February 2005 – Page 3

Corresponding with PEEK

Alternet has set up a new blog syndicate called PEEK, compiling a list of lefty bloggers for the masses. I looked at it late last night and was irritated to see it was more of the same lefty voices with no surprises. WAATFB again?

I wrote last night:

I love your website, so it is with great chagrin that I noticed your new feature is compiling only popular, well-established blogs. There are plenty of other blogs out there worthy of greater recognition, and I hope you will take these demographics into consideration.

And so it’s clear, this isn’t a request to be syndicated. I’d rather not.

Good luck with your new project.

Lauren *****
feministe.us/blog/

And got this response this morning:

Thanks for the feedback Lauren, I really appreciate it. The content and blogroll at this point is only a reflection of our recent reader survey. My list goes well beyond that. The plan is to gradually begin to include
the less established blogs as readers, many of whom are getting their very first introduction to the blogosphere, become more comfortable with the medium.

Please feel free to send suggestions as well…

Evan

So I responded again:

Excellent!

I was hoping your answer would be something along those lines. I think there’s something to be said for the so-called apolitical blogs, though on some level, I think most bloggers are political. But that’s the topic of another letter.

Lauren
feministe.us/blog/

And received this:

Lauren,

Yes, I feel bound to mostly politics for now. But my hope is for people to begin to see that sometimes the BEST ways for the political landscape to change is through subjects, discussions, arguments that aren’t explicitly so.

Thanks again for your comments. Not to get too corny but these dialogs are exactly what make blogging the fascinating and promising medium I believe it is!

Evan

Looks like this guy is one of us. Finally.

I thought I would post this correspondence because I saw several criticisms of the new syndicate among feminist bloggers. I say we take him up on his offer and send a list of suggestions.

UPDATE:
Further correspondence and then some. I suggested a short list of bloggers and then pointed to the Link Portal on Gender in the Blogosphere to give the PEEK editor some context to the criticism he’s received so far. This being only day two of the PEEK blog, I say we give Alternet some slack. They are more than pro-feminist when it comes to their choices of syndicated articles and site content. I predict that they will become more representative of the blogosphere over time.

Or should, if this project is to be successful.

Friday Random Ten – The “Another Damn Birthday” Edition

Do it like you know you should: Fire up your IPOD, MP3 or other digital media player, set to random play, list the first ten songs.

1) Peaches – Operate
2) Sugarhill Gang – Apache
3) Lady Sovereign – Random
4) Pet Shop Boys – Go West
5) Dead Ghosts – Make Me
6) Stars Like Fleas – Live Like a River Town
7) Talking Heads – As the Days Go By
8) David Bowie – Fame
9) Har Mar Superstar – Sexual Contractor
10) Bel Biv Devoe – Poison

Yeah, I listen to Bel Biv Devoe. What?

Pablo, Salud!

Well, sort of. Pablo was allowed to come home today, but must remain in isolation for several more days. They still don’t know why he was ill, but the initial illness seems to have passed.

No new pics this week as the camera flash may be too exciting for the kitty. Here’s an old picture of Ethan making Pablo acknowledge the camera.

The unbelievable amount of support I got from everyone responding to the Pablo saga left me with quite a bit of leftover cash. Would any of the contributors mind if I made a $100 gift of cat-related products to my local Humane Society? Leave a comment or email if you wish to remain anonymous.

My Dad Reads Blogs

After his retirement, my father took a basic computer course at the local community college. On the first day the instructor joked that he was sure everyone knew how to turn on a computer. My father raised his hand. He did not know how to turn on the computer.

He can’t type with more than one finger. He didn’t know how to operate a computer until in his 60s. He regularly asks me how to add attachments in email.

But tonight I was a silent witness to my father reading Wonkette, Power Line and LGF. I nearly shat myself.

Indiana Abortion Bills

Dr. B. details several of the abortion bills coming through the state legislature.

Yearly inspections of abortion clinics AND declaring a fetus viable at 20 weeks (sneaky, eh?)

Doctors must tell patients that they can see an ultrasound and hear the heartbeat before the procedure.

Considers clinics where abortions are done, outpatient surgical centers. Forcing them to upgrade their facilities.

Requires doctors to offer anesthesia before the procedure for a fetus of at least 20 weeks.

Makes it a felony for a pregnant woman to take meds such as codeine without a prescription (can anyone else see where this one is going??)

Allows employees to refuse to give abortion and birth control pills and health care workers to refuse to participate in abortion procedures.

Requires public schools to incorporate fetal development and information about the health consequences of an early termination of pregnancy into their curriculum.

This is too easy:
1a) Viability can only be determined on a case-by-case basis. No overarching legislature will determine the viability of an individual fetus.

1b) Throwing a perfectly viable measure in with a rather controversial measure is cheap politics. Let the bills survive on their own merit, not because you tacked them on and tried to sneak them past one’s peers and constituents.

2) I doubt this will change as many minds of pregnant women as it will make women feel guilty, punished, and perhaps add to the nonexistent claims of PAS rates.

3) This is a common procedure intended to force financially-strapped abortion clinics to shut their doors because they cannot afford to upgrade their facilities. Abortions can be performed anywhere where proper sanitization can occur. While this bill might seem like a good one, its intentions are not.

4) Sure, fine. But let’s not forget the reasons behind bill no. 2.

5) Standard bill that tries to criminalize drug addiction in the name of “saving the baby.”

6) No worker should be allowed to refuse to dispense medication, especially medication that prevents abortion in the first place. Similar “moral” bills around the country have allowed medical workers to refuse giving medical care to gays and lesbians under the guise of “good conscience.”

7a) The only medical consequence of a terminated pregnancy is the termination of a pregnancy. This is a transparent attempt at making public schools dispense the faulty information “linking” breast cancer and abortion, a link disproven again and again by uninvested science. Because conseling is already required before and after an abortion service is provided, this bill is patently bunk.

7b) Information on fetal development is already a part of the state sex ed curriculum. If you want misleading info on the state educational system, ask a Hoosier Republican politician.

7c) Before we add more to the sex ed curriculum we should reinstate all information regarding safe sex, sexual self-esteem, and the appropriate, scientifically accurate information available so kids can make good choices, not uninformed choices.

Book Meme

From several at Feminist Blogs:

1. Grab the nearest book.
2. Open the book to page 123.
3. Find the fifth sentence.
4. Post the text of the sentence in your journal along with these instructions.
5. Don’t search around and look for the “coolest” book you can find. Do what’s actually next to you.

From my CSS design manual, “This effect can be achieved by using two span elements and a couple of CSS rules.”

Why, that was thrilling.

Why Do Women Take Women’s Studies?

Rick Dement poses a valuable observation in response to Cleis’ piece on the value of women’s studies. He says:

I actually took more then a few “women’s studies” courses in collage to satisfy social studies credits. The first one I took because I thought that it would be good for me to study that which I clearly had no clue about at 19 years old. I was naively shocked to find out that I would be sharing a classroom with about 30 co-eds (shock quickly faded to glee).

This was a woman’s history class, I also took a women’s literature course and a course on black women. In all cases, I was genuinely surprised that only women took these classes (and not only was I the only white person in the black women’s class I was also, once again the only male). The reason that this surprised me is I really felt that men would get a lot more out of a women’s studies course then women might. I also took a lot of history courses that focused on history from a particular point of view because I learned that normal history courses should really be called the history of war. In addition to Women’s history, I took music history, film history and science history.

But why are woman’s studies course such a estrogen ghetto? Other then a broad based liberal education, which I firmly believe in, what is it that women get out of these courses exactly?

My short answer: I took women’s studies courses in order to glean some context from several issues I had faced in my life. I knew, thanks to the course texts, that some of my more disturbing experiences were not only common but that others were on the streets attempting to make positive changes on behalf of women. In addition, the interdisciplinary work helped me realize that the struggle for safety and opportunity is connected to parallel struggles around the world, nearly all of which stem from a general invisibility that many of these issues suffer from. Everything else sprung from there.

I know ya’ll will have some good answers to this one. Answers welcome in the comments.

Bush’s Sex Scandal

From Nicholas Kristof for the NYTimes:

I’m sorry to report a sex scandal in the heart of the Bush administration. Worse, it doesn’t involve private behavior, but public conduct.

You see, for all the carnage in President Bush’s budget, one program is being showered with additional cash – almost three times as much as it got in 2001. It’s “abstinence only” sex education, and the best research suggests that it will cost far more lives than the Clinton administration’s much more notorious sex scandal.

Mr. Bush means well. But “abstinence only” is a misnomer that in practice is an assault on sex education itself. There’s a good deal of evidence that the result will not be more young rosy-cheeked virgins – it will be more pregnancies, abortions, gonorrhea and deaths from AIDS.

The article includes a link to the Abstinence Clearinghouse where one can buy “Keep It” boxers (stopping just short of “in your pants”), “Chew On This” abstinence gum (great for freshening up right before a hot and heavy make-out session), “I’m Worth Waiting For” temporary tattoos (because nothing says “good girl” like a tattoo), and, I’m not kidding, a “Save Sex for Marriage” sucker.

Whomever designed these products forgot that hormone-riddled teenagers come hand-in-hand with dirty minds.

But back to the scandal:

…there’s some evidence that abstinence-only programs lead to increases in unprotected sex.

Perhaps the most careful study of the issue involved 12,000 young people. It found that those taking virginity pledges had sex 18 months later, on average, than those who had not taken the pledge. But even 88 percent of the pledgers had sex before marriage.

More troubling, the pledgers were much less likely to use contraception when they did have sex – only 40 percent of the males used condoms, compared with 59 percent of those who did not take the pledge.

In contrast, there’s plenty of evidence that abstinence-plus programs – which encourage abstinence but also teach contraception – delay sex and increase the use of contraception. So, at a time when we’re cutting school and health programs, why should we pour additional tax money into abstinence-only initiatives, which are likely to lead to more pregnancies, more abortions and more kids with AIDS? Now, that’s a scandal.

Indeed.

Three Afternoon Reads

Cleis outlines why she disagrees with Dr. Crazy’s “Why Women’s Studies Sucks.”

The NYTimes has an interesting article about the risks Dems run if they don’t tow the line on reproductive rights.

An AIDS activist and mother writes on her LiveJournal about raising a gay son in a homophobic world. In part:

Fag: This is what I heard someone call my little boy today. I didn’t ignore it. I asked. I glared. What did you say? The kid muttered under his breath. Nothing. We walked to the car and he was quiet. He’s a boy who takes everything into himself. When he shares, it’s a gift. It has a meaning beyond what it is…

…So here was my golden boy, born at a time in my life when I was acutely aware of the powers of both love and hatred, chewing his nails in the backseat, trying not to cry. He looked up at me with his giant green eyes. I could tell he was phrasing his question very carefully, as he is such a precise little boy. “I’m not a fag if I don’t want to have a girlfriend, am I?” He was so quiet and serious. I pulled over and turned around to face him.

I wanted to tell him about the time into which he was born, how so many people loved him, how so many people saw him as the sign of a good and hopeful future they might not live to see. I wanted to tell him how the woman who came into my office after he was born wept with him in her arms and kissed him all over. I didn’t take him from her until he was sleeping and her tears had been replaced with a soft smile. “No one has ever let me touch a baby since I was diagnosed,” she told me in Spanish, “He’s so beautiful. Thank you.”

One of the scariest things about being a parent is my fear that my child will be targeted for something that ultimately defines his identity. This short post on parenting and homosexuality is beautiful for its complexity and compassion. Thanks for the link, A.

Pollution Changes Chromosomes In Utero

A new study has linked exposure to pollution in utero and changes in cancer-causing genes in fetuses:

A new study published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention suggests that harmful toxins from car exhaust pipes and factories can damage the genes of fetuses in the womb, increasing a child’s risk of cancer later in life.

The study, carried out by Columbia University researchers in New York City, examined 60 low-income pregnant women and the amount of pollutants they were exposed to in their third trimester. According to Dr. Frederica P. Perera, director of the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health, in a New York Times interview, following childbirth, the researchers found about 50 percent more genetic abnormalities in babies whose mothers had been exposed to higher levels of pollution.

“We already knew that air pollutants significantly reduced fetal growth, but this is the first time we’ve seen evidence that they can change chromosomes in utero,” she told the paper.

Maybe this is a point for which we can cooperate with pro-lifers: Save the Environment and Save an Unborn Baby.

Or not.

In related news, government officials are fighting against air pollution controls. As it is, many businesses weigh the costs of installing air pollution control methods and find that it’s cheaper for them to go overseas. Dirty air here, there, and everywhere.