D-Squared Has The Next Big TV Show

Posted by Ampersand | January 6th, 2009 | Crossposted from Blog By Barry

Idea for a television show, possibly an “ER” spinoff. ER: The Finance Department. Would revolve around a debt collector working for an American hospital, who has a limited amount of discretion to waive bills in circumstances of true hardship. Every week, he investigages the circumstances of a poor or middle-class American family with a crippling medical expense, deciding to what extent they’re truly morally responsible for their own misfortune, or what luxury items in their house he believes they could do without; he could have a catchy thumbs-up/thumbs-down plus catchphrase to form the denouement of every episode.

More.

Posted in Whatever      
tiny yelling man

Dear Non-Jewish Activists:

Posted by Julie | January 5th, 2009

I’ve been trying to figure out the best way to say this for a few days now, but I’ve finally decided to just point you toward Amp’s How Not to Be Insane When Accused of Racism. Replace “racism” with “anti-Semitism” and “white person” with “non-Jew” as you read it. Cheers! (I’m refraining from linking to individual conversations because I don’t want to make this about individual people.)

Now, sadly, in most instances I’ve seen, the only people calling out problematic statements are the anti-Palestine hawks who drop into leftist discussions just to make trouble. Nevertheless, amidst their snarling, I’m seeing legitimate points. It’s fair to ask why, if anti-Semitism on the left is a real problem, more Jewish liberals and radicals aren’t speaking up. Explanation #1 is that anti-Semitism is not a real problem, and that every accusation is a cynical ploy to squelch debate. Explanation #2, which I think is more likely, is that many Jewish liberals are reading problematic statements, getting that knot in their stomachs, and then - fearing the usual chorus of “every time anyone tries to criticize Israel they’re accused of anti-Semitism OH WHY can’t we have a debate without being accused of anti-Semitism?!” - either shutting up or rationalizing it away.

Because yes, there are people out there equating any criticism of Israel’s policies with a desire to see Jews killed. As other writers have pointed out, it’s the same cowardly tactic as the Bush administration’s assertions that liberals hate America. But the “ah HA!” response above has become thoroughly knee-jerk. Please, just listen for one second. To paraphrase Jay Smooth, it’s what you said, not what you are.

**

Meanwhile, I’ve also been trying to figure out what to say about the ground invasion.

I was talking to my husband’s family a few days ago, and his father said that he didn’t think he’d see peace between Israel and Palestine within his lifetime. He’s about thirty years older than I am, but I realized then that I don’t think I’ll see peace within my lifetime, either.

Because this invasion isn’t about the rocket attacks, just like the settlement expansion isn’t about… well, whatever people think that’s about. This invasion isn’t about Hamas; it isn’t about defense; it isn’t about the welfare of Israel’s citizens. (Where, for example, is Gilad Shalit? Dead, I’m guessing. Heckuva job, Ehud.) In 1846, the murder of a US soldier served as justification for the Mexican-American war, which led to the annexation of what’s now the southwestern United States. In 1941, the attack on Pearl Harbor served as justification for an escalation of antagonistic acts against Japan that the US had already been engaging in for some time. In 2001, the attack on the World Trade Center served as (an especially shaky) justification for invading Iraq. And now, in 2008, the rocket attacks will have served as justification to install a compliant government in Gaza and possibly reoccupy it. (Matthew Yglesias compares Israel’s ideal version of Gaza to an Indian reservation - semi-autonomous, but economically handicapped and politically powerless.) Should the Japanese have killed US civilians? No. Should Mexican guerrillas have killed Colonel Cross? No (if that’s what really happened). Should Al-Qaeda have attacked the twin towers? Do I even need to answer that? And should Hamas be killing civilians? Of course not. But anyone who claims this invasion is nothing but an act of defense must think the Israeli government is profoundly stupid.

(Cross-posted at Modern Mitzvot.)

tiny yelling man

Many Cringe When They See How Their Article Was Edited

Posted by Ampersand | January 5th, 2009 | Crossposted from Blog By Barry

search_and_replace

I was reading an article called “Size Doesn’t Matter” by Samme Chittum, published by Diversity Woman. The article doesn’t seem to be online, alas.

The article is solidly pro-fat, which made it strange that, rather than using the word “fat,” Chittum used “plus-size.” I dislike “plus-size” for the same reason I dislike “overweight”; the term implies that there is an objectively correct size over which people shouldn’t go. Fuck that shit.

Then I came to this passage (emphasis in original), and realized that Chittum wasn’t to blame:

While many cringe when they hear the term plus-size, Wann, Lyons, and other activists believe it is time to take back the f word. “A lot of people don’t like the term overweight because it assumes weight is in itself a problem,” says Lyons. “Using the term plus-size has been very freeing for many women.”

It appears the editor missed the point — but found the search and replace key. Yipes.

UPDATE: And from elsewhere in the same article:

Outside the office, she performs as a belly dancer and helped organize the first Plus-sizeitude Festival, sponsored by the National Association to Advance Plus-size Acceptance (NAAPA).

Plus-suzitude? Puh-leeeze!

The weird thing is, someone did edit closely enough to change the “F” in “NAAFA” to “P” — apparently they don’t mind getting the name of the organization wrong, but they do want the acronym to match.

Posted in Fat, fat, and more fat      
tiny yelling man

My New Senator…

Posted by Jeff Fecke | January 5th, 2009

…is this guy:

Somehow, I find that a cheery thought.

(Via P. Zeddy)

tiny yelling man

S.O.S., Different Year

Posted by nojojojo | January 5th, 2009 | Crossposted from The Angry Black Woman

Happy New Year, all. Took me 5 days to get angry about something; a new record for me! Well, more annoyed than anything else. Who can really afford to get angry about all the stupid crap we see in the media? Us WoC gotta watch that blood pressure, after all.

This article in the NYT is what’s annoying me. It starts off innocently enough with a classic “duh” moment, noting that many women take dangerous risks to end their pregnancies sans medical attention or prescribed drugs. It guarantees a surge in such homemade abortions by pretty much telling the readers what drugs to ask for and how to ask for them, then how to administer them (which sounds seriously problematic to me, but fine, they’re the Times, they can afford lawyers if someone tries it, dies, and the family sues them). It goes further into “no shit, Sherlock” territory by noting the reasons women might do this: cost, shame, a desire for privacy, distrust of hospitals, yatta yatta yatta.

Very quickly, though, it becomes clear that the article is specifically focusing on a certain subset of women: primarily Dominican women in the Washington Heights area. OK, makes sense; that’s who made up the primary focus of a study by Planned Parenthood cited in the article. But see if you can spot the point in the passage below where I started to get annoyed.

One study surveyed 1,200 women, mostly Latinas, in New York, Boston and San Francisco and is expected to be released in the spring; the other, by Planned Parenthood, involved a series of focus groups with 32 Dominican women in New York and Santo Domingo. Together, they found reports of women mixing malted beverages with aspirin, salt or nutmeg; throwing themselves down stairs or having people punch them in the stomach; and drinking teas of avocado leaf, pine wood, oak bark and mamon fruit peel.

Interviews with several community leaders and individual women in Washington Heights echoed the findings, and revealed even more unconventional methods like “juice de jeans,” a noxious brew made by boiling denim hems.

OK, look. Let’s just get this out in the open. Women have been aborting unwanted babies since the dawn of human intelligence. It probably didn’t take much for homo erectus women to cotton to the fact that “scarce food + 10 other mouths to feed + coming baby = bad idea”, or “trek across continental land bridge + coming baby = bad idea”, or any of the other dozens of equations that might cause them to conclude that a pregnancy should be terminated. That’s the unfortunate consequence of our species not having a nice convenient breeding season; sometimes it’s a bad time, or flat-out dangerous, to breed. As a result of this, every culture has its methods of helping women figure out a solution to this problem. Some of them are cockamamie; I have never understood why any woman would think a coat hanger was the way to go, but those certainly happened, and killed their share of women. When I was a student at my predominantly-white, middle-class, “good” high school, the rumor mill had it you could induce an abortion by douching with Coca-Cola. (I guess the rampant yeast infection that would result might kill everything down there, was the idea.) This is not something unique to any one culture.

And indeed, the people who ran the study seem to get this:

“Some women prefer to have a more private experience with their abortion, which is certainly understandable,” said Dr. Daniel Grossman, an obstetrician with Ibis Reproductive Health in San Francisco, which joined Gynuity Health Projects in New York in conducting the larger study. “The things they mention are, ‘It is easier.’ It was recommended to them by a friend or a family member.”

Dr. Carolyn Westhoff, an obstetrician at NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center, said the trend fits into a larger context of Dominicans seeking home remedies rather than the care of doctors or hospitals, partly because of a lack of insurance but mostly because of a lack of trust in the health care system. “This is not just a culture of self-inducted abortion,” she said. “This is a culture of going to the pharmacy and getting the medicine you need.”

Emphasis mine. This doctor seems to be emphasizing that self-sufficiency, not a some sort of Latin obsession with terminating pregnacy, is the cultural trait that’s important here. Good solid American value, that, right? (Well, wait. Is there any culture that doesn’t value self-sufficiency in one way or another?) And the studies make other important notes: namely that cost, convenience, privacy, and a do-it-yourselfer paradigm are things which might induce any woman, of any culture, to try home abortion. But here’s where things start to get annoying:

It is impossible to know how many women in New York or nationwide try to end their pregnancies themselves, but in the vibrant, socially conservative Dominican neighborhoods of Upper Manhattan, the various methods are passed like ancient cultural secrets.

Hmm. Why do I feel like the article’s authors almost said “ancient Chinese secret”?

Yeah. I smell some exotification goin’ on up in here.

The article goes on to cite “machismo”, tradition, and other strange, exotic reasons why these women might resort to doing it themselves. While the doctors and others who conducted the study take pains to point out that this is not some unique cultural phenomenon, the article seems to go out of its way to imply the opposite — that this is some bizarre practice in which only those freaky brown women would engage. It might as well replace the term “home remedy” with “witch doctoring”. The latter would fit the article’s tone better.

The Planned Parenthood study concluded that women in both nations “seemed to see inducing the termination of pregnancy, or abortions, as a part of the reality of their lives,” in a community where, as one interview subject put it, “we are all doctors.” The report noted that in a culture steeped in machismo, birth control is generally seen as the woman’s responsibility.

Remember what I said about that whole dawn of human intelligence thing? Abortion has been a part of every woman’s life, since about then. Whether she chooses it or not, whether she has the choice or not, whether it’s safe or not, the potential is always there as long as she can walk around and do what she wants with her physical person. So why is it worth noting that Latina women in both the D.R. and America see this as reality? And how, exactly, does a “machismo-steeped” culture differ from any other patriarchial culture in seeing birth control as the woman’s responsibility? Until every nation on earth starts issuing its pubescent boys condoms as a universal manhood ritual, this, too, is something all cultures deal with.

There are a lot of issues for which a culture-specific focus is valid. But, um, last I checked? Every culture has women, however well or poorly it treats them. Therefore every culture has its “home remedies”, its abortifacient folklore, its stupid abortifacients, its traditions. If home aborting was something new, or unique to any one group, the culture-specific focus would be valid, but this is obviously not true. This article’s unnecessary obsession with cultural specifics suggests to me that the New York Times is not actually interested in noting the reasons why women, period, might choose to home abort, period. Instead this article presents yet another chance for the dominant culture to waggle its finger at a strange, scary, “primitive lesser culture” and reassure itself of its own superiority. c.f. Western women griping about “misogynistic” Muslim culture even as they carve and starve their own bodies in accordance with Western men’s wishes; history books which howl about footbinding and neck elongation but never whalebone corsets; and so on.

So often WoC are held up not as people in and of themselves, but as symbols of their culture’s backwardness and need for “guidance,” i.e. domination. It doesn’t make me angry very often anymore, because it happens so damn much I’d blow a gasket if I did. But I’m tired of it. I really am.

      
tiny yelling man

Franken Wins

Posted by Jeff Fecke | January 5th, 2009

mrsmalley.png


Al Franken has been officially certified as the winner of the recount by the Minnesota Canvassing Board. He will not be certified as the winner officially before next Monday at the earliest; Minnesota law gives that grace period to allow a loser to file an election challenge.

I think that’s good; Coleman should be able to file a challenge, even if it’s frivolous. It may be foolish of him to do so, but that’s his right, and I don’t believe he should be stopped from exercising those rights just because he’s unlikely to come out a winner.

But as of right now, Al Franken is a Senator-elect.

tiny yelling man

On Boys’ Higher Accidental Death Rate

Posted by Ampersand | January 5th, 2009 | Crossposted from Blog By Barry

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a new report out, about accidental deaths among children age 0-19. The most likely time for a kid to die in an accident is when they’re aged 15-19; the second most likely time is in the first year of life. (See the chart on page 25).

One thing that sticks out, glancing through the report, is that in every age group boys are more likely to die from an accident than girls. But the magnitude of the difference varies, as you can see in this chart:

Table showing injury-related accidental deaths by age and sex for children age 0 to 19

Under a year of age, the death rate for girls is 22 per 100,000, compared to 27 per 100 per boys, which is a fairly small difference (put another way, for every 10 girl infants who die accidently, 12 boy infants die accidentally). In contrast, for the 15-19 year olds, the rates are 20 and 45 per 100,000 — for every 10 girls who die, 23 boys die.

It’s also clear that the youngest and the oldest groups are the groups most at risk of dying by accident. In the youngest group, the most common cause of accidental death is suffocation; in all other age groups, the most common cause of death is a transportation-related accident (mostly accidents involving motor vehicles, although a few are accidents involving bikes). The slight uptick in the likelihood of 10-14 year olds dying — and then the enormous leap in deaths for 15-19 year olds — is entirely caused by the higher numbers of vehicle-related deaths in those age groups. ((See the graph on page 33 of the report.))

Most of the differences in accidental death rates, I suspect, come about because boys are encouraged by both grown-ups and peers to be physical risk-takers; part of being a boy’s boy, in our culture, is taking risks. I don’t say this to blame boys. Instead, I think this is one clear way society’s sexism, and in particular our conception of masculinity, is harming some boys.

Anti-feminist Robert Franklin doesn’t think risk-taking can explain why more boys age 10-14 die in vehicle accidents:

Given that children under the age of 14 generally don’t drive cars, what’s the explanation for that?

The explanation is, some 14 year olds do drive cars.

By far the highest death rates for kids age 10-14 are in Alaska and North Dakota ((See page 48 of the CDC report.)) — both states where 14 year olds can get learners permits. Meanwhile, the four states with the lowest death rates for 10-14 are states that won’t give learner’s permits until age 16.

Although there must be other factors involved, ((One state with learners permits for 14 year olds, Iowa, has only average death rates for 10-14 year olds.)) it’s clear that in areas where 14 year olds can legally drive, 14 year olds are more likely to die in car accidents. And probably 14 year old boys take more risks driving than 14 year old girls.

What really puzzles me is why boys under the age of 1 are about 50% more likely to die of suffocation than girls. Elkins suggested to me that boys may just be more fragile than girls at that age (which would also explain boys’ higher rates of SIDS). A couple of anti-feminists who have left comments to Robert’s post think it’s because evil male-hating women are selectively murdering infant boys and disguising the deaths as accidents. (Gee, there’s nothing insane-o about that movement.)

Another puzzling (to me) finding is that accidental deaths by poisoning are far more common among 15-19 year olds. One possibility is that “poisoning” includes alcohol poisoning and drug overdoses; another is that perhaps some suicide deaths are being counted as accidental deaths. (This is also a possibility for some of the vehicle-related deaths.)

Posted in Sexism hurts men      
tiny yelling man

Worst Bush Moments: #16, The Conscience Exception Rule

Posted by Jeff Fecke | January 4th, 2009

We forget, because it happened in the pre-9/11 world, but one of George W. Bush’s earliest controversies was his decision to block federal funding of stem cell research in all but a few cases. It was a bouquet to the fundies, disguised as “serious compromise.” And there were plenty of people who bought it at the time.

Bush is going out of office as he went in — by using his office to push the fundamentalist agenda while simultaneously claiming to be on the high road. In the waning weeks of his term, Bush added the Conscience Exception Rule for health care, that — well, let’s let Emily Douglas explain:

The Department of Health and Human Services today published a new regulation broadening protections for health care providers who refuse to provide health care services based on religious or moral grounds. The new regulations, which have been widely denounced by women’s health groups, physicians’ groups, members of Congress, President-Elect Obama, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and by over 200,000 individual commenters filing opposition to the regulations, expand the definition of health care providers protected by provider conscience regulation and allow dissenting providers to refuse to refer patients for treatment in addition to refusing treatment itself.

For a more direct explanation, here’s Amanda Marcotte:

Surprising absolutely no one, the Bush administration told the vast majority of the population that uses or has used contraception that we can fuck off, and that we are dirty whores who deserve a dressing down from perfect strangers that are supposedly hired to provide service. In fact, the administration responded to complaints from over 200,000 letter writers by tossing two fingers, by keeping the proposed regulations and adding contractors to the list of people who can obstruct you if you want contraception, sterilization, or abortion.

Yes, the Bush Administration said that they’d allow health care providers to decide if their consciences prevented them for providing treatment for someone making a decision they disagree with, like, say, exercising your Constitutional right to use birth control.

This, of course, has me now pursuing my pharmacy degree, so that I can follow the following plan:

1. Get a pharmacy degree.
2. Become a pharmacist.
3. Convert to Christian Scientist.
4. Declare that I can’t in good faith fill any prescription, and that I should be paid to sit in the corner and shake my head sadly whenever anyone purchases medication.

I think it’s air-tight!

Fortunately, this should be drop-kicked back to the netherworld by the Obama Administration (and if it isn’t, Obama supporters should booze up and riot). But still, it’s a nice parting gift to the women of America to tell them that should they be raped at age 16, their doctor can refuse to write them a prescription for Plan B because everyone knows only sluts use Plan B.

tiny yelling man

“From a Distance” is depressing and creepy.

Posted by Ampersand | January 4th, 2009 | Crossposted from Blog By Barry

I know it’s supposed to be inspiring, but really:

From a distance we are instruments
Marching in a common band.
Playing songs of hope, playing songs of peace.
Theyre the songs of every man.
God is watching us. God is watching us.
God is watching us from a distance.

From a distance you look like my friend,
Even though we are at war.
From a distance I just cannot comprehend
What all this fighting is for.

"God Saves The Sea," uploaded by ePi.Longo with a Creative Commons license. Click on image for details.Shorter “From a Distance” lyrics: “God is too far away to realize how much everything here sucks. So rejoice!”

My friend Sara pointed out that the right vocalist could turn this song into a subversive critique of theism, just by singing it with a bitter, cynical tone.

Posted in Uncategorized      
tiny yelling man

The New Yorker on Nine Easy Steps To Weight Loss

Posted by Ampersand | January 4th, 2009 | Crossposted from Blog By Barry

Amy Ozols has a weight-loss plan for you:

Step 3: Get rid of your “fat clothes.” Keeping your closet stocked with unflattering garments will only distract you from your quest for a slender body. To complete this step, shred or burn everything in your closet, including any hangers or shelving that a fat person may have touched. Refrain from donating anything to charity, as this could cause underprivileged people to become obese, which would be unsavory and possibly even illegal.

Step 4: Refrain from consuming food.

Step 5: Surround yourself with thin people. This will naturally encourage you to emulate their healthy habits. Weigh your friends on a regular basis, then weigh yourself. Do you have a friend who weighs less than you? If so, consider gastric bypass surgery.

Read the other six steps here.

Posted in Fat, fat, and more fat      
Thanks to Eva for the link!
tiny yelling man

Inhuman

Posted by Jeff Fecke | January 4th, 2009

Michael Goldfarb comes out in favor of killing children to make a point. In reaction to news that Israel, in the process of killing senior Hamas leader Nizar Rayan, also killed Rayan’s four wives and nine of his children, Goldfarb says this:

The fight against Islamic radicals always seems to come around to whether or not they can, in fact, be deterred, because it’s not clear that they are rational, at least not like us. But to wipe out a man’s entire family, it’s hard to imagine that doesn’t give his colleagues at least a moment’s pause. Perhaps it will make the leadership of Hamas rethink the wisdom of sparking an open confrontation with Israel under the current conditions.

As Matt Yglesias correctly notes, ”he’s not saying that it’s sometimes okay to kill a bad guy’s innocent children as part of a military operation directed against the guy. He’s saying it’s better to kill his children than it would be to avoid killing them.”

There’s a word for people who think killing children is a good way to achieve a political end. Those people are called terrorists.

Over at my site I’ve attracted a troll of late, one who appears convinced that I’m totally in love with Hamas and totally hate Israel because I’m critical of the Israeli incursion into Gaza. Sorry, but I’ve got no love for Hamas; an organization that targets civilians is reprehensible, and Hamas is only going to drive its people further into degradation, until and unless it renounces violence and begins dealing with Israel as if Israelis have a right to exist.

But the sentence can be reversed. When you advocate killing, not just your enemies, but your enemies’ families, you’re on no higher moral ground then the cowards lobbing rockets into Israeli neighborhoods.

The fact is that too many on both sides view the other as subhuman. One cannot express satisfaction at the murder of children if one views them as children, and not simply pawns in a game. One cannot target civilian neighborhoods with death if one views those as neighborhoods full of human beings, rather than targets who need to be eliminated. Time after time, whether we’re talking about the 1948 ethnic cleansing in Palestine or the Passover Massacre, belligerents on both sides have chosen to view their opponents as others, as aliens, as non-humans.

Well, I’m sorry, but both sides are made up of people, people with legitimate claims on the same land, people who deserve what all people deserve: the right to live in dignity and peace, secure in their lives, free to live their lives according to the dictates of their consciences. There are too many on both sides of this conflict who simply do not believe this applies to the other side. But the truth is that both Israelis and Palestinians must be treated as humans, first and foremost. And both groups can only be secure when both groups recognize that. Until then, we’ll have more massacres, more attacks, more counter-attacks, more solemn moralizing that the other side deserves death because of what they’ve done. And all it will lead to is more death, more destruction, more hate, and more fear.

tiny yelling man

Worst Bush Moments: #17, Cheney’s Got a Gun

Posted by Jeff Fecke | January 4th, 2009

There’s really no way you can make a list of worst Bush moments without including a few of Dick Cheney’s greatest moments. After all, Cheney is, in many ways, a more important figure than Bush in the grand scheme of things. He set the tone for a Bush Administration that was bellicose, secretive, given to shoot first and ask questions later.

And that’s why Cheney shooting a guy in the face has to be on this list. Because it’s such a perfect distillation of everything wrong with Dick Cheney and the Bush Administration.

Do we have a reckless disregard for human life? Check. Buck-passing galore? Check. An attempt to hide the truth? Check. The only thing we didn’t have was a self-serving explanation of why we’d do this even knowing everything we know, but Rob Corddry helpfully provided that:

(My favorite line in that sketch is “In a post-9/11 world…”, which had decidedly jumped the shark by that point.)

Of course, this has been Dick Cheney’s — and the Bush Administration’s — modus operandi since day one. React, don’t think. When things go bad, blame someone else. When confronted on it, pretend that it was very important all along. Whether we’re talking about the U.S. Attorney scandal, Harry Whittington getting shot in the face, or torturing prisoners, this is what the Bush Administration does.

tiny yelling man

All Over but the Suing

Posted by Jeff Fecke | January 3rd, 2009

stuartsmalley.jpg


The Minnesota Senate race is not over, not officially. The race won’t be certified until Monday, and election challenges loom after that. But for all intents and purposes, Al Franken locked up victory today, extending his lead to 225 votes.

This leaves Norm Coleman in a very bad spot. Coleman has claimed through his attorneys that there are 130 more votes for him (or more accurately, 130 fewer for Franken) if “duplicate ballots” are thrown out. And Coleman also has been upset by 46 votes Franken gained from a Minneapolis precinct in which 133 ballots were lost, and in which the initial machine count was used instead of the hand recount.

But 130+46=176. And that leaves Franken a winner by 49 votes. Coleman would need to find more votes somewhere, which is why he’s currently suing to try to get an additional 634 absentee ballots counted — but those are ballots that do not appear to have been improperly rejected, which county officials say were properly rejected. It’s hard to imagine that changing at this late date.

In short, Coleman can sue, and likely will. But it’s hard to see any way in which the numbers work for him. At this point, Coleman is delaying the inevitable. That’s his right, but that doesn’t make it smart politically. If Coleman wants to, say, run for governor in 2010, he’s better off conceding graciously and rebuilding.

tiny yelling man

Eleventh Doctor: Another White Dude

Posted by Mandolin | January 3rd, 2009

I’m sure he’ll be great. But can we please have a doctor who is non-white or non-male, or, I dunno, maybe both?

At the VERY least, I demand Rowan Atkinson.

tiny yelling man

Why White People Think Manga Characters are White

Posted by Ampersand | January 3rd, 2009 | Crossposted from Blog By Barry

Image uploaded by Steve Keys

Excellent essay by Matt Thorn (with a curtsy to Shati):

A key concept in semiotics is that of “markedness” and “unmarkedness,” elaborated by linguist Roman Jakobson in the 1930s. ((See On Language, by Roman Jakobson (edited by Linda R. Waugh and Monique Monville-Burston), Harvard University Press 1995.)) An “unmarked” category is one that is taken for granted, that is so obvious to both speaker and listener it needs no marking. A “marked” category, by contrast, is one that is seen as deviating from the norm, and therefore requires marking. Well-known examples in English are the words “man” and “woman.” “Man” has for a millennium meant both “human being” and “adult male human being.” The word “woman” comes from a compound meaning “wife-man,” and denotes the relationship of the signified to that “unmarked” category, “man.”

In the case of cartooning, of course, we are dealing with drawn representations rather than words, but the concept of “marked/unmarked” is every bit as salient. In the case of the U.S., and indeed the entire European-dominated world, the unmarked category in drawn representations would be the face of the European. The European face is, as it were, the default face. Draw a circle, add two dots for eyes and a line for a mouth, and you have, in the European sphere, a European face. (More specifically, you would have a male European face. The addition of eyelashes would make it female.) Non-Europeans, however, must be marked in drawn or painted representations, just as they commonly are in daily conversation (e.g., “I have this Black friend who…”). [...]

It should come as no surprise, then, that Japanese readers should have no trouble accepting the stylized characters in manga, with their small jaws, all but nonexistent noses, and famously enormous eyes as “Japanese.” Unless the characters are clearly identified as foreign, Japanese readers see them as Japanese, and it would never occur to most readers that they might be otherwise, regardless of whether non-Japanese observers think the characters look Japanese or not.

Read the whole.

This sentence stung me a little:

If an American of Asian descent wants to create a children’s book intended to build self-esteem among Asian American children and educate other children about Asian American experiences, she must first make sure the readers know that the characters represented are Asian, and so, consciously or not, she resorts to stereotyped signifiers that are easily recognizable, such as “slanted” eyes (an exaggerated representation of the epicanthic fold that is often, but not always, more pronounced in East Asians than in Europeans or Africans) or pitch black, straight hair (regardless of the fact that East Asian hair can range from near-black to reddish brown, and is often wavy or even frizzy).

I’m not of Asian decent, but I’ve hit this problem as well: because of the limits of my drawing ability, the only way I can draw recognizably Asian characters is by using slant-eyes and straight, shiny black hair (see this cartoon, for example). I’m a bit embarrassed by this, but I’d be more embarrassed if I were drawing a cartoon in which Asians never appear. (Or, more accurately, a cartoon in which characters my readers will identify as Asian never appear.)

Posted in Comics and cartooning, Race, racism, and related issues      
tiny yelling man

Worst Bush Moments: #18, Go Shopping

Posted by Jeff Fecke | January 3rd, 2009

There was a moment, after 9/11, when George W. Bush could have successfully convinced our nation to make some real, positive changes for the future. He could have instituted a crash energy-independence program, pushed for us to consume less fuel, which would in turn allow us to lessen our own footprint in the Middle East — and which would make oil a less important resource for us to pursue. He could have asked us for a modest tax increase to pay for the war on terror — a bit of national sacrifice that would have left our economy in much better shape. He could have asked for a lot.

George W. Bush asked America to go shopping and fly frequently.

Dubya’s unwillingness to ask Americans to make a sacrifice — any sacrifice — was a tragic failure. Instead of driving less, Americans drove more, at least until oil became prohibitively expensive. Instead of all of us pitching in to support the war, only those of us who wore a uniform (or were related to them) were asked to bear the brunt of the Afghan war and the Iraq fiasco. Meanwhile, our nation came apart at the seams, unable to work together to build for a common future.

Of course, the rich got richer, which was Bush’s primary goal. So that worked out all right.

Ultimately, the decision to ask Americans to sacrifice by shopping drove us off the cliff; asked to spend freely, people used their houses as ATM machines, urged on by the Bush Administration’s lax policies. And today, we’re reaping the benefits, if by “benefits” you mean “a Depression.” But hey, at least for one bright moment in 2001-2002, we were all united in buing new televisions. That made it all worth it.

tiny yelling man

Sarah in Chicago could use a little help

Posted by Ampersand | January 2nd, 2009

Regular “Alas” readers will remember “Sarah in Chicago” — she’s posted over 200 comments on “Alas” over the years. Sadly, her father has passed away unexpectedly. On top of everything else, the expense of going to New Zealand for the funeral is a lot. So if you can spare any amount at all, please go to Sarah’s livejournal and hit the donate button.

I know that Shakesville and Pandagon have posted about this (and probably lots of others, too); if lots of people in the community donate small amounts, the collective help to Sarah could make a big difference to her.

Thanks.

tiny yelling man

Links to Israeli and Jewish voices opposing Israel’s attacks on Gaza

Posted by Ampersand | January 2nd, 2009

Fathima Cader writes:

I posted a note on my Facebook profile of a list of Israel and Jewish voices opposing Israel’s attacks on Gaza (Word Doc). It begins, “Contrary to what popular media in North America claims, there are critical voices in Israel and among American Jews.” Though I put it up, I paused before writing that sentence, particularly the bit about American Jews, because of how uncomfortable I feel when people write carelessly about resistance movements among Muslims. I wondered if I was being just as condescending as others are when they take Muslim activists out of context in order to use their comments to bolster their own self-righteousness. [...]

Ultimately, I think the links I put up are ones that need to be read, because the papers I read are doing a troublingly good job of not giving them publicity. I wish, though, that I could word it in a way that more carefully distanced American Jewry from Israeli policy, in the way that I demand people understand the distance between Muslims and Al Qaeda.

On writing about America’s progressive Jewry, Steve Ackerman notes:

You don’t want to reduce yourself to the mere fact of your heritage and become a self-parody. You have other stuff to write about and pay attention to. You don’t want to hurt your mother’s feelings.

That resonates with me.

Read the whole post here.

And here, with Fathima’s permission, is her link list (everything in this post following this line is written by Fathima, not me):

Other Israels

Contrary to what popular media in North America claims, there are critical voices in Israel and among American Jews. Don’t support the violence just because it looks like only the terrorists (/muslims /arabs) aren’t.1

Tom Segev at Haaretz: Trying to ‘teach Hamas a lesson’ is fundamentally wrong

All of Israel’s wars have been based on yet another assumption that has been with us from the start: that we are only defending ourselves. “Half a million Israelis are under fire,” screamed the banner headline of Sunday’s Yedioth Ahronoth - just as if the Gaza Strip had not been subjected to a lengthy siege that destroyed an entire generation’s chances of living lives worth living [...] Most dangerous of all is the cliche that there is no one to talk to. That has never been true. There are even ways to talk with Hamas, and Israel has something to offer the organization. Ending the siege of Gaza and allowing freedom of movement between Gaza and the West Bank could rehabilitate life in the Strip.

Harm to civilians during the fighting in Gaza and Southern Israel
Israeli human rights groups track civilian casualties:

  • Adalah - The legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel
  • Amnesty International Israel Section
  • B’Tselem - the Israeli Informaion Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories
  • Bimkom - Planners for Planning Rights
  • Hamoked - Center for the Defense of the Individual
  • Physicians for Human Rights- Israel
  • Public Committee Against Torture in Israel
  • Rabbis for Human Rights
  • The Association for Civil Rights in Israel
  • Yesh Din - Volunteers for Human Rights
  • Jewish Voices for Peace: JVP statement on Gaza attacks

    Jewish Voice for Peace joins millions around the world, including the 1,000 Israelis who protested in the streets of Tel Aviv this weekend, in condemning ongoing Israeli attacks on Gaza. We call for an immediate end to attacks on all civilians, whether Palestinian or Israeli.

    B’Tselem: B’Tselem to Attorney General Mazuz: Concern over Israel targeting civilian objects in the Gaza Strip

    For example, the military bombed the main police building in Gaza and killed, according to reports, forty-two Palestinians who were in a training course and were standing in formation at the time of the bombing. Participants in the course study first-aid, handling of public disturbances, human rights, public-safety exercises, and so forth. Following the course, the police officers are assigned to various arms of the police force in Gaza responsible for maintaining public order [...] These are just examples of what appear to be clear civilian objects attacked by the army. On the face of it, the activity carried out in these places is not military activity aimed against Israel, and the IDF spokesperson does not even make this claim. Clearly, then, they cannot be considered military objects in accordance with the provisions of international humanitarian law.

    J-Street: Statement by Jeremy Ben-Ami, Executive Director, on Israeli Airstrikes in Gaza

    Respecting Israel’s right to defend itself, we urge leaders there to recognize that there is no military solution to what is fundamentally a political conflict between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples [...] The United States, the Quartet, and the world community must not wait - as they did in the Israel-Lebanon crisis of 2006 - for weeks to pass and hundreds or thousands more to die before intervening. There needs to be an urgent end to the new hostilities that brings a complete cessation to the rocket fire out of Gaza and that allows food, fuel and other civilian necessities into Gaza. The need for diplomatic engagement goes beyond a short-term ceasefire.

    Ezra Klein at The American Prospect: An Occupied Nation and a Threatened One

    One important disconnect in Israel/Palestine debate is that Israel’s supporters tend to focus on what the Palestinians want while Palestine’s supporters tend to focus on what the Israelis do. Israel’s defenders, for instance, make a lot of Hamas’s willingness to kill large numbers of civilians. Palestine’s defenders make a lot of the fact that Israel actually kills large numbers of Palestinian civilians.

    The Magnes Zionist: How the Western Media is Falling for Israeli Spin

    And BBC, please fire the journalist who gets his (dis)information from Israeli spokespeople. You didn’t know that the cabinet had approved the Gaza operation? Well, for Chrissake, you should have read the Friday Haaretz, where the headline was: 70 rocket strikes in southern Israel; Cabinet approves military response.

    In the Hebrew edition, the cabinet was said to have authorized earlier in the week the Defense Minister and Prime Minister to decide on the timing of the operation.

    Mathew Yglesias: Attack on Gaza

    The strikes were in response to Hamas’ habit of launching indiscriminant rocket fire from Gaza land, though how exactly these strikes are supposed to stop the rockets is mysterious to me. Less mysterious is the idea that the Kadima-Labour coalition wants to “look tough” and beat off the political challenge from Bibi Netanyahu and the Likud.

    Spencer Ackerman at The Washington Independent: Progressive Jewish Groups See Test in Crisis

    “Absolutely,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, executive director of J Street, a new liberal Jewish lobby group. “This is a real testing moment for those of us who honestly believe you can be supportive of Israel but questioning of steps its government takes.”

    M.J. Rosenberg, director of policy analysis for the Israel Policy Forum, another progressive Jewish organization, was similarly blunt. “It’s put-up-or-shut-up time,” he said. “For a two-state solution, for the U.S. to be an honest broker — if all of us just sit back and say, ‘Israel had no choice [to bomb Gaza], then we’re just a bunch of phonies. But I don’t see that happening.”

    Laila El-Haddad writes about trying to stay in contact with her family in Gaza: Safety is a state of mind

    When the bombs are dropped around them, they send me a quick note to inform me of what happened before running to safety. I am still not sure where “safety” is; and neither, I think, do they. It is perhaps more a mental state and place than a physical one. In any other situations, people flee to where they perceive are safer locations. In Gaza, there is no “safe”. And there is no where to flee to, with the borders closed, the sky and sea under siege.

    The question should never be anything except rhetorical: where do you run to for safety, when there’s a wall up that’s there expressly for the purpose of keeping you in?

    1. Before anyone asks, I’m quite sure the conflation of “terrorists” with “muslims” and “arabs” is sarcastic, not literal. –Amp (back)
    tiny yelling man

    “Passive Houses” — Heating without furnaces

    Posted by Ampersand | January 2nd, 2009

    Hey, what if you could have a house that’s much friendlier to the environment and costs about a tenth as much to heat? Passive houses are here:

    Even on the coldest nights in central Germany, Mr. Kaufmann’s new “passive house” and others of this design get all the heat and hot water they need from the amount of energy that would be needed to run a hair dryer. [...]

    Using ultrathick insulation and complex doors and windows, the architect engineers a home encased in an airtight shell, so that barely any heat escapes and barely any cold seeps in. That means a passive house can be warmed not only by the sun, but also by the heat from appliances and even from occupants’ bodies.

    The concept has been tried before, but failed because of problems with mold and stale air. A new air circulating system, in which cold air gong in is heated by the warm air going out, has solved this problem.

    But the sophisticated windows and heat-exchange ventilation systems needed to make passive houses work properly are not readily available in the United States. So the construction of passive houses in the United States, at least initially, is likely to entail a higher price differential.

    Moreover, the kinds of home construction popular in the United States are more difficult to adapt to the standard: residential buildings tend not to have built-in ventilation systems of any kind, and sliding windows are hard to seal.

    Sounds like the sort of thing that some sort of big green infrastructure investment stimulus package might want to invest in.

    tiny yelling man

    “If I seem a bit cocky…”

    Posted by Ampersand | January 2nd, 2009



    Via Womanist Musings, where Renee has posted a transcript as well.

    You may also want to check out Julia Serano’s website. (Serano is best known as the author of “Whipping Girl”.)

    tiny yelling man