Over at Crooked Timber, there's a post on a speech recently given by Barack Obama, along with some excellent comments. This quotation is featured:

And so women still earn 76% of what men do. They receive less in health benefits, less in pensions, less in Social Security. They receive little help for the rising cost of child care. They make up 71% of all Medicaid beneficiaries, and a full two-thirds of all the Americans who lost their health care this year. When women go on maternity leave, America is the only country in the industrialized world to let them go unpaid. When their children become sick and are sent home from school, many mothers are forced to choose between caring for their child and keeping their job.

… In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society. But in our past there has been another term for it – Social Darwinism, every man and woman for him or herself. It allows us to say to those whose health care or tuition may rise faster than they can afford – tough luck. It allows us to say to the women who lose their jobs when they have to care for a sick child – life isn’t fair. It let’s us say to the child born into poverty – pull yourself up by your bootstraps

http://crookedtimber.org/2005/11/14/obama-on-child-care/

Whenever I mention any of this in any of my classes, throwing out the notion that maybe it might be useful if parents got some help with childcare, if the entire burden of providing for taking care of kids didn't devolve on the nuclear family -- whenever I mention that, here in the Fort, invariably I get some student snorting something about communism, or social engineering, or right, that's how they do things over there in France, maybe...

It's almost always some single male saying that, I've noticed. Oddly enough. It's never some single mother with kids. And it's never some guy with a wife and two kids at home, either.

Odd how we don't have any problem with the government providing families with help paying for care for their elderly in this country. But help paying for their young'uns? That's just crazy talk.

Dropping By

Just to say, that if it comes up in your life, and the guy says to you, we're going to put you in for out-patient surgery to break up that kidney stone (that big ol'kidney stone, but he'll likely only say that if he's from Arkansas) but don't you worry none, it won't be much discomfort--

Just for future reference?

Don't believe his lying ass.

Plus when I woke up in recovery and demanded my own morphine pump they ain't give it to me.

Just some Darvocet. Ai.

Habeas Corpus

If you want to know the scariest thing that has happened in America under the Bush Administration, here it is:

From Paul Craig Roberts' column:

On Thursday November 10, the Republican controlled US Senate voted 49 to 42 to overturn the US Supreme Court's 2004 ruling that permits Guantánamo detainees to challenge their detentions. How dare the US Supreme Court defend the US Constitution and the civil liberties of Americans when we have terrorists to fight, argued the Republican senators. What are civil liberties, the Republicans asked rhetorically, but legal tricks that allow criminals and terrorists to escape.

Habeas corpus prevents authorities from detaining a person indefinitely without charges; the guarantee of habeas corpus ensures that no one can imprison you without a trial.

The Bush administration wants the power to detain indefinitely anyone it declares to be an enemy combatant or a terrorist without presenting the detainee in court with charges.

http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=8006

(From Walcott's column: http://jameswolcott.com/)

Roberts is right: without habeas corpus, we haven't got a democracy.

Under the rules as this current administration is running them, any of us can be declared an enemy, or an agent of the enemy, or as being suspected of working with the enemy, and then held -- forever.

Without being allowed access to a lawyer.

Without the government which is holding us having to show cause -- that government just has to declare it has cause, not show what the cause is,to anyone.

And -- this is charming -- we can be tortured, apparently.

That sound you just heard? It was the death of America.

November 11

For my students who have been and who still are in uniform, and all our other vets as well:

Thanks.

I know it's not enough.

Where Teh Gay Originates

So I'm teaching this class, the Lit of Diverse Cultures class, and we've just read Churchill's Cloud 9, an interesting and bizarre text, and we had an interesting session on it.

Among other things, I pointed out to the class how much violence was in the text -- and found they had not even noticed that. "Huh," one student said. "You know, I saw all the sex. And now I can see all the violence. But until you mentioned it, I didn't even notice the violence." So then I got to spin out on that for a bit, about how violence in our culture is so normalized that we don't even see it, that it's fine for us to see people being beaten up and people's heads blown off and people being burned alive, but oh, show a tit on TV, and yikes, Western Civilization is going to Fall!

And I talked to them about the roots of the word obscene, how it's from the Greek for off-stage, how for the Greeks violence was the thing that was obscene: how the Greeks never allowed violence to take place on-stage. It was obscene: it always took place off-stage. But sex? That was fine. Sex could happen, and did happen, giant phallus, humping, naked men and women, that could be on-stage all you liked, and did. Sex was good. Violence was risky.

And what do we communicate to our children, with our different rules -- that sex is obscene, that violence is a fine thing to show?

But what I started out to post about is another thing. This is, after all, the Gay Lit part of the class. In one bit of the play, Harry, a guy who's meant to be gay, has sex with a little boy. One of my smartest students, who's also a conservative, put forth the theory that this event is what makes that little boy gay.

Teh gay, she says, is caused by little boys being molested by adult men.

I explained that no, it was not. I assured her that being sexually molested as a child will make a child more likely to have mental issues when the child grows up, but it is not what makes the kid a gay kid.

She gives me a cool, superior look. She didn't argue. But she knows better.

I didn't argue either. I moved on.

I'm not sure what I should have done. This is one of my smartest students. But she's also rigidly conservative -- I'm not sure I could have said anything that would have made her listen. She knows that being gay is a dysfunction. She's not about to listen to anything I say that says anything different.

I wish I could have thought of something, though.

More Total Anesthesia

Saw the guy yesterday and he showed me a picture of my big old kidney stone, which is indeed a big old stone -- about as big as the end joint of my thumb -- and he says they're going to bust it up for me (yes, this is how doctors in Arkansas talk, but trust me, it's charming) on Monday, while I'm under yet another session of total anesthesia. My brother says when he had this done they did not knock him out. Or for when they had a look up there to see what was wrong, a tumor or a stone -- he was awake for that one, too. Apparently in Louisiana they do not go giving total anesthesia for every little whip-stitch of a procedure.

Or maybe it's because I'm a girl and the doctors are afraid I might cry?

I don't know. Don't care, either. I love total anesthesia.

Anyway, this all reminded me of the conversation I overheard as I was waking up from the anesthesia last time, between one of the docs and all of the nurses in the recovery room. The doctor was insisting that one should neither cook nor make coffee with water from the hot water tap. One of the nurses was objecting to this rule most vehemently. Other nurses were chiming in on various sides.

The doctor's argument was that the hot water tank did not ever empty out all the way. And, it was hot. But not hot enough to kill bacteria. In fact, just hot enough to grow bacteria. So, therefore, if one cooks or makes coffee with water from that source, one is using bacteria-infested water.

The nurse argued it is water one cooks with, or runs through a coffee-maker, and that the heat would then kill the bacteria. But even I, half-woozy, could see the flaw there. Not enough time being heated, I argued in my head. One must boil water 20 minutes to kill bacteria -- or is it 25? But anyway, much longer than one usually boils things one is cooking, and certainly longer than it takes to make coffee...and so the doctor argued.

On the other hand: what sort of bacteria would likely be in a hot water tank? Assuming any bacteria at all are in there? I lay, muddled, loopy, trying to think. How would they get in the tank? What would they live on? Has this doctor any evidence that bacteria live in hot water tanks? Or is he talking out his hat?

I know my home ec teacher, back in Kansas, told us never to cook with water from the hot water tap. But I always figured that was more crap from Kansas.

What do y'all think?

Why Support Bush Part II

Here's more explanation from Fred over at Slacktivist:


http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2005/11/rock_bottom.html

How Scary?

I took this quiz

http://www.blogthings.com/howscaryareyouquiz/

and apparently I am so scary I even scare scary people.

So all right then.

Wear a Shirt for Jesus

Over here from Dobson's site

http://www.trueu.org/dorms/womenshall/A000000221.cfm

comes a young woman with at sense of humor and wit, who seems bright enough and who can at least write, arguing that good Christian girls should, for God's sake (little pun there on my part), put a shirt on.

Jesus said that the two greatest commandments are to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Matthew 22:37, NIV) and to "[l]ove your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:39). Usually when I hear these verses, I think of being nice to my friends, or at least trying to avoid running bad drivers off the road... [But it] seems pretty obvious, but if you love your friend, you probably won't murder him. If you decide to love your classmate, you won't steal his new laptop. Simple, right?

Loving our neighbors relates to any kind of issue we come up against — including modesty. Notice that "love does no harm to its neighbor." If wearing a shirt that shows cleavage will cause some guys to sin, why should we purposely do it?

Her argument is more involved than this, and a bit too simple-minded -- she's assuming that the women she sees on television "choose" to be sex-objects (of course they must! Because all humans have free will! No one is ever exploited on this planet! And society is not complex! Nor is the psychology of psychosexual relationships! Heavens no!) -- and she also assumes, amusingly, that only men lust; but the main problem I have with her argument is, simply, her conclusion.

Put a shirt on for Jesus, she says, because we don't want our brothers to sin -- but, she hastily adds, "I'm not going to wrap myself in a burka."

Well, why not?

It's the logical conclusion of your argument, sister.

If our bodies are so lucious and tasty that the very sight of them leads men into the occasion of sin, and men are so swept away by their appetites that they cannot control these appetites, if that's what you believe, then yes, I think, for the good of your neighbor's soul, I think you ought to wrap yourself in a burka. Why haven't you done that? You evil whore?

Or better yet, I think you should remove yourself from society entirely. Because even in a burka, you know, men might catch a glimpse of your toe, or the wind might blow and reveal your foot -- or, well, even if it doesn't, just seeing you walking about might cause a man to think about what's under the burka. No, no. I think you should enter a convent. You and all the other right-minded woman in the world.

Here's the thing:

Women have bodies. Men have bodies. We have this thing we do with our bodies? It's called sex? About, oh, I don't know, seventy or eighty percent of our energy and our resources (I'm talking of normal folk here, now, not born-again Christian, who apparently have some sort of wiring problem, causing them to spend all their time thinking about whether they have sinned, and what exactly a sin is, and whether wearing jeans instead of culottes is a sin, and if they accidentally went two miles over the speed limit on their way home from church last Sunday, was that a sin?) is devoted toward sex -- getting sex, getting more sex, dealing with the consequences of having had sex, and then finding some more sex.

Dressing the way we do? It's one way we show that we're sexual beings. Looking at other folk, dressed the way they are? It's how we evaluate them as sexual beings. Even when we don't actually plan to have sex with the guy we evaluate as we're crossing the street on the way to the bookstore, which most of us don't, by the way, we are, in fact, usually noticing him as a sexual creature. And he's noticing us the same way.

That's not evil, or sinful, or perverted, or whatever words you're dredging up there from your home-schooled book of synonyms -- that's how we're made.

Some of us -- not all of us, but lots of us -- like to play with the energy this sexual wiring puts off: like to dress in ways that make those wires kick out sparks. This is also not evil, or sinful, or perverted. It's also just something humans do.

(The girl with the thong panties you were so scandalized by, btw? I would have been scandalized by her as well. But mostly because she was doing the sexy thing so badly. I also dislike the girls with the cleavage hanging everywhere, and the boys with the too-tight trousers and the vest over the bare chest look. We want some skill in teh sexy-dance, I say: we want some art here. But not everyone agrees with dr. delagar. Some folk really go for that low-rent thing, and who am I to disagree? I too went through my dress-like-a-slut years, years mr. delagar is forever bemoaning his missing of them.)(And no: I will not post pictures.)

Oh, where was I?

Ah, yes. Human like sex.

Humans really like sex. Even humans who have committed themselves to monogamy, such as dr. delagar, enjoy looking at other sexy humans. That's how we are. It does not make us evil or sinful, and -- really? -- it doesn't mean we want to have sex with the guy we see crossing the street on the way to the bookstore.

I mean not usually.

It's just how we're wired.

And unless you actually do plan to lock us up in separate enclaves, I don't see that there's much you can do about it.

That's how adult humans are.

Except for the ones wearing culottes, I guess.

Well, yes, THAT explains it...

I got this off the blog A Certain Point of View, who got it from SNL...

"According to most recent polls, 66% of Americans think President Bush is doing a poor job in Iraq. And the remaining 34% think Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to Church."

(http://decime.blogspot.com/)

I'd been driving around the Fort lately looking at all these fucktards still sporting their Bush/Cheney placards and their OSAMA WANTS YOU TO VOTE FOR KERRY posters, trying to understand what's in their heads, how anyone, anyone could still be supporting this administration at this point -- but yeah. That clears it right up.

Who Knew?

Over at Dobson's site? They've figured out what causes Teh Gay! And who knew? It's (a) liking music (b) liking to hanging out with (ick) girls and (c) not getting enough attention from Daddy.


Jeremy was a typical teenager with baggy jeans, an appetite like a horse and a "‘tude" the size of New Hampshire. Or at least that’s what his parents thought.

But more and more, they began to see how different he was from other teenage boys they knew. Ever since he started junior high school, Jeremy felt like he didn’t fit in. It seemed like most of the guys in his class were only interested in sports. Jeremy was interested in music. He was shorter and skinnier than many of the boys in his gym class—a glaring fact that caused him to feel self-conscious. Most of his friends were girls. For some reason, he felt he could relate to them more easily.

But he never realized how different he was until the first time someone called him “queer.” It was like a devastating gunshot wound to his heart. And when others joined in and added the title “fag” to the insults, Jeremy was humiliated beyond words. By the time he reached high school, he was basically considered an outcast. He couldn’t communicate his fears to his dad—in fact, Jeremy couldn’t relate to him at all. So, slowly, he found himself in a world with no male companions or acceptance from men.

Soon, Jeremy began to crave attention from guys and even fantasize what it could be like if a boy really liked him.

http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/homosexuality/maf/a0028248.cfm

Well! Glad Mr. Dobson has that all cleared up for us!

(A bit further down on that same article, I came across this line, which I can't resist sharing with you: "Let’s face it: science is meant to be fact . . . not theory." )

I've been skulking about on their site for a few days now, and I'm just -- what is it with these people and their obsession with sin? It's pathological. Is this a sin? Is that a sin? Did you sin? If I say jeez but I secretly thought Jesus, did I sin? If I don't actually sin but I think rebellious thoughts in my heart, am I sinning? What about if my neighbor sins and I don't try to stop him, am I sinning then? I swear, it's like OCD.

Can't we get these people some Prozac or something?

America the Prison State

Over at Crooked Timber this post

http://crookedtimber.org/2005/11/03/land-of-the-free-2/

notes that the number of us in prison or on parole is now around seven million.

Yep, seven million Americans in the prison system.

Among other things, anyone want to reckon what that costs? How much we're spending to keep seven million of us in jail or under state control? And where that money is being drawn from? (As I say to my students when I go off on this rant in the classroom, as I sometimes do, if we're building prisons, folks, we're not building biology labs, we're not building libraries, we sure as shit ain't building new high schools or art museums or day care centers.)

And why, do you think, so many Americans are in prison these days?

Are we just wicked? Is that it? Too many bad, bad children? The sixties, was it? Not enough spanking going on? (Ha!)

War on drugs, folks. There's your answer. Go have a look at the stats. Over half the people in prison are there on drug charges. And? Mostly? Stupid drugs charges.

Look. I know some drugs are bad drugs. I live in Arkansas. I know meth, for instance, does really awful things to people's lives. But putting meth users in prison? Really isn't useful.

Rehab. That might help. (I admit it probably doesn't help much.)

Prison and jail -- they don't help at all.

What would help, you wonder? I tell you what would help: really good daycare, really good schools, really good jobs waiting for the sixteen year old who, because she has nothing else to do with her life and nothing to look forward to, gets in the car with Jim Bob and takes that hit of crank. If crank is all there is, crank is what she'll choose. Here in Arkansas, for these kids in the hills, it's crank or playing bingo and the slots over in Oklahoma, hoping to score big some day. Most of them aren't, in fact, stupid -- at least not until the meth has eaten out their brains. Why wouldn't they choose the meth?

Amanda over at Pandagon recommends this site

http://www.scarleteen.com/

to all teens and post-teens who need to know things about sex and having sex and birth control and just anything like that, and boy, is she right. Boy, do I wish I had had access to a site like this before I started doing the sex thing. And yes, yow, she's right, it's got stuff to teach me even now.

Send it out to everyone you know. Teens or not. That's my advice.

(Via http://www.pandagon.net/)

Banning Knowledge

But let's keep ignorance readily available.

Over at Pharyngula, PZ has a post about Albertson's, out west, banning Seventeen magazine because an issue included, inside I assume, "a labeled gynecological illustration of the female pelvis."

(http://pharyngula.org/)

Why ban this? To protect the innocence -- of the teenagers this magazine is aimed at. God forbid teenage girls know anything about their own anatomy.

This sort of thing happens here in the South with our buddy Wal-Mart all the time -- certain magazines get banned for having covers that some religious group or the other finds too naughty, or some book gets banned because it has some scene in it that's too shocking. Yet just last week, I'm in line trying to buy whatever it is I go to Wal-Mart to buy -- I don't go there much, but in the Fort there are, in fact, things you can only get at the Wall -- and the kid is with me and I look down and she's staring, horrified, at one of those stupid publications, the Globe or the Enquirer or whatever it was: ARMAGEDDON TWO YEARS AWAY!!! WORLD SCHEDULED TO END ON NOVEMBER 15 2008!!!

"Is that true?" she whispers to me. "Is the world really going to end?"

Now normally this would not be a problem, because normally the kid is smart and sensible and I can tell her no and explain how those stupid publications are stupid -- but she's been having issues lately, as you know.

So we have a three hour long thing over this stupid magazine.

They won't put sex ed on the shelves. But they will put that crap. Right at a seven-year-old's eye-level, too, I might add.

Watching TV

So Tuesday night at the delagar household is Girls Night Home -- this is what the kid has named it, because mr. delagar teaches on Tuesday nights, so she and I lie about on the sofa in the TV room and watch first Bones, which has the guy that used to be on Buffy, who's very tasty, plus a woman who plays a forensic anthropologist, so, you know, a smart woman, and then House.

Last night my mother was there as well -- she came up to Arkansas to stay in case I did, in fact, have a tumor, and is hanging around for a bit. Anyway, we're watching Bones and the guy who used to be on Buffy, I cannot remember his name, hold on, let me do some research, David Boreanaz, jeez, no wonder, who could remember that one? Anyway, he's coming out of a bar with the female lead, the really smart anthropologist woman, and he's putting on his jacket and just for a second his belly shows, and all three of us go, oooo!

Seven years old to sixty-eight years old, slain by a glimpse of hot belly.

I tell you what, biology is a killer.

Meanwhile, though, that's not what I started this post to talk about. Really! It isn't!

This post is about the anthropologist woman, who's brilliant (so the show writes her) and yet wholly inept socially. I like this show, because I like the bit about having smart women on TV, smart people on TV, but why must smart people be shown as socially inept?

I know, I know, we gotta get plot and character arc somewhere. Why, though, with smart characters, does it always have to be there? "Oh, I know! She's smart, but she -- has no common sense! She's smart, but she -- can't deal with people!"

See, because that doesn't necessarily follow, I have to tell you. Most smart people, they have common sense, in fact. (Lots more than your common ijits, actually.) Most smart people are, in fact, good at handling (you can read that manipulating, if you like) people. Goes with the big juicy brain. Tends to make smart people good at reading emotional cues and paying attention to details and collating data.

Now, smart folk may not think it worth their while to coddle every ijit around them -- that may be true. You could write that character -- as had been done with the show that follows Bones, House -- but notice that's not what is being done with the woman on Bones. It's not that she's smart enough to know how to handle people and just doesn't care to, as is clearly meant to be the case with House. No, it's that she's too inept to handle people.

She can figure everything else in the world out, just like that. But the human male? Beyond her capacity.

I mean, please.