Pseudonymous! Kid! Is! Excited!

IM from Mr. B: The cat killed the cutest little bunny rabbit and I was able to get it and her locked outside all the while talking calmly to Pseudonymous Kid,keeping him in the dark and talking about breaking up a fight that Daisy was really not having.
Me: Good job! (Also good job Daisy)
Mr. B.: She's eating it on the porch....

(later, Mr. B. and Pseudonymous Kid are leaving to pick me up at the office)

Pseudonymous Kid: (opening the door) EWWW!!! (Runs back into the kitchen.)
Mr. B.: . . .
Pseudonymous Kid: Daisy killed something on the porch! Ewww! It's gross! DON'T TELL ME IT WAS A MOUSE!
Mr. B.: No, it wasn't a mouse.
Pseudonymous Kid: It couldn't be a mouse! There is too much grossness! There are too much parts!
Mr. B.: I think it was a rabbit.
Pseudonymous Kid: Or maybe it was a squirrel!
Mr. B.: Maybe. Let's use the side door.

(Mr. B. and Pseudonymous Kid arrive at my work place and call to let me know they're downstairs.)

Mr. B.: Hi, we're down by the loading dock.
Me: Ok, I'll be right there.
Pseudonymous Kid: (shouting in the background) Let me talk to her!
Mr. B.: Pseudonymous Kid wants to talk to you.
Pseudonymous Kid: (on phone) Mama! Did papa tell you where we are?
Me: Yeah, I'll be right down.
Pseudonymous Kid: NO! I didn't want him to tell you!
Me: (laughing) Then how will I find you?
Pseudonymous Kid: (to his papa) Papa, can you move the car?
Mr. B.: (in the background) What for?
Pseudonymous Kid: So that we will be someplace else and I can tell Mama where we are.
Pseudonymous Kid: (coming back on the phone) Also, Mama! We can't go in the front door!
Me: What? Why not?
Pseudonymous Kid: Daisy killed something! And there are gross parts and BLOOD all over the porch! You can't walk in it or it will make you dirty! We have to use the side door!
Me: Okay...
Pseudonymous Kid: (aside) Papa, move the car!!
Pseudonymous Kid: (on the phone again) Mama, come downstairs! We are across the street from the loading dock now! We moved the car!
Me: Ok, I'll be right there.
Pseudonymous Kid: And mama, take the elevator, not the stairs, ok?
Me: Why?
Pseudonymous Kid: Because it will be faster.
Me: (laughing) Pseudonymous Kid, it will be faster if you will let me get off the phone already and come downstairs.
Pseudonymous Kid: Okay.

(I get in the car)

Me: (aside to Mr. B.) How did he find out about the r-a-b-b-i-t?
Mr. B.: I forgot, and we opened the door.
Pseudonymous Kid: And there was a dead thing! Daisy killed something!
Mr. B. Right. And he said, "DON'T TELL ME IT'S A MOUSE!" And I said, "don't worry, it couldn't be a mouse." And he said, "Right, because there's too much grossness."
Pseudonymous Kid: No, I said, "because there's too much parts."
Me: Lovely.

(Arriving home)

Pseudonymous Kid: (throwing open the door) EWW!
Me: Close the door, it's gross. Let's use the side door.
Pseudonymous Kid: It IS a rabbit! See! There's its head!

Newsflash: Santorum right about something, but still dumber than a horse's ass

Via Amanda and Echidne, the transcript of George Stephanopoulus interviewing everyone's favorite defender of women, Rick Santorum.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s talk about something else in the book, radical feminists. A second quote from the book, you say, Respect for stay-at-home mothers has been poisoned by a toxic combination of the village elders’ war on the traditional family and radical feminism’s mysogynistic crusade to make working outside the home the only marker of social value and self-respect.

Let’s get specific here. Name one or two of these radical feminists who are on this crusade.

SANTORUM: Well, I mean, you know, you have — you go back to, what’s her name, well, Gloria Steinem, but I’m trying to remember — I can’t remember the woman’s name. It’s terrible. Anyway…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But it’s kind of an important point. Because you paint this broad brush: radical feminists, village elders. Name one.

SANTORUM: There’s lots of — no, there’s lot’s of — well, Gloria Steinem. There’s one. I mean, there’s lots of writings out there…

STEPHANOPOULOS: She’s been on a crusade against stay-at-home moms?

SANTORUM: There’s lots of writings out there, and there is an opinion by the elite in this country across academia, across the media, that stay-at-home motherhood is not adequately affirmed and respected by our society. And if you don’t believe that, get a panel of stay-at-home moms here on your show, and you ask them whether they feel affirmed by society, whether they feel affirmed by the culture.

Ok, everyone. Many of you are stay-home moms. I was a stay-home mom for a while after Pseudonymous Kid was born. Many of you are academics. I am an academic. Many of you work for the media. Arguably, I'm part of the "media," what with this blog and all. So let's tackle Rick's points:

(1) Yes. Feminists, academics, and some members of the media largely agree that "stay-at-home motherhood is not adequately affirmed and respected by our society." I certainly do. You're right about that one, Ricky. Unfortunately, since you are as dumb as a post, you fail to realize that acknowledging a problem doesn't mean causing or endorsing it.

(2) Those of you who stay home with kids: do you feel more affirmed and supported in your choice by radical feminists like Gloria Steinem*, or by Rick Santorum?

*Actual quote by Gloria Steinem:

We also have to re-define work, so that the work of caring for children and doing human maintenance in the home is counted as productive work, has attributed value.

I love it when the blog posts write themselves.

Heh, I love my Apple

I was just listening to iTunes (which I don't, in fact, do very often, not that it's not a great program, but it never occurs to me to put music on), and I was listening to a bunch of blues music.

I also have in iTunes a conference call that Harry Reid did about the Roberts nomination (item #4 in that post, I dunno if the link's still active).

Apparently iTunes, unbeknownst to me, categorized that call as "blues."

I love that my laptop possesses a sense of humor and political righteousness.

Other people's brilliance

Luckily, even though I'm not so exciting of late, other people are continuing to churn out interesting things to read. I am feeling a bit cranky, though, so I can't help inserting a li'l snark now and again, in reference to debates that have occurred here and elsewhere in left Blogistan. Consider the li'l side comments like Easter eggs.

1. First and most importantly, this press releaes by the Feminist Majority Foundation: Senators Boxer, Mikulski, Murray, Landrieu, Cantwell, Stabenow, and Clinton--you know, the women who are actually leading the party right now--are saying they will "insist" that Roberts clarify his position on abortion. If one of these is your Senator, please write her and tell her thank you. They have also set up a website where you, the American public, can submit questions you would like them to ask Roberts. This is what we call leadership; this is what we call acting like an opposition party; this is what we call being responsible and responsive to your base. Why the boys have to be so divisive about their pet issues and refuse to support the party, I don't know, but be sure and submit a question and write the Big Seven and tell them how much they rock.

2. More on how those horrible illegal immigrants are a threat to our society, and how none of them have any investment in actually, you know, living here: 30 Kids Left Behind After Immigration Raid.

Clark County Sheriff Troy Tucker said agents failed to tell his agency about the raid. If they had, deputies would have made sure the immigration officials knew about the children, some of whom had been in the local public schools for years, he said.

Note also that the tip-off was based on people providing false paperwork, which means they were paying payroll taxes (which of course they couldn't get any benefit from, so free cash money for the rest of us!) and income taxes (which, again, no refund if you can't file) as well as property taxes (through rent, probably) and sales taxes. Yeah, real leeches on society.

3. Aprpos of the discussion about the fourth amendment messenger bag: from Discourse.net, Flex Your Rights, a site with information about how to refuse searches, what your legal rights are (and are not) w/r/t police stops, and useful info about racial profiling, police stop statistics, and so on. Kinda neat. I, for one, would not have thought about the utility of stepping outside and closing the door to talk to police.

4. From Pam's House Blend, the latest post-9/11 war on terror plan by the Republican congress: cutting airport security.

5. From a British blog that I've just added to my blogroll (under "liberal bias"), a story in the Observer about rape incidents, prosecutions, and conviction rates in the UK. Unlike all the useless rape-excusing "advice" people like to offer--don't wear x, don't drink, don't talk to strangers, blah fucking blah--this article actually offers good sound tips:

What to do if you are raped

Report the rape in person at a police station, Sexual Assault Referral Centre (SARC) or . . . a hospital.

Tell a friend or family member so they can accompany you. Take a change of clothes - you'll have to hand over what you're wearing.

Before you're examined, try not to go to the toilet or have a drink. Don't take a shower or wash.

Keep all evidence, such as condoms and tampons.

Try to tell as full a story as you can. Don't worry if you've taken drugs or are drunk - the police just want an accurate picture of what happened.

Ask if there are facilities for your statement to be taken on video - it can be used in court later instead of you having to go through the whole story again.

Try to get some counselling.

Notice that not a single one of those recommendations focuses on what you "should" have done not to get yourself raped in the first place, you silly slut. Read the whole article, especially if you're a guy; it's very good, and very sobering.

6. Morgaine at What She Said posted an article by Representative Waxman detailing 11 Secruity Breaches in the Plame Case; she suggests writing to local and national papers and pointing them to this article, to remind them to keep the story on the front page--not a bad idea. She's also gone to the trouble to put together a very comprehensive list of email addresses for various news outlets.

7. Free Court Pass has a link to a news story about Roberts's role in that stolen Florida election--you know, the one that we found out months and months later was actually won by Gore. Another reason to be suspicious of him, and perhaps another question to ask the Clinton, Boxer, Murray contingent (see above, #1) to press him on.

8. Malice Aforethought provides links to urge Congress to renew the Violence Against Women Act and to pass the Civil Liberties Restoration Act. Sennoma also provides links to the texts of the laws themselves, and to pages where you can see who supports them (and who doesn't). VAWA, I believe, is in real danger of not being renewed: among other things, the law means that you cannot lose your job if you have to spend time in a hospital or shelter in order to escape an abusive husband. The Civil Liberties Restoration Act aims to mitigate some of the more heinous clauses in the Patriot Act (which did just get renewed). It's worth taking time to write on both of these, assuming that you don't want to live in fear of your abusive partner, or your government.

9. Finally, a li'l levity. Everyone's talking about the Bulwyer-Lytton winners, but to my mind, this Faux Faulkner winner really takes the cake. It's politically snarky, but it still sounds just like Faulkner. Via Adam Ash.

Ok, that oughta keep y'all busy while I force myself to do some non-blog writing this afternoon.

Friday pet blogging

Mr. B., watching the most recent White House press briefing (top link on page, dated July 29, is a Real Player link), where Scottie--I'd almost feel sorry for him lately, but... nah, fuck it. Does anyone else find that White House press briefings are the funniest damn shit on tv nowadays? Anyway, Scottie is having to explain why even though Bill Frist isn't supporting Bush on the stem-cell thing (and here we thought, after Terri Schiavo, that Frist had given up all pretense to that medical degree--huh), the Republican Party is still unified. No, really it is. They love life! Especially life that can't actually, you know, do anything! Plus keeping all those stem cells alive in freezers uses up lots of fossil fuel, so, yay!

Anyway, Mr. B. turns to me and says:

Mr. B.: Do you want to adopt some embryos?
Me: And do what? Keep them in the freezer?
Mr. B. Well, yeah! 'Cause how else are you gonna keep 'em ALIVE?!?

Which reminds me of the li'l poem Mr. B. made up once the PK pregnancy test came back positive:

Has it got a finger? Has it got a toe?
Not quite yet, it's an em-bry-o.
Soon it will be glad to meet us,
But for now it's just a fetus.

Why I am a crappy blogger this week

Or, What it's Like to Live with Depression

In a nutshell, this suicidal depression stuff kind of sucks. I am not a big fan of sleeping 'til 2:30 and then having to summon all my will power to physically drag myself out of bed, and the insomnia and complete lack of interest in food don't really help matters. Nor does the fact that I have some work-related stuff due early next week, which has been hanging over my head all week (finally started doing it yesterday, and a couple more hours' worth of work will finish it up, so really, it's not a big deal except for aforementioned problem summoning will power to simply get out of bed, let alone work). This op-ed piece I'm working on is going to be pretty good; I have the intro written, know what to do with the rest of it, but same willpower problem is making it very difficult to do something that should take me about half an hour if I could just think.

That feeling, the not-being-able-to-think feeling, is a real bitch, you know? It's a very odd sensation, simply not being able to focus one's mind; kind of the mental equivalent of waking up and realizing your arm has gone to sleep and you can't feel or move it. It's there, but it just doesn't work. And it's frustrating for Mr. B., too, to ask me a question and have me not hear it, or hear it and not understand that it requires a response, or understand that it requires a response but have to take a couple of minutes to process the question, the answer, and anything I might need to do to find out the answer (e.g., go find the paperwork he needs). And of course his impatience with all that is absolutely overwhelming. Hell, feeding the cat is almost overwhelming.

And of course, there's the exhaustion of fighting for benefits and appointments. I've used up my allowed annual therapy appointments, and spent much of last week fighting with the HMO and then the university benefits people to try to talk them into giving me "extra" mental health care. Got my chair involved, which managed to convince the university office to grant me a very, very generous one extra appointment. (Sarcastic) Yay! I need to call them back and see if I can actually meet with them in person, see if I can get some kind of affadavit from my therapist saying that yes, I am, in fact, crazy, and that if they don't let me keep seeing her my job performance will suffer. Again, not all that difficult--one phone call--but I'm utterly worn out from the half-dozen argumentative phone calls I had to make last week just to get to this point, and am not really looking forward to yet another go round with the run around. I also can't see my meds doc until August, only it turns out I won't be able to see him then, either, b/c I have plans to be out of town. Which I don't mind, b/c I hate my meds doc, but which also kinda sucks b/c I probably could use the meds. Then again he wants to put me on Valporic acid, which annoys me b/c I'm not bipolar, I really don't think. So maybe it's best to just avoid his crappy diagnosis, which seems to be based exclusively on my own use of the word "hypomanic" to describe the effects of being on too much Wellbutrin and going off to a conference in a much sunnier clime somewhere that is Not Here and suddenly feeling So Much Better!, rather than on any actual history of mania or hypomania or, you know, any kind of actual tracking of my moods day-to-day. Sigh. In the meantime, I've embarked on the St. John's Wort self-medicating experiment, so we'll see how that goes.

There's gotta be some kind of exit plan. We're still waiting to find out if Mr. B. will get a job offer from Big International Corporation. I'm kind of holding out hope that this will happen, because despite being clearly batshit, I'm fairly certain that if I can just get the fuck out of here, I'll feel better. In fact, I suspect that my current problems stem, in part, from the fact that it's the end of July and I am having to gear up for another semester in case it doeesn't work out. Of course, if and when the offer comes, I'll have to struggle through the awkwardness of giving last-minute notice and seeing if I can get out of here without burning every bridge I've got; not sure how well desperate, half-panicked stressmonkey me will manage to do that gracefully. Though in the end I doubt it makes much difference to my employer if I quit and move, or if I have a breakdown and go on medical leave--they'll still have to scramble to cover my courses. I suppose it's possible that I'll end up here another semester while Mr. B. trots off to start his new job. Which would be a huge financial benefit and make things easier in that sense, although which of us ends up being the single parent for three or four months, I'm not sure. If I do move with him, I'm currently enjoying a nice healthy appetizer of guilt over the fact that I won't have a job myself, and would really like to give myself a little time to get unpacked, settled, and not-suicidal before jumping right into the ol' nine to five.

But of course, worrying about that is pointless (not that that ever stops me), since who knows if it'll happen, or how. That's the rescue plan. If it doesn't come through, plan B is definitely back on the meds to get through the semester.

Help me, oh the internets

So one of the small changes post-new-template is that the headline on this post is displaying weird characters--instead of the French cedilla and the circumflex e, it's god only knows what. Strangely, the font is the same as it was before, and it displayed just fine then; and it isn't b/c of the all caps, either, b/c I tried changing that and it still displays wonky now (though it didn't before).

Anyone know what's up?

Hey all you academic types...

Head on over to Doctor Dorcasina's and congratulate her--she successfully defended her diss today.

I want this

Ok, maybe not this specific one--my experience with CafePress stuff is that it doesn't wear so well. And I think I'd leave off the "I do not consent to this search" bit, b/c the text of the amendment on its own, I think, makes the point well enough. Maybe I could make one that's silkscreened, or perhaps a nice needlepoint...

Have you seen this woman?

Latoyia Figueroa has been missing from her home in Philadelphia for ten days. She's five months pregnant and has a seven year old daughter at home. Apparently she hasn't used her bank machine card and her cell phone can't be reached. I imagine her little girl is pretty distraught.

You may have already seen this on The All Spin Zone, or Kos, or One Good Thing, or Shakespeare's Sister, or Black Feminism.org.

The All Spin Zone started it, and if you click through to his link he's also collecting funds to offer a reward for any information leading to finding her--last I checked it was up to $7,000. He's also successfully managed to get CNN to pick up the story.

Blogs are good for a lot of things; this is one of them.

@%&!?*#

The internet being a global community and all, the conventional reliance of "obscenity" laws on "community standards" is extremely problematic, no? I mean, within the community here--between four and five thousand daily readers according to statcounter, plus all of you who subscribe to RSS feeds--the word "bitch" is hardly objectionable. But I know that there are certain public libraries and other places where, I've been told, readers can't access this site, and Google ads turned me down because of "inappropriate content"--which can only mean language. The Google ads thing is, in the end, unarguable; obviously deciding not to place an ad isn't censorship. But making websites unavailable in public libraries is censorship; and while I'm not about to contact a lawyer, obviously I'd have an excellent case if I did, as clearly Bitch is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "obscene."

Apparently the Southern District of New York feels that local standards should apply to non-local speech: a reader named Jane emailed me a news story about their finding against the plaintiffs in a case arguing that the "local standards" standard suppresses freedom of online speech. The plaintiffs are, I think, correct that allowing the residents of (say) Colorado Springs to file a complaint against a website that's written by someone in (say) Los Angeles seriously inhibits protected speech. It also stretches the definition of "community" beyond what was (I would argue) obviously intended when such laws were written, which is to say, "local" community.

But even more importantly--most importantly--this problem of "community standards" violates the equal protection clause. If I live in a community that thinks all mentions of sex are obscene, do I not have, nonetheless, the right to information about sex and sexuality? Let's say I live in a community in which 95% of the residents think swearing is obscene and do not themselves ever swear. Do I not have the right, even so, to read a website about academic, parenting, feminist, and political issues simply because it has the word "bitch" in the title?

Well, apparently not. On the other hand, apparently the President of the United States has the right to flip people off on national television.

(Note to anyone who feels compelled to point out my hypocrisy in objecting to this, given that I have a little girl flipping people off in my header: for one thing, I am not the President of the United States. For another thing, I actually wouldn't give a rat's ass about the POTUS flipping the bird, except that (1) his administration and supporters like to natter on about decency and "restoring dignity to the White House"; (2) it's highly unprofessional of him--I don't flip the bird at my students when I am operating in my capacity as a professor; (3) the angry little girl clearly expresses defiance and rebellion, as Nicky pointed out in comments, against precisely the kind of arrogance, entitlement, and abuse of power that the President's gesture is expressing. In other words, the little girl has justice on her side.)

Link via The American Street.

Happy birthday, Emma Goldman

Emma Goldman reminds me that today is Emma Goldman's birthday.


Here is a lovely picture of her as a young woman, and


here is a picture of her in 1917, the year she was imprisoned for opposing the draft, and the year after she'd been arrested and jailed for distributing birth control literature. When she got out of prison, she was deported to Russia just in time for the Revolution. Here are a couple more sites about her, and the Wikipedia entry.

I love her.

Email

1. My spam filters on yahoo sometimes get a li'l wonky, and I think I accidentally deleted a few real emails. So if you sent me something in the last few days that I haven't responded to, you might want to resend it.

2. Also, apologies to those of you who've emailed me in the last month or so and not heard back. If I don't get to respond to my email right away, it tends to get buried in haloscan notifications; eventually I crawl back through and delete all the haloscan stuff and respond, so I'm not ignoring you, really, I'm just slow.

3. From my other email inbox, NARAL requests phone calls to senators tomorrow re. Roberts. I know a lot of folks think his confirmation is a done deal--hell, so do I--but a couple of phone calls tomorrow will not kill anyone, and it's important to let congress know that reproductive rights *are* a priority that the electorate (us) cares about--cares enough to make noise over. Whatever happens with Roberts, it's Congress that passes the laws that create the cases that end up before the Court. Be preemptive; let your elected representatives know that you are paying attention and willing to get involved.

Here's the email from NARAL:

This
Thursday, July 28, we're asking you to help us generate as many
phone calls as possible to the Senate. Here's what we need you
to do:

1. This Thursday, call both of your senators:
- Either call the Senate switchboard:
(202) 224-3121
- Or get your Senator's direct line:
http://www.senate.gov

2. Tell your senators you oppose the confirmation of anti-choice
nominee John Roberts.

"Hi, my name is _________ and I'm one of Senator ___________'s
constituents. I'm calling to urge the senator to oppose the
confirmation of John Roberts to the Supreme Court. I know
Roberts has led a distinguished legal career, but he also has a
clear record as a legal activist who has advocated for the
overturn of Roe v. Wade and has used public positions to further
this goal. This is in direct opposition to the position of the
vast majority of Americans and Sandra Day O'Connor's legacy. I
ask that the senator oppose any nominee who will not respect my
right to personal freedom and personal responsibility.

I'm following this issue closely and will be paying attention to
how the senator votes on this issue. Thank you for your time."

Then let us (NARAL) know you called.

Merci. Again, still writing about Ohio... hopefully back later this evening once I've got this piece punched out.

Link roundup

I'm working on writing something (other than the blog) today, so here are some interesting links for you to follow:

1. From Joanne, in comments, a really interesting story about Women's Police Stations in Brazil, set up to make it safer for women to report domestic violence. I'd never thought of something like this, but after last month's Supreme Court finding in Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the idea doesn't sound half bad.

2. From Feministing, a news story about the first man to head a women's studies department doctoral program.* I really wanted to write something longer on this, and maybe later I will, but for now, basically, I think it's a good thing. Yay Professor Allen.

3. The Misanthrope emailed me this article, reporting that Union Pacific has been ordered by a judge that it has to provide contraceptive coverage to its women employees. (If you need a password, use bugmenot.) Some interesting tidbits in there, like the pasing reference to

a 2001 federal court decision that applies only in western Washington state. In that case, female employees of a local drugstore chain won a court order requiring the company to provide contraceptive-related services to women on the same basis that it offers coverage for other outpatient services and prescription drugs.

After the 2001 decision, many U.S. companies began to offer contraceptive coverage. The decision also helped spark laws in many states requiring employers to cover the cost of birth control pills, diaphragms and other medically prescribed devices. California passed a similar law in 1999.

4. If you haven't already heard the latest on Abu Ghraib, do read this article about the photos and vidoes the government just pulled from public release--apparently they include footage of children being raped and sodomized. Nice.

5. Fantastic resource from the National Council for Research on Women: Research for Action, "a repository of factoids, fact sheets, reports, talking points, and conference proceedings. . . . Designed to expand the impact of women's research on public thinking, debate, and policy." Definitely blogrolling this.

6. Ms. Musings provides links to Feminist Court Watch, Moving Ideas's "Guide for Activists", and the National Women's Law Center's Nomination Watch.

7. Found through my sitemeter stats: American Conscience.org, apparently a roundup of sites on a wide variety of subjects--appears to be by new commenter ehj2. Definitely worth looking around this place.

8. Also through sitemeter, this infrequently-updated but very pretty blog. The author warns that "you don't really want to read this, do you?" but in fact the (amateur?) photography and brief descriptions are really kind of mesmerizing. Reminds me of Jan's Nobel Project, another calm spot in my daily blogsurfing.

Ok, now I'm off to do some more research into what the hell happened in Ohio last November.

*Someone emailed me about this error, pointing out that "there is at least one other department headed by a man, at George Washington University (which offers a Master's degree)"--thanks for the correction!

G'wan, have a li'l sweet somethin' somethin'

Fametracker's Johnny Depp vs. Chocolate has been going around--for the record, as I told Cleis, the next time Johnny Depp offers himself to me, I'll give up chocolate without a backward glance--but Lauren points to a headline that reminds us we really don't have to choose.

Bats!

While I agree with Chris that bats are, in fact, lovely creatures, I have to admit: I do not want them in my bedroom.

And yet twice in the last week, yes: rodents rodent-looking animals that are, in fact, not rodents but are probably more closely related to primates in the bedroom. ICK. The first time I heard some kind of weird rustling sound, but I figured it was squirrels in the attic or something and ignored it for a while, until suddenly I realized it was coming from the pile of magazines beside the bed, so I flipped on the light and peered, kind of suspiciosly, at the side table and OMG A RAT! So quick, I'm at the other end of the room, saying to Mr. B., "I've done my time taking care of rats, this one is yours," and down I go to have a totally freaked-out omg-there-was-a-RAT-not-a-foot-from-my-pillow! cigarette on the porch, and I hear Mr. B. calling for the cat, and then I hear the loud cat meows of joy, and then I hear Mr. B. coming downstairs and I think, jesus, he's maybe chasing the rat downstairs, I need to get away from the door!

But then he comes down, sans rat. And I asked, "what happened?" And he said, "guess what? It was a bat." "A bat?!?" says I. "Yeah," he says, "and the cat was totally freaked out, but once I realized it was a bat I caught it with a pillowcase and put it out the bathroom window upstairs, and it just flew away." "Huh," I said, "I guess I'm sorry I missed it. We need to get screens on those windows."

But what with one thing and another, we didn't get around to it for a couple of days, and I woke up the other night to Mr. B. standing on the bed with a blue towel, trying to catch a bat that was flying back and forth above my face. Eventually he managed to chase the thing out into the hall and close the door, and I fell back asleep...

The next morning, I asked, "so what happened to the bat?" "I don't know," he said, "I chased it downstairs and it disappeared." "Oh great! So there's a damn bat somewhere hiding behind a bookshelf or something?" "No," he said, "the windows downstairs are open, and they can fly out of caves--probably it found its way outside.*"

And we haven't seen it since, so I guess that's what happened. Meanwhile, Mr. B. built screens for the windows.

*The reason the bats can't fly out the upstairs windows is that they open on a hinge, from the top of the frame; so, from the pov of radar echolocation, they don't look open, unlike the downstairs windows, which have proper sashes and lift up, leaving an obviously open space below.

Welcome, new readers

Hi. I hope you'll poke around the archives, hang out in the comment threads, meet the regulars, bookmark the site, and join in the discussions.

A few explanations. This is, obviously, a feminist site; it is also leftist and, in the end, a personal site as well. If feminism pisses you off, or (after reading a couple of posts) you decide that I have my head irretrievably up my ass, it's pretty easy to go away and read something else, and that's what I expect you to do. The comments policy is right up there at the top of the first sidebar, so if you feel moved to leave a comment telling me I'm an idiot, or telling one of the regulars that he or she is an idiot, expect your comment to be deleted and, if necessary, your ip to be banned. If you are condescending, insulting, don't know the difference between a blog and usenet, or are so self-centered that you think it's your god-given right to derail comment threads onto your pet issue, you can also expect your comments to be deleted: if you have some pet issue that needs airing, go right ahead and start your own blog like everyone else.

If, however, you enjoy intelligent discussion and debate, you're most welcome here. If you dip into the comment threads, you'll see that argument and disagreement are part of the site, and that there are a number of regulars who can pretty consistently be counted on to disagree with me. ER likes to pshaw me, in a friendly sort of way; PoJ, who guest posted for a while, can usually be counted on to point out when I'm oversimplifying something; Amy is the resident semi-libertarian who likes to boil things down to the bottom line (often a bottom line that is miles away from my bottom line); tom-e-lee is the resident Republican; Phil (whose blog looks like it's on hiatus for the time being) pops in occasionally to defend the right wing, and occasionally links to my posts on abortion in order to point out how wrong I am. The site and the comment threads would be worse without them.

Basically it boils down to the importance of tone and community. If you can join in and argue as among friends, colleagues, and peers, then by all means grab a cup of coffee or a beer and pull up a chair. If you can't, though, or if you're the type of person who goes to a party and ends up joshing with the guys out back by the barbecue because you really have no interest in what the women have to say, then this isn't the place.

The regulars here are a hell of a great group, and I really value their contributions to the site. If you don't read the comment threads, you're missing half the value of the place--and as the blog owner and saloniste, it's my job to keep the conversation flowing and make sure no one breaks the furniture.

So please remove your shoes, slip on this pair of blue stockings, and come in.

Do not mess with pissed-off grannies

Statement by Raging Grannies: 9:00 am Wednesday, July 13, 2005 U.S. Army Recruiting Station, 2303 E. Speedway, Tucson, AZ

The Raging Grannies want to enlist in the U.S military forces to make possible the immediate return of all U.S. service personnel, and to set an example of what REAL diplomacy can achieve. We would meet with our counterparts in Iraq (women) and come to a mutual agreement of how best for Iraq to regain its own independence, as all U.S. troops, bases and corporations leave their country.

The Raging Grannies are angry about the U.S. maintaining a Permanent War Economy, using military might as the U.S.'s primary tool of Foreign Policy.

The Raging Grannies are angry about the U.S. military recruitment system that lies to young people about the reasons for needing more people in the military. We are angry that our young peoples’ lives are at risk for reasons that have nothing to do with defending our country.

The Raging Grannies are angry that the U.S. is using and has used quantities of Depleted Uranium weapons in Iraq, and other places in the Middle East, jeopardizing the health and environment for 4.5 billion years (providing a source for birth defects, leukemia and other adverse health effects for our own service personnel as well as innocent citizens).

The Raging Grannies are angry that the U.S. is building 14 permanent bases in Iraq. We are angry that U.S. policies are driven by fear-mongering and growing losses of First Amendment Rights. We abhor the use of torture by U.S. forces against detainees.

* The Raging Grannies firmly believe that: The Iraq invasion was planned before 9-11 as documented by the Downing Street Memos;
* The Iraq war has nothing to do with Al Quida (Saddam Hussein was not a part it);
* The Iraq war has nothing to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction;
* The Iraq war has everything to do with U.S. controlling access to Middle Eastern Oil; and that
* The Iraq war is an illegal, immoral war that has everything to do with U.S. world domination.

We insist that Recruiters tell the truth to our grandchildren who come to serve their country.

The Raging Grannies want all U.S. corporations and military personnel (official military troops and mercenaries) withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as possible, and that the U.S. finance the re-building of what we have destroyed, with local people doing their own re-construction work. The military bases that have been built should be turned over to the Iraq and Afghanistan people to use as they can, for whatever purposes they may have. The U.S. should spend recruitment dollars to (instead) improve education for all students, and gain a boost in our economy for this investment.

From the Arizona IndyMedia site.

Pseudonymous Kid doesn't have enough fighting toys

All he has is two swords that are plastic, two swords that are foam, one plastic knife, and one water gun. That's ALL HE HAS.

And yet, somehow, I cannot be convinced to buy him a prop knife with a blade that collapses into the handle.

Mean, hateful mama.

One more li'l thing

Yesterday in comments, Dadahead suggested that Lauren make me a favicon. Lauren's reply was that she hated doing that, and I pointed out that she had already done what I'd paid her for, and suggested--jokingly--that Dadahead make me a favicon himself.

Well shut my mouth, because he actually did it. Thanks, Dadahead!

Pseudonymous Kid explains the effects of having a stay-home dad

Pseudonymous Kid: Mama, I want a milkshake.
Me: Ok. (Going into the kitchen to make one; it is very clean, as Mr. B. cleaned it shortly before going to take a nap.) You know, you have a really good papa.
Pseudonymous Kid: I do?
Me: Yes, you do. And we should both appreciate it.
Pseudonymous Kid: Mama, do you know what McDonald's is made out of?
Me: Um.... squished McDonalds's?*
Pseudonymous Kid: No.
Me: Ok, what?
Pseudonymous Kid: It's made of bad papas who went away and left the mamas to cook dinner.
Me: Oh it is?
Pseudonymous Kid: Yes. Or else it's made of bad papas who never fed their kids anyway.

Update: Oops, I forgot the footnote! Which is funny, because I actually dreamed about forgetting a footnote on a blog post last night. Ugh. Anyway:

* We have this family joke that started because I once told PK that baby oil was made of "squished babies." So now it's kind of an ongoing thing, where PK comes up with silly things that no one makes oil out of, but that he thinks it's funny to talk about squishing--cat oil, mama oil, papa oil, etc. I thought this was part of one of those jokes, mais non.

Unveiling

Voila! A new swanky look chez Bitch. Many, many thanks to Lauren of Feministe for the design, and for her patience when I changed my mind about the title image at the last minute. Thanks also to everyone who contributed to help me pay for the new look, without whom we'd all still be suffering with the not-entirely-adequate-anymore default blogger template. I hope the result is easier on everyone's eyes, and loads reasonably quickly even for those of you suffering through dialup. Enjoy!

Heroine of the week

A great news story via misbehaving.net. Arfa Karim Randhawa is ten years old. She is also the youngest Microsoft Certified Professional in the world.



On a tour of the Microsoft campus, she met with Bill Gates. And she asked him why 75% of Microsoft employees are men.

"It should be balanced -- an equal amount of men and an equal amount of women," she explained.

I love her.

You may have noticed I'm bad at responding to memes

Often this is because I don't have much to say (e.g., the "what recent book have you read" kind of question--much to my chagrin, it seems I do not read books much any more; I mostly dip in and out of them) or else I intend to do them and then I forget. But here's one I like, because the first question speaks to a particular hangup of mine: the question of how to organize one's books (or, if you prefer, cds/records, but I'm not really a big music person, I'm sorry to say).

1. How do you organize your collection? Chronological, for the most part. Not necessarily strictly so--I'm not so anal-retentive that I check the copyright date whenever I put something back on the shelf--but it makes sense, in my mind, to shelve (say) Newton ahead of Einstein. Makes things easier to find. However, I will also sort some things (scholarly work) according to rough sub-classifications: all the Marxists together, feminist/family reference books (books about mothering, child-rearing, Our Bodies Oursleves) together, that sort of thing.

2. What books or records do you keep separate from your collection for easy access? Dictionaries, reference books, thesaruses, books about writing, style guides.

3. When you take down a book for reference, how long after you finish with it does it take you to reshelve it? Depends. If I'm literally sitting at a desk working on a specific project, and I am checking just one thing, I will probably put it back immediately. If I have to transcribe something, it'll sit on the desk for the rest of the day, maybe a few days. If it's a book I'm dipping in and out of, it'll stay there until the project is over, and for a few weeks afterwards, until I get around to cleaning off the desk. Same thing for teaching books: they tend to clutter my desk until the semester's over. I wish I kept them shelved, but I don't.

For books that I read for pleasure, they sit out forever. The pile on my bedside table is about three feet high: poetry collections, memoirs, a novel or two, a few books on feminist economics, a year's worth (more?) of the NYRB and the New Yorker, maybe a graphic novel.

4. What resource do you keep separate from your collection because you don't want anyone to know you have it? What? This makes no sense. Even my porn is shelved with all the other books. Not that I have more than a couple of books, though. I even sold my Anais Nin in the garage sale.

Permanent psychological damage achieved: that didn't take long

Earlier this morning, PK banged the back of his head on a door (he backed into it as someone else was opening it) and was very angry at me, since obviously it was all my fault because I was standing nearby at the time. He wouldn't let me look at it.

Scene: A few hours later.

Me: You know, let's look at the back of your head and see what the damage was. (Parting hair.) Wow! You really did hurt the back of your head!
Pseudonymous Kid: What happened?
Me: Well, you cut yourself, and there's a bruise, and a pretty big lump.
Pseudonymous Kid: What does it look like?
Me: You know how the cat gets owies when she gets in fights? It kind of looks like that.
Pseudonymous Kid: Can I see?
Me: I don't think so, it's in the back of your head.
Pseudonymous Kid: Maybe we can get a mirror.
Me: Yes, that's a good idea. Do you want to go upstairs now and try to see it in the bathroom mirror?
Pseudonymous Kid: No.
Me: Does it hurt?
Pseudonymous Kid: No.

(We proceed to the game where he lies on my lap, hangs his head down to the floor, and I tickle his belly.)
Me: Let's be careful and not conk your head again. (Tickles him.)
Pseudonymous Kid: Ow. That makes my head hurt.
Me: It does not.
Pseudonymous Kid: Yes it does! Everything you do makes my head hurt.
Me: Does your head hurt if I give you a hug?
Pseudonymous Kid: Yes.
Me: Does it hurt if I give you a kiss?
Pseudonymous Kid: Yes.
Me: Oh dear. I guess you are broken. We'll have to send you back.
Pseudonymous Kid: You can't send me back.
Me: Why not?
Pseudonymous Kid: Because you didn't buy me.
Me: Hmmm. That's true. I guess we're stuck with you no matter how broken you get.
Pseudonymous Kid: You have to be able to send me back!
Me: No, I can't send you back.
Pseudonymous Kid: Yes you can. There has to be a way.
Me: No, there's no way to send a kid back.
Pseudonymous Kid: Yes you can. Because I saw on Backyard Science they said there's a way to do everything.

Academic bloggerrs--blogher

Request for panelists on academic blogging at BlogHer:

Hey, I'm still looking for panelists for my thing at the BlogHer
conference, "Blogging and Academia".. I wonder if you could post on
your
blog asking if anyone wants to be on it? It's a Room of Your Own
session, 2:30-3:15. I'm looking for profs who have personal or
work-related blogs, profs, TAs, and students who use blogs for their
classes. If you could ask people to write to me if they'll be at
BlogHer,
I know it would be helpful...

Thanks!

-- badgerbag
lizzardATbookmaniacDOTnet

Permanent psychological damage averted, for now

Pseudonymous Kid: How many naughty kids are there in the world that don't brush their teeth when they're told?
Me: A lot.
Pseudonymous Kid: How many naughty kids are there in the world that don't go to bed when it's their bedtime?
Me: A lot.
Pseudonymous Kid: How many naughty kids are there in the world that are so naughty that their parents give them away to some other parents who might want them?
Me: None.

Talking points

Join the Noise alerted me to this and this--sites on the GOP website that provide writing points and talking points for party diehards (also known as trollish freaks who have nothing better to do with their time than shout the same things over and over again) to write to newspapers and/or call in to radio shows in order to disseminate the brainwashing soundbites.

Which is, as Join the Noise says, creepy as hell. But it's also probably pretty effective, and goddamnit, why doesn't the Democratic site have something like this? Which is basically what the NYT Magazine article about "framing" last weekend was all about. If I knew how to program, I'd write to them, tell them they're idiots, and then offer to generate the goddamn page for them.

In the meantime, of course, there's absolutely no reason on earth you can't use the Republican sites to generate letters that say exactly the opposite of what they tell you, or use the phone numbers they provide for talk radio shows to call in. Maybe you could even point out that you got the number from the GOP site and note that the comments of other callers are basically just them reading from the web site, and note how creepy that is.

A li'l levity

Check out Mark Fiore's latest. Warning: it has audio, so if you're at work, you might want to wait 'til you get home.

Got it over at Big Brass Blog.

Nice guys and bitchy women

I was up way too late last night reading some of the comments at Majikthise about "nice guys." The topic's been floating around (other places, too, but I can't remember where), and I'm a little behind the curve, but I figured I'd drop my two cents into the well. After all, the "why don't women like nice guys?" meme isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Before I begin, of course, mandatory disclaimer: this is just me hypothesizing based on my own dating experience and discussions with friends, so I make no claims that anything I say here is definitive. If it rings true, great; if not, oh well.

There are different kinds of nice guys.

1. The "romantic" nice guy. Personally, these guys creep me the fuck out and I've never dated one. They seem to have read the Hallmark booklet on "how to treat women," and seem to think that "women" like being swept off their feet with big showy displays of "romance" (TM)--sending flowers or gifts to your workplace or school, or showing up bearing them in hand; public declarations of love (e.g., marriage proposals in public places); teddybears as gifts; inappropriately expensive jewelry as gifts; candlelit dinners at fancy restaurants; crap like that. IME, these guys like to go on about how they "know how to treat a lady," and they treat women as if we were interchangable: all women like long-stemmed roses, all women like jewelry and teddybears, all women like being mortified in public by some guy falling on his knees in front of you and putting you on the spot. I suspect these guys are often controlling, abusive assholes, and I suspect they appeal to some women because they (the women) are used to controlling, abusive assholes and therefore don't recognize the signs that a guy isn't interested in you, personally, as a unique individual, but is instead interested in playing the role of Romantic Nice Guy who Treats his Lady Like a Princess. Or maybe they only appeal to very young women, or maybe there's something else going on that I have no clue about, because these guys don't appeal to me at all.

2. The passive / weak nice guy. These are the guys I, personally, dated a lot in high school. They tend to be pretty insecure, and sometimes you end up in a relationship with them because they just hang around a lot, and they're nice enough, and they're obviously interested in you, and you don't want to be mean and reject them, so somehow you just end up as a couple. Which is okay in high school, because what the fuck else were you doing? Nothing, and at least this way you get to learn a few things about relationships in a situation where you're really pretty much the one in control. Often these guys have been picked on a lot by other guys. The problem here is that insecure people aren't so much fun to be dating, and you get tired of being with someone who clings a little too tightly and playing the role of beard to "prove" his masculinity to other guys, and eventually it gets boring. But of course, being passive, these guys will completely ignore the warning signs, or rather they'll respond to the warning signs by becoming even more passive. So you end up breaking up with them, and then they either cringe and make themselves even more pathetic--which is even more annoying, and you end up not even being able to be friends with them ever again--or else they finally lash out and try to console themselves with thoughts of what a heinous bitch you were for not appreciating how much they loved (were dependent on) you.

3. The shy nice guy. Now, I, personally, have kind of a hard time telling (2) and (3) apart, and I suspect that the main difference only reveals itself over time--that is, you start dating a guy who seems shy, and he ends up just being weak; or you start dating a guy who seems passive, and as you get to know him better you realize he's just shy. Like the weak guys, shy men are often quite reluctant to initiate a relationship, and they also tend to be conflict-avoidant. But unlike the weak guys, they don't have some latent hostility towards women that comes from being insecure about their own masculinity; they're simply quiet and/or shy, and once you get past the initial social awkwardness they're basically pretty sure of themselves and can be perfectly fine boyfriends. I have to admit, I'm not so good with this type: I'm a little too impatient and blunt, and I'm not afraid of conflict, so I would probably just make men of this type incredibly uncomfortable a lot of the time. But I've seen them dating other friends of mine, and they seem to have a lot of virtues for women who are gentle enough not to run roughshod over them.

4. The genuinely nice guy. I strongly suspect that women never call these men "nice guys." We call them "genuinely nice guys" or "really decent men" or "the good ones" or "yeah, he's great" or "my boyfriend." Basically the key here is to have enough sense of who you are that you can deal with other people being who they are without taking every feeling your girlfriend has as a referendum on you personally. These are the guys who can listen to you bitch about something without trying to tell you what to do about it, or getting defensive, or starting to feel insecure because omg you're angry; the guys who recognize your individuality well enough that they don't hassle you with stupid teddybears but will instead give you a good book or cook you a dinner of beans and fajitas because you really love Mexican food even though they, themselves, prefer fancier fare; the guys who will go to a movie of your choosing without having to pull a bunch of tedious crap about how "all you like is chick flicks, haw haw." In other words, genuine "niceness" means a certain level of differentiation: caring about someone, but also understanding that the person you love has feelings and opinions and needs of their own that have nothing to do with you. And thinking that that's really cool, and that's why you liked them in the first place.

Part 2: bitchy women

The flip side of the "nice guy" meme is, of course, the "bitch" stereotype. I'm going to ignore the "women who like to be abused" bullshit, and also the "nice women who get overlooked" thing because I think both of those are fairly simple: "women who like to be abused" don't really exist, although women who have bad taste in men surely do; and "nice women who get overlooked" seems mostly to just mean that either the woman is either plain or pretty enough, but not "femmy," so her prettiness goes unnoticed, or else she's simply a quiet woman who goes about her own business and tends not to get boy crazy. In my experience these women don't date a lot but usually end up marrying someone who thinks they're grand. But anyway, I'm not "nice" in that way, so I don't have a lot to say about it. Instead I'll float one of my own pet theories/questions: why do so many men seem to like bitchy women?

Again, there are different things that can fall under the category of "bitchy women."

1. There are surely women who are genuinely mean people; and often these women are bitchiest to other women, but tend to play up to men, because on some level being a "bitch" is all about power. I have to admit that these kind of women don't usually piss me off quite as much as asshole guys do, because I think I get where they're coming from, and while I think that they suck, I can't bring myself to begrudge them for trying to pursue their own self-interest. Really, I think these women aren't all that bright; they may be smart enough in a clever, bookish or logical way, but their inability to empathize with others or consider the broad social complexities of power and self-advancement strikes me as a kind of blindness.

2. Women who are abusive. Nothing much to say about this; women who treat their partners and / or kids like crap suck, just the same as men like that.

3. Strong women, as we all know, all get called "bitch" sooner or later. That's the spirit in which I named the blog; and sure enough, there've been a few comments here and there, or references elsewhere on the internets, that say something like "I can see why you call yourself a bitch," usually in reference to something I said where I wasn't going to take someone else's bullshit. We all know a lot of women who will cop to being a "bitch" in this sense, and we've all heard the little jingle about how "BITCH = Babe in Total Control of Herself." The reclaiming of "bitch," I think, refers primarily to this sense: it's a preemptive move that women use to take the wind out of the misogynist sail.

4. Women who are bitchy in private relationships. This is what I'm most interested in, and I'll admit that it's because, to some extent, this is me. (4), however, is not (2); I think that (4) is actually more like a corrolary of (3), but one that often gets mistaken for (2). What I'm thinking of here--and it's not just me; I have girlfriends who would describe themselves the same way--is women who are sometimes described as "high strung" or "high maintenance" or, as Mr. B. calls me, "stressmonkeys." Up to a point, I think these women are good partners for solid, self-confident guys; we have a clear sense of boundaries, we're direct; we're not conflict-averse; we don't mess about on the borders of hinting that something's wrong--we'll come pretty straight out and let you know. But I'll admit that sometimes those skills get misapplied, and I'll end up being incredibly rigid over something that really isn't at all worth the trouble, something that's usually simply an easier-to-deal-with version of something bigger that I'm worried about. Like--and I think a lot of academics do this, perhaps especially women--my stress over "having" to work on some big research project will get channelled into having a fit over the fact that the house is untidy. I think this is often (not always, or perhaps not even usually) a problem of high-achieving women: we put very high expectations on ourselves, and we have a certain amount of anger at situations where we perceive that our achievements or efforts are undervalued (some of which, no doubt, is merely an externalization of the internal struggle between ambition and the internalized sexism that "nice girls aren't pushy"). And yet, we know that "nice girls aren't pushy"--at least, not in public--and we've seen more than enough situations where ambitious women have been crapped on for being "abrasive" or "well she should have known" or "lacking tact"--much of which simply boils down to "being a woman"--so, in public, there's this constant stress of trying to balance your ambition with not wanting to shoot yourself in the foot by admitting that you're ambitious. So, I think (and by now you're either realizing that this is an elaborate rationalization or else an elaborate piece of self-analysis--personally I think it's a bit of both) that this stress gets internalized and comes out in private relationships, as extreme impatience with partners on whom we place a lot of expectations for support that we don't feel is forthcoming anywhere else.

So I don't think that (4) is entirely okay. I think that a certain level of personal "bitchiness" is fine, and I suspect a lot of men are attracted to strong, assertive, ambitious women, which is of course the simple answer to the "why do men like bitchy women" question. But I wonder about the men who live with those of us who are (4). What's the attraction? I admit: I don't think I could do it. Is it that decent, confident guys are sure enough of themselves that they can live with women who get a little overwrought because they know it's nothing personal? Is it that on some level they understand the internal tension of being ambitious and being a "nice guy"? Is it actually that they like the 80-90% that's strong, confident, and assertive, and frankly really hate the 10-20% that's just flat-out bitchy, but figure that on balance the good outweighs the bad? Is it a really sweet and generous expression of the fact that decent guys really truly do like women, and they're just not all that fazed by anger or the occasional unreasonable diatribe because, after all, they love you regardless and everyone gets upset and wound up now and then?

Or is it that we (4)s really aren't as bad as we think we are, and in thinking we must be, we're being as bitchy to ourselves as we think we are to everyone else?

Pseudonymous Kid, literary critic

Scene: It is bedtime, and I have just finished reading "The Walrus and the Carpenter."

Pseudonymous Kid: Awww! Mama, why did they eat all the oysters? That's so sad!
Me: Well, that's what Alice thought, too.
Pseudonymous Kid: I hate that story.
Me: Ok, I'm sorry. We won't read it again. Let's read the story about the dormouse, ok?
Pseudonymous Kid: No! No more of these stories. What happens to the dormouse?
Me: They don't eat him. They put him in a teapot.
Pseudonymous Kid: (Laughs) Pfft! Why do they do that?
Me: Because he's always falling asleep, and also because they're a little bit crazy.
Pseudonymous Kid: No, I don't want to hear that story. Read me the one about the oysters again.
Me: But I thought you didn't like it because it was sad!
Pseudonymous Kid: (As if explaining to a child.) Well, mama. It's only a story. It doesn't really happen. And plus, there are several oysters still in the ocean.

(A few minutes later)
Me: "... A loaf of bread, the walrus said, is what we chiefly need,"
Pseudonymous Kid: Awwww! Do some of the oysters get away?
Me: (Taking my cue.) Yes. Some of the oysters ran away, very quickly.
Pseudonymous Kid: Why?
Me: Because they didn't want to be eaten.
Pseudonymous Kid: Where did they run to?
Me: Back to the ocean.
Pseudonymous Kid: Okay. Read the rest, then.
Me: "...they'd eaten every one."
Pseudonymous Kid: The walrus and the carpenter were mean.
Me: Yes, that's what Alice said.
Pseudonymous Kid: Ok, read me the story about the dormouse now.

Update: Rove still a liar and a criminal; White House still protecting his lying ass

Via the Big Brass Blog, a very interesting story from Bloomberg:

The Supreme Court announcement may freeze things, ``and that's probably a good thing for the White House,'' said Carroll Doherty, an editor at the Washington-based Pew Center.

Bush accelerated his search for a Supreme Court nominee in part because of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into the leak of a CIA agent's name, according to Republicans familiar with administration strategy.

Bush originally had planned to announce a replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on July 26 or 27, just before his planned July 28 departure for a month-long vacation at his Crawford, Texas, ranch, said two administration officials, who spoke on the condition they not be named.

The officials said those plans changed because Rove has become a focus of Fitzgerald's interest and of news accounts about the matter.

There are other things going on, of course

1. Jessica at Feministing reminds us that

The Senate Judiciary hearings for VAWA’s five year extension started yesterday, as did the anti-VAWA backlash. This bill is too important to be put on your political back burner, so go to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence and take action now.

2. Two young women died in California from infections. They had taken RU-486 to terminate an early pregnancy.

Wendy Wright, senior policy director for Concerned Women of America, a conservative women's group, said news of the latest death proved that label changes would not make the drug safe.

"Changing the label the last time clearly didn't help the latest woman who died," Ms. Wright said. "Sadly, people who support RU-486 apparently believe the risk of death is preferable to having a child."

Wrong.

The risk of death from RU-486 is less than 1 in 100,000.

The risk of death from pregnancy is 11.8 in 100,000.

3. Al otro lado of the minuteman project issue: Paisanos al Rescate ("Countrymen to the Rescue"), a group that drops water via parachute into the desert to keep border crossers from dying of thirst. Armando Alarcon, who started it up,

arrived in the United States as an infant in the arms of his mother as she waded illegally across the Rio Grande, leaving behind her home in Sinaloa in northern Mexico.

He became a United States citizen in his 20's while serving in the Army in the first Persian Gulf war; military officials sped up his American passport so that he could be dispatched to a base in Saudi Arabia as a supply specialist.

Increased vigilance along the border after the terrorist attacks of September 2001 forced migrants to undertake riskier crossings. Mr. Alarcon said he decided to form Paisanos three years ago after the Border Patrol found the body of an 8-year-old girl who had been abandoned in the desert by her smuggler.
....
Mr. Alarcon shies away from endorsing or criticizing specific immigration policies, saying the group's main objective is to conduct humanitarian missions within an imperfect system.
....
Fernando Garcia, director of the Border Network for Human Rights in El Paso [says] "There is no sign the U.S. is prepared to change policies that are killing people on the border. There is a crisis of death resulting from the refusal to recognize the contributions immigrants make to society." [In contrast,] One outspoken member of the Minutemen group in Texas, Wanda Schultz of Houston, said migrants should not be relying on the assistance of Paisanos. "If you don't want to die, don't come."

4. There's still a war going on, isn't there? The current draft of the Iraqi constitution limits women's rights.

"A Westerner familiar with the writing of the constitution said that when he saw a draft of the civil rights section less than a week ago, it did not contain the sweeping language on personal status law. In that version, he said, most measures - even those citing Shariah - were not as severe as they could have been.

"Compared to what some of the conservative Shiites were pushing, the glass is half full.""

Compared, however, to the rights that women had before the war, the glass is half empty. It's necessary to say--it shouldn't be, but it is--that obviously the repression under Saddam Hussein affected men as well as women, and like every other person on the planet, I'm glad he's gone; but inasmuch as our current argument is that we deposed him not because of WMD or any kind of imminent threat to us, but out of humanitarian concern for the Iraqi people, it's worth pointing out that the results of that decision seem to be making things worse, rather than better, for the women who are more than half the Iraqi population.

5. Follow up to the post about the Kenyan women's village: in the comments, Badgerbag provided a link to an organization that runs a Small Women's Lending Scheme in Northern Africa. I've seen plenty of people, here and elsewhere, saying "what can we do to help those women?" and in part, my response to that is, we might want to rethink the white woman's burden of having to help women who seem to be doing a pretty good job of helping themselves. But research does show that grants and loans of this kind that target women do, in fact, make a great deal of difference not only to the women but to their families and communities: teach a man to fish and he'll feed his family, but loan a woman capital and she'll not only feed her family, she'll start a business that'll help bring prosperity to the entire village; multiply this a few hundred or thousand times, and you can impact an entire region, an entire country.

Is writing a brief the same as deciding a case?

Already a lot of people are saying that Roberts's work as Deputy Solicitor General is not necessarily indicative of his personal opinions, and pointing out that written briefs prepared for clients are evidence only that lawyers are doing their jobs, rather than evidence of how they would decide the same cases if they were in the position of judge.

This is, of course, true; the fact that Roberts wrote a brief saying that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and another brief stating that pregnant people are not women, does not necessarily mean he thinks those things or would rule that way; the only thing we can be sure such arguments mean is that, as Deputy S.G., he made the strongest arguments he could for his client, the Bush administration.

However. Have a look at Kim Lane Scheppele's description of his opinion in Hedgepath v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, over at Balkiniztion.

To the argument that age should be considered a suspect classification that would trigger heightened scrutiny in constitutional Fifth Amendment analysis, Judge Roberts wrote for a unanimous panel that it is not. As a result, the difference between the treatment of the adults and the treatment of children in the DC ordinance was subject only to a rational relation test, which Judge Roberts found it easily passed.

To the Hedgepeth argument that Ansche’s arrest burdened a fundamental right to be free from restraint, Judge Roberts wrote that no one has a right to be free from restraint when they have obviously violated a law under the very nose of the police: "The law of this land does not recognize a fundamental right to freedom of movement when there is probable cause for arrest.. . .That is true even with respect to minor offenses." And to the argument that such a minor crime could not produce a “reasonable” arrest, Judge Roberts cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Atwater v. City of Lago Vista which held that a police officer had not acted unreasonably in violation of the Fourth Amendment when he arrested a woman who had merely failed to fasten her seat belt. So too, Ansche Hedgepeth, could not rely on the Constitution to escape the consequences of her misdeeds. She clearly ate a French fry in clear violation of the city ordinance in the clear view of a police officer. No leniency for her.

Now, to my mind, this suggests that the "pregnant people are not necessarily women" brief is indicative of Roberts's opinion as a judge. It seems to me that this opinion--as opposed to assessment of Edith Brown Clement and O'Connor--suggests that Roberts believes in a very strict, theoretical interpretation of "equality under the law," one that makes no distinctions between obvious, fact-based differences like the difference between a 12-year old with a french fry and an adult, or a woman and a theoretical, non-existent "pregnant person who is not a woman." As Scheppele writes, Roberts "seems determined to draw bright lines," to refuse to acknowledge specific distinctions or the specific circumstances of specific cases. I think it is very likely that a ruling that refuses to consider proportionality analysis--that is, as I understand the term, an examination of the reasonableness of the state interest balanced against the rights of the individual--or to recognize the fact-based distinctions between children and adults, or women and "pregnant people," indicates a judge whose fetishizes the law as an unforgiving absolute; who sees the people the law is written for as brains-on-sticks, theoretical constructs; who is willfully blind to the embodiedness of the people before his bench or the practial effects of his rulings.

Pretty radical, if you ask me.

Short notice

About 45 minutes from my writing of this (i.e., at 1 pm Wednesday) the Chronicle of Higher Ed is going to host a discussion about financial support for women scientists with young children. They've given the thing the incredibly condescending title, "money for mommies," unfortunately. I must admit that my experience of these Chronicle forums is both disappointing and frustrating when it comes to feminist issues--the kind of experience that makes me say, as I occasionally do, "it's amazing how many people with PhDs are really stupid"--but if you are interested and/or up for fighting the good and noble fight this afternoon, you might want to check it out.

More detail on the politics behind the Roberts nomination

If you haven't already, check out the SCOTUSblog posts on Roberts, particularly the four-part series linked in this post. They also have a very nice list of other opinions on Roberts, and a brief rundown of significant opinions he's written.

More on Roberts

From dKos:

"For a unanimous panel, denied the weak civil rights claims of a 12-year-old girl who was arrested and handcuffed in a Washington, D.C., Metro station for eating a French fry. Roberts noted that "no one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation" and that the Metro authority had changed the policy that led to her arrest. (Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 2004)."

"Joined a unanimous opinion denying the claim of a prisoner who argued that by tightening parole rules in the middle of his sentence, the government subjected him to an unconstitutional after-the-fact punishment. The panel reversed its decision after a Supreme Court ruling directly contradicted it. (Fletcher v. District of Columbia, 2004)"

"For Bush I, successfully helped argue that doctors and clinics receiving federal funds may not talk to patients about abortion. (Rust v. Sullivan, 1991)"

"As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Operation Rescue and named individuals who routinely blocked access to clinics. The brief argued that the protesters’ behavior did not discriminate against women and that blockades and clinic protests were protected speech under the First Amendment. This case, Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, spurred the Congress to enact the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act."

From Law.com:

"Those who know Roberts say he, unlike Souter, is a reliable conservative who can be counted on to undermine if not immediately overturn liberal landmarks like abortion rights and affirmative action."

From Report of the Alliance for Justice (here's the pdf):

"After a 1980 Supreme Court decision, Mobile v. Bolden, dramatically weakaned certain sections of the Voting Rights Act, Roberts was involved in the administration’s effort to prevent Congress from overturning the Supreme Court’s action. The Supreme Court had decided, despite a lack of textual basis for this interpretation of the statute, that plaintiffs claiming certain violations of the Voting Rights Act, such as minority vote dilution, had to prove that the discrimination was intentional rather than just having a discriminatory effect."

"In two cases, Roberts took positions hostile to women’s reproductive rights. He was a co-author of the government’s brief in Rust v. Sullivan,10 the case in which the Supreme Court upheld newly revised Title X regulations that prohibited U.S. family planning programs receiving federal aid from giving any abortion-related counseling or other services. The provision barred such clinics not only from providing abortions, but also from “counseling clients about abortion” or even “referring them to facilities that provide abortions.” Roberts’ brief argued that the regulation gagging the government-financed programs was necessary to fulfill Congress’ intent not to fund abortions through these programs, despite the fact that several members of Congress, including sponsors of the amendment dealing with abortion, disavowed this position and that the Department of Health and Human Services’ had not previously interpreted the provision in such a rigid and restrictive manner. Moreover, Roberts argued, even though the case did not
implicate Roe v. Wade, that “[w]e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled... The Court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion... finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.” In a second abortion-related case, Roberts co-authored the government’s amicus brief in a private suit brought against Operation Rescue by an abortion clinic it had targeted. The brief argued that Operation Rescue was not engaged in a conspiracy to deprive women of
equal protection. Roberts took this position in spite of Operation Rescue’s admission that its goal was to prevent women from obtaining abortions and to shut down the clinic during its protests. Although the government’s brief acknowledged that only women could become pregnant, it argued that conspiring to prevent people from seeking constitutionally-protected abortions did not constitute gender discrimination. It asserted that, at worst, Operation Rescue was discriminating against pregnant people, not women."

Discriminating against pregnant people, not women. That pretty much says it all. Quick, women, back under your burkas: you're invisible.

In order not to be invisible, write--quickly now--to your senators and representatives. Tell them no.

SCOTUS nominee Roberts: Nope, not acceptable

From Wikipedia:

In a brief before the Supreme Court (Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, (1991)), Roberts wrote:

"We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. As more fully explained in our briefs, filed as amicus curiæ, in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 110 S. Ct. 2926 (1990); Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 109 S. Ct. 3040 (1989); Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986); and City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983), the Court's conclusions in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion and that government has no compelling interest in protecting prenatal human life throughout pregnancy find no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."

Time to fight.

Some facts about abortion

Just for the record

1. The number of abortions is "continuing its decade-long drop and stands at its lowest level since 1976."

2. "Women with unintended pregnancies are those most likely to get abortions."

3. "Six in 10 women who had abortions in 2002 were mothers."

4. "The majority -- 56 percent -- of women who terminate their pregnancies are in their twenties. Teenagers between 15 and 19 make up 19 percent of abortions, although this percentage has dropped substantially in recent years."

5. "low-income women are overrepresented among those having the procedure. Sixty percent of women who had abortions in 2000 had incomes of less than twice the poverty level --below $28,000 per year for a family of three, for example. This is in part because "low-income women have lower access to family planning services.""

6. "Almost 90 percent of abortions are performed in the first trimester -- during the first 12 weeks after the first day of the woman's last menstrual period -- with most performed before nine weeks."

7. "Less than 1 percent of abortions are done after 24 weeks."

So the next time some wank job tries to make "abortion" into a discussion about "late-term abortion," or starts nattering on about how pro-choice women hate babies, or how "abortion is on the rise" or how awful it is that women have abortions out of "convenience," hit 'em with the facts, and ask them if they think that trying to support a family of three on less than $28,000 / year is a question of convenience, or survival.

Thank you

To everyone who clicked on the paypal button way down in the right-hand column to help pay Lauren for redesigning the blog--I should have a less hideous look for you soon, hopefully by the end of the month. You all donated a little more than I needed, so I'll be sending the extra money to either ProKanDo or Planned Parenthood.

From here on out, any donations go to yours truly. Merci.

Supreme Court nomination--rumor says Edith Brown Clement

Bush is scheduled to announce a nominee tonight at 9 pm (?!?)--eastern, I assume. Rumor has it it'll be one Edith Brown (Joy) Clement.

Clement was unanimously confirmed to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, a position to which she was nominated by Bush Sr., and served as chief judge for that court for a couple of years before moving up to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals--ironically, her nomination filled one of two seats that had been vacant for almost two years because the Republican congress would not grant a hearing to any of Clinton's three nominees (so much for Republican rhetoric about "giving every nominee an up or down vote").

Clement's primary area of expertise seems to be maritime and business law, which is obviously why she's being nominated. My guess is that the Bush administration sees her as a pro-business judge. She belongs to the Federalist Society, an organization created to challenge "the orthodox liberal ideology found in most law schools." Scalia, Thomas, and Bork are also members of the organization. She has said, however, that she does not believe her membership in the organization affects her decisions as a judge, and that "'Because the Federalist Society does not take positions on political issues, I did not consider resigning [my membership when I became a judge]. However, were the Federalist Society to alter the manner in which it functions, I would reassess my membership."

She has said that "when legislation is proposed and passed and becomes statutory that there is a presumption of constitutionality. And to the extent, the statute should be upheld and the Constitution should be enforced." She is also on record saying that "the Constitution guarantees the right of privacy and the due process protection must be enforced." Asked specifically about abortion, she said

The Supreme Court has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion. The cases handed down by the Supreme Court on the right to abortion have reaffirmed and redefined this right, and the law is settled in that regard. If confirmed [to the fifth circuit], I will faithfully apply Supreme
Court precedent.

On the general question of tradoffs between liberty and security after 9/11, she said:

I think we need to see what the legislation puts forward, and to the extent that we need to protect civil liberties I am sure the Senate and the Congress will address those issues, as they are examining them now. So
that extent, I think that need was recognized by the Supreme Court and we have to just trust the legislators to enact a law that is safeguarding for the citizens of this country, since we are under terrorist attack, but also recognizes that people do have civil liberties to protect, whether they are foreigners or not, or whether they are protection and their right to be in this country has been brought under question.

There are certainly statutes protecting them and providing for hearings and examination and presentation of issues. If there is a preventive detention, which I believe the Supreme Court discussed in the Zatadis case, I believe that the preventive detention should be set forth with some particularity, and to that extent I think that would resolve the issue.

She has also said that

military orders must afford adequate due process protections, but such orders must be judged in the context in which they arise. It
is important to balance individual civil liberties against the government's interest in national security. The government, of course, cannot violate constitutional rights, but the specific answer to your question depends on the particular legal and factual context,

and that courts should not automatically defer to the executive on matters of national security--

Although it is settled law that courts should defer to
Congress and the executive branch in matters of national security, such deference does not extend to automatic validation of governmental action.

When asked about judicial activism she said that

Judicial activism has been criticized as when a jurist oversteps the bounds of the Constitution or recognized constitutional statutes and attempts to inflict the will of the jurist on either the legislative or the executive branch or the people.

What I believe is that when legislation is proposed and passed and becomes statutory that there is a presumption of constitutionality. And to the extent, the statute should be upheld and the Constitution should be enforced.

My assessment--and I am not a legal scholar, nor have I examined her decisions; I am basing this exclusively on her statements being confirmed for the 5th circuit (available here), and what descriptions I was able to find of her on sites like Daily Kos and SCOTUSblog--my assessment is that she is a very cautious judge, that she seems to be reluctant to write broad decisions, that her caution extends to a great deal of respect for established precedent, and that she has an instinctive preference to decide individual cases as narrowly as possible. While others seem to be warning that she is a strict constructionist in the "original Constitution" sense--as opposed to believing in the "living Constitution," a sense that the document's meaning evolves over time--my sense is that she has a great deal of respect for precedent, including (obviously) the precedent of the Constitution itself, and that her tendency to interpret cases narrowly may indeed mean she is reluctant to extend Constitutional protections beyond what has already been established. She seems to acknowledge that Roe v. Wade is established law; she seems to acknowledge that detainees have Constitutional rights. I suspect that she is being nominated as a pro-business judge, a judge who is expected to default to upholding the status quo, and a judge who it would be hard to argue against and who should therefore have a relatively uncontroversial confirmation process.

I'm cautiously optimistic.

Like a fish needs a bicycle

If you haven't already seen the stories of the Kenyan women who started their own village, I suggest checking them out. Simultaneously quite cheering--yay feminist independence!--and sobering; of course, the men are determined to put an end to these uppity women living on their own terms.

Ten years ago, a group of women established the village of Umoja, which means unity in Swahili, on an unwanted field of dry grasslands. The women said they had been raped and, as a result, abandoned by their husbands, who claimed they had shamed their community.

Stung by the treatment, Lolosoli, a charismatic and self-assured woman with a crown of puffy dark hair, decided no men would be allowed to live in their circular village of mud-and-dung huts.

In an act of spite, the men of her tribe started their own village across the way, often monitoring activities in Umoja and spying on their female counterparts. . . .

About three dozen women live here and run a cultural center and camping site for tourists visiting the adjacent Samburu National Reserve. Umoja has flourished, eventually attracting so many women seeking help that they even hired men to haul firewood, traditionally women's work.

The men in the rival village also attempted to build a tourist and cultural center, but were not very successful. . . .

"She's questioning our very culture," Lesinik said in an interview at a bar on a sweltering afternoon. "This seems to be the thing in these modern times. Troublemaking ladies like Rebecca."

Nothing says "troublemaker" like a woman (or group of women) who simply want to be left alone.

Here's a less optimistic article on the same story, from the Telegraph:

Gangs a dozen strong have mounted daytime raids through the thorn fence circling the village, chasing the women into the bush, beating them with clubs and threatening to torch their stick-and-dung homes.

"We do not have peace in the village now. These men are so angry because we have money and we do not give them any," said Rebecca Lolosoli, 43, Umoja's de facto chief and one of its founders.

"We ran away first because we were being beaten and now we are trying to change our lives, we are being beaten again because of how we are doing well."

It's stories like this that tempt one to swear off men forever. What assholes.

Good.

Eric Rudolph gets a double life sentence for bombing an abortion clinic in Birmingham.

Under cover

A couple of interesting articles about Plame: one from the LA Times, which contextualizes the story within the world of undercover CIA operatives, and one from the WaPo, which recaps the story so far, including a reminder that "a senior White House official was quoted as telling The Post at least six reporters had been told of Plame before Novak's column, "purely and simply out of revenge.""

In some ways, the Plame case--bear with me here--gives me an entry into this whole question of blogging, anonymity, and getting dooced. Steve Gilliard and others think that anyone who tells their employer about their blog is quite simply amoron. This, it would seem, is a good reason to blog anonymously, no?

But speaking as an anonymous blogger (and for the sake of argument, I'm going to conflate anonymity and pseudonymity), I have to say that blogging anonymously is probably not all that much protection. In my case, there are a lot of people who know who I am--and at least two cases where people who I didn't tell stumbled across the blog and read enough to realize who was writing it. One could say--and if at some point I am found out by the wrong people and lose my job for it, doubtless many people will say--that simply having a blog at all is "moronic," that I should have known what I was (am) risking. Well, sure; but knowing that something is a risk doesn't mean that if things turn out badly, that that's a-ok. I would argue that personal blogging of any stripe is risky because honesty is risky; you don't need to say things that harm or embarrass other people for some people to want to punish you for saying them.

Dorcasina's response to the thing is therefore a lot more intelligent than Steve's. She points out that this entire question seems to hinge on "appropriateness." If you say that something (blogging, telling people about your blog) is "inappropriate," then you are trying ot have it both ways: passing judgment on someone for stuff that really isn't any of your business, but saving yourself from seeming like a nosy parker by pushing the burden of that judgment onto some kind of projected social expectations about what is and isn't "appropriate" to talk about.

And, as Dorcasina points out, the consequence of that kind of move is to reinforce the status quo, to discourage risk-taking or critical thinking, to encourage conformity. Which is, of course, why we run this risk; because we wish to question the status quo, to encourage risk-taking of certain sorts, to question or discourage needless conformity.

And yet, I blog anonymously, in an attempt to divorce my own personal security from the "risk" of questioning received truths; but also in order to divorce my identity, to some extent, from the validity of what I'm saying. If readers don't know who I am, then they have to decide whether what I say makes sense on its merits--it's not a question of whether you like or dislike me, personally, if you don't know who I am to begin with.

But of course it doesn't really work that way. If you read what anyone writes for any length of time, you decide that you like or dislike "them"--or at least, the person who you have an impression of--and that does make a difference, especially in a pretty interactive form like blogging. So the advantages of anonymity (to either the author's safety, or to their argument) tend to wear fairly thin fairly quickly.

So why bother? Well, it seems to me that there's a counterintuitive little move going on with anonymous blogging. It would seem that the anonymous blogger doesn't trust her readers; but arguably, she trusts them more. First, because she is more likely to reveal very personal information, weaknesses, vulnerabilities, uncertainties than she would if she were blogging under her real name; second, because she is letting her writing rest on its merits rather than on any authority she might have; and third--and here is where the Plame thing comes back in--because anonymity pretty much begs to be revealed, either by telling others (mentioning your blog to people you like, in part as a gesture of trust) or simply because it raises curiosity. Most anonymous bloggers do go around and leave comments on other people's blogs. I do. And we know that every time you do that, you're leaving an IP address, and that in doing so, you're making yourself pretty easily tracable. Most anonymous bloggers tell a few people who they are. And whether someone finds out your "real" name by looking, or whether you tell them, you're placing a great deal of trust in them to keep your secret.

What's surprising, in a way--but not really so surprising, if you think about it--is that most people intuitively know this. It seems to be an unspoken but broadly acknowledged rule in blogland--as it is in the CIA, according to the LA Times--that one errs on the side of caution. The first rule of blog club is you do not talk about blog club in public unless you're sure it's okay. You might know who someone is, but you maintain the fiction that you don't. From this point of view, it's revealing information (or risking revealing it) about other people that's "inappropriate"--giving enough information to identify them, drawing unwanted attention to a small or obscure private blog (which expands the pool of people who *could* identify them more than they are perhaps prepared to deal with), even--to the cautious--mentioning the word "blog" in person.

And I don't think that simply saying, "it's published, what did you expect to happen" is adequate--even though I myself have said this, and I think that really, that is the bottom line. But the bottom line doesn't adequately acknowledge the nuances and expectations of social interaction. We don't expect most people with whom we are dealing in the course of day-to-day life to reduce us to the bottom line: yes, we realize that jaywalking means a car could hit us, but we expect drivers to slow down; yes, we realize that carrying a purse could make us easier to rob, but we expect people not to be thieves; yes, we know our employers aren't our friends but in most non-corporate employment situations, we tend to reveal personal stuff and trust our bosses to distinguish between our job performance and whether or not they like, say, our taste in men. This stuff is unenforcable--for the most part you can't legislate people acting like decent human beings--but we expect it anyway. The "what did you expect" argument is a legalistic quibbling, a more benign version of the Rovian excuse that "I only said 'Wilson's wife,' I didn't use her name." Either it's right or its wrong, and most of us know that there's a difference between what can happen and what should happen--even a difference between what can happen and what will happen ninety-nine times out of a hundred.

And you can always find another job. Unless you're Karl Rove, in which case you should be drummed out of society.

What do you want to call it?

I have a follow-on post to the whole blogging/identity/privacy thing, but I couldn't resist doing a quick fisk on this: Anti-immigration Groups Head to Interior.

At least 40 anti-immigration groups have popped up nationally, inspired by the Minuteman Project that rallied hundreds this year to patrol the Mexican border in Arizona...

"I struck the mother lode of patriotism or nationalism or whatever you want to call it," said Jim Gilchrist, a Vietnam veteran and retired CPA who co-founded the Minuteman Project 10 months ago.

Hm. Patriotism... no, not quite right... nationalism... no, it's not that either... hm, what could it be? Some kind of -ism, it's right there on the tip of my tongue, I can't quite remember the word... R something....

"The guns are for one reason -- to keep my people alive," said Jim Chase, a former Arizona Minuteman volunteer who is leading the effort.

Yes, it's true; the desperate people who are hiking across the desert to try to find sub-minimum wage work as manual laborers are so, so dangerous. Packing heat, every last one of 'em. Especially the families witih babies.

The Tennessee Minutemen . . . insist they are not vigilantes or racists.

There's that word I was looking for! Racists!

"We don't want to project it as a hate group. We don't hate anybody or anything. But there are legal immigrants and illegal," Whitaker said.

And it's our job to take the law into our own hands. But that doesn't make us vigilantes.

Members of the Hamblen County Commission recently suggested that Hispanic immigrants were to blame if property taxes have to be raised next year -- though commissioners insisted they were talking only about illegal immigrants.

Whaaa??? How does illegal immigration raise property taxes? Next you'll be saying that illegal immigrants, oh I dunno, cause plague or something.

County Commissioner Tom Lowe, who says "we do not want (all) Hispanics stereotyped as illegal,"

Or at least, we don't want to admit that in public,

estimates as many as 85 percent of Hamblen's Hispanics are -- and he fears they carry drug-resistant disease.

Oops, I guess they do cause plague. We don't want to stereotype Hispanics as illegal--we want to stereotype them as dirty.

Hamblen County Mayor David Purkey said, like Lowe, he supports immigration laws, but finds such comments disturbing.

Yeah, just a little.

"I think you have to be careful when you are expressing your opinion on that, that you don't appear as if you are against diversity as a whole."

It's okay to be against diversity, as long as you don't appear to be against diversity. Or even if you do, as long as you can plausibly deny it.

Not that these denials are very plausible.

PLUS ÇA CHANGE, PLUS ÇA RESTE LA MÊME CHOSE

Check out this employer's essay about her nanny and the nanny's response in her blog. Full disclosure; the nanny is on my blogroll (which is how I found out about the article) and I met her last time I was in NYC. So obviously I feel inclined toward her "side" of this thing. On the other hand, I think the article she's responding to kind of speaks for itself. But then, on my left foot, I think the author's underlying point isn't so much to impugn her nanny as it is to reveal how the sexist judgment she passed on the nanny ricocheted. And yet, on the other foot (don't worry, I'm out of appendages now), I think the essay ultimately fails to transcend its own sexism and achieve some kind of feminist solidarity. But, like every skirmish in the ongoing "mommy wars," its limitations are profoundly meaningful.

The point of Olen's essay, I think, wants to be "her online revelations brought feelings of mine to the surface I'd just as soon not have to face as well." Which is a high compliment; good personal writing should do that, strike a chord in the reader, incite self-awareness. That's what we want our writing to do. But beneath that surface moral lies another, more upsetting one: even though we're in the twenty-first century, when nannies have blogs, we're still clinging to the idea that women in domestic employ must not only do their jobs; they must reinforce their employer's sense of social and moral superiority. Hence, the real problem is that, because of the blog, Olen's understanding of her nanny's humanity goes beyond what it has with previous nannies, whose "problems I could feel superior to and that made me grateful for the steady routine of marriage and children." By becoming more fully human, Tessa "broke the covenant"--an unspoken contract in Olen's mind (one that Tessa not only didn't sign on to, but was apparently completely unaware of) that "her" nanny should make her feel "young and hip by proxy," should not give her reason to fear that she was now a "boring hausfrau," should maintain a "mythology of friendship with our nannies, pretending the nanny admires us and loves our children so much that she would continue to visit even without pay." In other words, because she wrote well enough to engage her reader, Tessa was a bad nanny.

Olen's husband identifies the problem early on. "My husband thought her writing precociously talented but wanted to fire her nonetheless. "This is inappropriate," he said. "We don't need to know that Jennifer Ehle makes her hot."" But--and this, not the fact of being married with children, is what marks the couple as offensively "bourgeois"--the cognitive dissonance of recognizing that Tessa is not a simple domestic servant onto whom they can project a truncated, flattering image of themselves itself gets projected on her anyway: somehow it is Tessa's writing and her life, rather than their discomfort with the fact that their nanny has thoughts of her own, that he labels "inappropriate." Of course when she is fired, they don't tell her why.

Tessa's response to the whole thing, understandably, is defensive; but, though less polished, I think it is more self-aware. She feels the need to defend herself against the implications that she is "promiscuous" and drinks too much--but she also recognizes that defending against these things implicitly acknowledges that, if true, they would be "inappropriate," and takes pains to point out that she consciously rejects her own internalized sexism, the fear we've all learned of being judged as "bad women," even as she can't help feeling a need to defend her character. And she recognizes that Olen's feeling that "My issues, my problems, my compromises, my entire being seemed to be viewed by her as so much waste" actually expresses the hurt of realizing that Tessa was more important to her than she was to Tessa, who "didn't judge her life. Why? . . . I never really thought about it at all. She employed me to care for her children. Her choices? Her compromises? Not my business. The only times I considered her life was in relation to my employment." The reason that "her employment or the blog would have to come to an end" seems, in the end, less because Olen and her husband "did not . . . care to find [themselves] a character online" than because they realized they were, in the end, only minor characters.

In the end, of course, Olen's essay really isn't about Tessa; it's about Olen. She wanted her nanny to take care of her children, but it seems she also expected her nanny to take care of her--not only by waiting on her when she was sick, but by maintaining the necessary fictions of her self-image as a married woman and mother, the edifice of respectable domestic life. Tessa didn't do that very well; she chose instead to write, to nanny for a living, and to apply to graduate school to study Victorian novels. I wonder if she'll write her dissertation on the Brontës.

And I hope Olen will re-read Jane Eyre, and realize that the only reason Bertha accidentally burned down the house is because Mr. Rochester had her locked in the attic.

Demonstrably untrue cliches

If you regularly read One Good Thing and/or Miss Manners, you've already seen this fantastic letter:

Dear Miss Manners:

Please help my friend see how rude and wrong she has been.

Jean's husband went blind from an illness. She was wonderful in the situation. She always wore perfume since he couldn't see her. Arranged the house for his convenience. She read the paper to him every day and they did the puzzle together.

When he died, I knew she would be perfect for a male friend of mine who is also blind. She overreacted and said she would never go through that again. She had let her appearance go since he couldn't see her, and she liked to read the paper to herself.

But taking care of her husband brought out the best in her, and that is when people are really happy. So I invited my blind friend over to try Jean's home cooking. She is really a spectacular cook. I brought all the ingredients and then invited Jean over. When she arrived and found Zachary here, she said, "Oh, no" and walked out.

How do you think that made him feel? My husband and myself had made plans to go out so they could be alone, so we had to ask Zachary to leave.

When I scolded Jean the next day, she jumped on me for making him go home alone and without any dinner. She claims Zachary was our guest, not hers. But we invited him for her because they would be good for each other. Now she won't talk to me at all.

Why is it that those who try to make the world a better place end up unappreciated?

You can click over to either of the links above to find Miss Manners's answer, which is a sternly witty development of the basic theme, "you suck," but it got me thinking. The key moment in the letter, I would argue, is this--

But taking care of her husband brought out the best in her, and that is when people are really happy

--because, having set up the situation, this is the justification with which the author proceeds on her merry way even after she has been told not to. And it's such a lovely one too: cheerfully insensitive to what people actually say they feel, breezily smug and self-righteous, demonstrably wrong. Plus the bonus of two cliches--"adversity brings out the best in people," and "people are truly happy when ___"--combined into one patently offensive rationale.

So I got to thinking. How would one apply this saying in real life, other than setting up your widowed friend with your blind friend on the grounds that, you know, her dead husband was blind too, so they're perfect for each other? Here are some possibilities I came up with:

"They say that 9/11 really brought out the best in New Yorkers, so there should be a terrorist attack every week, because that is when people are truly happy."

"Taking care of her dying child really brought out the best in her, so I hope her next baby also has a fatal illness, because that is when she was truly happy."

"The way everyone pitched in after the catastrophic flooding really brought out the best in people, so it should flood every spring, because that is when people are truly happy."

"Her recovery from that accident really brought out the best in her husband, so I hope she gets hit by a car again as soon as she's better, because that is when he was truly happy."

See how fun it is? G'wan, you know you wanna play. Offer your heartlessly sick suggestions in comments, or come up with your own appalling cliches about what's good for people and offer an example or two.

Snerk

Christian adoption agency won't accept applications from Catholics. Big surprise, and for the record (not that it needs to be said) the fact that state governments are all mixed up with fundraising for Christian organizations via these odious "choose life" license plates annoys the living shit out of me. But I still had to laugh at the last line of this article:

"It is troubling to me if they are discriminating based on only the Catholics," Gray said.

Don't worry, honey, they're not. They also discriminate against Jews, Muslims, athiests, Hindus, Buddhists....

"I"m not dead yet!"

Two totally weird stories in the news tonight. What bizarre times we live in.

1. "Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine and Democrats Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Barbara Boxer of California" wrote O'Connor a letter asking her to change her mind (?!?) and stay on as Chief Justice if Rehnquist retires.

2. Rehnquist says he has no immediate plans to retire.

Now, I realize that these are huge political stakes and all, but what occurs to me when I read these is suddenly to think: you know, these are very old people we are talking about here. And my god, O'Connor's husband has Alzheimer's; she wants to spend time with him. And Rehnquist has had cancer (and may still), and he doesn't want to stop working, and the entire country is basically standing around waiting for him to die, or at least get so sick he can't work any more.

And you know, that's gotta seriously suck. They're important public figures, but if you cut them, they bleed. Here's this old guy, he's reached the very top of his profession, and he's tickled pink by his job; we all sort of giggled about him sewing the big gold bands onto his robe, but really: if you were the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, wouldn't you be incredibly proud? We hear this story all the time: old guy, loves his work, doesn't want to retire. It's touching, really, and it's all too easy to imagine how irritating it would be to have everyone speculating that really, it's time for you to step down now and let someone else take over. And on the other hand, here's this old woman, she's reached the top of her profession too, the first woman to do so. Yes, there's all this big political brouhaha over it, but at the center of the story, from her point of view, it's fairly simple: she's reaching the end of her life and so is her husband, and he's sick, and she wants to spend some time with him before he goes, and who can begrudge her that? We'll all get there someday.

I think I'm thinking about this because of something else I read tonight, Michelle Dion's post about academic blogging. She offers a clean, dispassionate, and I think accurate description of two kinds of blogging that are all too often described in terms of who does them (men vs. women, anonymous vs. authored) or, as we all object every time it rolls around, political vs. personal. Her division, summarized, is: (1) blogs that focus primarily on public events or public affairs; and (2) blogs that focus primarily on personal events and thoughts. (Obviously there are other kinds of blogs as well.) Reading what she wrote, I thought of the feminist canard that "the personal is political," and surely it is. But then I started thinking about how easy it is to think of public figures or public events as if they were only public. But it's kind of interesting to step back from that and think about these things on a smaller scale, as basically just stories about people doing, and going through, things that aren't really particularly unique or surprising--and in a way, more meaningful rather than less because of that.

I also found it interesting that the second story said that "Justice O'Connor informed her colleagues of her decision barely an hour before the public announcement. Her children learned about it from television." I think, therefore, that the theory I put forth at the time that perhaps the administration had known and asked her to time her announcement for just before a long weekend in order to delay the response, is pretty unlikely; if she didn't tell her own kids or the people she worked closely with, it's probably unlikely she was plotting the thing with the White House.

Cute animal stories!

Ok, now that we've effectively divided the nation and perpetuated the run-up to the American-Canadian war, let's pour oil on the waters with some uplifting animal stories!

First, from Majikthise, a project to build artificial housing for hermit crabs. Apparently there aren't enough shells to go around, possibly because people keep stealing them. One wonders about the long-term evolutionary and ecological effects of little plastic shells, but all I know is that I started reading the article out loud to Mr. B. and Pseudonymous Kid overheard it, and he was very very concerned for the hermit crabs and felt much better once I explained about the plastic houses, so there.

Second, from Ms. Uffish (well, indirectly; her link was to a little man-backhoe ballet), this little story about the crow who adopted a kitten. Again, one wonders about the long-term consequences, but it's cute now! Damnit! Stop bringing me down!

Ok, maybe those weren't so uplifting after all. Well, I tried.

Necessary, if tragic, update

I hope everyone who trackbacked or linked to my post about Allison Crews's death will also trackback or link to this one.

Apparently she died of a seizure brought on by Wellbutrin.

Not suicide.

So all the assholes I saw out there in the blogosphere talking smack about how suicide proved that she wasn't such a great mom after all? I hope you are really fucking ashamed of yourselves for insulting the memory of a dead woman, and insulting the memory of her orphaned son's mother.

Go join Rick Santorum in the "shithead" pile, you judgmental bigots. Maybe you can climb out someday if you learn not to be so fucking sanctimonious about other people's lives that you know nothing about.

Ok, I'm in

I got this over at Adam Ash's place, and edited it slightly to amend the bits that I found kind of offensive.

Dear Red States,
We're ticked off at the way you've treated California, and we've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California.

To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states.
We get stem cell research and the best beaches.
We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay.
We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand.
We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.
We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss.
We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama.
We get two-thirds of the tax revenue, you get to make the red states pay their fair share.
Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of sexist good ol' boys whose macho bullshit means they can't keep a marriage together, "abstinence education" which means people can't avoid pregnancy, and hard-working pissed off single moms who are sick of the crap that put them in that situation and are welcome to apply for amnesty with us.

Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and antiwar, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home. We do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs turn up, but we're not willing to spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire.

With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners), 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high-tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, including Princeton, Harvard and Yale, plus Stanford, Berkeley, CalTech and MIT.

With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with no dining options other than fast food and chain restaurants, no public transit, a culture that has forgotten what feet are for, and the resulting 88 percent of all obese Americans and their projected health care costs (we figure our big folks will be fat and healthy, since they'll be walking and eating fewer McBurgers), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.

We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.

Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11, and 61 percent of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties.

But just to show there's no hard feelings, we'll split the good pot with you: we'll keep the stuff they grow up in the northwest, you can have Kentucky.

So there.

Sincerely,
Author Unknown in New California

New (to me) blog

Shelve the political angst and all the rest of it, take a little break and go check out Deep End Dining. Any blog that can make me crave chicken feet in the middle of a sweltering summer midnight is a blog worth reading.

Meanwhile, in Iraq

Twenty-four children were killed today in an explosion while the U.S. Army was handing out candy.

I saw a poem over on Travis's site that came to mind when I read this story. Kind of a more contemporary, more specific version of the Auden poem I posted a few days ago:

Carolyn Forche, excerpt from "Ourselves or Nothing"

In the mass graves, a woman's hand
caged in the ribs of her child,
a single stone in Spain beneath olives,
in Germany the silent windy fields,
in the Soviet Union where the snow
is scarred with wire, in Salvador
where the blood will never soak
into the ground, everywhere and always
go after that which is lost.
There is a cyclone fence between
ourselves and the slaughter and behind it
we hover in a calm protected world like
netted fish, exactly like netted fish.
It is neither the beginning nor the end
of the world, and the choice is ourselves
or nothing.

Open letter to Rick Santorum

As a liberal, a Catholic, an academic, and a working mother, I have just one thing to say: fuck you, you disgusting piece of shit.

Reframing abortion

In response to my post about the anti-abortion video (see below), I ran across this post, which proposes what I think is the best "reframing" argument I've yet come across: focusing on "criminalization." Because that's what it really comes down to, and I think that the pro-choice vs. pro-life argument conflates how people feel about abortion with what they think we should legislate. Now, I think that people who are anti-abortion are wrong; and I think that people who are anti-abortion "except in cases x, y, or z" are misogynist. But frankly, on some level, I don't care if they are wrong or misogynist, as long as they don't impose their wrongness or misogyny on me or on other women who might want or need abortions. This, of course, is the heart of the pro-choice argument: "don't like abortion? Don't have one," but there are so many other aspects to the pro-choice position, including the argument against misogyny (which is an important one) that the central and crucial fact of what the law should be can get overlooked. And arguing about whether or not a fetus is a person implicitly concedes that if it were a person--and there are people who obviously think it is--that banning abortion would be okay. I don't think it would, because even if the fetus were a person, it would still be wrong and unconstitutional to require women to keep other people alive at risk to their life or health, which is why we don't mandate kidney donations. But this, too, is somewhat beside the point.

What the link cited above argues is that we might

be better off by characterizing the opposition not as 'anti-abortion' or even 'anti-choice' (certainly not 'pro-life') but rather as pro-criminalization. Instead of talking about how the religious right wants to make abortion illegal, we should be talking about how they want to criminalize it. This might seem like a small point, but I think that psychologically there's a world of difference - as the video (assuming it is fairly representative, as I believe it is) seems to confirm. These people had absolutely no problem saying that abortion should be illegal, but they couldn't bring themselves to view women who have abortions - even in a hypothetical scenario where abortion was illegal - as criminals.

I think this makes a lot of sense, and we on the pro-choice side could make the point that we aren't "pro abortion"--we're neutral on abortion, because some women want them and some women don't, and we respect either choice--but are instead "anti criminalization."

I wonder if such a shift might not remove the focus from the fetus, and on judging (or justifying) women's choices, and put it where it belongs: on the question of whether or the state should pass laws about what women can and cannot do when they are pregnant.

While you're thinking about it--and if you want to try to put this new framework into action--you might consider participating in NARAL's public education campaign for "outreach weekend." That's this weekend. NARAL suggests

1. Flyering - For a few hours this weekend, hit bookstores, strip malls, coffee joints, Laundromats, and other high-traffic areas with our fun flyers. Find out what to say and what to bring by clicking here.

2. Pro-Choice Pub Crawl - That's right. By going bar to bar with some flyers and petitions, you can actually help save the
Supreme Court while socializing with new people. Click here (pdf) to get petitions and ideas.

3. Petition Collecting - It's summer, so you've probably already got plans to check out a craft fair, art show, street parade,
farmer's market, or block party this weekend. So why don't you collect petitions to the Senate while you're at it? Click here for a petition, a flyer to share, and tips on what to say.

Got ideas of your own? (We know you do!) Then tell us how you plan to get the word out and collect petitions to save the Supreme Court.

Crooks, thieves and liars

The whole administration, of course--well, most of 'em--but here's something new:

Robert Earl, who destroyed national security documents during the 1980s Iran-Contra scandal, is working as chief of staff to acting Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England. . . . Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman confirmed Earl was a senior England aide, a fact first reported in the Los Angeles Times on Sunday. He added, "I wonder why it's an issue now."

Well, Mr. Whitman, let me explain it in real simple words of one syllable: 'cause he broke the law.

Congressional watchdog groups raised questions about the administration's decision to give such a senior job to a person with a record of tampering with the very kinds of classified national security documents he will now oversee.

Indeed.


Thanks to Join the Noise for the heads up.

Too many things to blog about...

So you get the link & brief comment kind of filter blogging this evening:

1. Via Erudite Redneck, this reminder of why Gonzales sucks and the Patriot Act is unAmerican. The author, by the way, is a former U.S. diplomat and has held U.S. security clearances.

I'm embarrassed that it took my own ox being gored for me to see the threat posed by the Administration's current restricting of civil liberties. I'm being accused of a serious--even treasonous--criminal intent by a faceless bureaucracy, with no opportunity (that I can find) to refute any errors or false charges. My ability to earn a living is threatened; I speak on civic action and leadership all over the world, including recently at the US Air Force Academy. Plane travel is key to my livelihood. According to a recent MSNBC piece, thousands of Americans are having similar experiences.

Update: Here's a related story, about Cyrus Kar, the Iranian-American filmmaker who was arrested (by us) and detained in Iraq, and recently released. Very good commentary on the fact that we only very rarely hear about these stories of the concrete effects of the Patriot Act--but see the blockquote above, there are thousands of people affected, and most of them aren't filmmakers or former diplomats.

2. Via Alas, A Blog, an interesting article (from a Canadian, rather than an American paper, natch--although the study focused on American schools) about a recent study that found that college admissions committees actually appear to be giving increasing preference to men. Read it, and throw what it says in the face of the next dumbass who tries to tell you that sexism doesn't exist, or that feminism has made men into second-class citizens, or that affirmative action constitutes "reverse discrimination." Interestingly, neither Alas nor the article mention preferences given to military veterans, which disproportionately accrue to men. Ever noticed how every time someone sues a school because some "affirmative action admit" took "his (or her) place," the assumption is that their god-given "place" at X University (you know, the one that had their name on it) was taken by a brown person or maybe a white woman--but never by a military vet. Or someone with a disability. Becuase of course, those are the two affirmative action categories that white men get to use.

3. From Ms. Musings, a summary of the Ms. forum at the National Press Club on Monday about the Supreme Court vacancy. You can also watch it online (scroll down).

4. From my email inbox, an mp3 of today's conference call with Harry Reid about the SCOTUS nomination process and vacancy. I confess I haven't listened to it yet (I was at the dentist while the conference was happening), so I can't comment on the content. I was going to wait to post it until after I'd listened to it (which I'll do once PK falls asleep), but I've got way too many windows open on my desktop already so here you go, fresh from the oven. (Quite literally; it's probably 95 degrees here and my beloved laptop, she is quite, quite sweaty on my thighs.)

Enjoy! I'm off to find something very cold to drink.

"Everyone with children has to deal with that.”

From Inside Higher Ed, the University of Memphis now has a "policy that prohibits employees and students from regularly bringing their children on campus." I gotta say, as a parent, it's especially annoying that it's dressed up in this whole "for the safety of the kids" thing, that always gets trotted out when someone wants to tell you your kid is annoying them.

More to the point: apparently the university doesn't have childcare for its employees--but the University school that many of those employee's children attend lets out at 2:30. The university's answer to this is that "every employee is responsible for making childcare arrangements that conform with this policy"--I don't need to point out how inane it is to acknowledge that this is a widespread problem, only to turn around and say "figure it out, people." And students are prohibited from bringing kids to class at all.

Now, look. Yes, it could be disruptive if a student or an instructor regularly brought a child to class. Then again, when my mother was getting her degree, she regularly brought me--I think I was probably seven or eight at the time--and I would pretty much sit quietly in a desk and read, or draw, or listen to the lectures. If a kid is disruptive, then that's a problem (as is any regular disruption to a class)--but not all children are necessarily disruptive, and there is a case to be made that an educational environment is actually an *excellent* place for parents to bring children on occasion.

Apparently the university was having problems with unsupervised kids running around campus. Again, I can see how this could be a problem; on the other hand, one of the things I've always liked about college campuses is that they're pretty open for people to just wander in and out of and use the green spaces, on occasion, as public parks. I used to regularly picnic with Pseudonymous Kid in a couple of nice green patches when I was in graduate school, and while he was never unsupervised--being about a year old--I can easily see telling a fourteen or fifteen year old kid to just go to the university library and read or do homework after school until my last class gets out at, say, 4:30.

I'd like to think that a campus, unlike an office building, could be a welcoming and engaging place for all members of the campus community, including their families. I, for one, enjoy seeing kids on campus, and ime most people, faculty and students alike, seem to as well. It's a way of acknowledging that campus life is precisely that--that a college campus is more than just a workplace. Banning kids from campus except for emergencies and special events strikes me as Scroogelike and draconian, and if I were on the faculty at the University of Memphis I would be mighty displeased.

Bottom line: if you're a large employer--according to their web site the University of Memphis has over 2,400 employees--and you don't provide daycare, then expect employees to bring kids to the office. If you don't like that, then expect your employees to go home when their kids get out of school.

You're invited to a Supreme Court briefing with Senate minority leader Harry Reid

Tomorrow. (Tuesday.) At 4:30 Eastern, 1:30 Pacific. Go here to sign up and submit a question.

Via After School Snack.

"That's between them and God"

Via Roni at Goddess Musings and as seen on Feministe a fascinating, short video (download) of interviews with anti-abortion protesters on the question: "what do you think should happen to women who have abortions."

Aside from snark, I find it very heartening, actually. The video suggests that a lot of anti-abortion protesters do not think that abortion should actually be illegal; the interviewees want abortion to be "illegal" in a rhetorical sense because they want it to be socially disapproved of. There's a conflation of two senses of the word "criminal": the literal sense and the metaphorical. It's sobering, of course, to think that it could actually become illegal because people mistakenly think that anything they dislike should be "against the law" without actually considering what that means; but it's reassuring, to me, to hear people say that no, in fact, they don't think abortion should be something women are punished for. One woman actually says that she thinks that "it doesn't seem like it's being done that way," in a context that seems to me she doesn't think women think about fetal life before they have an abortion. Even the two women interviewed who do say that they think having an abortion should be punished with jail time seem quite uncertain about really wanting this argument to be carried out; their initial reaction is that women who abort are punishing themselves, that they need counseling and "help." I find support in these reactions for the argument that getting people to think about how seriously women take pregnancy and childbirth would go a long way towards weakening the anti-abortion argument.

The video suggests to me that even the seeming extremists who stand out on street corners with signs (some of the people interviewed claim to have been doing this for two years) are less extreme than we think they are: they dislike abortion and want to protest it as an act, but they don't, when push comes to shove, think it should be criminalized.

Of course, the trick is getting people to recognize that distinction.

No comment

From the Columbia Journalism Review:

Bylines in the nation’s top intellectual and political magazines are heavily male, as shown by these ratios (male/female), calculated using the ProQuest database from October 2003 through the end of May. At several magazines, women writers were occasionally shut out of entire issues.

* National Review 13/1
* Foreign Affairs 9/1
* The New Republic 8/1
* Harper’s Magazine 7/1
* The Weekly Standard 7/1
* The Atlantic 6/1
* The New York Review of Books 6/1
* The New Yorker 4/1
* The Nation 3/1
* National Journal 3/1
* CJR 2/1

The glee of schadenfreude

From today's NYT article about Rove:

President Bush's chief spokesman, Scott McClellan, declined to repeat his earlier assertions that Mr. Rove, the deputy White House chief of staff, had nothing to do with leaking the name of the operative, Valerie Plame of the Central Intelligence Agency, to get back at her husband, a former United States ambassador who had publicly challenged Bush administration policy.

Nor would Mr. McClellan repeat his earlier statements that any White House staff person who had leaked the name should be fired.

See also the Washington Post, USA Today, and Billmon, who has a nice tidy list of what Rove, his lawyer, McClellan (the White House spokesman), and Bush have said up to the point where they all went mute.
Update: Ms. Julian at the Big Brass Blog links to an absolutely delightful video of McClellan's press conference. The tones of voice--"gotcha" from the reporters, "please let me sink into a hole" from McClellan--beats the naked transcript all hollow.

Of course, one wishes that the White House press corps would be as aggressive all the time. But hey, it's Christmas--let's all just enjoy the holiday spirit.

Hey pro-lifers

All babies deserve to be born, right? Even if their parents can't take care of them? Ok, then here's a situation that's probably local to you where all those babies whose parents, despite their problems, didn't have abortions. Why not volunteer to foster a kid or two?

. . . The number of foster children rises rapidly in states hit hard by [methamphetamine], the overwhelming number of them, officials say, taken from parents who were using or making methamphetamine. . . . the number of foster children in [Oklahoma] is up 16 percent from a year ago. In Kentucky, the numbers are up 12 percent, or 753 children, with only seven new homes.

In Oregon, 5,515 children entered the system in 2004, up from 4,946 the year before, and officials there say the caseload would be half what it is now if the methamphetamine problem suddenly went away. In Tennessee, state officials recently began tracking the number of children brought in because of methamphetamine, and it rose to 700 in 2004 from 400 in 2003.

While foster populations in cities rose because of so-called crack babies in the 1990's, methamphetamine is mostly a rural phenomenon. . . . Nationwide, the Drug Enforcement Administration says that over the last five years 15,000 children were found at laboratories where methamphetamine was made. But that number vastly understates the problem. . . . the National Association of Counties reported that 40 percent of child welfare officials surveyed nationwide said that methamphetamine had caused a rise in the number of children removed from homes.

The percentage was far higher on the West Coast and in rural areas, where the drug has hit the hardest. Seventy-one percent of counties in California, 70 percent in Colorado and 69 percent in Minnesota reported an increase in the number of children removed from homes because of methamphetamine.

In North Dakota, 54 percent of counties reported a methamphetamine-related increase. . . . The drain of the cases is forcing foster families to leave the system, or caseworkers to quit. In some counties in Oklahoma, Ms. Rider-Salem said, half the caseworkers now leave within two years.

So there you go. There's a demonstrated acute need for foster families in rural areas (which tend to be strongly anti-abortion). Not all the kids are themselves addicted or born to addicted mothers; many of them are just neglected by parents who are dealers. Check out this slideshow to see how crowded the shelters are.

So you think that every life is valuable, and that abortion is evil, and that every fetus has a right to be born? Great, here are a bunch of meth dealers and addicts who agreed with you, and had their babies, and then didn't take care of them and got arrested, leaving the babies homeless. Call your state department of foster care and lend a hand. Adoption is a loving choice.

After all, babies shouldn't be left on their own just because they're an inconvenience.

Who wants my stroller?

The folks at the local thrift wouldn't take it (???), and I'm too lazy to set up an ebay account. So who wants it? It's a MacLaren, it's about five years old, we didn't use it all that much. As you can see, it has a sun canopy and a detatchable rain hood (shoot, the rain hood picture didn't turn out--too much glare--but basically it's a clear piece of plastic that attaches to the front of the canopy and then snaps down to clips on the bottom of the frame--it covers the whole front of the stroller and has ventilation mesh on either side). It's got a five-point harness, and the seat back reclines to about a forty-five degree angle, so you can actually use it for a newborn (I did). The little flap you see hanging down in front, where the child's legs would bend at the knee, has pull-out struts on either end, so you can extend it forward and make it flat so that the entire baby's leg will be supported. There's a basket in back that's big enough for a couple bags of groceries, and a pocket on the back of the canopy that's big enough for a small purse or sippy cup + snacks + toy. It folds up easily--you lift the back center with your foot, then press down on a little foot lever on the right to give yourself some leverage, and the bottom part just swings up. It weighs about fourteen pounds, I think, which is heavy for an umbrella stroller (but light for any other kind of stroller), and I've attached a shoulder strap to the right side, so what I always did was fold it up and then sling it across my back to hop on the bus.

The only problem with it is that the latch that catches on the side to keep it shut is broken. However, Mr. B. promises that he will remove the broken latch and fix up some alternate way to keep it folded (I used to just use a bungee cord).

If you want it, let me know. If you're in Chicago, especially the northwest suburbs, and can wait about a month, you can pick it up and not pay shipping--otherwise, I'll mail it to you (and we'll have to work out the costs via email). I admit that I'd be quite happy to sell it, so if you feel honor bound to offer to pay for it, I'll take your offer; but if you all you can afford is shipping, that's cool too.

Well, it's not a full moon...

But something's getting the menfolk restless. Check out the goings-on at Pharyngula, I Blame the Patriarchy, Lavartus Prodeo, Pandagon, Feministe, and (god help me, not again) The Washington Monthly. I hate to feed the traffic to some of those sites, b/c I can only believe that their continued obtuseness ::cough::Kevin Drum::cough:: must be feigned in order to draw attention--we all know how vain men are, the dears--but good lord. There must have been some kind of press release to the boys to hassle the crap out of the girls this weekend--d'you suppose it could be a deliberate strategy to distract us from blogging about the SCOTUS nomination and bringing down the Democrats through our divisive insistence that abortion matters? Is this national "Hassle the Feminazis" week or something? Did Scotland Yard find out that the International Order of the Feminist Conspiracy was behind the London bombings? Is Mars ascendant? I even had an annoying little troll of my own earlier this evening, but being the bitch that I am, I just deleted comments and banned spoofed ips until he got bored and went away.

Feel free to post your own theories of what the fuck is going on in the comments. Unless, of course, you're one of the assholes, in which case, please see my comment policy and know that I really don't care how much fun you have spoofing your IP, I'm quite happy to just click on the "ban IP" button all day long. I'm on summer vacation, after all.

Update: Christ, Majikthise has got them too.

Second update: What with the infestation and all, and b/c even a bitch has to sleep sometimes, I've turned on comment moderation for the time being. It may be on and off for a while, depending on how fractious the under-bridge crowd is feeling. I do apologize for the inconvenience.

Yup, it was Rove

Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip."

"Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative. "

Lessee. 1) "Wilson's wife" constitutes identification. 2) "works at the agency on wmd" pretty much means that he knowingly identified a CIA officer. Hmm. Well, if you work for the CIA you are either an operative, which pretty much means you're covert; or you're an analyst, which means you could be covert. Secretaries and HR people and the like don't "work . . . on wmd." So it would seem that while he might, theoretically, not have known she was an undercover operative, he certainly did know that the likelihood that she was undercover was pretty high. Hell, I know that, and I don't work for the CIA. And the fact that she worked there, and what she was working on, would almost certainly have been classified information no matter what she was doing.

So either Rove is completely fucking incomptent and lacks the first idea of how executive agencies work--in which case he should be canned tomorrow--or else he's a lying sack of shit.

Via Shakespeare's Sister at the Big Brass Blog.

I am not a garage sale person

I hate people who go to garage sales. Look, lady, that's an Irish wool sweater that cost probably $150 in the department store, and unfortunately my mother-in-law hasn't the first clue what size I am so I have NEVER WORN IT and no, I am not going to sell it to you for fifty cents! Hey, people, that's a silk brocade sheath dress over there that is way too small for me, and it's vintage, and if I take it to a consignment store I can surely get at least $50 but I want to unload it so you can have it for $10, and why are you NOT EVEN LOOKING AT IT? Yeah, yeah, you can have the "Illustrated Works of Shakespeare," buddy, but I think less of you for turning up your nose at Arundhati Roy and sniffing about how you've never heard of her. Madam, you are a very nice woman and you have great taste in books and thank you for buying those, including the Roy, and overpaying because you didn't want to have to deal with change, PLEASE allow me to throw in the most recent-but-one edition of "Our Bodies Ourselves" for your teenage daughter even though after thumbing through it you decided it wasn't worth fifty cents, yes, thank you for taking it, jesus, you have to practically beg people to care about raising informed independent children. Oh my god, Grandma, those are the *ugliest* of Pseudonymous Kid's baby clothes, are you telling me you don't want the hawiian shirts or the cute little tiger outfit because you'd rather have the godawful monster trucks thing my dad gave him? Ok, fine, thanks for your money, but go away, I don't like you. Yes, sir, thank you so much for taking those old computers off my hands, but you've paid me now and there are other people poking through my stuff who need attending to, so if you'd STOP TELLING ME ALL ABOUT YOUR LONG-HAUL TRUCKING CAREER, which is admittedly a very interesting subject but you've really been going on now for quite a while and I don't actually care about how nice the people in Nebraska are, thank you, bye-bye. Ok, fine, I am completely worn down so I will sell you that painting for a buck and that signed edition collector's plate--which I admit is incredibly hideous with the bald eagle flying free and all, but it's PATRIOTIC! And worth more than the measley five bucks you're willing to part with for it, but FINE, I can't be bothered to list it on e-bay, now go away you cheap person with bad taste. My GOD, people, that's a MacLaren stroller, it retails for $150 and yes, it's an umbrella stroler, and yes it reclines so a newborn can sleep in it, and yes the wheels lock and it has this little extension thing so that you can make the seat longer so that the baby's legs will be fully supported, or push it back for a toddler to bend his knees, and it has a detatchable rain shield and a sun canopy and a freaking basket underneath for the diaper bag or some groceries and what do you mean NO ONE WANTS IT at any price?

But yes, I thought the incredibly old man who bought all sorts of books and the cd player and one of the wool sweaters that was also a gift from my mother-in-law, who always for some reason forgets that her son is allergic to wool, was very sweet. And I liked the group of women who stocked up on baby things, even though I'm very sorry I didn't have the stroller out at the time. And the other woman who bought Pseudonymous Kid's play kitchen for her six month old to grow into. And okay, even the little hipster girl who bought my old Converse for a buck, despite the fact that she had the poor taste to be completely disinterested in the silk sheath.

But all in all, no: spending an afternoon watching people paw through your stuff only to have to haul the leftovers to the Salvation Army at the end of the day is not worth the $200. It's nice to have more room in the basement, though.

P.S. To the people who stole the 35" television last night even though we clearly had "yard sale Sunday morning at nine" marked everywhere, HA! HA! It doesn't work and you forgot the speakers. Thanks for hauling it away, suckers.

Gack, this is more revealing than it should be

For a silly meme. I got it from Wolfangel.

1. How much money is in your wallet right now?

About seventy-five cents.

2. How much money would you need in the bank to feel secure? Rich?

Secure, for the moment? A hundred bucks in the bank makes me feel rich, unless I know I have some expense that will take it, like we haven't bought groceries this week. Secure, in a real non-broke middle-class sense? I'd go with three month's income--about $10,000. Rich? If I had, say, $40K in the bank that I didn't have to spend, that was just savings, I'd be amazed. If I had $100K, I would feel incredibly rich.

3. If someone gave you $100, no strings attached, what would you do with it?

Throw it at the credit card. No question: that's what I do with anything that's left over after bills, pretty much.

4. If someone gave you $1 Million, no strings attached, what would you do with it?

Give notice. Put the house on the market, hire movers, and move home. Buy a house. Get a job and bank what's left over. Oh, and pay off the credit card and my student loans while I'm at it. Cry with joy.

What I really like about that question is that it clarifies what I really want; and it also gives me what really is an incredibly realistic goal to shoot for. All those things will happen within the next few years. Wow. Sometimes it's hard to see that, because I'm so focused on the fact that I have seventy-five cents in my wallet and we're out of milk again.

5. How much does something have to cost before it starts counting as “real” money, as a purchase to be considered and evaluated, but below which you’ll buy without really thinking about it?

At the moment, honest to god, on a day-to-day basis anything that costs over $5 and isn't necessary is a "no." Like my big splurge earlier this week was buying ice cream bars for me and PK on our walk. If I've budgeted some spending money and decided that yes, Pseudonymous Kid needs shoes or yes, I am out of moisturizer, or yes, Mr. B. would really enjoy an i-Trip for his birthday and honestly, it's only $40, then I will spend the money. As a family, we can usually swing one of those per pay check. Everything else is bills and groceries.

In real life, that is, according to the internal budget that I've developed as an adult separate from the last few years of brokedness, I'd say anything over $40 is something I think about. But it really depends: shoes under $100 seem reasonable to me, but over that I have to think about it for a bit; bras I know cost anywhere from $35-60 as a base, on up to $150 if it's something really nice; $60-80 for dinner out is fine and over that is not a big deal every so often; $25 or so having drinks and maybe a bite with a girlfriend is nothing; $100 in a bookstore once every couple of weeks is completely acceptable. That used to be the standard frame, and I gotta say, I wouldn't mind getting back there.

Rights you can use (or lose)

Scott Lemieux has written an awesome little piece on "Abortion, Public Opinion, and Selling Out," taking off from Yglesias's pointing out that in fact, abortion is the "liberal" issue that has the broadest public support, to ask: why is it that when "the left" talks about "no litmus tests," about "compromising" or "moving to the center," that abortion is the issue we're told we need to sacrifice?

the burden of proof is certainly on those who believe that if Dems are to compromise on cultural issues to shift terrain to economic issues on which the Dems are on better electoral ground, they should start with the issue on which the Democratic position is the majority position.

I realize this isn't the most articulate political argument ever, but: DUH. Abortion is the majority position because women are more than half the population. Arguing that an issue that is crucial to women's autonomy, privacy, and freedom is the one we should dump, or a "distraction" from issues of autonomy, privacy, and freedom (e.g., "the pro-choice camp shouldn't support Gonzales," or words to that effect--a claim I keep seeing tossed around even though I, myself, have yet to see a feminist organization or self-declared feminist say that she supports Gonzales. Show me the evidence, if you're gonna make a claim like that*) is wrong, sexist, and--most importantly to the boys who care more about winning than the reasons why we should win, I guess--it's shitty strategy.

But oh, some people will say, we don't really have to worry about abortion rights. Because support for Roe v. Wade is 6-3 on the Supreme Court, not 5-4. This argument is correct on the face of it--but weak theoretical support for Roe v. Wade doesn't count for much if in practice we're willing to impose "restrictions" that make the legal right to an abortion all but impossible to exercise--and it's the "restrictions" issue that's 5-4, currently, with O'Connor in the majority position. Having a right on the books does nobody any good if they can't exercise that right: saying "Roe v. Wade isn't in danger" while ignoring more recent cases like Planned Parenthood v. Casey, or Casey v. Stenberg is a shell game, like arguing that anyone has the "right" to be a millionaire, so poverty doesn't exist. (See, for instance, this article in today's NYT.)

So, for instance, see this tidy little argument over at The Supreme Court Nomination Blog. The argument itself is "neutral"--that is, it doesn't say whether destroying the spirit, if not the letter, of Roe would be a bad thing or a good thing--but it points out that falsely reassuring noises that we don't have to worry about it are worth about as much as telling Pseudonymous Kid that no, no, Daisy the cat doesn't kill mice, she and the mice are friends.

It is correct to say that Justice O'Connor's replacement does not formally hold Roe's future in his or her hands. The appointment of a replacement for Justice O'Connor nonetheless will be extremely significant for the ability of the government to restrict the availability of abortion. Indeed, a principal -- I think the single most important -- basis for social conservatives' grave concern with the President's nominee to replace Justice O'Connor is their desire to further cut back on Roe and hopefully eventually overrule it. . . .

Prior to Justice O'Connor's retirement, the Court had charted a somewhat uneven course on the scope of Roe, although it had unquestionably cut back significantly on the decision's reach in cases like Casey and Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989). But in the Court's most recent significant abortion case -- Stenberg -- held five-to-four with O'Connor in the majority that a so-called partial birth abortion statute must include an exception for the health of the mother. A new appointment could therefore provide a fifth vote to approve substantial further restrictions, including eliminating or substantially restricting the requirement of a health exception . . .

my personal view is that Justice Kennedy would sustain an array of restrictions on abortion, while in all likelihood continuing to recognize nominally the right announced in Roe.

You settle for nominal rights--I want rights I can actually use.

Finally, a link to an interesting site I found via Womens eNews Daily: Voices of Choice, a site put up by "Physicians for Reproductive Health and Choice" about pre-Roe doctors talking about what it was actually like back then. Any of us can arrange a screening at, say, our colleges or universities....



*Although, I will go so far to say that I think that the right to legal representation and a trial by jury is in less danger than Roe v. Wade, because I'm not aware that there are four justices currently on the court who agree with Gonzales's position that such rights are antiquated.

Bitchier than me?

This. Found via this man and this woman, both of whom really are rather lovely (in a not-entirely unbitchy way).

And how timely to have run across this now.

Pseudonymous Kid has good manners (sometimes)

Pseudonymous Kid: Mama, 'scuse me.
Me: Yes?
Pseudonymous Kid: Well, I was thinking. Volcanoes are kind of like people, right?
Me: They are? How?
Pseudonymous Kid: Well, they kind of have bodies, right?
Me (chuckling): Yes, I suppose the mountain is kind of like a volcano's body. Okay. So?
Pseudonymous Kid: Well, since a volcano is kind of like a person, why doesn't it say "excuse me" when it erupts? Because an eruption is kind of like a burp.

A request for help from Pennsylvania state Representative Mark B. Cohen

Dragged from the murk of comments into the light of the front page:

State-related is a technical term defined by Pennsylvania law. It includes only Pennsylvania State University, Temple University, and the University of Pittsburgh. The University of Pennsylvania is a private university which gets only a small fraction of the state money going to state-owned and state-related schools.

In the two days of legislative debate on the Horowitz-inspired resolution (stopped only by a rare moving of the previous question), I was the most vociferous legislative leader in opposition to it.

This pseudo-investigation has the potential to cause intimidation of many professors and to make the investigators a national laughingstock.

Not a single text of a Pennsylvania complaint was released, but the Horowitz web site, Students for Academic Freedom, quotes one student as saying he or she was victimized for conservative beliefs because his or her paper was both spellchecked and proofread and therefore had to be deserving of a high grade.

Concerned Pennsylvania legislators could use back-up support from state and national members of the academic community. We need to know about reality-based practices and principles to be able to win the media war against Horowitz developed theories and fantasies.

We need to know about how courses materials are selected, and what the range of accepted choices are, and the extent to which this may differ from institution to institution.

We need to know about drop and add practices, and the resolution of grading disputes. We need to know about the range of practices in regard to the expression of political opinions by faculty, and the use of materials that may have relevance to current political controversies in courses.

We need to know what materials have produced in other states that led to better judgements by other state legislatures against having such an investigation in the first place.

And we need to know anything else that experienced academics or other informed persons think is relevant to dealing with Horowitz's propoganda in a definitive and persuasive way.

We would welcome the help of Bitchphd and her readers in these efforts to preserve true academic freedom in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.

Representative Cohen also kindly provides his email address: mcohen (at) pahouse (dot) net. Anyone who would like to help him fight this Horowitzian bullshit should drop him a line.

This right here is why I don't blog under my real name

Shorter Chronicle of Higher Ed: blogging is dangerous because hiring committees are paranoid, conservative, and illogical. Even if you are not indiscreet on your blog, you could become so--but if you don't have a blog, you couldn't possibly start one and therefore never be indiscreet.* Publishing pseudonymous articles about your search committee deliberations in the Chronicle of Higher Ed, though, is not indiscreet.

Also, we don't want to work with people who get frustrated by traffic or who are in any way anxious or neurotic because of course we are all paragons of mental health, and it isn't in any way discriminatory to decide not to hire someone because you think they need therapy.



*Note to the Chronicle: I didn't start my blog until a couple of years after I started my job. Funny how academic types try new things once in a while. I also feel the need to point out that, practically speaking, the Chronicle article is probably right; but the smug little tone of "all those bloggers are neurotic freaks, says the pseudonymous and gossipy first-person author" just chaps my hide.

Linky!

Sorry, we're having a yard sale on Sunday and we've got an absolute house full of shit we really need to dump, and of course! we haven't even really started going through it. So today you get links to other places.

1. Inside Higher Ed: Pennsylvania passes Horowitz's so-called "Academic Bill of Rights," better known as "bill empowering whiny privileged students who want to grade grub." Oh, goody. Thank god I don't teach at Penn.

2. Apparently, in Britain, over-the-counter availability of the morning-after pill has "not encouraged risky behavior," or really increased how many women use it, or decreased the sales of condoms or regular birth control. As the friend who sent me the link yesterday said, "shocker: women are responsible adults."

3. Fascinating post over at Big Brass Blog about so-called "judicial activism" and which SCOTUS judges are *more* likely to overturn congressional laws. Hint: it's not the ones that the right-wing propaganda machine would have you believe.

4. From Forbes, of all places: Quarter of Women not getting Health Care they Need.

Costs are getting in the way of women's health care, with about a quarter of American women not getting the care they need, a new national report finds. . . . The problem is particularly pronounced among women without health insurance and women in failing health. . . . [But] "There's an increasing impact of cost, even among women with insurance coverage."

"The bottom line is as long as health care is a purchasable commodity, women will not be getting the care they need."

It's not just women, of course, although as the article points out, women's status can be a barometer for American health care overall. But, just in my own life, I don't think the boyfriend has health insurance--and he just had to have neurosurgery. And he's had a couple of prior recent injuries that he didn't see a doctor for, precisely because, as the article reports, "costs get in the way." Then something nearly catastrophic happens, and you can't choose to ignore it, and, well, there you are.

But we wouldn't want any kind of national health plan, because that would be socialism, and misinformed political theory is more important than the lives and healths of actual people.

Ok, now I have to go find some boxes and start thinning out the clothes, books, toys, and grad-student furniture that has since been replaced with Grandma's things....

A question for parents

This is in response to the discussions in the comment threads to these posts--which, to be fair, are being discussed calmly and respectfully--and on the general question of whether girls should be required to notify their parents if they are pregnant and seeking an abortion.

If you have a daughter--and if you don't, but you think parental consent laws are a good idea, imagine yourself with a daughter, especially if you are a man:

Have/did/will you discuss menstruation and sexuality with her? Before she had her first period? Do you purchase tampons or pads for her? When she had her first period, did you make an appointment for her with a gynecologist? Did you encourage her to use birth control if she is sexually active? Before she became sexually active? Did you have a substantive discussion, or have you just sort of mentioned generally that girls shouldn't get pregnant or have sex before marriage? Did you make an appointment for her to discuss it with a doctor and get a prescription? Do you discuss masturbation with her? Have you considered buying her a vibrator so that she can explore her sexuality safely? Do you notice that she is having her period because of what's in the trash? If she became pregnant, do you think you would notice that the trash no longer contains used pads or tampon applicators? Would you notice that she is no longer using the ones in the medicine cabinet? If you are a man, do you just leave all that stuff to the girl's mother?

If your answer to these is "no" (except for that last one)--and I expect that for most parents, even very good ones, and especially for most dads, the answer is not only "no" but "hell no," especially for the questions about masturbation and vibrators--why?

Probably because such topics are (1) embarrasing; and (2) private. We all know that people masturbate; we do not discuss it with our children. Because such things are taboo. I, for one, would have been very uncomfortable if my father had discussed any of these things with me (and he did none of them; nonetheless, he was a decent father). And I will admit that I would be uncomfortable with a father discussing masturbation with his daughter, or buying her a vibrator. Because sexuality is private.

And kids aren't dumb, even though they sometimes do dumb things. They know that these things are taboos; they know these things are private. And that is why they do not discuss their sex lives with their parents. And also why sometimes they won't even tell their parents if they get pregnant. If you think it's hard to talk about sex and birth control and menstruation with your teenage daughter--and you are an adult--imagine how much harder it is for her to initiate a conversation about sex and pregnancy with you. She won't do it, because your not doing the things in that third paragraph sends her the clear, if unspoken message, that such topics are embarrassing, private, and not something she should discuss with you.

It's to the credit of many brave girls that, despite this tacit message, they tell their parents when they get pregnant anyway. But before you argue that we should have laws requiring them to do so, let's push for laws requiring parents to make gynecological appointments for all daughters over the age of twelve.

A related question: if you are a woman, did your parents make such appointments for you, ever? When was your first ob/gyn appointment?

Flashes of Auden

keep popping up in my brain:

SEPTEMBER 1, 1939
W.H. Auden

I sit in one of the dives
On Fifty-second Street
Uncertain and afraid
As the clever hopes expire
Of a low dishonest decade:
Waves of anger and fear
Circulate over the bright
And darkened lands of the earth,
Obsessing our private lives;
The unmentionable odour of death
Offends the September night.

Accurate scholarship can
Unearth the whole offence
From Luther until now
That has driven a culture mad,
Find what occurred at Linz,
What huge imago made
A psychopathic god:
I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return.

Exiled Thucydides knew
All that a speech can say
About Democracy,
And what dictators do,
The elderly rubbish they talk
To an apathetic grave;
Analysed all in his book,
The enlightenment driven away,
The habit-forming pain,
Mismanagement and grief:
We must suffer them all again.

Into this neutral air
Where blind skyscrapers use
Their full height to proclaim
The strength of Collective Man,
Each language pours its vain
Competitive excuse:
But who can live for long
In an euphoric dream;
Out of the mirror they stare,
Imperialism's face
And the international wrong.

Faces along the bar
Cling to their average day:
The lights must never go out,
The music must always play,
All the conventions conspire
To make this fort assume
The furniture of home;
Lest we should see where we are,
Lost in a haunted wood,
Children afraid of the night
Who have never been happy or good.

The windiest militant trash
Important Persons shout
Is not so crude as our wish:
What mad Nijinsky wrote
About Diaghilev
Is true of the normal heart;
For the error bred in the bone
Of each woman and each man
Craves what it cannot have,
Not universal love
But to be loved alone.

From the conservative dark
Into the ethical life
The dense commuters come,
Repeating their morning vow;
'I will be true to the wife,
I'll concentrate more on my work,'
And helpless governors wake
To resume their compulsory game:
Who can release them now,
Who can reach the dead,
Who can speak for the dumb?

All I have is a voice
To undo the folded lie,
The romantic lie in the brain
Of the sensual man-in-the-street
And the lie of Authority
Whose buildings grope the sky:
There is no such thing as the State
And no one exists alone;
Hunger allows no choice
To the citizen or the police;
We must love one another or die.

Defenseless under the night
Our world in stupor lies;
Yet, dotted everywhere,
Ironic points of light
Flash out wherever the Just
Exchange their messages:
May I, composed like them
Of Eros and of dust,
Beleaguered by the same
Negation and despair,
Show an affirming flame.

London

Wow, I posted that last entry before I looked at the NYT....

I have friends in London. Thankfully, Gzombie has already posted that he's okay, and I'll send emails to my friends to find out if they are, too. But how, how scary. We had plans to go to London this summer, for research. But we didn't, because we decided to job-hunt instead. How ironic that my decision to try to quit my job kept Pseudonymous Kid out of harm's way (yes, I realize that's illogical, but I can't help feeling that way).

I love that city. I spent a year abroad in England when I was in college. Ironically, I was there around the time when London had instituted a lot of precautions b/c of the IRA, and I learned a lot of behaviors--don't leave packages lying around, keep away from packages others have left--while I lived there, and for many years Mr. B. (who has travelled a lot) and I were always horrified, when travelling in the states, about how insecure airports and transit was. For years, well before 9/11, I would quietly move away if someone left a suitcase on the ground while they walked away to go to the bathroom or buy a coffee, and I once reported someone to airport security when I saw a friend handing them a bag after they had passed through a security checkpoint. But none of that has happened for ten years in London.

And, more importantly, while I was there, I made some very good friends, most of whom (naturally) are now in or around London. I've spent summers there, staying with those friends, and I know the city pretty well, better than I know NYC, even. How sad. What a tragedy.

Update: Sergei points to the Guardian newsblog, and of course, there is also the BBC.

"Reasonable restrictions" on abortion

A great post over at Abortion Clinic Days about parental consent laws. She starts off by pointing out that yeah, we all want young women to tell their parents if they are pregnant; and we also all want parents to say to their children, "honey, I love you and you can tell me anything, and I will help you." But, I would add, we can't legislate good parenting, so trying to legislate being-a-good-daughter is not only unfair and unrealistic, it also places a higher expectation on children than it does on parents--which runs directly counter to the way things should be, to the way good parenting works.

I really do recommend this site. It's excellent, it goes a long way towards telling the abortion stories that we all realize need to be told more often, and the tone is always thoughtful and focused on the story, not (as I do) focused on using the story as evidence to argue a larger point. In other words, the women that the authors (there are two of them) talk about are not means to an end; they are their own ends, which is as it should be.

The post linked also says this, about parental consent:

What we see as providers are two kinds of kids who will not tell their parents, but will go to a big scary court, tell a stranger her story, have a judge "judge" her. (This is in addition to making an appointment at a clinic, raising the money for an abortion, getting transportation, taking off of school or work, dealing with all the new information.) The first is the "bad parents" or "they will kill me" parents and whether the parents are really bad is hard to judge, but this kid who lives with them obviously thinks so. The other type of teenager who will not tell her parents, is the good student who never does anything wrong, who is college bound, and against all reason, will not disappoint her parents opinion of her by telling them that she is pregnant.

When we argue against parental consent laws, we always think of the first kind of situation; but we seldom think about the second.

My younger sister had an abortion in college. She wasn't a minor, and I don't think there were parental consent laws in our state, so as it happens she didn't tell anyone in the family about it. Her boyfriend apparently went out swimming the day of the abortion--nice guy. I was in Spain at the time, and I had a terrible dream one night about starving dogs and railroad tracks, and I woke up the next morning in a panic and called my mom: "is everything okay at home?" Mom laughed at me and said yes, everything is fine. I specifically asked if my sister was okay, and my mom said yes.

Two years later, my sister told me that she'd had an abortion. I said that I wished she had told me at the time, I was sorry she had to go through that by herself. She said, "well, you were in Spain at the time."

I don't, of course, rationally believe that my dream had anything to do with her abortion. But on some level I kind of do even though it's superstition. My sister and I didn't get along very well growing up--my parents fought out their marriage through us, and I was Mom's favorite, and my sister, Dad's. So it wasn't really until college that my sister and I started to get along better (and my parents split up about a month after I left for college--there's a good story there, too). But in some way that bad dream *is* symbolic of a change that happened in my relationship with my sister, one where I realized that I really cared about her and started to regret the ways that I, the older sister, had cooperated in my mother's emotional abuse of her during childhood. Anyway, we're pretty good friends now (though we also step on each other's toes, still).

But my sister, who was and always will be my dad's favorite daughter, has not told him about the abortion to this day, and never will. Because she doesn't want her daddy, the only member of the family who didn't treat her like shit when she was growing up, the father who stormed out of his "bedroom" in the den once when my mother slapped my sister and made it very clear that that was never going to happen again (and it didn't)--my sister didn't want him to be disappointed in her.

I know that he never would be, because he loves her dearly. But she is afraid of letting him down. So she will never tell him. And I would never, ever, tell him against her will. And trying to make her, or girls like her (but younger) do something like that, constitutes, in my mind, perpetuating my mother's emotional abuse, the abuse my sister finally freed herself of once she moved out of the house--because the point isn't what my father would do. The point is how my sister would feel about having to tell him.

Here's a great link to a place that provides legal aid and counselling to Texas minors seeking judicial bypass for an abortion. If you live in Texas, or know anyone who does, pass it on.

FYI

Obviously, I'm adding ads to the site. I'm not happy, though, with the way that they push the blogroll--so important!--way down the sidebar, so I'm also having Lauren at feministe do a site redesign for me, which should be up in a couple-three weeks, I hope, her schedule permitting.

By way of being a complete pain in the butt, though, I'm kind of having to bleg for a li'l cash to cover the cost of the redesign. I realize that it's obnoxious to be asking people to give me money so that I can run ads on the site, and I know a lot of people don't care for ads, so feel free to ignore me. I do promise that I will do my best to keep the ads cleanly segregated over to the right so they don't interfere with the content or the blogroll or other good linky stuff, and I've picked ad providers that don't just do keyword links but do try to link ads to content, so hopefully we won't end up with any of the pie-fight ads.

Anyway. I'm sorry to ask. But if you're willing to drop a couple of bucks into paypal so that I don't have to put Lauren's redesign costs on my already burdened credit card, I would be most grateful. What I'll do to keep it limited is say that any money donated until the 15th is site redesign money (unless you send me an email to say otherwise), and then after that donations will go directly toward the credit card itself.

I feel compelled, of course, to point out that rather than donating money to me you should be sending it to NARAL, Planned Parenthood, ProKanDo, or People for the American Way. So I'll also promise that any money donated between now and the 15th in excess of what I owe Lauren will be donated to those various organizations.

We now return to your regularly scheduled program.

Hey, seeing someone else's buttcrack isn't so bad

What's worse is wiping someone else's ass. Ass-wiping stories, part two:

Pseudonymous Kid: Mama.... Helloooo..... (pause). HELLOOOOOO...
Me: For god's sake, what?
Pseudonymous Kid: I need you to come upstairs and wipe my butt....
Me: Oh god, okay.... (arriving in bathroom). Are you ever gonna learn to wipe your own butt?
Pseudonymous Kid: I don't know. Why?
Me: Well, I don't want to be wiping your butt when you're fifty.
Pseudonymous Kid: What?
Me: Never mind. Hey, come to think of it, do you wipe your own butt at school?
Pseudonymous Kid: What do you mean?
Me: When you poop at school. Does someone wipe your butt for you? I don't think so. So you must wipe your own butt, right?
Pseudonymous Kid: Well, apparently I just try not to poop at school.


Update: Ok, I gotta drag this out of comments and up to the main page:

Cadence: I hate to be so off the topic, but did you see this? Bush just fell off his bike, again.
Me: OMG. D'you think he needs someone to help him wipe his butt?
Cadence: Bush or PK?
Me: I meant Bush. I know PK still needs help wiping his butt.
Cadence: Bush's voice echoing through the White House... "Laura? Hello! I'm done in here. Laura!...."

The feminist case for low-rise jeans

Mona's post reminded me of something I wanted to blog yesterday: low-rise pants.

I am sorry, people. I know that the widespread opinion is that these things are unflattering and lame and only look good on skinny 18 year olds, and that we're all waiting for this moment to pass. But I must disagree.

Low-rise jeans are comfortable. I don't care. Yeah, my belly flab (and I had a c-section, people, that skin is never going to go back to where it was) hangs over the top. Tough shit. I don't care if you like looking at it. Because jeans where the waistband rides around your hips feel *so* much better than where the waistband and the fly and the pockets and all that canvas that doesn't really stretch so well bind around your waist and belly. Low-rise jeans have revealed to me why all those guys with beer guts wear their waist bands below their big pendulous tummmies: it feels a hell of a lot better than the damn girdle effect.

The real problem is the short shirts. What I want is hiphuggers and shirts that are long enough to *cover* the revealed tummy that's hanging free in all its unfettered glory.

That is all.

I love Barbara Boxer

I love her. Boxer for president.

This is completely unrelated, but it's a nice story. I especially like that the bride and her family went to the party themselves, instead of doing the "charitable, but we won't associate with the rabble" thing.

In other news, apparently I've been keeping this blog for a year as of today (6 July). I don't know whether to be writerly proud or personally depressed that first two substantive posts introduced many of the major themes of this blog, and yet I'm still pretty much exactly in the same place.

I'm also waiting to hear how my boyfriend's surgery went, which I guess I'll find out tomorrow. Hm. Well, the boyfriend is definitely not something I expected to happen when I started this thing last year. So things have changed after all.

Not a brain on a stick: an Independence Day post

(I hope that the fact that I'm posting this, not on Independence Day, but afterwards, isn't symbolic. I hope we're not in a post-independence moment.)

There's going to be a lot of talk, during this whole SCOTUS nomination process, about judicial philosophies, constitutional theories, litmus tests, etc. etc. Here is how I think about it.

The problem with litmus tests, obviously, is that they're very single-issue. More importantly, perhaps, they are politically unviable: like "liberal," "litmus test" has become a "bad" thing, and arguing that one is going to apply a "litmus test" to a judicial candidate is a sure way to get your argument dismissed. We'll get this from both the right and the left.

So the theory (theory) is that we're supposed to argue about people's principles, their philosophies and theories. In other words, we're supposed to act like judges and the law are about the brains on the sticks; that there's some broad, general philosophy that one can apply to lots of different specific situations, and that that it's the theory, rather than the specifics, that we should focus on.

Now, the problem with that, as I see it--and I would argue that what I am about to say is deeply rooted in feminism--is that theories and philosophies and broad generalizations are, in the end, about people. And people are specific. I'm not saying that legal theories and philosophies aren't useful things--feminism itself might be said to be a set of theories and philosophies, in some senses--but it is absolutely crucial to realize that true justice requires us to realize that not everyone is the same; not everyone lives under the same circumstances; that the particularities of individual cases are precisely that--particular.

What I'm afraid of is that Bush and the right-wing fundamentalists are so wedded to the idea of "constitutional orginality"--the philosophy that the constitution covers *only* what it "meant" when it was written--that they will succeed iin pushing forward a candidate who ignores history; who ignores the fundamental and obvious fact that we no longer live in a late eighteenth-century colony; whose "philosophy" is a cruel insistence on theory over the actual effects of what happens on the ground, in the here and now. This is the thing about abortion for me--and why I think abortion is, in fact, a very good litmus test. Because the point is that (1) we do not believe that the fetus is a person--when you start talking about "exceptions" for rape or incest or the life of the mother, you reveal that your anti-abortion position is not absolute, that what it really means is "I don't want people having abortions except in circumstances that I think are justifiable." (2) We need to recognize that the vast majority of women think carefully about moral and medical decisions--but that at the same time, every woman, and every woman's circumstances, are different. And that grand theories and sweeping moral absolutes wash right over the specific, important distinctions of each person's life.

But recognizing that each person's life has specific, important distinctions to it is what freedom is all about. It's also what being "pro-life" is should be all about--about recognizing that every person's life is unique. And it is for that reason that we can't embrace philosophies that value "life" or "justice" as abstractions but that, when you look at how they are enacted, actually fail to value true justice or real people's lives.

This is why, although I don't know if Sandra Day O'Connor considers herself a feminist, I would say that her activity on the bench was consistent with feminism. Look at what she wrote about Planned Parenthood v. Casey:

Though abortion is conduct, it does not follow that the State is entitled to proscribe it in all instances. That is because the liberty of the woman is at stake in a sense unique to the human condition, and so, unique to the law. The mother who carries a child to full term is subject to anxieties, to physical constraints, to pain that only she must bear. That these sacrifices have from the beginning of the human race been endured by woman with a pride that ennobles her in the eyes of others and gives to the infant a bond of love cannot alone be grounds for the State to insist she make the sacrifice. Her suffering is too intimate and personal for the State to insist, without more, upon its own vision of the woman’s role, however dominant that vision has been in the course of our history and our culture. The destiny of the woman must be shaped to a large extent on her own conception of her spiritual imperatives and her place in society.

In other words, broad legal philosophies cannot, and should not, apply to unique cases: pregnancy is a unique situation, there is nothing else like it in the world. And individual women must be allowed to make their own decisions about that unique situation within their own individual, unique circumstances--circumstances that broad legal philosophies can't account for. Yes, O'Connor wrote "in all instances"--allowing that there are some instances in which the law can or should restrict abortion. I do not agree with this. But I think the fundamental reasoning behind her opinion on this case is solid, and I think it is feminist.

Here are a couple of articles about O'Connor that demonstrate what I would call the feminism of her approach. The first is about what feminists think of O'Connor; the second is about what those who worked closely with her, her law clerks, thought of her. Arguably the second is more revealing precisely because it is more specific, more grounded. But the first contains this very interesting statement by O'Connor herself:

"This 'new feminism' is interesting but troubling, precisely because it so nearly echoes the Victorian myth of the 'True Woman' that kept women out of law for so long," O'Connor said at a speech at New York University in 1991. "Asking whether women attorneys speak with 'a different voice' than men do is a question that is both dangerous and unanswerable."

I find this statement fascinating (and I agree with it). But notice something interesting: while she seems, on the surface, to be arguing for broadly applicable truths rather than specific differences, she isn't, quite; her position is nuanced and thoughtful. She doesn't say that theories of judicial difference, arguments that because she's a woman she must therefore be (or should therefore be) a feminist, are necessarily wrong--they are "troubling," "dangerous and unanswerable"--because, while in one way they can be understood as grounded in reality rather than in broad Enlightenment theories about the absolute equality of men and women, the absolute primacy of disinterested reason, they can also be understood, and practiced as essentialist.

It's a balancing act. We want someone who has theories and principles that are comprehensible and reasonable--I personally think that it's absolutely essential that we get someone with a respect for established precedent, rather than a radical willingness to sweep away precedent to return to some imagined original Constitution (and really, the hubris: how the hell do you know what the original "intent" of the framers was? Someone needs to read the New Critics)--but we also want, we need, the country needs, someone who understands that the role of a judge is to judge, to distinguish, to recognize the limits of specific cases, to balance the rational and theoretical with the human(e) and the embodied.

Holidays are for children. Right?

This afternoon we went to buy more paint for the house, and for the first time Pseudonymous Kid noticed the Chuck E. Cheese next to the Home Depot....

Pseudonymous Kid: What is that place?!? With the mouse?
Me: Uh . . . it's Chuck E. Cheese.
Pseudonymous Kid: What is that?
Me: Um, it's a pizza place for little kids....
Pseudonymous Kid: Oh! Can we go?! Please please!
Me: Um, maybe, if you're good....

So we went and bought paint and of course, he was very good and kept calling attention to how good he was being....

At the checkout:

Me (whispering): So, you know he wants to go to C-h-u-c-k-E.-C-h-e-e-s-e, right?
Mr. B. (whispering): Yes! I heard you saying that, and I thought, are you c-r-a-z-y?
Me (whispering): I said m-a-y-b-e! And I meant, "someday"! But he thought I meant after we finished buying paint....
Pseudonymous Kid: So I was good, right?
Me: Yes, you were good.
Pseudonymous Kid: Can we go to Chuck E. Cheese!
Me: Um. . . ask your papa.
Pseudonymous Kid: Papa! Can we go to Chuck E. Cheese?!?
Mr. B.: Um. Okay. (To me): Have you ever been to one of these places?
Me: Yeah, when I was maybe ten.
Mr. B.: I never have.
Me: It's hell.
Mr. B.: I'm sure. My only consolation is it's almost certainly the kind of place you hate more than I do.

Needless to say, Pseudonymous Kid had the time of his young life. I was surprised to find that they still have the godawful animatronic speaking mouse, but of course PK was thrilled. And boy, do they have a lot more arcade games than they used to have, each one of which costs a dollar token to play (of course). Credit where credit's due, though: none of the games was shooter games--the closest was a firefighter game where you get to aim the hose to put the fire out. We spent three tokens on that one. And skee-ball, and hoops, and pachinko, and climbing tunnels....

Snippets of dialogue:

Me: Do you want to play this rubber duckie game?
Pseudonymous Kid: How do you play?
Me: Well, the little duckies go by, and you try to punch them with this fist by pressing this button.
Pseudonymous Kid: That's so rude!
Me: Do you want to play it?
Pseudonymous Kid: Yes!

Mr. B: You know what this place is like?
Me: A casino?
Mr. B.: Well, yes. But it's more like a strip club.
Me: Oh my god, it is!
Mr. B.: It's a strip club for kids. It's kiddie porn.

Mr. B.: You know how I said you'd hate this place worse than me? I was wrong.
Me: Oh, c'mon. You gotta just go with the flow. Plus, I highly suggest playing the games with him.
Mr. B.: You are such a good mama.
Me: Playing the games distracts you from listening to the singing mouse.

Mr. B.: I am finding you extremely attractive right now.
Me: Really?
Mr. B.: But I think it's probably just because everything else in here is so hideous.

Me: Well, at least we know he's having a great 4th of July weekend.
Mr. B: Yes.
Me: Plus, I think this place is actually very educational. It's kind of evidence for everything that's wrong with our culture.
Mr. B.: Evidence? It is everything that's wrong with our culture.
Me: Maybe we're just not the target demographic.

More on Rove

At The American Street and Newsweek.

Now with pictures

(1) This is a rocket ship with wings. Below it we have the fire. Those other things are stars, and that is the sun. The circles around the mice are force fields, and the mice are astronauts. Or maybe aliens. Alien astronaut mice.

(2) This is the other side, and here all the mice are together. And there are more rocket ships. That's the sun.

Le Tour de France

I have a favor to ask. A pretty-please, name your price kind of favor.

My boyfriend absolutely adores biking. So much so, that he hasn't owned or driven a car in years. So much so, that he in fact recently broke his neck (no, I am not kidding) in a biking accident, and is scheduled for surgery on Tuesday. And yet, being one of those iconoclastic non-car-driving types, he also doesn't own a tv, and his internet connection is on dialup, so he can't get the Tour de France, and what with the broken neck and all, going out to a biker bar (no, not that kind of biker) somewhere to watch it really isn't an option, either. And he's going to have lots of down time after Tuesday, what with the recovering-from-a-broken-neck-surgery thing.

Is there anyone out there reading this who also loves the Tour, and has Tivo? And a DVD burner? And would be willing to burn a DVD of today's tour, when Armstrong passed Ullrich, which is all very exciting if you're a cyclist, and maybe mail it to my boyfriend in Minneapolis? I will, of course, gladly pay associated costs (don't worry; I'll record the expense in the you-owe-me-a-fuck ledger that I keep in my head for every time my boyfriend makes an appalling pun). And I'll happily do you a favor of your choosing in return.

If you can help out, drop me an email.

A li'l three-card monte...

And you gotta keep your eye on all of 'em.

1. The Supreme Court nomination question.

2. The Valerie Plame / Miller & Cooper cases--see Echidne for details, but to sum up: Joseph Wilson spoke out and said that the Bush claims about uranium in Niger were crap and we went to war on a lie; Robert Novak wrote a column saying that Wilson's wife, Plame was a covert CIA agent (thereby ruining her career and possibly threatening her life and the lives of others); there was an investigation into who leaked that information (outing a CIA agent is illegal); Karl Rove denied being the leak (though Wilson says he thinks it was Rove); Miller & Cooper, journalists who had also received leaks about Plame, were called to reveal their sources and refused; Time, Inc., Cooper's employer, turned over his notes despite his refusal; an MSNBC analyst said on last night's McLaughlin group that it was Karl Rove. Which, if so, means he lied to a grand jury.

Update: here is said MSNBC analyst, Lawrence O'Donnell, posting on the Huffington Report that Rove is the leaker and that he's known this for months.

3. That Downing Street Memo thing that's been all over the press in the UK, and practically invisible here--except on the blogs (within my peripheral vision, Shakespeare's Sister and The Heretik have been especially good at covering this, but there are lots of others). The quick & dirty recap: here's the smoking gun that proves that Bush lied about why he was taking us to war.

Late last night, while the adrenalin from the day's news was slowly dissipating, I had a deeply cynical thought. It's a little odd for a sitting justice to retire on the Friday before a three-day weekend, methinks; why that timing? Those in Washington know that Friday is when you release news you want to die--but O'Connor's retirement isn't going to slip off the front page any time soon.

And then it occurred to me. Firstly, there might have been some hope of getting the jump on the Dems and the left; if the White House had some polite advance notice that this was going to happen (as is surely likely--after all, if you're going to quit your job, you tend to tell the people who will care before you announce it formally), then the right would be geared up and ready to go into the full-court press and, perhaps, they were hoping that we'd be caught flat-footed.

But the other possibility (not that these need be mutually exclusive) is that the Supreme Court is a big, flashy news subject, one that people understand and grasp the importance of easily--and that therefore, getting this story out there will create enough media noise to cover up a possible pending revelation that Rove revealed the name of a CIA agent and lied about it, and might also drown out the murmurings about the Downing Street Memo. (I saw a news story somewhere recently, a major news organ, pointing out that the story had been kept alive by blogs and was starting, as a result, to attract the jaundiced eye of big sleeping dragons like the WaPo--if anyone recalls this story, send me a link and I'll update).

I suspect that it's primarily "save Rove" and "give the religious right a head start," with the possibility of flushing Downing Street just a desireable side effect. And of course, as the pesky troll that got in overnight while the windows were open demonstrates, if we make noise about both things, it runs the risk of just convincing the head-in-sand average voter that we're just being "sore losers" and fighting for fighting's sake.

But speaking as a pretty thoroughgoing American idealist--when I mentioned these suspicions last night to a friend, he laughed at me and said, "how naive are you? I thought of that first thing this morning"--I don't think this is the case. Yeah, the hard-line partisan right will try to use that rhetoric to dismiss any kind of dissent. But the problem is, once people's suspicions are raised, they're a lot more suspicious about everything. And I think people's suspicions are now raised about the war.

So I'm hoping that the "timing" bullshit, if it was indeed happening--and really, who cares? since even if it wasn't consciously planned, the effect could be the same--will backfire, and that our heightened alert, our fight-or-flight instincts, will kick into overdrive and we'll stay on top of the game (god, I'm just making metaphor soup, aren't I?). There's a lot of stuff going on. It all matters.

Independence day

Fight for yours. Here's a letter from a reader, reprinted verbatim. Her advice is excellent.

The Senate is in recess from the 2nd of July until the 11th, which gives us all some time to act before they have to respond. You have so many readers, I thought it would be good if you could pass along some
more info:

Arlen Specter: 202-224-4254, Chair of Judiciary committee, Pennsylvania

Patrick Leahy: 202-224-4242, Ranking Democrat, Judiciary Comm, Vermont

If you have any readers in PA, it would mean so much for them to call his office, or to call Leahy. Also on the committee-- Ted Kennedy, MA, Joe Biden, DE, Mike DeWine, OH, Feingold, WI, Feinstein, CA, and some other ones too. I think we all can call/write, but their constituents would carry even more weight.

Here's the rest of the committee.

The Judiciary committee will be crucial in fighting for more "advice" before "consent," and in fighting to find some kind of non-horrific nominee.

I feel like I have to do something, past emailing my reps, because Maryland is a blue state, and I trust my Senators to do the right thing-- I need something that feels more effective, so I'm passing along info to you, as well as doing some other things this weekend--working on letters, etc. Are you working on an op-ed or letter to editor?

Yes, I will do that this weekend. And please, all of you, write to your local papers. We don't have to be brilliant, we don't have to be legal analysts, we don't have to be constitutional scholars. We just have to be heard.

letters@nytimes.com
letters@latimes.com
editor@usatoday.com
letters@washpost.com

Link roundup #2

1. Scott Lemieux again, taking apart the idiotic argument (which already came up in comments here today, in an earlier thread) that overturning
Roe would be good, b/c Roe was antidemocratic judicial activism that just mobilized social conservatives.

2. Ms. Magazine presents poll results that also demonstrate the falseness of the claims that Roe somehow went against public opinion, or that most Americans are not pro-choice.

3. Ms. again: Five Rights Women Could Lose. Yes, the thought of losing abortion rights scares me half to death; no, it isn't the only important issue.

4. See also this list from the ACLU of Cases in which Sandra Day O'Connor Cast the Deciding Vote.

Link roundup

1. Scott Lemieux at Lawyers, Guns and Money posts a very cogent explanation of the possible legal scenaros now that O'Connor's stepping down. Pass it along.

2. A recent article by Ann Crittenden: Theh Price of Denying Choice.

3. ACS blog: "What happens if [a] more conservative justice replaces Justice O'Connor?"

4. People for the American Way.

5. Planned Parenthood, of course.

6. NYT graphic giving short details of the likely nominees--not one of whom is a woman.

7. Various folks (from Nancy Keenan, the president of NARAL, to Roberta Combs, the president of the Christian Coalition--plus Phyllis Schlafly) offer their reactions to O'Connor's retirement (Salon).

Read, write, act

In the comments, Abby directed us to the following two blogs:

SCOTUS blog, which points out that O'Connor's retirement is considered important to Stenberg v. Carhart (2000)--the "partial-birth abortion" ban case, and Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network (1997--injunctions against abortion-clinic protestors. Those are just the cases at hand right this moment, and with one and probably two Bush nominees pending, you know the anti-choice folks are going to be bringing new cases forward.

There's also a Supreme Court Nomination blog, which has profiles of some likely nominees to replace O'Connor.

Use some of the adrenalin of the panic to read up and, as Holdie said in comments, write your legislators, write letters to the editor, do something. Monday is the 4th--it's a great opportunity to write letters to your local paper about the importance of constitutional rights and freedoms.

And keep in mind that we'll have to keep doing--don't burn out.

Before your next cup of coffee

Go to NARAL's site and send letters to your congressional representatives. The anti-abortion folks are going to do an immediate, huge push to make it clear that they want their agenda met; we need to let congress know that we are going to push harder. While you're there, sign up to be a rapid responder.

Then call or email a few friends and tell them to do the same.

And if you have some money, donate.

And blogroll Bush v. Choice--she'll be on top of this.

Update: Here is a link to NARAL's fact sheet on abortion. A good place to bone up on talking points.

Second update: Here is a link to write the President. I added this sentence:

The women of America remind you that our constitutional rights are not something we are willing to compromise on.

We know he's not on our side, but we need to let him know we're out here.

O'Connor is retiring from Supreme Court

I predict the death of Roe V. Wade.

Sandra Day O'Connor just announced her retirement. And Rehnquist is dying.

There goes our 5-4 lead.

I recommend buying this book, not as history, but as a primer.

Shit, I'll post something substantive later, but for now I am going to have a panic attack.

If Philly highschoolers have to do it...

Ding presents her recommended reading guide to blackness. I love reading lists. To her suggestions, I'd add Toni Morrison's Playing in the Dark, which I picked up once for no particular reason but which has really stuck with me. Feel free to endorse your own favorite books or articles in the comments.