Alas, a Blog | Feminist, anti-racist, pro-fat, plus whatever else we feel like talking about.

If you can spare a little money and would like to save some lives..

Posted on October 25, 2005 by Ampersand

I don’t really talk about international issues much, but if you have a few bucks you can spare, then right now is an essential time to donate to help vicitms of the Pakistan earthquake. Media Girl is on the case.

In her comments, Media Girl asks why the US media is so completely off the case:

BBC World covers the tragedy every single night. US media does not. Why?

Disaster burnout? Too many US disasters?

My feeling is that it’s a combination of two things, primarily: Islamophobia, thanks to our president’s pandering to the worst impulses of xenophobia, and a feeling of powerlessness that has grown since the utter failure of our government in the aftermath of Katrina.

Or maybe it’s simply that the conglomerates that own the mainstream media don’t see any profit opportunity in Pakistan, and don’t want people sending more money overseas.

Maybe I’m too cynical. But look at the scale of this disaster, and look at the virtual non-existence of the coverage, and tell me it’s just that it slipped the news editors’ minds.

Posted in International issues, Media criticism | 1 Comment

Good news, Bad news, more Miers zaniness

Posted on October 25, 2005 by Pseudo-Adrienne

First up–some good news (if you’re a woman in Alaska), via Bush v. Choice, and the Alaska State Medical Board, who voted down a proposal that would have required a woman to have a doctor’s appointment before accessing emergency contraception.

[…]The action came a day after the board heard and reviewed public comment that overwhelmingly urged the board to continue to allow women to get the so-called morning-after pills from pharmacists.

Emergency contraception is a pill that prevents pregnancies from starting. It is not the same as RU-486, a drug that’s taken to abort a fetus. Doctors supporting quicker access to emergency contraception say it should be taken within 72 hours of sex to prevent pregnancy, but it’s better to take it within 12 hours.

Right now, women can go right to a participating pharmacist to get the pills. The medical board’s proposal would have required women to have a doctor’s exam prior to getting the drug.

Dr. John Middaugh, longtime state epidemiologist, told the board on Thursday there’s no medical or scientific justification for the change. The board’s proposal would limit, if not eliminate, women’s access to this drug, he said.

“We all know that nationally, politics have interceded,” Middaugh said. “Please don’t let the politics trump science and undermine the integrity of the state medical board.”[…] (emphasis mine)

Good luck with that one. Especially under this administration’s politics. Remember this woman who used to work at the FDA? Now onto to some bad news, which also serves as a reminder why every emergency room in the country should have EC available for sexual assault/rape victims, so called “conscience clauses” should be eliminated, and why EC should be made over-the-counter. An Arizona woman who was the victim of sexual assault was denied access to EC at the one pharmacy she could find to have the drug in stock (again via Bush v. Choice). Apparently, the pharmacist on duty had one of those spur-of-the-moment “moral objections.” Riiight.

[…]After a sexual assault one recent weekend, a young Tucson woman spent three frantic days trying to obtain the drug to prevent a pregnancy, knowing that each passing day lowered the chance the drug would work.

While calling dozens of Tucson pharmacies trying to fill a prescription for emergency contraception, she found that most did not stock the drug.

When she finally did find a pharmacy with it, she said she was told the pharmacist on duty would not dispense it because of religious and moral objections. (emphasis mine)

[…]Yet, family-planning agencies say they’ve seen a 60 percent increase in demand for the drug in recent years. The statistics are creating what advocates say is a frightening situation for some women. But others are glad pharmacists have a choice.

Women who report sexual assaults to police receive treatment, examination and the immediate offer of emergency contraception at a local emergency room, according to the policy of most Tucson hospitals.

But, like many sexual assault victims, the 20-year-old woman did not report the assault because she felt traumatized and guilty she had put herself in a situation that left her vulnerable. She was mistakenly locked outside a gathering at a friend’s house and accepted the offer of a neighbor to stay at his place.

“This (sex) was with someone I did not even know and did not want to have intercourse with, and I am in no place now to have children,” she said. “I just don’t think this should be the pharmacist’s decision.”

Oh but I’m sure the anti-choice/anti-EC wingnuts aiding this phenomenon all throughout the country, and the pharmacist who denied you, would be happy to throw a baby-shower for you, should you find yourself pregnant. Perhaps the pharmacist would be happy to adopt the hypothetical future child, and even invite your rapist over for a cigar when he takes it home from the hospital (severe sarcasm).

The manager of the Fry’s pharmacy at 3920 E. Grant Road, where the refusal occurred, offered to find another location where the prescription could be filled, according to a Fry’s spokeswoman. But the young woman said she was offered no other options.[…]

But a friend with the sexual assault victim that night strongly disputed that account.

“He (the manager) said he would fill it himself if we could get there before his shift ended, within 10 minutes,” said Sabrina Fladness, a University of Arizona student and owner of a computer service business.

“But we were more than 10 minutes away, so that was impossible. So he said we would have to come back the next morning” – after the shift of the refusing pharmacist ended.

“He made no provision for getting it that night,” she said.

The two also attempted to obtain the drug at a Planned Parenthood clinic, but could not afford the $70 cost and apparently were not informed that Planned Parenthood will work out payment on a sliding scale fee.[…]

But the biggest roadblock to obtaining emergency contraception was that most pharmacies simply do not stock it, Fladness said. She said she called nearly 50, before finding two that had it and agreed to dispense it.[…]

Sigh. There is no end to this. Too bad it’s the victim feeling the shame and guilt, when it belongs to her rapist, and now some self-righteous pharmacist, who should join the clergy if he wants to bitch about “morals” and force them on people. Ugh. And finally onto a very interesting list I found on WithdrawMiers.org.

Withdrawal

American Conservative Union
Arizona Republic
Charles Krauthamer
Citizen Outreach
Conservative HQ
David Frum
Fidelis
George Will
Liberty Counsel
Mark Moller, Cato Supreme Court Review
National Review
Patrick Buchanan
Peggy Noonan
Phyllis Schlafly
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Republican National Coalition For Life
Judge Robert Bork
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
William Kristol
Young Americas Foundation […]

Read the rest of the list of ‘Advocates’ (not all are on the ‘withdraw’ portion of the list). Very interesting. Well the IWF still support the Miers’ nomination and last I heard Dobson still does, so maybe Bush isn’t entirely shit-out-of-luck just yet. Meanwhile the National Organization for Women is launching a ‘Speak out for Women’s Lives’ campaign, in hopes of swaying Senators to vote ‘no’ on Miers. Not that many of them would vote ‘no’ on Miers should she come up for a confirmation vote, because some of them (ie: the Democratic Senators) would rather roll over and play dead, then dare stand up for reproductive rights (or stand up for anything their party platform alleges they would).

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights, Anti-Contraceptives/EC zaniness, Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc., Supreme Court Issues | 5 Comments

Average Citizens Are Cut Out of The Marketplace of Ideas

Posted on October 25, 2005 by Ampersand

QUOTE

From a speech by Al Gore.

Radio, the internet, movies, telephones, and other media all now vie for our attention – but it is television that still completely dominates the flow of information in modern America….

Soon after television established its dominance over print, young people who realized they were being shut out of the dialogue of democracy came up with a new form of expression in an effort to join the national conversation: the “demonstration.” This new form of expression, which began in the 1960s, was essentially a poor quality theatrical production designed to capture the attention of the television cameras long enough to hold up a sign with a few printed words to convey, however plaintively, a message to the American people. Even this outlet is now rarely an avenue for expression on national television.

So, unlike the marketplace of ideas that emerged in the wake of the printing press, there is virtually no exchange of ideas at all in television’s domain.[…]

It is important to note that the absence of a two-way conversation in American television also means that there is no “meritocracy of ideas” on television. To the extent that there is a “marketplace” of any kind for ideas on television, it is a rigged market, an oligopoly, with imposing barriers to entry that exclude the average citizen.

Posted in Media criticism | 31 Comments

Should we legally recognize polyamorous marriages?

Posted on October 25, 2005 by Ampersand

(Full disclosure: I have good friends who are in legally unrecognized three-person marriages; and my own living situation is arguably a three-way marriage.)

In my view, what marriage does is enable unrelated adults to become, legally, each other’s closest kin. I don’t see a single moral reason why three or more people who wish to shouldn’t be able to have their marriage legally recognized, and so become each other’s closest kin.

However, I see three practical reasons to not legally recognize polyamorous marriages.

First, legal questions. Two is a convenient number for closest kin; if Ken and Barbie are each other’s closest kin, that provides legal clarity, which is very useful from the state’s perspective. If Ken dies without a will, Barbie inherits; if Ken is in a coma, Barbie is his legal guardian and decision-maker; and so forth.

But what happens when Ken, Barbie and Steve Austin are all each other’s closest kin? If Ken is in a coma and Barbie and Steve Austin can’t agree on medical treatment, what happens?

Of course, “usually” avoided is not the same as “always avoided,” as the Terri Schiavo case proved. But more often than not, two-person marriage does succeed in establishing that A is B’s closest relative for such purposes; and the Schiavo case also illustrates exactly why it’s a nightmare when courts do not have that clarity.

There are other legal ambiguities created if we allow more than two to marry. If Barbie divorces Steve and Ken, is the whole marriage dissolved, or are Steve and Ken still spouses? Can Barbie divorce Steve but remained married to Ken? Can Ken marry G.I. Joe without Barbie’s and Steve’s permission? There may be a legitimate state interest in avoiding such legal muddles.

Second, polyamorous marriages, unlike same-sex marriages, actually would change the nature of already-existing legal marriages. Most married couples currently understand that when they got married, they were choosing a single sex partner for life – and for most, that’s an absolutely essential part of marriage. The legal possibility of adding new partner(s) would change that – suddenly the exclusivity they thought they were signing up for, isn’t necessarily exclusive. (What does a wife do if her husband wants to start dating – but he’s not cheating on her, he says, he’s just courting potential new partners?)

Legal same sex marriage doesn’t change anything about the nature of already-existing marriages – making claims that SSM is unfair to other married couples moot. The same can’t necessarily be said for legalizing polyamorous marriages.

Third, and perhaps most important, all too often polygamous marriages are a tool for oppression and abuse of women and children. It’s likely that legally recognized polygamous marriage could make such abuses more acceptable and more difficult to fight – a price that’s too high to pay. And, once again, a compelling state interest.

I don’t assume these problems are insolvable; but they’d have to be convincingly addressed before I could support legally recognizing polygamous marriage.

Posted in Families structures, divorce, etc | 70 Comments

Stonewalling tactics and still more trouble

Posted on October 24, 2005 by Pseudo-Adrienne

Big surprise. Bush is refusing to release documents and records of his conversations with Harriet Miers to the Senate. He’s using the attorney-client privilege and confidentiality defense, apparently. According to Dubya, the Dems and Republicans making these requests are wanting to know about the ‘decision-making process’ that went into the nomination of Miers, and what were her recommendations. Gee, I wonder what all they discussed during their conversations. Hmm.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush said Monday that he will not release any records of his conversations with Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers that could threaten the confidentiality of the advice that presidents get from their lawyers.

“It’s a red line I’m not willing to cross,” Bush said.

Both Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are demanding more documents on Miers, including from her work at Bush’s counsel.

“People can learn about Harriet Miers through hearings, but we are not going to destroy this business about people being able to walk into the Oval Office to say, Mr. President, this is my advice,” Bush said after a meeting with his Cabinet.[…]

True–we can learn more about Miers during the hearings, and there is attorney-client privilege, and ‘all that’. Or least during the hearings we can learn all about her prepared statements and carefully coached answers–just like every other SCOTUS nominee.

“Recently, requests, however, have been made by Democrats and Republicans about paperwork out of this White House that would make it impossible for me and other presidents to be able to make sound decisions,” Bush said. “In other words, they’ve asked for paperwork about the decision- making process, what her recommendations were. And that would breach very important confidentially.”[…]

Schumer: Miers lacks votes

New York Sen. Charles Schumer, a Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee that will hold hearings on her nomination said Sunday that she doesn’t have the votes to be confirmed. Republicans countered that Schumer cannot predict how the GOP-controlled Senate will decide Miers’ fate.

Many Republicans have yet to commit to approve President Bush’s second nominee to the high court, and some outside conservatives have started organized efforts to force the White House to withdraw her name.

And there’s still trouble for Bush in some areas of the Conservative Base…..

Conservative groups like the Third Branch Conference, Eagle Forum, and Center for Military Readiness are now organizing efforts to force Miers’ withdrawal, including starting a Web site: http://www.withdrawmiers.org/.

“If President Bush continues with this nomination, he’s in serious danger of permanent losing the support of the majority of the conservative movement,” said Richard Viguerie, a conservative direct-mail fund-raising guru who runs American Target Advertising.

Miers’ confirmation hearings begin Nov. 7. Schumer said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” that lawmakers of both parties are concerned about Miers’ independence and judicial philosophy.

“I think, if you were to hold the vote today, she would not get a majority, either in the Judiciary Committee or on the floor,” he said. “I think there is maybe one or two on the Judiciary Committee who have said they’d support her as of right now.”

Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, rejected the notion that Miers’ nomination was shaky. He said most senators are waiting for the hearings before making up their minds. “There are no votes one way or another,” he said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”[…]

Democrats, too, have expressed concerns about whether Miers could sever her close ties to Bush and rule independently once on the bench.

Oh we’ll just have to wait and see, once she gets on the SCOTUS.

Posted in Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc., Elections and politics, Supreme Court Issues | 9 Comments

Why the Slope Won't Slip

Posted on October 24, 2005 by Ampersand

Cathy at The Y Files is right on target when she writes:

the reasoning used to justify the legalization of same-sex marriage (i.e., the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s assertion, in Goodrich v. Department of Public Health, that marrying “the person of one’s choice” is a fundamental right) could be used to support legalization of polygamy. For that to happen, however, there would have to be (1) a non-fringe political movement advocating for the right to multi-partner marriage, and (2) widespread social acceptance of multi-partner relationships. Of course, (1) and (2) are related. At this point in time, neither factor is present: the polyamory movement has about as much influence as the Flat Earth Society, and multi-partner relationships are almost universally regarded as either immoral or just plain weird.

To that, I’d add that even if SSM is banned, it will still be possible for poly marriages to be legalized if (1) and (2) happens. So although you can argue for the existence of a theoretical slope between them (as Young does), in practice there’s not much connection between them.

(Slight nit-pik: ploygamy is already legal, so the question isn’t “legalization of polygamy,” as Cathy states; what’s at issue is if polyamorous marriages will be legally recognized.)

Posted in Same-Sex Marriage | 23 Comments

28% of Americans Say They Wouldn't Vote For a Woman As President

Posted on October 23, 2005 by Ampersand

According to a new WNBC poll, 28% of American adults say they would not vote for a woman for President regardless of party.

By sex, 23% of women and 33% of men say they wouldn’t vote for a woman for President.

By political affiliation, 21% of Democrats, 29% of Republicans, and 31% of independants wouldn’t vote for a woman for President.

The numbers look better if you concentrate on younger people; for instance, “only” 16% of women under 45 say they’d never vote for a woman.

Hat tip: Pam at Pandagon.

Posted in Elections and politics, Feminism, sexism, etc | 21 Comments

Student Penalized by WSU for Right-Wing Views

Posted on October 23, 2005 by Ampersand

Washington State University apparently has acted in a repulsive manner, penalizing a right-wing student for his politics.

Gosh, I hate agreeing with John Leo.

Posted in Whatever | 66 Comments