Paranomics

Driving Through the South: Where Naked Humanity Looms Large

2006-11-09T09:41:00.000-05:00

It's debatable whether anyone actually reads this blog, but should you come across it, surfing the net's high seas, I encourage you to check out the travels of Antennahead. He has just begun driving through the southern United States, videocamera in hand, in hopes of documenting the lives of those he meets in written accounts, pictures and video. He's cooking lentils on a gas stove for food--although hopefully at some point the fishing pole he brought along will be cause for a good written entry.

iOwned

2006-10-23T15:52:00.000-04:00

Five years ago today, Steve Jobs stood in a relatively small room in front of a relatively unimpressive PowerPoint presentation (or whatever the Mac equivalent is) speaking to a group of people who all appeared relatively bored – and announced probably the biggest consumer electronics product of the past twenty years. And along with that little white music pal, came the iTunes music store, and the ability to buy music for 99 cents, sync it with your new iFriend and be on your way.

Its arguable which was more responsible for the iPod’s success – the elegant design of the device itself or the extremely easy way in which Apple lets you buy music for it via the iTunes Store. Let’s just say they were both pretty clever and move on. As the program celebrates a half-decade of existence, competitors struggle to stay afloat (or sink almost immediately, as is the case with Amazon’s absolutely dreadful Unbox service), while other DAP (Digital Audio Players) rely on campaigns such as idont and attempt to take even a small portion of the market away from the iPod.

The popularity of the iPod, iTunes Store, and the ever-increasing market share that Apple products take over is very interesting, not because it means that maybe we’re all more creative or because maybe Steve Jobs is really as brilliant as the Mac zealots believe, but because there is possibly something very sinister lurking underneath the always-connected, always-synced Apple world.

Let me start by stating that I’m not targeting Apple with this particular diatribe. Apple is doing what’s best for the company – a company that ten years ago was pretty much going under for good – but the consequences of these actions could be far reaching for media consumers, and more importantly (of course), media creators.

Through the iTunes Store, and the selection of products that interact with it, Apple has created a vertically integrated method of media distribution. Through the miracle of DRM, you can only play music from the iTunes Store in iTunes or on an iPod. Apple has now introduced movies and television into their store, with the same kind of restrictions. At the beginning of next year, the company will release iTV (“working title,” Steve let us know a few months ago) which will hook your Television, possibly stereo up to your Macintosh computer, and interact through Front Row, playing music and movies and television shows that you’ve downloaded on your iTunes account.

This is very, very slick, and knowing Apple’s track record over the past couple years, its going to work pretty well right out of the box. And the problem with it working so well is that a lot of people are going to use it. The popularity of iTunes stems from how easy it is to use, and how consistently it works well, not to mention the fairly vast amount of content available. Apple’s dream is to distribute all media through the program, through its servers to its hardware for you to watch. But isn’t there an inherent problem here? It is yet another massive corporation controlling the way that our media is delivered to us. This limits choice to the consumers but moreover creates yet another limiting factor to media creators.

Huge corporations shouldn’t have their fingers in the business of distributing multiple forms of media. Just because we can point to hundreds of other companies that do it, doesn’t mean that Apple joining in is a good, or even acceptable thing. I am having a hard time thinking of any multi-media distribution that works ethically, and I can think of some that are just downright evil (oh hello, SONY). Moreover, at the end of the day, ease of delivery only helps media consumers become even lazier (as if that were possible), and lazy consumers eat what they’re fed for the most part. Now that Apple has such a vested interest in Disney (and its many, many subsidiaries), having content decisions made at the iTunes Store level really doesn’t sound too great. And “evil” multi-media distribution companies? Disney isn’t doing much to warm my heart.

If DRM fails, which it very well might, a lot of these problems would be more or less solved, as then Apple distributed media will be used on a lot more non-Apple units, and just join the swell of music, television, literature and films that we’re swimming in. And there’s still hundreds of ways to get media online (a lot of them legal!), so none of the above problems will effect more educated computer users and media consumers. But not many of them are using iTunes. Moreover, Apple’s already won this round, as they were out of the gate well ahead of their competitors, but also well ahead of their critics. The pieces for vertically integrated media distribution are already in place, and Apple’s already reaping the benefits. Whether we commend them for this is up to us, and whether we decide to spend $14.99 on a low-quality, DRM-ed copy of Pirates of the Caribbean rather than picking up the DVD is too.

My point here isn’t to uninstall iTunes from your computer or to trade your iPod in for a Sandisk Sansa. Instead, as we embrace new forms of media distribution, we must become ever more vigilant, ever more intelligent, ever more critical consumers.

Here's Steve introducing the iPod five years ago today. Nowadays he makes these sort of announcements in somewhat larger rooms.

Shortbus: Getting Off On Life*

2006-10-23T00:06:00.000-04:00

As someone whose parents put a paper bag or blanket over my head during sex scenes and told me to count to 30 before coming out well into my adolesence, I was not expecting to see Shortbus--let alone actually enjoy it. Although John Cameron Mitchell's newest film has gained media buzz and public intrigue for being the movie that "shows real sex", it in fact most powerfully reaches out to those who view its subject matter with nervousness or apprehension. Shortbus is successful in making media images of sex more tasteful and accepted in public space, but not merely by putting this subject matter on the big screen. Rather, equipped with a solid script and great amateur cast, the film becomes a celebration of sex and human relationships as one of the most positive characteristics of humanity--not a subject warranting fear or censorship.

A New York sex club, idealized almost to the point of utopia, becomes the location where various small vignets collide. A couples therapist who has never had an orgasm, dominatrix sex worker and a gay couple who would not have otherwise met become intimately aware of the difficulties each person struggles to overcome and ultimately push one another along on the path to self discovery, healing and acceptance. Amidst sexual spectacle (a character sings the national anthem into another man's ass) are both poignant moments and hilarious comedy in awkward encounters. It will make you squirm in your seat, laugh out loud, and be touched by the incredible honesty with which the entire cast performs. If you were the person who was always painfully awkward about sex, the simplicitic and natural quality of sexual experiences and relationships made glaringly apparent in this film will make you leave the theater wondering whatever went awry in your life to make you think otherwise.

That Shortbus is set in New York seems not only a deliberate choice but a important dimension to the film. The question of what makes New Yorkers unique and draws people from around the world to this city is a persistent theme. Even if you don't romanticize or love New York to Woody Allen proportions, there is an undeniable pulse about the city that draws people in. Soaring animated shots of the Manhattan and Brookyln skyline that both open and close the film create a sense of wonderment and awe of the city in a sort of magical positivism that would affect a New York viewer differently and more deeply than someone in any other place. When media coverage of New York is constantly contextualized and rooted in the aftermath of 9/11, Mitchell has chosen to bring attention to the city's strong community of people that seem to glue together in weird ways, helping each other to move on despite life's obstacles. In one scene, a 20-something trust fund hipster questions his dominatrix about whether the U.S. should have a continued presence in Iraq. Mitchell communicates on screen that these are issues that can and should be given room for debate in a city that is by no means defeated.

*Title taken from New York Times review

Fuck Facts

2006-10-19T14:10:00.000-04:00

The word "fuck" first appeared in Samuel Johnson's English dictionary in 1798, then promptly disappeared for 169 years.

In England, Lawrence's "Lady Chatterley's Lover" was banned until 1960 for its use of "fuck". And in Australia, a book describing the trial of Lawrence's publisher was also banned.

The French Connection clothing company was founded in 1969. In 1997, after launching their "fcuk" campaign, profits at the chain rose 81%.

One Laptop Per Child: No Child Left Behind for the Globally Minded

2006-10-11T16:19:00.000-04:00

A recent New York Times article reports that Mr. Nicholas Negroponte, a computer researcher at MIT, has conceived of an idea called One Laptop Per Child in which schoolchildren from Libya would each receive a laptop computer cheaply manufactured in Taiwan for a price of US$100. Once set in motion as early as next month, Mr. Negroponte hopes to expand the project to countries that would include Chad, Rwanda, Nigeria and Cambodia. The Linux equipped computers (Gates has refused to offer Microsoft products on the cheap) will include wireless capabilities, a built-in webcam, and a handcrank for recharging the battery.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology has never lacked brilliant minds (or bigger nerds). One needn’t consult Wikipedia to know that the school boasts an impressive list of distinguished alumni and faculty that have had enormous accomplishments. However, even as a prisoner of the cubicle kingdom, doomed to the mediocrity and monotony that comes with administrative jobs and an undergraduate degree, I’m left wondering how someone at MIT could so grossly oversimplify what is essentially a poverty alleviation program. Clearly Mr. Negroponte’s heart is in the right place—introducing technology to schoolchildren is beneficial to furthering the learning process when used within a sound educational curriculum and framework. But CHAD? A bit of simple browsing on the UNDP website shows that 66% of Chadians do not have sustainable access to an improved water source and 64% are living below the national poverty line (making Chad the 5th worst with respect to this measurement in the world). So someone from Chad may not be able to drink water without getting sick, but hey, let’s give them a laptop!

This article has left me wondering if perhaps Mr. Negroponte and President Bush are great pals. The No Child Left Behind Act seeks to respond to gross educational disparities and inadequate student performance in the United States with repeated official testing. The only thing that No Child Left Behind has succeeded in doing is announcing with each round of testing that America has failing schools and struggling students rather than implementing reforms that could promote real change. Mr. Negroponte, as a global citizen, has observed poverty in countless nations but implemented faulty Bush logic with appalling accuracy. Where President Bush has thrown millions of dollars at a problem through testing, this computer researcher from a bright academic institution is tossing webcams and Linux.

Many corporations and institutions have expressed interest in helping to facilitate the One Laptop Per Child initiative. And why not? It’s a tangible concept that can be easily executed and make a lot of people feel like they DID something about world poverty. Unfortunately, the implementation of such initiatives before working to establish basic health care, sanitation and education systems in which laptops would actually be helpful is not only fruitless but plain lazy. The creation of programs that make real SENSE in developing nations and complex socio-political climates is bound to be difficult. They will take creatively minded, smart individuals with a lot of patience and heart to device, finance, and implement. I’m left confused and disappointed as to how Mr. Negroponte, who must have at least half a brain to be at a place like MIT in the first place, can go to a country where there are three physicians for every 100,000 people and think that the first logical and most meaningful step towards improving their lives is the gift of computer technology.

Apparently if you can’t have clean water or health care, you need the next best thing: Google.

And HPV Vaccine Again

2006-05-17T18:11:00.000-04:00

As I am not at work this is kind of a ghetto looking post... but this article reveals a KEY issue that will help establish whether or not the FDA is a partisan/influenced by religion organization. Also - be skeptical of the two concerns raised.

The first concern: While I agree it would be serious if a large number of women who were unknowlingly infected AND there was no way to test them AND then they ALL developed cancer as a result of the vaccine - I would suggest that the vaccine probably leads to a very small risk of increase. In addition, women CHOOSE to get the vaccine - therefore they are aware of the slight risk (we get into cars EVERY DAY KNOWING the risk that this has). Finally, wouldn't the increased risk by worth the HUGE numbers of women who would NOT get cancer because they would NOT contract HPV DUE to the vaccine??? (the vaccine has the potential to reduce the annual number of new cervical cancers worldwide to roughly 150,000, from the current 500,000, and cut global deaths from the cancer by more than two-thirds, to an estimated 90,000.) I know this is the whole 'do we sacrifice a few for the sake of the many?' and in this case my answer would be yes.

The second concern: The advantage for the four COULD BE offset by one of the other types it doesn't protect against. Two key words here - COULD BE. How much of the advantage are we talking? 10%? 20%? I am going to tell you right now - if someone told me that they had a vaccine that COULD protect me against HPV - even if it was only 30 or 40 percent more - I'd take it.

Finally - a concern that they did not mention in the article but I am sure some religious rights person will bring up is that having access to this vaccine will make women's behavior more risky. This is ludacris. Just take a moment to think about this: The argument that eliminating a SERIOUS HEALTH RISK will make more women have sex - so lets KEEP THE SERIOUS HEALTH RISK THAT KILLS THOUSANDS OF WOMEN - and hopefully scare a few into not having sexs (clearly those thousands were scared into it...). Um... THAT sounds like a plan to me. On top of that - having the vaccine does not eliminate ALL STD's - nor does it eliminate the fear of pregnancy. Seems to me that there are enough other 'fears' to keep women from having sex altogether - if there is ONE we can eliminate and SAVE LIVES (helllloooo pro-LIFE movement) lets do it!

Keep posted for the outcome on the FDA's decision!

Cervical Cancer Vaccine Seen As Safe (New York Times)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A vaccine that blocks infection by the four virus types that cause most cervical cancers and genital warts appears safe and effective, but may actually increase the chance of disease in some patients, according to Food and Drug Administration documents released Wednesday.

Merck & Co. seeks FDA approval for its Gardasil vaccine against four types of human papilloma virus, or HPV. Two of those four types are believed responsible for about 70 percent of cervical cancer cases. The cancer kills roughly 3,500 U.S. women a year; the other two types cause 90 percent of genital wart cases.

An FDA panel of outside experts is to meet Thursday and discuss whether to recommend that the agency approve the vaccine. The FDA isn't required to follow the advice of its expert panels but usually does.

According to briefing documents released ahead of the meeting, the panel should discuss various items of concern only if its members first agree that studies show the vaccine is safe and effective. That suggests the FDA favors its approval.

Merck said the vaccine has the potential to reduce the annual number of new cervical cancers worldwide to roughly 150,000, from the current 500,000, and cut global deaths from the cancer by more than two-thirds, to an estimated 90,000.

An FDA review of the results of studies on the vaccine found two important concerns, according to the documents released ahead of Thursday's meeting of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products advisory committee.

(THE FIRST - be SKEPTICAL) The first is that the vaccine may lead to an increased number of cases of a cancer precursor among patients already infected by any of the four virus types at the time they receive the vaccine, and whose immune systems have not cleared the virus from their bodies.

(THE SECOND - be SKEPTICAL) The second concern is that any advantage the vaccine provides in protecting against the four virus types could be offset by infection by any of the multiple other types of HPV that the vaccine does not cover, according to the FDA documents.

FDA staff also asked that the committee examine five cases where children with birth defects were born to women who had received the vaccine around the time of conception.

Merck developed the vaccine and tested it in both women and men, but Thursday's discussion is expected to focus on its use in preventing HPV-related disease in women.

An FDA decision is expected by June 8. Should it approve it, the national Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will decide later that month whether to endorse routine vaccination with the vaccine. The committee's HPV vaccine workgroup is recommending the vaccine be given to girls 11 and 12, and the committee will consider recommendations for females 13 to 26.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Cancer-Vaccine.html?ex=1148529600&en=40c5258b5b78c03e&ei=5070&emc=eta1

On Purity Balls and Chastity Pledges

2006-05-16T09:36:00.000-04:00

Recent discussion on my cousin's blog as well as an article sent by a good friend (thanks pete!) suggested that maybe discussion about the absolute lunacy of these kinds of events was previously limited to circles of feminist friends interested in sex education and women's health... So I figured I would add this article what appears to be a growing public interest.

I think Mark Morford pretty much sums it up in this excerpt:

'Premarital sex is evil. Female sexuality must be, as ever, contained, repressed, shoved deep down lest it tempt men to sin like gleeful pagans licking ice cream from the pierced nipples of the devil. Girls do not know how to handle their own genitalia and therefore must be taught -- by their fathers, no less -- how to dilute their sexual power in order to attract a sexually unqualified, God-fearing husband. You know, same as it ever was.

Very well. Let us now trace the path of imminent cultural destruction: Virgin girl has zero experience with the joys of her own body, with orgasm, with men, with sex toys or shower heads or good gynecological gizmongery. She then marries a man who will very likely have not the slightest clue (as he has had the same dreadful sexual miseducation as our fair virgin) as to what to do with a woman's body, who will, by most all accounts, be unable to tell an erogenous zone from an elbow, a clitoris from a belly button.

Voilà, the standard recipe for emotional, physical and spiritual catastrophe, for roughly 17 years of vague marital misery capped off by divorce and much therapy and four unhappy children and the profound and aching need located somewhere deep beneath the pelvic bone to try something, anything new and different and sexually liberating.

Let's just say it outright: The superiority of virginity myth, it is a massive, underreported disaster. It is a ridiculous and exhausting misconception that must be eradicated like a cancer. Perhaps French philosopher Voltaire said it best, nearly 300 years ago: "It is one of the great superstitions of the human mind to have imagined that virginity could be a virtue." So true.'

And just in case you still think sex education is bad, some facts:

'No wonder over half of all teens who take any sort of virginity pledge end up breaking the ridiculous vow within a year (says a new Harvard study), and fully 88 percent end up having sex before marriage anyway. What's more, such silly pledges only result in more oral and anal sex among teens who try, vainly, to adhere. They also marry younger, have fewer sexual partners (read: less skill) and yet have exactly the same rate of STDs as kids who are smart enough to avoid such pointless pledges in the first place.'

The author sums up the article with a suggestion for better all encompassing sex education
Can anyone say OWL? (sex education program promoted by Unitarians)

An even better laugh...

2006-05-01T17:59:00.000-04:00

A great article - and even better links - to one of the best 'stand-up' pieces I've heard in a long time... Colbert tells it like it is. I don't have time to comment - but this is definitely worth the FULL listen... (thanks to Pete for the link!)

http://blogs.citypages.com/ctg/2006/04/the_truthiness.asp

One of my favorites...

To Senator John McCain: "So wonderful to see you coming back into the Republican fold. I've actually got a summer house in South Carolina. Look me up when you go to speak at Bob Jones University."

Yeeesss....

a good laugh.

2006-05-01T11:23:00.000-04:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipJTqCbETog&eurl=

I promise.

Don’t Trust Your Government

2006-04-28T18:06:00.000-04:00

Several recent posts regarding HPV and Glamour Magazines’ work on women’s health issues culminates in another article they wrote about the influence/strength of religious conservative groups upon the US government – mainly the FDA. It scarily sums up recent changes and is (I thought) worth summarizing here:

‘Dr. Shaber, M.D. is not a political activist or a conspiracy theorist; she is an ob-gyn doctor and Kaiser Permanente’s director of women’s health services for Northern California and the head of the HMO’s Women’s Health Research Institute. She used to refer patients to government websites for information – but not anymore.

“As a physician, I can no longer trust government sources. I no longer trust the FDA decisions or material generated [by the government]. Ten years ago, I would not have had to scrutinize government information. Now I don’t feel comfortable giving ti to my patients.”

For the past 100 years, the FDA has been the world’s premier government agency ensuring drug safety. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have similar records. Yet recent changes have resulted in the government losing their credibility. This is a direct result of the influence of religious groups.

“People believe that religiously based social conservatives have direct lines to the powers that be within the US government, the administration, Congress, and are influencing public-health policy, practice and research in ways that are unprecedented and very dangerous” – Judith Auerback, Ph.D., former NIH official who is now VP at the non-profit American Foundation for Aids Research.

Young Women now read false information on government websites, learn incorrect information in federally funded sex-ed programs, and struggle to get safe, legal contraceptives, all of which puts them at a greater risk for unplanned pregnancies and STDs. (My insert: This isn’t about what is safe for women – it is about regulating womens’ ability to have pre-marital sex without the consequence of marriage).

“The reality is that most women have premarital sex. Our government is focusing not on women’s health but on a moral agenda.” – Deborah Arrindell, VP of health policy for the nonpartisan American Social Health Association

RECENT EVENTS:
1. FDA does not Approve Emergency Contraception (EC) over the Counter –
The FDA’s Reporductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee convened in 2003 to review Plan B (a version of the ‘morning after’ pill that reduced the odds of pregnancy by 95% if taken within 24 hours after unprotected sex) which has been available via prescription since 1999. ALL 28 MEMBERS agreed that the drug was SAFE AND EFFECTIVE. The VAST MAJORITY of them also voted to make it available over the counter at any pharmacy, helping to diminish the problem of accessibility.

Fact: Several studies show that it works with few side effects AND making it more accessible DOES NOT lead to an incrase in unsafe sex or promiscuity.

Fact: In 2000 alone, the drug prevented approximately 51,000 abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

BUT Christian fundamentalist groups like Southern Baptist Convention and powerful religious conservative organizations like the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America campaigned hard against it, arguing that the drug was dangerous, would lead to unsafe sex, and would corrupt children.

SOMEHOW… the FDA delayed ruling on Plan B for nearly 2 years! Many people suggest this was achieved through the work of W. David Hager, M.D., an active member of Christian right political groups and the author of ‘As Jesus Cared for Women: restoring Women Then and Now’ AND was APPOINTED BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO THE FDA PANEL THAT REVIEWED PLAN B. He first voted with the panel to approve it, and then wrote a ‘minority opinion’ stating a case AGAINST it. After Lester Crawford was confirmed as FDA commissioner in 2005 – it was hoped a decision would be made – but instead it was stalled indefinitely. Two key members on the committee, Wood and Davidoff, resigned in protest. Wood said:

“If this drug had nothing to do with sex, this wouldn’t have happened. This decision was not based on science and clinical evidence. This threatens the FDA’s credibility and threatens the faith the public has in the FDA for making sure products are safe and effective.”

2. The Department of Justice rejected incorporating EC into its National Guidelines for Treatment of Rape Victims:

For years women’s health advocates have been arguing that there need to be national guidelines for the treatment of rape victims. Hospitals protocols very too much from state to state. With the advent of EC, mainstream medical organizations have been arguing that emergency rooms should offer victims EC after a sexual assault, as doing so could prevent the estimated 32,000 pregnancies, and, subsequently, many abortions – that occur as a result of rape.

“Even if you oppose abortion, what could be better than preventing the pregnancy in the first place?” – James Trussell, Ph.D. – Director of the Office of Population Research at Princeton U.

So when the DOJ was developing its first-ever guidelines for the treatment of rape victims, an early drafts’ inclusion of EC was deleted from the final version.

Congress woman Carolyn Maloney (D- NY) (LOVE HER!) spearheaded a movement to demand that the DOJ include the EC information in the guidelines but the effort was defeated. In response as to how this happened she said “I’d say it is the fundamentalist right. At the root of the religious right’s objection is the belief that EC constitutes a form of abortion.” (Background on this is that EC works by preventing ovulation and therefore fertilization – can not be ruled out that in a tiny number of cases the drug could prevent implantation of a fertilized egg – this loophole has allowed some anti-choice groups to argue that EC causes abortions, even though the World Health Organization and others agree it begins at implantation and not before).
Today is it up to hospitals to decide if they will give – or even tell – women about EC in the cases of rape. (There are many that do not!!!)

3. HPV and Inaccurate Information:
(As covered in a previous post – this subject is shortened)
Religious conservatives twisted the finding that condom research linked to HPV was incomplete and that condom use may not have been AS EFFECTIVE at protecting against HPV as compared to other STD’s such as AIDS – and through this launched a campaign against condoms/pre-marital sex. They argued that Condoms, even when used correctly did not prevent the spread of HPV and that HPV is the number two cause of cancer deaths among women (cervical cancer is ACTUALLY ONLY THE 13th HIGHEST cancer killer for women in the US).

“The idea is to hype the dangers of sex before marriage: exaggerating condom failure and the risk of HPV is simplifying the facts for the purposes of manipulating sexual practices… This is not about condoms. It’s all about the sex.” – Katharine O’Connell, M.D. ob-gyn and professor at Columbia University

Yet the government listened – Until this assault on condoms government health organizations such as the CDC actively promoted the use of condoms – but in 2002 they backed off – removing from their website a fact sheet on condoms that told about how they are effective barriers to HIV and other STD’s as well as how to correctly use them. The fact sheet was replaced by one stressing sexual abstinence.

Today many government health websites provide inaccurate information to the public. Some such lies are the following:

- HIV can penetrate a latex condom
- Condoms offer NO protection against HPV
- There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that condoms reduce the risk of becoming infected with the other 23 major STD’s.”

What this article summarizes is a very scary reality that we can no longer trust government organizations or those funded through government resources to provide the public with accurate information about sexual health and reproductive issues. With this will come an increasing amount of research from privately funded and run organizations. While this in itself is not a problem, it does give rise to several potential problems. One is that with privately funded organizations comes a lack of accountability. Private interests can influence what is researched, what results are revealed, and how the results are used. It also leads to the problem of who has access to the research and whose issues are being researched. Problems that affect those with money will invariably be studied more as larger sums of money are thrown at them. As a direct result problems that inflict the poor will go unresolved or will receive less serious research.
Before we really give up on government organizations we need to seriously ask ourselves if we can afford it. Do we really want to privatize our health? If not, we need to start to requiring stricter controls on public interests’ involvement in what are supposed to be non-partisan government organizations like the FDA.

*This information/Summary was taken from Glamour Magazine’s May Issue

Great Sex

2006-04-20T11:40:00.000-04:00

Apparently sex is better when both partners are considered equal. I am going to go out on a limb and say this extends from the work place to the bedroom - ding... it is important for women to have orgasims too. (Thanks Genya to this article!)

"Sex is more satisfying in countries where women and men are considered equal, according to an international study of people between the ages of 40 and 80 by researchers at the University of Chicago.

Austria topped the list of 29 nations studied with 71 percent of those surveyed reported being satisfied with their sex lives.

Spain, Canada, Belgium and the United States also reported high rates of satisfaction.
The lowest satisfaction rate — 25.7 percent — was reported in Japan.

The study was led by sociologist Edward Laumann, considered a top authority on the sociology of sex, who believes the findings show that relationships based on equality lead to more satisfaction for both genders.

"Male-centered cultures where sexual behavior is more oriented toward procreation tend to discount the importance of sexual pleasure for women," Laumann said." (DUH).

'Maternity Leave is Under Attack'

2006-04-14T16:37:00.000-04:00

Yes, I was reading Glamour magazine while biking at the gym. I get bored and I was trying to make it more fun by looking at pictures of women with glowing abs to remind myself WHY I was at the gym in the first place... just kidding... kind of. Okay, the point is I did not know Glamour magazine was so focused on women's health issues. It turns out they take a pretty serious interest in - albeit dumbing down - women's news.
Their May issue discussed, among other things, the 'Sad State of Maternity Leave'. The article made several important points:

1. The legal and actual gains women made in the workplace re: maternity leave are shrinking:

Quoting Linda Meric, the national director of 9 to 5 Working Women: "Not only are women getting less pay, if any, but they're under pressure to come back to work faster."

"The number of employers giving any paid maternity leave has shrunk from an already abysmal 19 percent in 2001 to 17 percent in 2005."

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which was passed in 1993, allows employees of up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave. Unfortunately FMLA only applies to companies that are 'midsized' or larger - defined as a company that employs 50 or more people. This means that women who work at small companies have no legal right to maternity leave. Yet what is even more shocking is that many women who are entitled to leave are not receiving it.*

"A recent survey found that 30% of midsize companies weren't providing some of that (FMLA granted) time off - and many did not know they were breaking the law."

2. The US is one of the worst countries when it comes to laws/policies for maternity leave:

Out of 168 countries the United States is one of only FIVE that don't offer ANY federal paid leave (the others are Lesotho, Swaziland, Papua New Guinea and Australia).

Other countries, such as France, provide paid maternity leave for BOTH men and women for up to SIX months! (this is according to a French family I babysit for).

3. A growing number of women are not asking for time off because they are afraid their careers will suffer:

I work at a law firm where approximately 90% of the partners are men. (Based on a quick scan of our directory) I found that we have - give or take a few - 204 male partners and 22 female ones. Currently more than 50% of law school students are female. Now, I agree, if it takes about ten years to make partner, it is possible that in ten more years the female to male partner ratio will have evened out. BUT I don't think that is likely. As I watch female attorneys leave because of the long hours and the desire to spend more time with their children, I see women being forced to make choices between a career and family.

I am sure someone will read this and think 'women have a choice'. And they do. But the question is what kind of choice? Do we as a society really want to encourage women NOT to have children? Do we want to force women to choose between work and having a family? I would argue that women make a vital and important contribution to the workplace. They bring different backgrounds, ideas, working styles and ways of thinking to the table.

I do not believe there is an easy answer to this problem. I respect and understand the complications of what to base promotions on. It is hard when you work in a competitive environment with long hours. Is it fair to allow women to work shorter hours because they have children? No. Is it fair to grant promotions based on gender and not on work or hours? No.

With this said I believe there are certain steps that we can take that can make the decision to stay in the work force possible for women who might otherwise leave. Granting paid maternity leave is one of those things. (As a side note our firm DOES grant maternity leave - this is not an accusation!) A bill that is currently pending in Congress would guarantee women 55 percent of their pay for up to 12 weeks. Unfortunately it most likely will not pass. The question is why aren't more women fighting for their rights? Why this cultural shift?

*I know someone will comment/email me about the fact that I did not address race or class, including that the luxury of choosing not to work only applies to a select few - but people - there is only so much one can write at once... feel free to send me these comments - just know that I DID think about it.

crass but funny...

2006-04-04T12:20:00.000-04:00

Thanks Jules!

Reality Television?

2006-04-04T11:29:00.000-04:00

I am constantly amazed at the amount of sex - and the way it is portrayed - in mainstream television shows. Besides my furor over the fact that in almost every pregnancy scare abortion either isn't talked about or isn't an option, usually with the young woman ending up never having been pregnant to begin with (just like in the real world...), these shows also never delve into the complications of sex. Rarely do characters deal with birth control or STD's. Nor do they address youth's concerns about what is 'normal'. Instead shows like the OC, Laguna Beach, One Tree Hill - and the list goes on and on - portray sex as a carefree activity with no consequences that everyone participates in. I have often wondered how this increase in sexual content affects young people. And now a new study suggests that the more sexual content young people watch, the earlier they have sex. (Thanks Genya to the link).

CHICAGO (Reuters) - "Sexually charged music, magazines, TV and movies push youngsters into intercourse at an earlier age, perhaps by acting as kind of virtual peer that tells them everyone else is doing it, a study said Monday.

This is the first time we've shown that the more kids are exposed to sex in media the earlier they have sex," said Jane Brown of the University of North Carolina, chief author of the report.

Previous research had been limited to television, said the study which looked at 1,017 adolescents when they were aged 12 to 14 and again two years later. They were checked on their exposure during the two years to 264 items -- movies, TV shows, music and magazines -- which were analyzed for their sexual content.

In general it found that the highest exposure levels led to more sexual activity, with white teens in the group 2.2 times more likely to have had intercourse at ages 14 to 16 than similar youngsters who had the least exposure.

The teenage pregnancy rate in the United States is three to 10 times higher than that found in other industrialized nations, making that and exposure to sexually transmitted infections a major public health concern, the study said.

At the same time parents tend not to talk about sex with their children in a timely and comprehensive way, leaving a vacuum in which the media may become a powerful sex educator, providing "frequent and compelling portraits of sex as fun and risk free."

"Interestingly one of the strongest predictors of risk for early sexual intercourse for both black and white teens (in the study) was the perception that his or her peers were having sex," the report said. Youngsters "may begin to believe the world view portrayed and may begin to adopt the media's social norms as their own. Some, especially those who have fewer alternative sources of sexual norms, such as parents or friends, may use the media as a kind of sexual superpeer that encourages them to be sexually active," the report added."

While many may interpret this as a call to limit the amount of television and screen what your children are watching - which is fine - what would be more effective is to change the way sex is portrayed in the media. People have sex - it is a fact. What needs to be changed is the way that it is portrayed in the media. In addition, it is also important to have an honest and open dialogue between young people and their parents, teachers, and each other about the differences between sex in the media and sex in real life. Young people are smart and they are able to discern between television and reality. By providing a space to have these kinds of discussions we can give young people the tools to make educated decisions about when to have sex.

Helpful Advice if the Condom Breaks

2006-03-30T17:03:00.000-05:00

Yes - I bought Jane Magazine. While not overly impressive, it featured a haircut I liked and was cheap. Besides an article with some nice quotes about why being in your 20's is great, it had a question and answer section that gave great pointers for what to do if the condom breaks. I figured everyone might need a quick breakdown/reminder:

Q: The condom broke, my gyno's office is closed, and I'm freaking.
A: You need emergency contraception. Plan B is 89% effective, but you have to take it within 72 hours.
- If your doc. is closed leave a message saying what you need - many have answering services. (You can also go to an emergency room).
- If you live in Alaska, California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, or Washington, pharmacists can directly dispense Plan B.
- Check out Ec-help.org , Planned Parenthood's website, or gethepill.com, they have a doctor that will call in the prescription to your pharmacy.
- In the future, many docs. will give you a prescription for those 'just in case' moments.
- Peace of Mind: remember that for women on a regular 28 day cycle, the vast majority of pregnancies occur in days 9-15.

And one of my favorite reasons why its great to be in your 20's:

"You can put in a full day of work, dabble on your side project for a few more hours after that, meet a friend for drinks at 1am, stay up till 5, have sex and do it all over again without feeling like you're going to fall over dead. Or look like it." - Mia, 26

Why (I think) I want to go to Law School

2006-03-28T15:52:00.000-05:00

After being questioned by an attorney as to 'WHY did I want to go to law school???' and after taking a full length lsat exam I had a moment of crisis on Sunday. WHY did I want to go to law school again?

A recent article from the ACLU's website is a reminder. A few key passages are below:

Responding to a complaint filed by the Rhode Island American Civil Liberties Union last September, the state's Department of Education (DOE) issued an advisory to all school districts last week, instructing them to stop using a federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage curriculum in the public schools.

ACLU called on the DOE to determine how and where the curriculum was being used elsewhere in Rhode Island, and to advise school officials of its illegality. The two-page advisory sent by the Commissioner last week makes clear that "Right Time, Right Place" is not appropriate for use as part of public school health curricula. The advisory also requires all school districts in the state to submit a copy of their school health education curriculum for the Department's review.

"We are very pleased with the state's response to the inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars to support discriminatory and religious teachings in public schools," said Steven Brown, Rhode Island ACLU Executive Director. "Students deserve facts, not sexism, in their sex ed classes."

"Programs like Heritage of Rhode Island subject students to an abstinence-only-until-marriage curriculum that is both ineffective and harmful," said Jennifer McAllister-Nevins, State Strategies Attorney for the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. "Teens need information on how to protect themselves from unintended pregnancy and STDs - they don't need sex education riddled with inaccuracies and gender stereotypes."

2006-03-28T15:48:00.000-05:00

Just a quick update to my previous post on Mississippi.. apparently there are some pro-choicers there because the ban making it illegal to obtain an abortion in Mississippi did not pass.

"The bill, which failed to pass last night after Senate and House negotiators were unable to reach an agreement, would have outlawed abortion in Mississippi, a state that is already failing when it comes to protecting access to reproductive health care. Ninety-eight percent of counties in the state are without an abortion provider, and in a recent report by the Guttmacher Institute, Mississippi ranked 30th in the nation in its efforts to help women avoid unintended pregnancy."

BUT:
"Similar bans on abortion are still pending in eight states: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Tennessee."

Political Cartoon

2006-03-28T15:35:00.000-05:00

Major Events

2006-03-23T18:13:00.000-05:00

Merriam-Webster's Top 10 Words of the Year 2005

Based on online lookups, the #1 Word of the Year for 2005 was:

1. integrity
Pronunciation: in-'te-gr&-tEFunction: nounEtymology: Middle English integrite, from Middle French &amp; Latin; Middle French integrité, from Latin integritat-, integritas, from integr-, integer entire1 : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : INCORRUPTIBILITY2 : an unimpaired condition : SOUNDNESS3 : the quality or state of being complete or undivided : COMPLETENESSsynonym see HONESTY

2. refugee
3. contempt
4. filibuster
5. insipid
6. tsunami
7. pandemic
8. conclave
9. levee
10. inept

So essentially what you are telling me is Americans can't understand the news...

it isn't just a 'hoax'

2006-03-20T10:44:00.000-05:00

Environmental problems are not my area of expertise but I do consider myself fairly aware of them thanks to my father (a PhD in botany and entomology) and my cousin (masters in environmental public policy and now on to a PhD). Dinner time conversations (now relegated to the telephone) often revolve around global warming, pollution, environmental laws and regulations, and the all round destruction of nature. So, while I may be slightly more aware of these issues, I still assumed that anyone who took the time to read the Times (or other notable publications) and used their brain, had come to the conclusion that global warming is in fact real and occurring. That is why, when out on Friday night, I was knocked speechless. A friend, albeit a somewhat conservative one, informed me that, because we have only been measuring temperatures for the last several hundred years, we have no idea if the reason the earth is warming up is because of us, or if it is just going through a cycle of a warmer period. My jaw dropped and nothing really came out except a 'wait, are you kidding' and then an exasperated sigh (this is also the same person who told me going to war in Iraq was a good idea and would be over quickly...) and decided it was time to go get another drink. After feeling guilty at my lack of a response I figured I needed to post. And it was just my luck that last weeks 'Talk of the Town' in the New Yorker addresses global warming. Elizabeth Kolbert kindly put together some points. (You can also google her name and come up with some great stuff). But just to be kind I put some of hard hitting facts below. This way if you ever find yourself in an argument with someone who does not believe in global warming, you have some nice points to punch with.

- In 2002 NASA and the German aerospace agency launched a pair of satellites that have shown that Antarctica is losing ice at a rate of 36 cubic miles per year (LA uses about 1/5 of a cubic mile of water per year). If this continues, the rise in sea level for the coming century is seriously understated.
- The arctic ice cap has shrunk, meaning the Arctic Ocean will be ice-free in the the summer well before the end of this century.
- Soil in England and Wales are losing carbon - a sign of warming - and as it is released into the atmosphere - even greater warming.
- 2005 is the hottest year on record.
- The pine beetle, a pest kept in check by winter, is destroying forests in Canada.

"In the face of such news, how does a country, i.e. the United States, justify further inaction? Certainly, there isn't much tread left in the argument that global warming is, to use Senator James Inhofe's famous formulation, a "hoax." In January, six former heads of the Environmental Protection Agency, five of whom had served under Republican Administrations, met with the current administrator, Stephen Johnson, for a panel discussion in Washington. Panelists were asked to hold up their hands if they believed global warming to be a real problem, for which human activity was responsible. Every one of them, Johnson included, raised a hand."

But where there is a will there is, indeed, always a way. The new argument making the rounds of conservative think tanks, like the National Center for Policy Analysis, and circulating through assorted sympathetic publications goes something like this: Yes, the planet may be warming up, but no one can be sure of why, and, in any case, it doesn't matter, let's stop quibbling about the causes of climate change and concentrate on dealing with the consequences." (sounds exactly like my Friday night chat)
A recent column in the Wall Street Journal laid out the logic as follows: "The problems associated with climate change (whether man-made or natural) are the same old problems of poverty, disease, and natural hazards like floods, storms, and droughts. Therefore "money spent directly on these problems is a much surer bet than money spent trying to control a climate change process that we don't understand." Sounding an eerily similar note, a column published a few days later in the National Review Online stated, "We can do more to help the poor by combating these problems now than we would by reducing carbon dioxide emissions."
The beauty of this argument is its apparent high-mindedness, and this, of course, is also its danger. Carbon dioxide is a persistent gas it lasts for about a century and once released into the atmosphere it is, for all practical purposes, irrecoverable. Since every extra increment of CO2 leads to extra warming, addressing the effects of climate change without dealing with the cause is a bit like trying to treat diabetes with doughnuts. The climate isn't going to change just once, and then settle down; unless CO2 concentrations are stabilized, it will keep on changing, producing, in addition to the same old problems, an ever-growing array of new ones."

Kolbert also has a great interview available where she discusses her recent findings to be published in a comprehensive book this spring. Below are several of the excerpts I found important to the above debate.

- Any basic earth-science textbook talks about the natural greenhouse effect; it's a phenomenon that is not in any way debated. All that the theory of global warming says is that if you increase the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, you will also increase the earth's average temperature. It's indisputable that we have increased greenhouse-gas concentrations in the air as a result of human activity, and it is also indisputable that over the last few decades average global temperatures have gone up. As best as can be determined, the world is now warmer than it has been at any point in the last two millennia, and, if current trends continue, by the end of the century it will likely be hotter than at any point in the last two million years.

- Q. Climate does vary naturally. How is what we're talking about here different?
It's true that the climate varies naturally, and some of the recent rise in global temperatures may well be part of a natural cycle. The point that is important to keep in mind is that the greenhouse gases we are adding to the atmosphere are overwhelming the natural forces that cause climate variability. In effect, we humans are becoming the drivers of the climate system, and we are doing so without knowing where we are going.

- Q. How good is the science? We often hear it said, at least in this country, that there are conflicting views.
There is a very broad consensus in the scientific community that global warming is under way. To the extent that there are conflicting views, they are usually over how exactly the process will play out.

- Q. One disturbing thing about your article is just how alarmed many seemingly sober-minded scientists are. What sort of a gap is there between expert and lay opinion on climate change?
That is a good question. I think there is a surprisingly large, you might even say frighteningly large, gap between the scientific community and the lay community's opinions on global warming. As you point out, I spoke to many very sober-minded, coolly analytical scientists who, in essence, warned of the end of the world as we know it. I think there are a few reasons why their message hasn't really got out. One is that scientists tend, as a group, to interact more with each other than with the general public. Another is that there has been a very well-financed disinformation campaign designed to convince people that there is still scientific disagreement about the problem, when, as I mentioned before, there really is quite broad agreement. And third, the climate operates on its own timetable. It will take several decades for the warming that is already inevitable to be felt. People tend to focus on the here and now. The problem is that, once global warming is something that most people can feel in the course of their daily lives, it will be too late to prevent much larger, potentially catastrophic changes.

SO... to those of you who do not believe that global warming is in large part due to human activity, take that.

and Finally some GOOD news!

2006-03-17T17:55:00.000-05:00

YES - this is what the courts are supposed to do! Think beyond big interests and big money!

Bush and HPV

2006-03-17T14:55:00.000-05:00

The below is a guest post by my cousin and an excellent vent. I agree with her 100%. Bush and his religious zealots need to stop ignoring major health crises in the name of religion and start dealing with what is really going on in the world.

"There was a recent article in The New Yorker entitled ÂPolitical Science: The Bush AdministrationÂs war on the laboratoryÂ. (No online version unfortunately.) This article discussed how science has been co-opted by ideology during the Bush Administration. There were many examples of public health issues discussed in the article, including HIV/AIDs and stem cell research.
The example that made me livid was about an HPV, or human papillomavirus. HPV is the most commonly transmitted sexually transmitted disease in the United States, with 80% of women contracting it at some point in their lives. It is the primary cause of cervical cancer, which kills nearly five thousand women each year in the US and hundreds of thousands more in the developing world.
A vaccine has been developed for HPV and tested in 13 countries, including the US. Results show conclusively that it prevents infection by the five strains of the virus that cause cellular abnormalities associated with cervical cancer.
The US Food and Drug Administration is currently considering the vaccine for approval. However, it is very questionable if it will be approved as the Bush Administration, its allies on Capitol Hill and the religious base of the Republican Party are opposed to vaccinating young women against the virus.
They claim that by eliminating the threat of infection from HPV, we are encouraging young women to be more promiscuous, undermining the abstinence-only message.
LetÂs see what Leslee Unruh, the founder and president of the Abstinence Clearinghouse (http://www.abstinence.net/) says about the issue:
ÂI personally object to vaccinating children when they donÂt need vaccines, particularly against a disease that is one hundred percent preventable with proper sexual behavior. Premarital sex is dangerous, even deadly. LetÂs not encourage it by vaccinating 10-year-olds so they think theyÂre safeÂ.
WOW! Proper sexual behavior? Whose definition of Âproper sexual behaviorÂ applies here? What happens when you are faithful to your husband, but heÂs sleeping around? (Men transmit the virus, but are not affected by it.) You get HPV from HIS improper sexual behavior, and then you end up with cervical cancer and die. You behaved yourself, saved yourself for marriage, and boomÂyouÂre dead.
I would love to ask Leslee if she understands that by imposing her morals on society that she is consigning others to die. Is the risk of death a price worth paying so that abstinence- only can continue to be our approach to sex education?
Why are so many people opposed to SEX outside the confines of a heterosexual marriage? What are people so afraid of? What is this fear that surrounds the act of sex?
Leslee said premarital sex can be deadly. (UmmÂhow?) So can everything else in life. Driving a car, walking across the street, getting in an airplane, all things that we do willingly and encourage others to do.
It is incredible to me that we live in a country where we could prevent the grief, agony, and death associated with this virus, but we wonÂt. Only because teenagers might have more sex, God forbid. And apparently He does.
P.S. Vaccines should never have been invented if they preempt proper behavior. To avoid polio you should behave properly and avoid oral contact with fecal bacteria."

I have to add that even if you aren't faithful, even if you sleep with 100 people, it should not be up to the government to judge your sexual choices as wrong. The FDA was put in place to test whether or not medicine is SAFE AND EFFECTIjudgmento pass judgement on whether or not the behavior that is part of what causes the infection is immoral. If there was a vaccine that protected against lung cancer, the FDA would not say they wouldn't approve it because smoking is dangerous and it is a smokers fault if s/he gets lung cancer. The same should go for a vaccine that would protect the lives of thousands of women.

Girls gone dumb

2006-03-17T14:06:00.000-05:00

A great piece in today's Times by Naomi Wolf looks at the kinds of books being sold to young women these days. Now, I have to preface this with the fact that when I was a young teen my mother refused to let me read the 'Babysitters Club' and 'Sweet Valley High' series. But despite her best efforts I managed to read quite a few before she totally gave in and stopped fighting with me over them. Yet her concern over these books stemmed not from the type of content they contained, such as sex, and instead her fear over the poor quality of writing and lack of mental stimulation that they produced. There were no challenging words, no literary feats, and no historical information or imagination. I could tear through one of those books in a couple of hours and when done had learned nothing of substance.
At the time I thought she was crazy. Even now I look back and I take the attitude that they did no harm. While they probably did no good - I continued to read other books of quality and within a year or two had become bored with these 'series' books and quite reading them. My feeling then and remains today in regard to 'series' books such as RL Stein or the Harry Potter books (sorry) is that the most important thing is to get kids reading. If these types of books are the only thing that gets a child to read, I would rather that child read something that I believe lacks depth or quality than not read at all. My hope would be that through reading he would move on to 'bigger and better' books.
BUT that doesn't mean that I agree teens should be reading books that promote a cultural ideology of status that comes from superficial things such as money and possessions. Teens have enough pressure from their peers in middle school and high school without having the books that they read add to that pressure. Not only do they lack literary quality they also add to a consumer culture and to a narrow idea of what is 'cool'. While I believe in free speech and wouldn't support adding these books to a banned list, you can bet your ass my child would not be reading them.
Finally, if you are interested, Naomi answers ten questions posed to her regarding her editorial. I think one of her best points is regarding using these books as sexual education tools. Sex is something of curiosity to young people of this age. But rather than letting our children read trash that borders on romance novels, why not create positive, healthy, and accurate sex education classes that examine not only how to participate in healthy and safe sexual activities but how to know when you are ready. Rather than abstinence, why don't we promote waiting until you are ready NOT because it is wrong to have sex but because it is okay to continue to stay a child while you are one. What constantly amazes me is how our media outlets, both television and now apparently books, promote this kind of reckless sexual behavior in the main characters but then these same parents who buy these books don't promote sex education in their children's schools. And then they wonder how their child ended up pregnant...

Equality?

2006-03-15T11:08:00.000-05:00

So I have NO time at the moment to put any thoughts down here - but I think this is a really really important article re: where our country is going both socially and legally when it comes to race and inequality. I will post more later.. but read it.

(apparently it will not let me put it as a link - i have no idea why... but just go check out the Times)

Colleges Open Minority Aid to All Comers
Published: March 14, 2006 Facing threats of litigation and pressure from Washington, colleges and universities nationwide are opening to white students hundreds of thousands of dollars in fellowships, scholarships and other programs previously created for minorities.
(read the rest at the Times)

A key paragraph that represents the two sides are posted below.

"Our concern is that the law be followed and that nobody be denied participation in a program on account of skin color or what country their ancestors came from," said Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, which has been pressing institutions on the issue. "We're not looking at achieving a particular racial outcome," Mr. Clegg added. "And it's unfortunate that some organizations seem to view the success or failure of the program based simply on what percentage of students of this color or that color can participate."
Advocates of focused scholarships programs like Theodore M. Shaw, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., challenge the notion that programs for minority students hurt whites. "How is it that they conclude that the great evil in this country is discrimination against white people?" Mr. Shaw asked. "Can I put that question any more pointedly? I struggle to find the words to do it because it's so stunning."

My three quick cents:
1. While a nice idea that one day we can stop using race or gender as criteria on which to judge merit of equalizing factors such as scholarships - we have not yet reached that point. Inequality such as racism and sexism are still rampant in our society and as a result many institutions remain unequal. Because of this scholarships/Universities should be allowed AND should be required (as they have been - and still the number of minority students is often low at elite institutions) to admitting a certain number of minority students.
2. Getting into schools is not based on merit. George Bush at Yale is a perfect example. While these types of organizations who fight against using race and gender as criteria on which to base admittance/scholarships call themselves 'equal opportunity' this is bogus. If you are white and your parents are wealthy and/or have connections to a school you will get in.
3. White = privilege. Bottom line. Money also helps. Day one, good pre-school, leads to a good high school, leads to a good college. Trust funds/parental support allows jobs and experience that others can't have. Without these opportunities many others fall behind. Scholarships allow a small measure of 'evening the playing field'.
(I want to address the legal issues later - interesting to see what has happened over time...)

Unfair?

2006-03-14T14:40:00.000-05:00

(apparently it will not let me put it as a link - i have no idea why... but just go check out the Times)

Colleges Open Minority Aid to All Comers
By JONATHAN D. GLATER
Published: March 14, 2006
Facing threats of litigation and pressure from Washington, colleges and universities nationwide are opening to white students hundreds of thousands of dollars in fellowships, scholarships and other programs previously created for minorities.

(read the rest at the Times)

A key paragraph that represents the two sides are posted below.

"Our concern is that the law be followed and that nobody be denied participation in a program on account of skin color or what country their ancestors came from," said Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, which has been pressing institutions on the issue.
"We're not looking at achieving a particular racial outcome," Mr. Clegg added. "And it's unfortunate that some organizations seem to view the success or failure of the program based simply on what percentage of students of this color or that color can participate."

Advocates of focused scholarships programs like Theodore M. Shaw, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., challenge the notion that programs for minority students hurt whites. "How is it that they conclude that the great evil in this country is discrimination against white people?" Mr. Shaw asked. "Can I put that question any more pointedly? I struggle to find the words to do it because it's so stunning."

My three quick cents:

1. While a nice idea that one day we can stop using race or gender as criteria on which to judge merit of equalizing factors such as scholarships - we have not yet reached that point. Inequality such as racism and sexism are still rampant in our society and as a result many institutions remain unequal. Because of this scholarships/Universities should be allowed AND should be required (as they have been - and still the number of minority students is often low at elite institutions) to admitting a certain number of minority students.
2. Getting into schools is not based on merit. George Bush at Yale is a perfect example. While these types of organizations who fight against using race and gender as criteria on which to base admittance/scholarships call themselves 'equal opportunity' this is bogus. If you are white and your parents are wealthy and/or have connections to a school you will get in.
3. White = privilege. Bottom line. Money also helps. Day one, good pre-school, leads to a good high school, leads to a good college. Trust funds/parental support allows jobs and experience that others can't have. Without these opportunities many others fall behind. Scholarships allow a small measure of 'evening the playing field'.

(I want to address the legal issues later - interesting to see what has happened over time...)

Here we go...

2006-03-10T11:20:00.000-05:00

and another state joins the anti-choice team. Tennessee has joined the ranks - albeit in a slightly different way - with the state Senate passing a proposal to amend the state constitution so that it doesn't guarantee women the right to have an abortion. What this means is that the state is preparing for Roe vs. Wade to be overturned. Technically, (and this is my understanding of the law - someone correct me if I am wrong), changing the state constitution does not do anything as long as the Supreme Court ruling of Roe vs. Wade is on the books. What anti-choice states are doing is preparing so that IF it is overturned they already have laws in place that make abortions in their state illegal. Since getting laws passed (South Dakota/Mississippi) and changing constitutions (TN) takes time, these states are starting the process now. In Tennessee the amendment to the constitution still has to go before the General Assembly twice over a two year period - and if they pass it both times it will go before voters.

While a woman's right to make her own choice regarding her own body may not be wiped out, Tennessee has joined the growing number of states moving in that direction.

"The resolution is an all-out attack on the women of Tennessee and seeks to rob women of their right to make choices about their own health, safety and personal welfare," said Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union' of Tennessee"

if you thought all Minnesotans are liberal...

2006-03-09T15:41:00.000-05:00

think again. An article in the Star Tribune today (thanks to Genya for the article and the linking help) makes it clear that the debate over the morning after pill and pharmacists rights remains controversial.

"Pharmacists would be allowed to refuse to dispense drugs such as morning-after contraception pills on moral or religious grounds, but only if patients are assured of "timely access" to the drugs from other sources under a bill approved by the House Health Committee on Wednesday."

I am genuinely curious how they propose to regulate this portion of the bill. What constitutes 'timely access'? Will there always be one pharmacist on duty who will fill it? Or will some women have to drive to another pharmacy? And how far does 'timely' mean? Could a woman have to drive 20 minutes or an hour and still be considered timely? I personally think that if I go to a pharmacist, THAT pharmacy should have to fill it while I am there within approx 20 minutes to an hour. But somehow I don't think the backers of this bill would agree with me...

With that said, I totally and utterly disagree with this bill being passed, no matter what kind of language is being used. What other public service job would we allow this kind of faith based cop-out from? I don't know any. If you are a firefighter and you tell your boss, 'hey, I want to put out fires, but guess what, its against my religion to sleep with people of the same sex, so if the fire is in a gay person's home I am not going to put it out' there would be public outrage. If you are a pharmacist and you agree to a job that is not affiliated with a church (ie: you work at a Walmart pharmacy) it is YOUR JOB to fill ANY prescription, whether they are anti-depressants or diet pills or EC. It is NOT your moral job to make others' decisions for them.

A few things...

2006-03-08T16:37:00.000-05:00

Seeing as I've had a busy week and my partner in crime is gone all this week... our postings are sadly limited... but with that said I thought I would throw in a few interesting things:

1. A constant debate: should Hillary run in 2008? I am interested to hear what others have to say about this. Sentiment from democrats seems to be pretty strong on one side or the other. Mainly what I keep hearing is that she can't win. I personally think it depends who the republicans run. If it is McCain, I agree that it will be a much tougher race. If it is someone less middle-ground I think she could potentially pull it off. I think it will be particularly interesting to see what happens between now and then - as clearly there is a lot of time for new issues to arise. It will also be interesting to see what happens with the South's voting... while I don't think the hurricane will be a major influence by 2008 - I am curious as to how people would have voted if the election was now. I also think it will also be interesting to see where the issue of abortion goes and how that could potentially influence how people vote. With all of that said, I have to say I think I would vote for her. I would love to see a woman as president - its time the US caught up to other parts of the world - and while I wouldn't vote for a female simply to see a woman in office, I think Hillary has the credentials, the brains and her politics are in the right place for a president. (sorry this lacks such depth but work is calling... just check out the article).

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/08/nyregion/08hillary.html

And with that said... maybe she has more of a chance than we think... if leading conservatives are this critical of the Bush administration maybe the times are a changin...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030701403.html?sub=AR

"'If Bush were running today against Bill Clinton, I'd vote for Clinton,' Bartlett served."

Excellent.

Brazil Rocks... US not...

2006-03-02T19:16:00.000-05:00

Okay - I don't have a ton of time to put into this one, but I think it is a really great article (thanks Meredith for the link! Keep 'em coming!)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/01/AR2006030102316_pf.html

Where Prostitutes Also Fight Aids - (I pulled some of the key points here)
The article looks at Brazil's unique outlook on how to fight the AIDs epidemic and how, as a result, the US is now threatening to pull funding because it doesn't agree with the methods being used:

"But the U.S. government strongly disapproves of such unorthodox methods. Two weeks ago, Brazil received a letter from USAID declaring the country ineligible for a renewal of a $48 million AIDS prevention grant. The United States requires all countries receiving AIDS funding help to formally state that prostitution is dehumanizing and degrading, and Brazil last year -- alone among AIDS aid recipients -- was unwilling to do that.
A working partnership with prostitutes, health officials here say, is a key reason that the country's AIDS prevention and treatment programs are considered by the United Nations to be the most successful in the developing world. There are at least 600,000 people infected with HIV in Brazil -- but that is only half the number predicted by the World Bank a decade ago.
"When we started in the 1980s, our projected AIDS rates were exactly the same as Africa's, but now it's a completely different story," said Mariangela Simao, deputy director of Brazil's national HIV-AIDS program in Brasilia. "I'm convinced it's a result of the way the government has responded. We provide information and resources, and don't enter into moral or religious issues."

So essentially here is an aids prevention program that is working- and yet because it promotes SAFE SEX and recognizes prostitution (aka doesn't criminalize it)- the US government believes it should get involved and try to put a stop to it... enough said right there. That's just plain wrong. Way to go Brazil.

(For those of you really interested there is a great section about Brazil's involvement in threatening to break patent law on AIDS medication - as the government could produce the drug for much cheaper than drug companies - many located in the US - anyone making a connection here...)

I'll leave you with the final quote of the article:

"It's strange, this attitude of the United States that says its way is the best, even in another culture that is completely different," said Leite, who said she retired from prostitution in 1979. "If that's the way it's done in your culture, that's fine. But it's different here, and we'll do it our way."

When Politics Defeats Science

2006-03-02T17:53:00.000-05:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/28/AR2006022801027_pf.html

I thought this was a nice editorial piece by the assistant commissioner of women's health at the FDA, Susan Wood. She recently resigned from this position due to the FDA - again - delaying making EC available over the counter. "I can no longer serve as staff when scientific and clinical evidence, fully evaluated and recommended for approval by the professional staff here, has been overruled" .
In her editorial Wood addresses the constantly asked question of why the FDA continues to stall making EC over the counter (other European countries have been doing this for several years). Wood notes that despite the fact that the drug manufacturer agreed to take the controversial (to some) issue of making the pill available to those under 17, the FDA acting commissioner, Andrew C. von Eschenbach, "is unable or unwilling to let the science and the scientists guide FDA policy and decisions". Eschenbach says that they are "carefully reviewing the thousands of comments received in response to last-minute concerns raised about the feasibility of making the same product available over the counter for most women but keeping it on prescription for young teens." There are several problems here.
1. In our country 40% of 14 year old girls will get pregnant before they turn 20. Clearly teens are having sex and should have access to EC. The difference between a 15 year old and an 18 year olds' body in terms of sexual organs, if she is able to get pregnant, is no different. Science has shown that EC is safe. What is really going on here is that a group of people are concerned that their child could be practicing sexual behaviors and not getting 'caught' because they have access to EC.
2. As Wood points out the FDA, which is supposed to be an independent organization that provides accurate health information to consumers, is clearly being influenced along party and ideological lines. As she says "a small but vocal political minority" continues to fight against women's right to access safe and reliable methods of birth control. I have to point out here that there is a small grading scale along which people in this camp fall. On the farthest right are those who believe birth control should not be used at all, in the middle is the group that believes only married women should be using birth control, and on the right is the group that opposes abortion and has somehow gotten confused over exactly what EC is. Wood does a great job clearing this up - so does Planned parenthood website - but the short of it is this:
- EC PREVENTS ABORTION - EC is NOT RU-486 (the abortion pill). EC works just like birth control pills by inhibiting ovulation and fertilization. If a woman is already pregnant it does not a. Induce an abortion b. harm the fertilized egg.
A study done by Planned Parenthood suggests that if EC was made available without a prescription, it could PREVENT 1.7 MILLION unintended pregnancies and 800,000 abortions EVERY YEAR! Wood's article asks the key question: so WHY oh WHY are those who proclaim to be trying to lower the number of abortions each year so hell-bent on trying to thwart this??
What she misses is that this debate isn't truly about concern over abortion or 'potentially lost souls'. What it is really about is trying to regulate women's ability to have sex without the consequence of getting pregnant and an attempt by a small group to inflict their personal and moral beliefs onto the larger population as a whole.

2006-03-02T11:23:00.000-05:00

Way to Go Mississippi.

2006-03-01T16:35:00.000-05:00

So as not to loose their self proclaimed title of 'Number One Anti-choice State' Mississippi's House of Public Health Committee has quickly followed South Dakota's lead, approving a similar bill yesterday - most importantly - it results in abortions only being performed in order to save the pregnant woman's life and does not include exceptions in the case of rape or incest. Beyond my personal view that abortion should be safe and legal to any woman who demands it, those who received my past emails and/or reads Feministe knows that there are two major problems with this.
1. Serious health risks are involved with pregnancy that, while may not result in immediate death, can lead to life-long consequences. Worst case scenario this can ultimately mean death, best case it means a woman may have chronic health problems for the rest of her life. The problem is that under these new laws women facing these health risks would not be able to have an abortion.
2. Rape and incest abortion cases make up only a small percentage of abortions each year (about 1%) but even so, no woman who has been forced to have sex against her will should have to endure a reminder of it for the rest of her life. Rape is painful enough without a child coming out of it. (As a side note - and I have to give thanks to Jill for this insight - in general I do not like the idea of rape and incest clauses as they support the thinking that a woman is only entitled to an abortion if the sex wasn't consensual, ie: she is still a good girl - if she wanted it then it is her own damn fault she got pregnant and now she should be punished.)

While the bill still needs to pass in the full House and Senate no major road blocks appear. The bill was introduced by Democrat Steve Holland, whose justification was that he was "tired of piecemeal attempts to add new abortion restrictions year after year." I have to call bullshit on that. What he really means is that they ran out of any more restrictions and felt that the political climate of the US Supreme Court made this a perfect time to try and dismantle Roe vs. Wade altogether. Mississippi, which has one of the strictest abortion policies in the country, already has a 24 hour waiting period, a counselling requirement for all abortions, both parents' consent for all minors, and lobbyists are currently trying to get a requirement that pregnant women seeking abortions first have to listen to a fetal heartbeat before obtaining the procedure.

What I just don't understand is how Mississippi can't connect the dots. Try and follow this simple reasoning : About 60% of the WORLD'S population has had sex by the time they are 18. The US's teenage birth-rate and abortion rate is higher than ANY OTHER developed country in the world. All these other countries have comprehensive sex education for their youth...
Mississippi REQUIRES ABSTINENCE ONLY sex education in those schools that provide ANY form of sex education (deduction: there are a lot of kids who don't even get the abstinence only talk). MISSISSIPPI has the THIRD HIGHEST teen pregnancy rate of all the State's in the US and the HIGHEST NUMBER of TEEN MOTHERS.
This points to the fact that young people have sex. Now, while the state probably takes some pride in the fact that the number of overall abortions here are lower than other states, quotes from a January 30th article in Time Magazine suggest that this MAY be due to factors other than the laws. “The restrictions may stop some, but we think things like the 24-hour waiting period and the reduction of the numbers of clinics do not reduce abortions. They increase later abortion,” says St. Louis–region Planned Parenthood CEO Paula Gianino... a 2000 study by Guttmacher conducted in Mississippi found that the percentage of second-trimester abortions increased after the state adopted mandatory counseling and waiting periods in 1992”. So potentially the SAME number of women who would obtain an abortion initially STILL DO, but they get a LATER one... and the overall lower number of abortions may be a result of a more conservative climate and an overall fewer number of women interested in having an abortion.
My problem with Mississippi and other states/anti-choice advocates is that they are approaching this debate in the wrong way. First, the number of women who have abortions should drop because individuals make the decision to not get an abortion. The number should not drop because a limited number of people inflict their views onto others and use political and legal channels to do so. Second, if you really are pro-life then recognize that people have sex and promote sex education. Unfortunately a large percentage of those who are anti-choice are also against sex education. And as the above shows, this just is not realistic. Yet Mississippi's bill isn't the first, nor will it be the last, that we hear of this. The bottom line is this debate is not going to go away - it is only going to get more heated.
(all facts can be found at the Alan Guttmacher Institutes website - there are too many to link them all here - aka i'm not quite technologically to that point yet - i'm working on it!)

Army to Pay Halliburton Unit Most Costs Disputed by Audit

2006-03-01T12:38:00.000-05:00

New York Times
February 27, 2006
By James Glanz
*article condensed from print version

The Army has decided to reimburse a Halliburton subsidiary for nearly all of its disputed costs on a $2.41 billion no-bid contract to deliver fuel and repair oil equipment in Iraq, even though the Pentagon's own auditors had identified more than $250 million in charges as potentially excessive or unjustified.

The Pentagon's Defense Contract Audit Agency had questioned $263 million in costs for fuel deliveries, pipeline repairs and other tasks that auditors said were potentially inflated or unsupported by documentation. The Army said in response to questions on Friday that questionable business practices by the subsidiary, Kellogg Brown & Root, had in some cases driven up the company's costs. But in the haste and peril of war, it had largely done as well as could be expected, the Army said, and aside from a few penalties, the government was compelled to reimburse the company for its costs.

Under the type of contract awarded to the company, "the contractor is not required to perform perfectly to be entitled to reimbursement," said Rhonda Jones, a spokeswoman for the southwestern division of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, based in Dallas, where the contract is administered.

The contract has been the subject of intense scrutiny after disclosures in 2003 that it had been awarded without competitive bidding. That produced criticism from Congressional Democrats and others that the company had benefited from its connection with Dick Cheney, who was Halliburton's chief executive before vice president.

Later that year auditors began focusing on the fuel deliveries under contract, finding that the fuel transportation costs that the company was charging the Army were in some cases nearly triple what others were charging to do the same job. The Pentagon auditors found that the cost for a gallon of gasoline was roughly 40 percent higher than what the American military paid when it did the job itself--under a separate contract it had negotiated with Altanmia.

The Army has decided to pay all but $10.1 million of those [$263 million] contested costs. That means that the Army is withholding payment on just 3.8 percent of the charges questioned by the Pentagon audit agency, which is far below the rate at which the agency's recommendation is usually followed or sustained by the military--the so-called "sustention rate"
Figures provided by the Pentagon audit agency on thousands of military contracts over the past three years show how far the Halliburton decision lies outside the norm. In 2003, the agency's figures show, the military withheld an average of 66.4% of what the auditors had recommended, while in 2004 the figure was 75.2% and in 2005 it was 56.4%.

Rick Barton, co-director of the post-conflict reconstruction project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said despite the difficulties of doing business in a war zone, the low rate of recovery on such huge and widely disputed charges was hard to understand. "To think that it's near zero is ridiculous when you're talking about these kind of numbers." Representative Henry A. Waxman, a California Democrat, said in a written statement about the Army's decision, "Halliburton gouged the taxpayer, government auditors caught the company red-handed, yet the Pentagon ignored the auditors and paid Halliburton hundreds of millions of dollars and a huge bonus."

COMMENTARY:

Whoa, hold up! First of all, someone needs to call Stephen Gaghan, director of the acclaimed political thriller Syriana, and tell him that he shouldn't be up for an Oscar for best screenplay when he apparently could just be reporting the news. You know there's a big problem when frontpage articles on current factual dealings in the US Government starts sounding like a massive conspiracy of Hollywood proportions.

That said, regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, the Pentagon's contract with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root simply defies all human reason. If US military presence in Iraq complicates the issue for you, let's take a step back and put this situation in simpler terms. If I want to pay someone to wipe my ass, then I probably want to get the most competitive price for someone to do so--I am a paralegal after all, I'm not made of money. To award an ass wiping contract without competitive bidding would defy the basic tenets of a market economy and likely not be economically advantageous. Once I have hired an ass wiper, it would not make sense to pay them the amount we had agreed upon if even one of the following things had occurred: 1) they did not wipe my ass 2) they did not do a satisfactory job of wiping my ass (maybe they missed a spot!) The only circumstances in which I would pay someone 40 times the market price to wipe my ass would be if 1) I owed them a very expensive favor or 2) we were friends (I realize this hypothetical gets tough here, but bear with me). If you, the reader of this feisty blog, were paying your taxes to me, as the recipient and spender of your hard earned tax dollars, you would not want to finance me paying my buddy 40 TIMES THE MARKET VALUE TO WIPE MY ASS.

Should I have paid another contractor to investigate the terms of my ass wiping contract and the quality of the services performed thereof, and the results of this investigation showed that I had not adequately received what I paid for, it would defy human reason to simply GIVE AWAY MONEY unless the US Government was officially changing its name to Publishers Clearing House.

Note: If this turns out to be the case, I hope to open the door to my cockroach infested apartment one morning on my way to work to find ol' Dick Cheney himself holding an enormous lifesize check for me, complete with red bow and ribbon.