Ferraro Fiasco

To paraphrase Mark Twain, rumors of my retirement have been greatly exaggerated.  Also, rumors that anyone has bothered to spread rumors of my retirement have been greatly exaggerated.  

This is old news, but I have to comment on the fracas surrounding Geraldine Ferraro and the comment she made this past winter: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.  And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position.  He happens to be very lucky to be who he is.  And the country is caught up in the concept."  I don't care to comment on the veracity of her statement, mostly because I just don't have the energy for it.  I have become worn out on the finer points of rhetoric, and I only can make so many cogent(and in this case I am applying the term rather liberally) arguments anymore. Most of the time, I simply find myself wanting to call people names and stick my tongue out at them.  

Anyway, what I want to say is that Ferraro's comments were not racist.  She was stating her opinion about the way race and gender sway the voting populace and the political decisions of this country.  To say that one doubts a man of Obama's accomplishments could have catapulted to the top of the political heap this quickly without benefit of "affirmative action" for his skin color is not prejudicial against people of color.  Nor is it beyond the pale to suggest that sexism is more pervasive that racism (a casual observance of what passed as acceptable political commentary during this primary race might easily lead one toward that conclusion).  You may not agree with her interpretation of the situation, but it is not racist to say that the color of a person's skin matters to large portions of the US population.  It is not racist to say the certain powerful politicos in the Democratic party deliberately moved Obama into the party spotlight because they are aware of this.  

All right, I can't think of a good conclusion.  So let me just end with this: skidush!

OxFam America

OxFam Americahas the scoop on the Farm Bill. It has not passed the Senate yet. FYI.

Cast Off the Shackles of Yesterday

New Drive Afoot to Pass Equal Rights Amendment

The above article is from the 3/28 Washington Post and is about a new drive to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, or ERA. To date, women are not guaranteed equality with men in the Constitution.

I wanted to briefly address this paragraph:

In the 1970s, Schlafly and others argued that the ERA would lead to women being drafted by the military and to public unisex bathrooms. Today, she warns lawmakers that its passage would compel courts to approve same-sex marriages and deny Social Security benefits for housewives and widows.

For starters, an ERA should make women should eligible for military draft. Even if the military continues to refuse to put women on the front lines, they can still serve invaluably in support functions, like as trained medical staff. And sacrifices which are expected of men can and should be expected of women, assuming that women have been granted the same privileges as men.

Second, the issue of possibly being forced to use unisex bathrooms (and who would want them so badly they would use their constitutional right as a basis for suing for unisex bathrooms is beyond me) pales in comparison to the fact that women are not guaranteed equal pay for equal work or equal consideration for promotions.

We'll skip over the same-sex marriage business, as I think it has been discussed enough in this blog for everyone to know how I feel about it. I'm not even sure that the argument is reasonable, though I suppose I could petition that my right to marry a woman should be equal to a man's right to marry a woman, and that a man's right to marry a man should be equal to a woman's right to marry a man. But any judge could say that everyone in society has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, so there's no sex-based descrimination.

Finally, equality between the sexes wouldn't mean that widows and housewives don't get support. It would mean that widowers and househusbands do. We now live in an era where the vast majority of women work and men are beginning to take the option to stay at home with the kids. So we need to worry about men whose wives make more money than they do as much as we worry about women who are supported by paychecks made out to their husbands.

True equality guarantees that nobody gets left behind.

Movie Review: Fast Food Nation

On Friday my Father and I watched Fast Food Nation, a recent delivery from Netflix. This movie very much held my attention for the first 80 mintues. The last 39 were iffy, but then my movie threshhold only tends to last for 80 minutes anyway. Hence my preference for children's movies. Anyway, this movie was good. I've recently come to recognize the brilliance of Richard Linklater. Whether it's because he's a good director or he picks good topics for movies (or a combination of the two), his movies are intense and thought-provoking. Fast Food Nation is a fictional adaptation of Eric Shlosser's investigative book of the same name. It chronicles the effect that fast food production has on immigrant laborers, family ranchers, and the quality of our food. A lot of the information has been covered to some degree in this blog. However, the movie will sell it in a way that I never could. It doesn't pull punches. There were a number of times when I had to close my eyes in horror, fearing to watch something horrible happen to a factory worker or animal. And horrible things did happen. As they do happen every day in real life. The movie also shows what happens when good people fail to educate themselves, when bad people fail to care, when good people get educated but feel constrained into doing the wrong thing anyway. Which is why I beg you, dear readers, to get educated, to keep caring, to not let yourself get convinced that doing wrong is the only way to survive in this world.

Review: "This Film Not Yet Rated"

This past weekend I watched This Film Not Yet Rated, a documentary on the Motion Picture Association of America's (MPAA) rating system and rating panel. Certain aspects of the documentary were interesting and spoke to deeper prejudices of American society. The academy is stricter with sexuality, particularly "deviant" sexuality (and conversations about sexuality)than violence, homosexual relationships than heterosexual relationships, female sexuality than male sexuality. They are also hypocritical, fail to follow their own protocols for rater eligibility, and frequently are more generous with studio productions than independent film productions.

What I found less relevant was the frequent bandying about of the word "censorship." For one thing, no matter what rating the MPAA gives a film, this rating is in no way a public ban on the film. Though many theaters refuse to show NC-17 rated films, this is a decision of the theaters, not the MPAA. The other issue is that the MPAA describes the goal of its rating system as a guide for parents deciding what is appropriate for their children. This means that yes, a documentary on soldiers in Iraq that features violence, sexuality, and prolific use of the "F" word, should not be rated for a general audience, regardless of the fact that it is all unscripted footage. Now, it probably does not deserve the NC-17 rating, as most teenagers are developed enough to be educated on political issues, and probably coarsened enough to know profanity anyway. Especially if they have a parent with them.

The movie also featured interviews which talk about the fact that in order to receive military assistance, the film has to be approved, from screenplay to final production, by the military. Once again the spectre of totalitarian censorship was raised. However, I find the idea that the military owes assistance to film makers, particularly of fictional films, to be ridiculous. Frankly, I'm more upset that the military gives assistance at all, given the expense of this stuff, than that they demand editorial approval over movies.

So, basically, much of this documentary was interesting, but it was a very self-involved investigation which was mostly relevant to the film industry, rather than the movie-going public.

Interesting article

This is a really interesting article. I am not endorsing or condemning the view point expressed in it. I just think it's really thought-provoking. I may choose to comment more thoroughly on it when I'm not supposed to be working. :-)

Like Pink, I Am Not Dead

Hey, everyone. I know it's been a while since I posted anything. Even longer since I've posted anything, y'know, good. Sorry. I may have something in the works about eco-friendly cleaning products (which also happen to be more human-friendly) in the works.

In the meantime, I'd love to get people's opinions on the following issue:

The major race for the presidential Democrat nomination seems to be between Clinton and Obama. I find myself completely in the dark about who is the better candidate. I'm hoping to improve my knowledge before the primaries, but I was wondering if any of my readers (what are we up to now? 4?) are leaning one way or the other, and for what reasons. I know that ultimately a third-party candidate would be better, but part of making change is sometimes going for the compromised win instead of the uncompromised loss. So I tend to vote Democrat. Though, this time around, if there is a Green candidate, I may vote green since my state's electoral votes go blue the vast majority of the time. So, seriously folks, weigh in.

Finally, Safeway makes tasty organic peanut butter and Silk's new line of soy yogurts seem no better than the old line, but the flavor selection seems to have expanded.

For the Love of Wolves

I find wolves to be compelling animals. They are beautiful, intelligent, and devoted to family. So it's enough to make me want to cry when I find out that Idaho would like to eliminate their wolf population. Please sign this petition to urge the Fish and Wildlife Service to say no to Idaho's outrageous slaughter request.

Just Hope You Don't Need It in an Emergency

FDA Approves Plan B's Over-the-Counter Sale

As you may have heard, Plan B emergency contraception, was approved for over-the-counter (OTC) sales. However, it is only being made available to women (and men) over 18 with valid IDs, and it is being kept behind the pharmacist's counter. This is seen as only a partial victory by women's advocacy groups, such as NOW (who is already hitting me up for money to help their campaign--don't they know I'm broke?). After all, a woman who needs EC doesn't want to have to ask a pharmacist who may be more inclined to give out lectures than medication. And in fact, the issue of whether anti-abortion pharmacists and religious hosptitals have the right to refuse provision of EC is still wide open.

According to Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America, this is a detrimental decision for women, families, parents, and girls. Apparently it will encourage promiscuity and lead to more unplanned pregnancies. Yeah, what? That's like saying condoms help spread disease. These people don't seem to understand that women have sex without wanting to get pregnant, and they will continue to have sex whether they are well-prepared and well-educated or not. (Men will too, but the risk of pregnancy is significantly less for them.) The recent decision of the CDC to treat all women as "pre-pregnant" comes from the fact that the US has a higher infant mortality rate than most other industrialized nations and half of all pregnancies are unplanned, increasing likelihood of bad habits during pregnancy (Pregnant Forever). I would suggest that the reason other nations have fewer problems is because they have contraception readily available, and strong sex ed programs that are not geared towards eliminating teen sex.

Forcing women to continue with unplanned/unwanted pregnancies is, in my opinion, a form of rape. Rape is a horrendous crime because it forces a person into a position where she (usually) is bereft of control/possession of her own body. Forbidding women easy access to contraceptives, and yes, even abortifacents, does the same thing. The statement made is that the government (or for places with parental consent laws, a girl's parents) has more say over a woman's body than she herself does. Control over one's own body is an inherent right of every individual. If we say that a woman has to continue with an unwanted pregnancy, what is to keep us from saying that people are obligated to donate blood, bone marrow, or a kidney to a person in dire need? After all, the decision not to donate could mean the death of an individual, whereas I would argue that a fetus is not an individual, and so is not deserving of the same consideration we give to, shall we say, post-birth humans? But I think most of us would have serious issues with proposing taking body parts from people against their will, so why should it be considered appropriate to hi-jack a woman's womb?

I don't advocate promiscuity, unsafe sex, or abortions. But I have absolutely no right to forbid those things to anyone. And the fact is that latter two would happen far less often if we stopped trying to lock sex behind the counter and just made condoms, birth control, the embattled hpv vaccine, and EC readily available.

The Color Green: Representing Environmentalism or Nausea?

Aine Bina has finally gotten around to reading an article from the June 4, 2006 issue of the New York Times that has been sitting on her night stand. The article, which perhaps should be described as editorial journalism, was featured in the "The Way We Live Now" column of the NY Times' Weekend magazine and is called "Mass Natural; With Wal-Mart going organic, where will organic go?" and was written by Michael Pollan. I am giving you all this info rather than a link to the article because a) I *gasp* have the article in hard copy, so I would have to actually *bigger gasp* work to find such a link and b) NYT is quite stingy about letting just anyone access its articles in full on the web.

The title is a pretty good indicator of what the article is about. On the surface, the news of Wal-Mart, or Evil Incorporated as I affectionatley refer to it, deciding to go organic is a major coup for environmentalism. As The Grist wrote in a recent editorial on green crusaders failing to applaud progressive actions taken by the traditional enemies of the environment: "But that self-same Wal-Mart is embarking on a comprehensive sustainability program that includes emission reductions and organics -- the whole shebang." But as Pollan will reveal to us, dig a little deeper and suddenly Wal-Mart's decision to go organic is deeply troubling. Wal-Mart's decision to go organic should not be interpreted as a company's sudden impulse to be a more caring type of corporation. The fact is that recently green has become cool. Vanity Fair did its green issue this summer, and the Washington Post devoted a Sunday Source to it this past month. I was flipping through a recent issue of "Glamour" and they had some suggestions on small steps to becoming greener. So if Wal-Mart wants to keep up with trends in consumer culture, they have to start satisfying demands for Green veggies.

Wal-Mart still wants to deliver it's products at "great" low prices. So they're promising that organic products will only cost 10% more than their non-organic counterparts. The fact is that the Green movement has never promised you cheap goods, just responsibly priced goods. So if Wal-Mart insists that it can deliver organic products cheaply, then one has to ask what the cash register price fails to reflect. For starters, if Wal-Mart is going to deliver on promises for cheap organics, it is going to have to get the products from where it's cheap to grow them. Check the labels on some items around your house: a tv, a souvenir from your recent trip, the tag in your shirt. Found anything made in Asia yet? (Actually, my shirt was made in the USA. Kudos to Wet Seal) So lets ignore for a moment the worker abuses that may be/probably are going on in the countries where we produce our fabulously cheap goods. If you've looked at any websites like myfootprint.org or climatecrisis.net, you know that transporting goods (or people) over great distances causes a significant amount of environmental damage. Why do we love organic again?

As Pollan says "To [get organic food prices to a level just 10% above non-organics] would virtually guarantee that Wal-Mart's version of cheap organic food is not sustainable, at least not in any meaningful sense of that word." This isn't just a theorhetical projection; the evidence for non-sustainable, cheap "organics" is already there. Pollan points out the existence of so-called organic feed-lots. To produce cheap organic milk, agribusiness sets up huge factory dairies, often in the desert. Rather than being fed on grass, these organic cows are fed a diet purely of organic grain, which not only negatively affects the cows, but actually affects the nutritional value of the milk that you drink. Organic milk produced by these cows is lacking in beta-carotene and "good" fats. Is that really what we think of when we choose organic? And sure, guidelines for growing organic meat requires that animals have access to the outside, but agribusiness often meets these requirements by cramming animals into too-small, grassless, shadeless feedlots or, in the case of some poultry producers, screened-in porches which really only provide access to a view of the outside.

This is why, to quote Kermit the Frog, it isn't easy being green. The more converts we get, the more big corporations want to cash in by providing goods labeled "organic" and "locally grown" without in any way affecting their bottom line. And if obeying only the letter of the law and ignoring the spirit of the law isn't enough to keep it cheap for companies, they'll lobby to change the letter. In the past year the Organic Trade Association lobbied on behalf of Kraft Foods (a part of Phillip-Morris, which I affectionately refer to as "The Devil's Henchment"), to make it easier to include synthetic ingredients in products labeled organic. Pollan tells the story of a chicken producer, Fieldale Farms, which persuaded their Georgian congressman to add a provision into an appropriations bill which would allow the substitution of conventional chicken feed if the price of organic feed exceeded a certain level. The rule was eventually repealed, thank goodness. Because if so-called organic producers can continue to label their goods "organic" without actually producing them in an organic way, what good does that do any of us?

The Grist has some hope for the future of a better, kinder, greener, Wal-Mart. So the point here isn't really that Wal-Mart is intrinsically evil and will ultimately fail to in any way help the environment, but rather that one can't become complacent, and you should always do your homework.

The State of the Blogger

My gentle readers (affectionately known as "you three"), Aine Bina is developing a stomach ache of massive proportions. The Israeli-Lebanon crisis is the cause of my gastro-intestinal woes. This is not an entry, like the last one, that speaks directly to the issue, but rather to the fall-out of the issue. Specifically, my personal fall-out. I am a Zionist. I support Israel's right to exist and its right to defend itself. But that does not mean that I think it is without failing or fault, or that I wish to give it a carte blanche to do whatever it wants. First, no country is without failing or fault, and there is no reason to expect that Israel should be any different from the rest of the world. Second, I do not wish to engage in the sort of rampant ethnic chauvinism that so frequently breeds terrorists and hate-mongers. Yet I find myself in a difficult position. It seems that there is no such thing as a fair and unbiased report of the situation. Of course, it is hard to know what is fair and unbiased when one is already biased. I would not wish to become one of those people (and I personally know at least one) who says "This person holds the same opinions as I do; at last, an unbiased account." And yet it seems very difficult to find the unique person who truly sees the situation for what it is. I expect to recognize this person (or organization) when they can present criticism of all parties involved, because it is false to set up this dichotomy as one of brutal oppressors and brave, pure freedom fighters. It is equally false to look at this as a situation of racist, selfish terrorists and an embattled bastion of democracy and goodness, though that one rings closer to the truth for me in many ways. It isn't that I think Israel is always completely blameless in its actions, but I do think that the major instigators like Hezbollah and Hamas claim to do things in the name of downtrodden Muslims when they really couldn't care less. I don't think Hezbollah's goals are universal health care and a Utopian Middle East free of religious prejudice and intolerance. I don't think Hezbollah expects anyone to think that. It would be so easy to just take the hard-line Zionist stance and insist that Israel is only defending itself and has made no wrong moves in this conflict or in its history at all. But that would be wrong of me. Just as it is wrong of Muslims to say that Hezbollah's actions are justified or that the civilians of many Middle Eastern countries aren't in many cases as horribly oppressed by their own "compatriots" as they are by some great, evil, Westernizing force. There is always a greater complexity to international issues. Always. More so in the Middle East, which has been a center of strife for as long as humanity has kept written records. And it's greatly distressing that I feel as if there is no one that I can trust on this issue, least of all myself.

Once again, Aine Bina finds herself wishing she could move into some nice log cabin in the woods and pretend the world does not exist.

You Say Opinion, I Say Deliberate Misrepresentation

Huh. That's not as catchy as "to-MAY-to, to-MAH-to." Oh well. Check out this here propaganda:

Lebanese Prime Minister's Seven Point Plan for Peace.

Lest you accuse me of indiscriminately calling all critics of Israel anti-Semitic and all criticisms propaganda, allow me to explain what bugs me about Faoud Siniora's "End This Tragedy Now." Siniora's essay has a complete lack of accountability for the UN or for the Arab* countries in the Middle East. He states "the peoples of the Middle East. . . aspire only to live in freedom and dignity**." Actually, Hezbollah quite adamantly insists that what they want is to wipe Israel of the map. So does the official, internationally recognized government of Iran; one of its ministers made a public statement to that effect just recently***. Hamas, which is the "political" party currently in charge of the Palestinian Authority, is squatting on Israel's doorstep with the same ideology.

I do not condone Israel's botched campaign against Hezbollah; too many civilians have died. Israel is getting sloppy, and their warnings to civilians (a courtesy not extended by Hezbollah to Israelis) are not sufficient. Yet Hezbollah has also targeted civilians in Israel. In fact, for this specific conflict, they started it. And Hezbollah does not truly care about Lebanese civilians. If they did, they would not launch their rockets at Israel from the backyards of Lebanese villagers, thus making innocent families targets for Israeli retaliation. It is not a new strategy for Middle East terrorist groups to use civilians, including, and perhaps particularly, children, as shields.

Siniora also proposes "land for peace," which was a frequent strategy of Israel before the most recent Intifada. In fact, PM Barak offered to meet 95% of Palestinian demands for land and statehood--an offer that was rejected because it did not include Jerusalem. Yet nowhere in his piece does Siniora state an agreement to the disarmament of Hezbollah. The Lebanese and other Arab nations are apparently eager for peace, so long as it doesn't actually involve compromise on their part. Oh, silly me. . . they must feel it is a compromise just to "allow" Israel to continue existing.

I will make no claims to impartiality. I am a Zionist, and it can be hard to recognize Israel's faults when it seems that the whole world is reluctant to acknowledge the contributions to violence and conflict made by other nations in the Middle East. If one has legitimate criticism of Israel, then by all means it should be expressed intelligently. But in order for there to be a true path to peace, all the nations of the Middle East must accept accountability and agree to compromise for lasting peace.

*I am actually quite unclear as to whether descriptions of Arab-Israeli conflict include Iran. It is technically a Persian nation, speaking farce rather than Arabic. However, it is deeply entrenched in Middle East conflict and was an early addition to the Islamic Empire, giving it a long history of Arab influence.

**And of course, if the peoples of the Middle East really aspire to live in freedom and dignity, I'd say they need to take a close look at their own governments. Iran recently declared the Center for Defense of Human Rights, founded by a Nobel Laureate illegal. Apparently human rights watchdog need proper permits, even if the Iranian constitution doesn't actually say so (forget that the CDHR applied for the permits repeatedly and never got a response).

***They're also Holocaust deniers. Hey homosexuals, disabled persons, Gypsies, blacks and even some Christians who opposed the Nazi regime: that must make you feel great about Iran!

Wafa Sultan

Wafa Sultan

This is a clip of Wafa Sultan's appearance on the Al-Jazeera network, dating from February. You may have already seen it on other weblogs, or been sent a link in an email forward. It has circulated quite a bit, though today is the first I've seen/heard of it.

It's interesting in two respects. One, it is a person of Muslim heritage, though Sultan considers herself a secular humanist, who is openly criticizing the actions of the Muslim world. I have no statistics, but my general sense is that I more commonly see Jews who speak out against the actions of Israel than Muslims who speak against the actions of Israel's Arab neighbors. I am biased though, as I am moderately Zionist and so the people coming out against Israel make more of an impression on me. I am not wholly supportive of Israel's actions, but I think they generally get more than their fair share of the blame, and I also think they are in an untenable position which sometimes makes it hard for them to do the most peaceable thing and still maintain a position of strength in a region that is hostile to them. Much of the reason they are in an untenable position can be blamed on the UN, a body that I have increasingly less respect for, which among other things refuses to allow Israel complete membership.

The other interesting thing about Wafa Sultan's interview is a statement that can be applied to all religious zealots, including Hezbollah and the American Christian Right. "You can believe in stones, but that does not give you the right to throw them at me." Believe as strongly as you want, but we no longer live in an era where conversions by the sword (or pipe-bomb, rocket, or even persecuting legislation) is acceptable practice. It is pure barbarism to force your beliefs on others. Frankly, if God wants converts, she has more than enough power to do it without using human weapons of destruction.

Wafa Sultan is Syrian-American psychiatrist. She and her husband immigrated in 1989. Her turning point was when she saw her medical professor gunned down by Muslim terrorists in the classroom. The New York Times published this article about her.

I may be posting more on the Israeli-Arab conflict in the future, but I may not. It's a huge subject that is incredibly divisive, and as it is still very much a hot-topic, I doubt if it's possible to find an unbiased treatise about the subject anywhere, and it requires much in the way of research on my part. So in other words, nobody hold their breath.

Is there a dead angel in the garage?

This past Sunday, May 14, "The Simpsons" aired an episode called "The Monkey Suit." Flanders and Rev. Lovejoy go to war on teaching evolution in public school science classes. Lisa expresses her outrage to her mother and Marge replies, "well, I think both views should be respected and get equal time." And Lisa says "You have to chose between science and faith," or something like that. This characterization, which is not unique to the writers of Simpsons' episodes, is patently false. The fact is that science and religion are dealing with two completely different types of truth, and to say that one can disprove the other is nonsense.

Science is the effort to understand natural laws through evidence that can be gathered by sensory perception. In other words, things that can be understood by seeing, smelling, hearing, tasting, and/or touching them (in some cases with the help of tools). Evolution is science as not only can the fossil record be experienced this way, but evolution can actually be observed as it is happening in certain bacteria. Scientific fact must stand up to the same test of proof repeatedly, and it can be manipulated in manner x with predictable result y. This is why evolution is scientific fact, and should be taught in science classrooms.

Religion and mythology are means of understanding the world for which no scientific evidence can be gathered. This is to address the unanswerable question. Science tells us how, religion seeks to tell us why. Evolution can explain how we emerged from a single living cell into the vast range of lifeforms we have. But Genesis has a story for why we live, why have souls, why there is suffering in the world. Of course there are other mythologies than the Biblical one with different stories, but their purpose is the same: to gain an understanding of what it means to be human.

I am not suggesting that you have to accept the religious explanations you have been given. Where science can only have one reigning truth at any given time ("facts" may eventually be disproven with better evidence), religion can have infinite truths, as each individual tries to understand their place in the world. And your religious truth may be that there is no God, we are here as a result of cataclysmic coincidence, and all life is random. But, science can't prove that to be true anymore than it can prove it to be untrue.

So, I suppose I agree with Judge Snider's ruling in "Lisa the Skeptic": "As for the case of science vs. religion, I am issuing a restraining order. [Religion] must stay 500 feet away from [science] at all times." I switched the two, as I feel that many of the ongoing battles have more to do with religion trying to insinuate itself into the science classrom than science trying to insinuate itself into houses of worship. Everyone is free to hold the beliefs that are dearest to them, but you have to accept that creationism is not science, and that intelligent design is not good science. And that's okay. Because the whole point of faith is that you don't need hard evidence. It's true to your spiritual being, and that's good enough.