October 2005 – Page 12

The Friday Random Ten – The “One Week, No Crying” Edition

The student teaching gig has gone quite well. Despite being an under-rested crabass bitch, I’m doing just fine. But give me the fucking weekend already.

If it’s Friday somewhere, it’s time for the Friday Random Ten. Set your politics aside, load up your full catalog of mp3s, and list the first ten the randomizer spits out.

1) The Vibrators – Disco in Moscow
2) Nick Drake – River Man
3) The Waitresses – I Know What Boys Like
4) His Infernal Majesty – Don’t Fear The Reaper (surprisingly good Blue Oyster Cult cover)
5) The Dwarves – Dairy Queen
6) The Moody Blues – Nights In White Satin
7) Ike & Tina Turner – River Deep, Mountain High
8) Tammy St. John – He’s The One For Me
9) Sebastian Tellier – La Tuerie
10) T-Rex – Cosmic Dancer

Bonus Guilty Pleasure: Dolly Parton, I Will Always Love You

Give Me Abstinence, or Give Me Death

The New York Times reports that a new, highly-effective cervical cancer vaccine could be available as early as next year:

If it were widely used, the vaccine could save many lives. Worldwide, there are about 500,000 new cases of cervical cancer a year, and 290,000 deaths. Most of the cases and most of the deaths occur in poorer countries where women do not have regular Pap tests, which can detect cancers or precancers early enough for them to be cured. In the United States, where Pap tests are common, 10,400 new cases are expected in 2005, and 3,700 deaths.

“A lot of people are really excited,” said Dr. Deborah Saslow, director of breast and gynecological cancer at the American Cancer Society. “This is the first major cancer prevention vaccine. The potential, particularly in the undeveloped world, particularly if they can overcome the logistics and get the vaccine to those women, could be enormous. It could prevent 70 percent to 90 percent of those deaths.”

Sounds great, right? I mean, the fact that we have a vaccine to prevent any kind of cancer is fantastic. Getting vaccinated should be a no-brainer.

But of course, there remain those in our society who seem to operate without brains.

Ugh…

Well this is fantastic.

And thanks, Georgie, for “fighting terrorism.” The war in Iraq has clearly improved things for all of us. I would invite him to accompany me on the very crowded subway to and from school tomorrow. Because the world is a safer place thanks to this war, right?

Right-Wing Elitism

As Atrios and Kos both pointed out today, many on the right — most notably Republican poster-skeleton Ann Coulter — are acting a wee bit elitist when it comes to Harriet Miers’ nomination. Coulter rips on her for not going to an Ivy League law school, insinuating that it speaks to her personal intelligence (it should be noted, of course, that “Ivy League” doesn’t always equal “best;” six of the 10 highest-ranked law schools are non-Ivies). Coulter seems to believe that all the smart kids go to top 10 schools, and going to the 52nd-ranked school means you’re a real dummy.

I suspect she’s never applied to law school.

Both Atrios and Kos went to “humble state schools” for undergrad; Atrios went onto an Ivy League law school and Kos went on to the highly-ranked law school at Boston University (20th, to be precise). I’m coming from a similar place; I went to NYU undergrad and I’m there now for law, and though NYU is private the undergraduate school is ranked somewhere in the 30s (I think) and the law school is much higher. Is there a difference in the general intelligence of the people I have class with now as opposed to last year? Honestly, yes, there is. People work harder. They’re more on top of their shit. But I think a large part of that has to do with the fact that it’s law school. I’m working harder, and I’m more on top of things now than I was a year ago — in a law school environment, you have to be. To get into any top-tier law school is a major challenge. The smartest kids I knew as an undergrad who went onto law school are all over the place — NYU, University of Washington, Fordham, Emory, Brooklyn Law, etc. Law school classes are generally small, and the applicant pools are usually large. It’s incredibly difficult to get accepted at the top schools, even if you are a nerd who spent all your undergraduate years studying. And the admissions process isn’t an exact science; there were definitely people far more intelligent and hard-working than I am who ended up at lower-ranked law schools. That’s just how it works.

So to criticize Miers because her law degree doesn’t have the right kind of pedigreed name on it is ridiculous. Certainly, there are plenty of reasons to question her qualifications as a Supreme Court justice — like, say, the fact that she’s never been a judge and doesn’t seem to have been a particularly distinguished attorney.

But perhaps most disturbing is this point from Coulter:

Third and finally, some jobs are so dirty, you can only send in someone who has the finely honed hatred of liberals acquired at elite universities to do them. The devil is an abstraction for normal, decent Americans living in the red states. By contrast, at the top universities, you come face to face with the devil every day, and you learn all his little tropes and tricks.

So… we don’t need an Ivy League-educated Supreme Court justice because she’ll be more intelligent, we need one because she’ll be bound to hate liberals more. Got it.

Perhaps Ann is just upset that Miers supports radical feminazis— you know, the type who selfishly advocated for things like property and divorce rights for women. via DKos.

Fluff

I’d gasp but… but…maybe we do need parenting licenses.

Read These

Way too tired to blog. Some of these are ancient by blog standards. Read anyway.

Susie Bright: Feminism, Porn, and “Empowerment”
20 Things that Only Happen in Movies
Hubris: The Roberts Victory Tour

SRWU: The Brown Bunny
Hughes for America: Is Racism a Virtue? and Comment Like a Rightie!
Pharyngula: Why Are People Against Evolution?

Snopes: The Youngest Mother
Sisyphus Shrugged: Man, Woman, Birth, Death, Kittens
Waking Vixen: One conversation I would never want to have with my parents… Ever.

Republic of T: England, “I Was Used”
Media Girl: Pro-Choice Already Is the Big Tent
Alternet: The Failed Drug War

Educe Me: Too Old To Teach Us Feminism?
Factesque: The Kansas Board of Education is Already Expressing Interest
Noli Irritare Leones: The Road Not Taken and Porn and Relationships

Creek Running North: Jasper (Am I a softie if I cried a little while reading this? Or am I just tired?)
Easily Distracted: Choose Your Own Adventure
Poverty Barn: Official Change of Emblem

The Dark Side of Faith

You know those folks who like to blame all the ills in the world on feminism, contraception, religious tolerance and liberalism? Well, they’d be wrong.

Paul ranked societies based on the percentage of their population expressing absolute belief in God, the frequency of prayer reported by their citizens and their frequency of attendance at religious services. He then correlated this with data on rates of homicide, sexually transmitted disease, teen pregnancy, abortion and child mortality.

He found that the most religious democracies exhibited substantially higher degrees of social dysfunction than societies with larger percentages of atheists and agnostics. Of the nations studied, the U.S. — which has by far the largest percentage of people who take the Bible literally and express absolute belief in God (and the lowest percentage of atheists and agnostics) — also has by far the highest levels of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

As Rosa Brooks points out, we see this “values” hypocrisy right here at home:

Murder rates? Six of the seven states with the highest 2003 homicide rates were “red” in the 2004 elections (Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina), while the deep blue Northeastern states had murder rates well below the national average. Infant mortality rates? Highest in the South and Southwest; lowest in New England. Divorce rates? Marriages break up far more in red states than in blue. Teen pregnancy rates? The same.

Brooks doesn’t point this out in her article, but it’s also worth noting that anti-choice red states notoriously dedicate less funding to things like head start, childhood nutrition programs and social programs for low-income families. Women in those states tend to be less educated and earn less than women in pro-choice states.

Although correlation is not causation, Paul’s study offers much food for thought. At a minimum, his findings suggest that contrary to popular belief, lack of religiosity does societies no particular harm. This should offer ammunition to those who maintain that religious belief is a purely private matter and that government should remain neutral, not only among religions but also between religion and lack of religion. It should also give a boost to critics of “faith-based” social services and abstinence-only disease and pregnancy prevention programs.

Well… you would think that both empirical and scientific proving that such programs don’t work would have been enough. But that doesn’t cut it with the religious right.

We shouldn’t shy away from the possibility that too much religiosity may be socially dangerous. Secular, rationalist approaches to problem-solving emphasize uncertainty, evidence and perpetual reevaluation. Religious faith is inherently nonrational.

Yep.

To the truly nonrational, even evidence that on its face undermines your beliefs can be twisted to support them. Absolutism means never having to say you’re sorry.

Couldn’t have said it better. It’s about damn time to get religion out of politics and social policy.

Shucks

Pat dropped the bill:

A controversial proposed bill to prohibit gays, lesbians and single people from using medical procedures to become pregnant has been dropped by its legislative sponsor.

State Sen. Patricia Miller, R-Indianapolis, issued a one-sentence statement this afternoon saying: “The issue has become more complex than anticipated and will be withdrawn from consideration by the Health Finance Commission.”

More complex than anticipated? Why, it was pretty clear: We don’t want them people havin’ childrens.

Assisted Suicide Evaluated by SCOTUS

The Supreme Court is now hearing arguments about Oregon’s assisted suicide laws, and it looks as if Justice Roberts isn’t a fan of allowing people to choose assisted suicide. We’ll see how the court goes — whether they’ll allow states to make their own rules on this one, or if the federal government has the right to control right-to-die laws.

Bike Seats May Have Sexual Side Effects

I’m tempted to make a “banana seat” pun right now, but I’ll refrain.

A raft of new studies suggest that cyclists, particularly men, should be careful which bicycle seats they choose.

The studies add to earlier evidence that traditional bicycle saddles, the kind with a narrow rear and pointy nose, play a role in sexual impotence.

Well. We’ll get to the “especially men” part in a second.

The area in question is the perineum, between the external genitals and the anus. “When you sit on a chair you never put weight on the perineum,” Dr. Schrader said. “But when you sit on a bike, you increase pressure on the perineum” sevenfold.

In men, a sheath in the perineum, called Alcock’s canal, contains an artery and a nerve that supply the penis with blood and sensation. The canal runs along the side of a bone, Dr. Goldstein said, and when a cyclist sits hard on a narrow saddle, the artery and the nerve are compressed. Over time, a reduction of blood flow can mean that there is not enough pressure to achieve full erection.

In women, Dr. Goldstein said, the same arteries and nerves engorge the clitoris during sexual intercourse. Women cyclists have not been studied as much, he added, but they probably suffer the same injuries.

(emphasis mine)

So… why should “particularly men” be careful? That’s right, because women haven’t been studied as much, even though we might suffer the exact same injuries.

Why am I not surprised? The fact that it may cause sexual dysfunction in men garners a dozen studies and a two page article in the New York Times; the fact that it may cause sexual dysfunction in women gets one sentence. The rest of the article discusses the health effects for “cyclists,” all of whom, apparently, are proud owners of progressively limper penises. And before anyone starts accusing me of being anti-man, I’m not saying in any way that the article shouldn’t have been written or that the studies shouldn’t have been done. I’m glad they were; now I know not to date bicyclists*. It’s a big deal that a common recreational activity could lead to impotence and sexual performance problems, so I’m happy to see it’s being covered. I just wish they would have included the ladies, too. We like our wee-wees to work as much as you like yours to.

And as a final, general bitching point, I’m sick of women getting the short end of the stick on all the sexual dysfunction studies and solutions (and medical studies in general, but that’s another post). Guy has trouble keeping it up, drug companies pour millions into creating Viagra and other similar drugs. A substantial percentage of women have never orgasmed in their lives, and they get… I dunno, KY, to at least make the process less painful? It’s a crock.

UPDATE: Well, not everyone is ignoring women’s health. But, seriously, Crisco? Thanks to Jess for the link.

*Just kidding, numb-nuts.