But we can still get some rock and roll, if we try sometimes, and we have at least $75, including taxes and the ticketmaster fee. As we all filed out and the Mercedes commercial roared on the jumbotron, I thought, this is the best there is, the best we may ever have. Somebody better start making some rock and roll again. Fast.

Mick’s running out of time.

Homosexuality is for the birds

2005-09-15T13:53:00.000-04:00

On gay bird marriage:

Swans are famously monogamous. In Boston's public garden, there is a pair of swans so famous for their annual visits that the AP covers their return to the garden each year.

When the swans failed to reproduce year after year, scientists discovered that they're both female. Now the swans are attracting even more visitors, as the monogamous same-sex swans in the only state that allows same-sex marriage. How's that for intelligent design? You go, God!

Note that the swans were named Romeo and Juliet by the Parks Dept, but since they are mute swans, it's impossible to tell which one is the butch and which one is the femme.

I just had lunch with my fabulous brother, currently working for the NGLTF think tank, who informed me of an even cooler gay bird pair in California. This male penguin couple at a California zoo are so good at taking care of eggs that the zoo actually takes eggs from the straight penguin couples and deposits them in the gay penguin's nest. They give the straight penguins rocks instead.

This lead my brother and I to speculate that the best way to handle a rise in teen pregnancy would be to seize the babies, give them to gay couples, and give back the teen moms tomagotchis instead.

Comments on our scheme are welcome.

Fodder!: What have you changed your mind about lately?

2005-09-15T13:47:00.000-04:00

This is the first of my "Fodder" posts: I bring up an issue or question, and people comment. Hopefully.

So on the aforementioned e-mail list, one participant brought up the following:
I've always thought that a good way to test how much you're really thinking is to take something you are rock-solid sure of and lay out what it would take to convince you otherwise. If you say there is no piece of evidence that would ever change my mind then you are probably "thinking" dogmatically.
Is there any major issue that any of you have "changed your mind" on in the last decade so much so that if you went back into the past and told your old self that the "old you" would think that you had lost your mind? (Ummmmm, I went from 'Republicans aren't so bad to they are evil incarnate' doesn't count.) But what is more interesting is not that you changed your mind, but why> you changed your mind. Did you shift within your already existing framework or did you have to send it all crashing down and start from scratch?

And I answered:
I've changed my mind about so many things in the past 10 years, I don't even know where I would start. My most fundamental change has probably been my grudging acceptance of capitalism as an important *component* of an effective economic basis for society. I do believe some competitition is important, and that the existence of ultra-rich people is not necessarily a symbol of the downfall of humanity...

I bristle when I see knee-jerk anti-corporate statements (like teens who wear anti-Starbucks shirts), because I understand now that the world is a bit more complex than "corporations bad, collectives good". I would've worn the anti-Starbucks slogans and boycotted Borders books, but now my protests take a very different form. And besides, I like Borders books.

I was an unquestioning supporter of universal healthcare, and now that I work in healthcare, I can't say I know what the perfect solution is. I do know, however, that the basic rules of fair competition necessary to functional capitalism are nowhere to be found in the corrupt world of healthcare. I think it's hard to talk about socializing a system that isn't complying with the law. There's other things we can fix first.

I think a lot of our problems, both economic and social, are the result of our failure to punish crimes appropriately and fairly. And I think they also come from the difficulty of governing on a grand scale, whether it's 2 million people or 20 people. We haven't learned how to foster consensus, which is something I didn't understand 10 years ago. There are already a lot of mechanisms in place to protect people from harm, we just don't use them.

So what about you? Comments? C'mon. Fascinate me.

Can't we all just get married?

2005-09-15T13:44:00.000-04:00

In case you've been wondering why legal recognition of gay marriage WON'T lead to polygamous marriages, here's an explanation I recently disseminated among an e-mail group I participate in. Feel free to disagree with my analysis, but you'll probably be wrong...

With respect to gay marriage, there are actually some very strong legal arguments against allowing the extension of marriage rights to polygamous relationships. Marriage law, domestic relations law, and their history are really complex, so it's hard to give you the "nutshell" reasons, but I will try anyway. First, domestic relations law is very property-based - you marry to protect your property (your wife and children), and to acknowledge the burden of maintaining that property, the state extends not only certain civil rights to you, but tax exemptions. These tax exemptions are extended because you are benefiting the state by taking these wards off their hands, and by (possibly) rearing children and increasing the future tax base. Extending such tax credits to multiple parties would create a huge (unprecedented) tax shelter. To sum up, if you want to get the tax shelter, you have to pick one person for it. (There are multiple other benefits - such as immigration rights - imagine if you could marry multiple people and give them citizenship! Again, unprecedented.)

Even more important, there is the practicality of creating a legal relationship involving multiple rights among multiple people. The law would, in effect, be creating an entity much closer to a corporation than a legal union. How would the state handle the dissolution of such partnerships? Would there be "buyouts" when one member leaves? Who would make important decisions for one member? What if there was a conflict between two or more of the members over what to do with life support, for instance? Such multi-faceted partnerships not only have no precedent in our legal history, but they carry a significant potential for confusion and litigation. There would need to be an entirely new and complex body of law for polygamous partnerships. The burden to the state of dealing with such issues most likely outweighs the right of the individual to demand such partnerships, and that would probably be the basis for denying polygamous marriage rights if such a case was brought to the court.

In contrast, same-sex marriage presents no such difficulties. The legal precedent for two-party marriage relationships already exists. The legal changes to state laws that same-sex marriage requires are minimal. Massachusetts, for instance, has done very little to change their policies and procedures, other than crossing out "man" and "woman" on the application form.

In the Beginning...

2005-09-15T13:25:00.000-04:00

Let's face it, creating a blog is one of the most self-indulgent things a person can possibly do. The blog author is assuming there is someone out there that actually cares about their ideas and/or feelings and wants to read about them in an impersonal, non-password protected setting. But you know, I'm pretty self-indulgent, so that works for me.

This blog will not be a rambling explanation of what I did today (for instance, my consumption of fried pork chops for lunch). It will be a rambling explanation of my politics and occasionally, a review of a good movie or book. So I hope you enjoy this blog. Bookmark it. Keep it handy. For the liberals among you, it can serve as a backup resource of arguments for and against various political positions. For the conservatives among you, it can serve as a reference point for the crazy ideas you are fighting against. Either way, I hope people comment and enjoy.