January 2007 – Page 10

A Subspecies of Nice Guy™

Lauren’s got a post about a variety of Nice Guy™: Save the Day Guy™.

I dated one of these once, a knight-in-shining-armor rescuer type. He sought out women who were vulnerable, who were going through rough times, so he could feel like he was rescuing them. And he wanted to keep them there.

I had a moment of clarity with him when I realized that he was invested in seeing me as some basket case, even though the circumstances that had made me a little more basket-casey than usual had ended. It was during a fight we were having that requires some background to understand.

He was pretty low income, being a Head Start teacher, and had lost a tooth at some point before I knew him. I’d noted it, but it was a fairly-far-back tooth that I never noticed unless he threw back his head and laughed.

I never mentioned it during the year or so we dated. I knew better.

During a rather unremarkable conversation we were having about dental insurance — his job had just given him comprehensive dental for the first time, which included near-full coverage for prosthetics — he brought it up. Said he had coverage, so he was considering getting a denture or implant. I responded with something mild, along the lines of “If that’s what you want to do, why not?”

And he responded with something as non-committal, and I didn’t think anything of it for months.

Until that moment of clarity. We were arguing on the phone about something — nothing important — and he brought that conversation up. Only in this new version, I had been drunk and had taunted him about his missing tooth.

Except that I had been stone-cold sober — at work, in fact — and said not a damn thing about his tooth that he hadn’t said himself.

It was a very Rashomon moment. I suddenly realized that he was invested in seeing me as some kind of unbalanced type who needed to be taken care of in a way that was most suffocating. That he needed to see me as broken so he could fix me.

I ran like hell.

Charlie

Charlie died last night, after spending an hour like this, in his favorite spot in the world.

My big-hearted friends J and G took him in shortly after he was rescued. He was old, skinny, had congestive heart failure, weak legs and cancer in his paw.

Not to mention, the world’s sweetest disposition. Though that was lost on Junebug, as he was also a horny old man and liked to follow her around with his nose in her butt.

He wasn’t expected to live even this long.

But sometimes a dog gets lucky, and finds people like J and G who open their homes and hearts to his sick old self. And are rewarded with love.

Rest in peace, old man.

Anti-Feminism AND Paranoia!

You can just tell from the first paragraph of this little bit of business by Nancy Levant entitled “Feminism and the Control of Womanhood” that we’re in for a frothy ride:

I received a note from a “feminist” who was quite disturbed with my opinions about “feminism.” Her arguments were dialectically predictable as she simply regurgitated the pat lines of the movement, but for the benefit of young women who grow up amidst the dialectic, I will respond with clarity.

Clarity being best served by academic jargon and scare quotes.

The one-world government scenario is dialectically based upon economics, environment, and equity – known as the Three E’s. These Three E’s involve global control of the common man’s labor and money, “sustainable” nature, and forcing all commoners into financial sameness. These same intentions are also documented in the U.N. Agenda 21 game plan for our “sustainable” environmental future.

She sure does like the dialectics, don’t she?

I’m not sure, frankly, how we jumped from feminism to one-world government. But note what she’s doing: she’s setting up feminists and tree-huggers as part of the powerful global conspiracy headed by the UN. Target of that conspiracy? The “common man.”

(See, boys! I’m not one of those evil feminists who just want to crush you! I’m not like other women at all! Please give me a cookie!)

Feministe Inc.

Shop the new Feministe store!

A Conservative Trifecta: Fat-shaming, welfare-state-hating, and victim-blaming

What’s making you fat now? Food stamps.

The argument goes something like this: Low-income people are more likely to be overweight than wealthier Americans. Low-income people are often on food stamps. Therefore, we should re-vamp the foodstamp program because clearly federal food relief leads to obesity. Also, poor people today (read: uppity Negroes) feel entitled to things like food, unlike the humble poor of yesteryear (read: white people, as evidenced by the examples used by the conservative authors — the characters in “Cinderella Man” and “Angela’s Ashes”), who knew enough to be humiliated by their economic situation. From the Hoover Institute article:

The searing images of the Great Depression, and the movie’s themes of pride, humility, hard work, and family, present an interesting contrast to the plight of the poor today. Although there are no doubt many individuals and families in need, the picture of poverty in America today can best be described as muddled.

To which “independent woman” Charlotte Hays follows:

Well, that was then, and this is now: Today many people regard receiving food stamps not as a humiliation but as an entitlement. We’ve made it that way. At one point, there were food stamp ads in the New York subway. They were designed to show that even ordinary, middle class folks might have to resort to food stamps in a spot of trouble.

Imagine that: a program which sought to lessen the humiliation of being on food stamps. Ha. Everyone knows that the poor should be properly humiliated for their lack of income. It’s the compassionate conservative way.

“It was the first time I saw Slim Goodbody…”

Off of the posts about weight report cards, I have a compound question for all of you:

If you did: When did you first become aware of your body as fat or potentially fat, skinny or maybe too skinny? When did you first become anxious about your weight? When did you first diet or otherwise attempt to regulate your body’s shape? Was there a particular catalyst? If you didn’t experience this anxiety, what might have protected or distracted you? Were there other body worries that prevailed?

Since Jill’s Been Stepping On My Toes

She’s been going nuts today, stealing all my ideas for posts. Hmph. And I’m the fat girl around here.

But she didn’t get to this one: FDA approves a new weight-loss drug.

For dogs.

WASHINGTON – Is your hound round? Too much flab on your Lab? Is your husky, well, husky? A new drug may provide some help. The government approved the first drug for obese canines on Friday. Called Slentrol, the Pfizer Inc. drug is aimed at helping fat Fidos shed extra pounds.

“This is a welcome addition to animal therapies, because dog obesity appears to be increasing,” said Stephen Sundlof, director of the Center for Veterinary Medicine at the
Food and Drug Administration.

A dog that weighs 20 percent more than its ideal weight is considered obese. That takes in about 5 percent of the nearly 62 million dogs in the United States. An additional 20 percent to 30 percent are considered overweight.

The liquid drug appears to reduce the amount of fat a dog can absorb. It also seems to trigger a feeling of satiety or fullness, according to the FDA.

You know what? Dogs are omnivores and scavengers. I’ve never known a healthy dog to turn down a particularly tasty treat, especially if there are other dogs around. Junebug is the only dog around here, which means that she hides her treats in nooks and crannies about the place (such as in, oh, THE COUCH) and she will even leave her food lying around for days, though she’s more than happy to eat whatever I have. Interestingly, I had my neighbors in last night (they’re interested in buying the place) and Junebug, being neurotic about vistitors, finished the food that’s been sitting in her bowl for three days while they were here.

Because dogs are scavengers, they will eat pretty much anything that’s offered to them. And a lot of people get in the habit of offering their dogs a LOT of treats.

Dogs are also at the mercy of their owners for exercise, and too many people who own dogs don’t walk them enough. God knows I could get Miss Thing out more often, were it not the dead of winter and were I not knee-injured again.

So you get dogs who get too much food from their owners (who perhaps think their dogs would refuse food if they weren’t hungry) and don’t get exercised enough who get fat. And, mind you, they’re master manipulators, so any attempt at restricting food intake is met with a lot of whining and guilt.

All this by way of saying, dogs really don’t fucking need canine Xenical. They need less food and more exercise.

Plus, have you read the side effects?

The prescription drug also can produce some unfortunate side effects, including loose stools, diarrhea, vomiting, lethargy and loss of appetite.

Because cleaning up vomit and diarrhea is less effort than taking your dog for a walk, I suppose.

And I love this bit that Pfizer felt compelled to include in their press release:

And it’s not for dog owners. The FDA discourages the drug’s use in humans and lists a litany of side effects should anyone ignore that advice.

I’d say I was surprised, but I used to do products liability, and one of my firm’s clients was a manufacturer of the relatively harmless half of Fen-phen (or is it Phen-fen?). And this was AFTER the heart problems of the other half were known. But we had friends of the attorneys calling — usually attorneys themselves — looking for the stash of Fen-phen we must surely have had or had access to.

American Fascists

Salon has a must-read interview with NYT war correspondent Chris Hedges, who has seen fascism, savagery and oppression all over the world, and recently wrote the book American Fascists, which takes a good hard look at the religious right in this country.

“Fascist” is a loaded word, and one which some argue might deserve its own Godwin’s law. But it’s worth looking at some informed definitions of “fascism” and seriously considering how they apply to those who want the U.S. to be a “Christian nation”:

* “The Cult of Tradition”, combining cultural syncretism with a rejection of modernism (often disguised as a rejection of capitalism).
“Rejection of modernism” — does that sound anything like the people who refuse to accept basic scientific consensus (climate change, evolution) and progressive social change (women’s rights, LGBT rights)?

* “The Cult of Action for Action’s Sake”, which dicatates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
Anti-intellectualism which often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science. Where have we heard this before? Modern religious conservatives are irrationally terrified of things like women’s sexual/reproductive rights and same-sex marriage, when in reality, there is absolutely no reason to fear either — unless you subscribe to a philosophy in which social control is a cornerstone.

* “Disagreement is Treason” – fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action.
Heh.

* “Fear of Difference”, which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
Who’s afraid of the big brown Mexican (or Muslim, pick your poison)? Hint: Not us red-diaper doper babies.

* “Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class”, fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
Who stokes fears about immigrants taking all of “our” jobs? Who blames feminism for destroying manliness? Who argues, in 2007, that white men should really step up and put the uppity black folks in their place?

* “Obsession With a Plot” and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often involves an appeal to xenophobia or the identification of an internal security threat. He cites Pat Robertson’s book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
Well, he cited it himself, so I don’t have to. But I’ll add the “war on Christmas” and the apparent “Islamist” plot to level America when, in fact, we’ve been killing people, starting wars, installing dictators, and propping up illigitimate leaders in majority-Muslim countries for several decades now (not to mention doing similar damage all over the rest of the world, but so far they aren’t plotting against us).

* “Pacifism is Trafficking With the Enemy” because “Life is Permanent Warfare” – there must always be an enemy to fight.
Do I really need to offer examples here? Ok.

* “Contempt for the Weak” – although a fascist society is elitist, everybody in the society is educated to become a hero.
Can you say Manly Jesus?

* “Selective Populism” – the People have a common will, which is not delegated but interpreted by a leader. This may involve doubt being cast upon a democratic institution, because “it no longer represents the Voice of the People”.
They like to talk a big game about democracy in the Middle East. And then they break out with stuff like this:

“Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ — to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.
But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice.
It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.
It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.
It is dominion we are after.
World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish.”
-George Grant, former executive director of D. James Kennedy’s Coral Ridge Ministries

* “Newspeak” – fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.
Think basics of newspeak: a vocabularly which reflects a black-and-white worldview (good or evil; “you’re either with us or you’re against us”); neutral-sound euphimisms to cover up for atrocities (“collateral damage”); or simply completely mislabelling what they truly stand for (“pro-life,” “defending marriage”).

Koufax Nominations are Open!

Send in your noms. And since it’s just nomination time, you can nominate as many blogs as you choose. I’m headed to bed so that I can get my lazy ass to the gym in the morning, but I hope to post a list of my nominations sometime tomorrow. In the mean time, head over there and give your favorite blogs some recognition. And if you have some cash to spare, consider donating — these great big awards require greater space, and servers don’t pay for themselves.

‘Tween Girls at Risk for Fatness

No, I did not make that title up myself.

As if being a tween is not hard enough, scientists now call the years between 9 and 12 a time when girls are especially at risk of getting fat.

Girls are more likely to become overweight in those preteen years than when they are teenagers, researchers report Monday in The Journal of Pediatrics.

The study did not say why that was and did not examine boys to know whether they face a similar risk.

Imagine that.

Other research has shown that the preteen years are when youngsters switch from heeding parents’ dietary advice to eating like their friends do, [National Institutes for Health Dr. Denise] Simons-Morton said. Less physical activity plays a role, too. She recalls from her own daughters’ tween years long sedentary hours on the phone and worries about getting sweaty.

“It should be cool to be physically active, and attractive,” she said.

Yes. Because what’s cool now is to sit around and be ugly. Someone’s got her finger on the pulse of adolescent priorities.