Experimenting with ads on "Alas"

As you’ve no doubt noticed, I’m experimenting with ads on the sidebar of “Alas.” I’m trying this out with a lot of trepidation. But here’s what it comes down to:

1) In a good year, my income is $12,000 before taxes.

2) This year will not be a good year, if the last seven months are any indication.

3) My monthly take-home is low enough so that even an extra hundred a month would make a difference. My impression is that some of the other “Alas” bloggers are similarly on the financial edge, where even a little extra money matters. (Although none of them have said so to me; the decision to try out ads was solely mine.)

So given all that, if there’s a source of income available to me, I’m not in a good position to ignore it. And if the ad program works well, that could enable me to spend more time on “Alas,” which I’d like.

So: Ads. I’m only doing ad programs that allow me to reject ads I find offensive – although in the case of google ads, building the filter up is a gradual process, so it’ll be a little while before I’ve successfully censored all the diet ads from this website.

I realize that many “Alas” readers don’t like ads. I feel bad about having ads on the site, frankly. But for right now, in my life, this may be a necessary evil. Then again, maybe they’ll be a total failure, and if they are I can yank them off the site, which will cheer me up even if I’m broke. We’ll see how it goes.

Posted in Site and Admin Stuff | 19 Comments

The immediate danger to abortion rights isn't that Roe will be overturned

An interesting article on Women’s E News argues that, once Justice Roberts joins the court, Justice Kennedy will become the most important abortion rights vote – the one that other justices will have to sway. Kennedy has been pro-Roe in recent years, but he was with the 4-5 minority that voted to allow states to ban vaguely-defined “partial birth” abortions, even when they were necessary to preserve a women’s health.

At the end, E News touches briefly – far too briefly – on the most important legal challenge to abortion rights facing the Supreme Court:

Also to be reviewed [by the Court later this year] is the basis upon which women’s advocates may challenge anti-choice laws, an important issue for keeping open the courthouse doors when burdensome restrictions are passed.

I wish they had spent more time discussing this. If the Court decides to apply “the Salerno standard” to abortion cases, it will become ten times harder for pro-choice organizations to fight new abortion bans and restrictions in the courts. Even an obviously unconstitutional abortion ban might remain good law for many years while court cases drag on, enabling pro-lifers to effectively ban abortion in far more cases than they currently can.

This is what Jack Balkin was referring to when he wrote “Courts now enjoin new abortion laws as soon as they are passed if they burden some women’s right to abortion. But next term the court will decide whether to change that rule. If it does, states could pass stringent restrictions on abortion; these could remain on the books for years until lawsuits knock away the most blatantly unconstitutional features. That is not the same as overturning Roe v. Wade, but its practical effect is very similar.”

It may be a mistake that so many pro-choicers, when discussing the Supreme Court and abortion, are talking about the future of Roe and Casey. Until Justice Kennedy radically changed his views, or Ginsberg or Stephens unexpectedly retires, Roe is safe – but that doesn’t mean that practical access to abortion is being upheld by the Court. The much more immediate danger is that no one has any idea how Kennedy or Roberts will vote on applying the Salerno standard to abortion cases.

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights, Supreme Court Issues | 4 Comments

Wicked's Appeal to Teenagers

Stereotypes are alive and well in the New York Times:

“Wicked” – which is a prequel and a sequel to “Oz,” both rarities in the theater despite their ubiquity in Hollywood – remains perfectly pitched to teenagers. For that, much credit goes to the book writer, Winnie Holzman, who created the cult 1990’s television series “My So-Called Life,” an unlikely predecessor for “Wicked” that also tapped into a certain kind of teenage angst that seemed refreshingly authentic at the time.

With “Wicked,” she has once again hit upon themes (makeovers, popularity, boys) that obsess girls.

Gee, if only “Wicked” had included tea parties with dolls or had colored everything pink. Or maybe had included a few songs about makeup and hair. Or had more horses – girls like horses, right? Then it would have been even bigger with teen girls!

There is indeed a makeover scene, and a boy, in “Wicked.” But it’s the grand (and yes, angsty) themes of the star-crossed friendship between two strong female characters, and a tragicly misunderstood, doomed main character, that appeals to so many teen girls. (How many modern musicals make a female friendship the center of the plot? Hell, how many even have two strong female characters? I don’t think it’s a puzzle that “Wicked” is more popular with teen girls than other musicals).

The makeover song, “Popular,” is funny and whimsical, and I don’t doubt that a lot of teen girls liked it (I did). But putting “Wicked’s” popularity down to makeovers and boys is a way of trivializing the interests of teen girls. The implication is that teen girls are too scatterbrained and silly to be attracted to themes like tragedy and friendship, even when those themes are obviously at the center of the musical; they must be going to “Wicked” for the makeover scene. Sheesh!

Posted in Popular (and unpopular) culture | 4 Comments

Abortion pre-Roe

Via Brutal Women, I found some fascinating information about “Jane”, the Abortion Counseling Service which helped women obtain abortions in pre-Roe days.

What struck me most was the way women working for Jane could be emotionally and philosophically disturbed by the human appearance of the fetuses they removed, could consider abortion to be some kind of excusable homicide, and could still be so committed to letting women make the choice themselves that they were willing to break the law to make it possible.

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights | 62 Comments

Quotes from other people's websites

[None of the quoted snippits in this post were written by me; they’re all from essays or posts I thought were interesting, found on other websites.]

  • The Gimp Parade on John Roberts and Disability Rights: In 2001, Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick presented a clear and pithy summary of the arguments before the Court, where thanks to Roberts it was concluded that the loss of a job due to severe work-related repetitive stress injury does not qualify someone for coverage under the ADA. Despite carpal tunnel syndrome and tendonitis resulting in “lumps the size of a hen’s egg in [her] wrists, and [her] hands and fingers… curled up like animal claws,” the Court ruled that plaintiff Ella Williams was not disabled because of Robert’s legal arguments: “She can brush her teeth, wash, bathe, do laundry and cook breakfast. She can take care of personal chores around the house. [Her wrist injury] is only a problem at work.”
  • Jack Balkin on Justice Roberts and abortion: …Replacing Justice Sandra Day O’Connor with Roberts is likely to mean the Supreme Court will uphold many more laws restricting abortion. The list of such laws is endless, ranging from partial birth abortion bans to limits on abortions for minors. Courts now enjoin new abortion laws as soon as they are passed if they burden some women’s right to abortion. But next term the court will decide whether to change that rule. If it does, states could pass stringent restrictions on abortion; these could remain on the books for years until lawsuits knock away the most blatantly unconstitutional features. That is not the same as overturning Roe v. Wade, but its practical effect is very similar. (Via Dispatches).
  • Ed at Dispatches From The Culture Wars on the Supreme Court confirmation process: Not only do I want to know the answers to those questions, I think nominees have an obligation to answer them in front of the entire nation. They are asking to be given a lifetime appointment to the nation’s highest court where their decisions will have more of an impact on our lives and our liberty than virtually any other body in the world. Our liberty is in their hands and they have an obligation to tell us what they intend to do with it before we give that power to them. I don’t want to hear that the nominee is kind, decent, trustworthy, thrifty and brave. I want to hear what they would do with their almost unbridled power to interpret the Constitution because that document is the backbone of American liberty. And any Senator who does not ask such questions shouldn’t be in office. The problem is not that the Senate explores a nominee’s ideology, it’s that they generally do so dishonestly and badly and only in the service of their own political interests.
  • Russel Sadler: The Northwest timber industry and its industrial foresters have never forgiven Dr. Jerry Franklin for methodically dismantling their cherished orthodoxy. Until the 1980s, industrial foresters were taught that old growth forests were “dead, dying and decadent.” Old growth forests were “biological deserts” that had to be cut down before they burned down and replaced by “healthy, vigorous young forests.”
  • Sara Butler, reviewing the book Taking Sex Differences Seriously: One doesn’t have to be a believer in feminist ideology to be a little skeptical of a theory that automatically gives men a certain degree of freedom from nature that women do not have. According to this line of thought, sexual chastity does not come naturally to men, so we shouldn’t be all that surprised when they fail. Women, however, are supposed to have nature on their side; if they still insist on being sexually active, even promiscuous, they must be really awful…much more depraved then their male counterparts who behave the same way.
  • The Mighty Middle on Democrats: This is where you’ve brought us. Roe is going down. The Holy Fucking Grail is going down. Get used to it. Saladin is taking Jerusalem back from you. The other side won, you lost, and you know why you lost? Because you are deeply stupid people. Your favorite perjorative for Mr. Bush: stupid. And yet, he’s the one in charge, despite everything, despite the fact that he is one of the worst presidents in American history, he’s in the driver’s seat and you are standing on the fucking curb holding a sign that says “Will Organize For Food.” You’re sitting in your war rooms writing up your talking points, passing you memos back and forth and all of it is like some Twilight Zone episode where you’re dead and don’t know it. Cue Rod Serling: Consider the Democrats.

    Shyamalan on Politics: “I see dead people.” “No, those are Democrats.”

  • Brutal Women on the latest Star Wars flick: In fact, every scene Padme is in, she’s sitting on a couch or standing at a window or standing on the balcony staring blankly at something, pregnant, (because everyone knows pregnant women live like invalids) waiting for the scene to start. Waiting for Anakin or some Jedi to come in and break up her staring-at-the-wall reverie. Natalie Portman checked out of this movie a long time ago. And who can blame her? It was utterly obvious from the writing that she was only there as a peice of scenery. Her hair and clothes changed drastically with every scene; she was a walking, talking set peice.
  • Mark Grabor on conservative judicial activism: President Bush demonstrate his usual capacity for double-speak last night when he praised Judge John Roberts as a jurist who would “not legislate from the bench.” As note on this blog and more extensively in Keck, THE MOST ACTIVIST SUPREME COURT IN HISTORY (mandatory reading during the confirmation hearings), the Rehnquist Court does nothing but “legislate from the bench” with Justices Thomas and Scalia being the most active judicial legislators. Consider the numerous areas in which they impose or would impose limits on state and federal officials…
Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights, Elections and politics, Feminism, sexism, etc, Link farms, Popular (and unpopular) culture, Supreme Court Issues | 25 Comments

Lesbian Activists attacked by Ugandan Government Police

Via Owukori of Black Looks, recently the Ugandan Parliament passed an anti-LGBT law, which was then followed by the government police raiding the home of a Lesbian Civil Rights activist, Victor Julie Mukassa, a friend of Owukori (although her name ‘Victor’ she is female). This raid and the attempted arrests are supposedly all apart of the Ugandan government’s plan to not only censor but wipe-out all LGBT civil rights activism in the country. And there was no search warrant for the raids or even possible arrest of Victor.

The ugandan parliament have enacted a new anti-homosexual law and with this the Ugandan police yesterday stormed the house of lesbian activist, Victor Julie Mukassa. Victor tried to contact me today but unfortuantely I missed her call so the details on her present situation are still sketchy. However there is a report on the raid in Behind the Mask as follows:

On the night of 20 July 2005, Victor Juliet Mukasa, who is the chairperson of Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG), had her residence raided by the Ugandan government police officials. The officials confiscated all documentations and other materials that had homosexual content.

Unfortunately for the police contingent which was clearly intending to pounce on Mukasa, they didn’t find her at home as she had not yet arrived back home from town.

On the house they found a gay activist from Kenya who works closely with SMUG. She was detained for the night. According to Kasha Jacqueline, a lesbian human rights activist, “They took her [the Kenyan activist] in so Victor and the other LGBT activists [from SMUG] would want to fetch her from the police and then they can arrest Victor specifically and or the other activists.[…]

This purported trap to arrest for SMUG officials is suspected to be part of an elaborate plan by the Ugandan government to obliterate gay and lesbian activities in that country.

[…]Meanwhile she (Victor) cannot go home as people near where she lives planned to attack her. Once the matter comes out in the press she will be in even more danger. She is staying and moving from hotel to hotel. Victor’s human rights have been grossly violated. There was no search warrant on her home and her guest was stripped naked by the police and detained and both their lives are now in danger.[…]

So if the intention behind the raid (without a warrant), degradation of Victor’s guest, and attempted arrest (again without a warrant), was to stifle all LGBT civil rights activistm and Ugandan LGBT people in general, then add their government to the list of belligerently homophobic governments that would use terror to silence their own LGBT population and its leaders. Gee, you don’t think the U.S. will ever end up on that list, do you?

Posted in Elections and politics, Homophobic zaniness/more LGBTQ issues, International issues | 11 Comments

A few recent links to "Alas"

The Smegmaster thinks we’re a bunch of idiots. However, Just Between Strangers thinks Nick is cool (and I’m sure we all agree!). And Moosk at Elegy to Lost Youth takes a look at Sydney and decides it’s time to get knocked up.

Posted in Link farms | 8 Comments

John Roberts Wears Plaid Pants

Okay, first go and look at this New York Times profile of John Roberts, making sure to look at the accompanying slideshow of photos. Note the plaid pants.

Did you get the impression that the Times is trying to imply that Roberts is gay? I didn’t, either. But check out what right-wing alpha-blog Powerline says:

They Were Already Beneath Contempt…

…but now some Democrats have sunk lower. They are hinting that John Roberts is a homosexual because he was once photographed–more than thirty years ago–wearing plaid pants. You think I’m making this up?

Well, I kinda think they are making it up, in a groupthink/urban myth sort of way.

Ann Althouse, who is usually much more sane than this, also sees homo-baiting in the Times‘ portrait of Roberts:

I do think the NYT piece was subtly constructed to plant this idea. Just look at the series of photographs they chose: young John in plaid pants, young John with his boys’ school pals, young John in a wrestling suit with his fellow wrestlers, John with footballers, and — the final pic — John smiling in an all-male wedding photograph.

I’m sorry, but which of these things does Ann think implies gayness? Plaid pants? Having boyhood pals? Wrestling and football? Being a groomsman? Thank goodness Ann is (I think) straight, because her gaydar sucks.

As I said in the comments of Ann’s follow-up post (in which she backed away from her initial claim a bit), there’s no point in paying any attention to conservative critiques of the Times anymore. No matter how innocent the Times is, conservatives (and even some conservative-friendly moderates like Ann) will find malice in what the Times does – no matter how ludicrous they’re being, and no matter how little evidence they have. The Times could print “Bush nominee is a saint” and someone like Ann would find malice hidden in it. (“Saints? A lot of the saints were killed! I do think the Times headline was subtly constructed to suggest that Roberts should be murdered.”)

This wacky thinking appears to be widespread in the righty blogsphere; check out how many trackbacks this post on Reasoned Audacity got. (Link via Unfogged). Unbelievably, they believe this crap.

Marty Schwimmer has a good post on this – “Anatomy of a Rumour” – showing how Wonkette’s joke became serious claims that liberals think that someone who wears plaid pants is gay.

P.S. I did find one line in the Times piece odd – they noted that, in his high school yearbook, Roberts is credited with playing Peppermint Patty in the school production of “You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown.” What’s even odder than the cross-gender casting, is that the character of Peppermint Patty doesn’t even appear in “You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown.” Maybe this was an in-joke between the yearbook editors and Roberts? [Edited to add – then again, maybe she did appear. See Robert’s correction in the comments.]

P.P.S. (added later): It’s pretty funny to compare Powerline’s “no low too low for them” view of Democrats with how Democrats view themselves.

Posted in Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc. | 25 Comments

It would be more "democratic?"

I’ve already linked to a post of Amanda’s at Pandagon disdaining the “let Roe go back to the State Legislatures” arguments. We all know what states such as California, New York, Alabama, Georgia, and my home state of Indiana (shudders) would choose to do with Roe right off the bat. Constitutional protections for our basic civil rights ensures that they will exist even if they’re “unpopular” to a segment of the population, and secure them against impulsive politicians eager to create a bandwagon to gather more potential voters, and guard them against “in the heat of the moment” lawmaking on the floor of Congress (the Schiavo case and the Patriot Act comes to mind). How popular were Brown v. Board of Education and the Voting Rights Act with Southern Whites who were racist? How popular is flag burning, but the Constitution protects that anyway to prevent a slippery-slope that could lead to government sanctioned censorship–especially when it comes to criticizing politicians? Civil rights should not be based on convenience, a whim, or which politician is in the mood to deal with them. Via Feministe, I found this wonderful article by Katha Pollitt of the Nation who too is not persuaded by the “it’s more democratic” stanza at the core of the ‘let Roe go back to the state’ argument.

[…]Legislative control might be more “democratic””“if you believe that a state senator balancing women’s health against a highway for his district represents democracy. But would it be fair? The whole point about constitutional protection for rights is to guarantee them when they are unpopular”“to shield them from majority prejudice, opportunistic politicians, the passions and pressures of the moment. Freedom of speech, assembly, worship and so on belong to us as individuals; our neighbors, our families and our legislators don’t get to vote on how we use these rights or whether we should have them in the first place. Alabamans may be largely antichoice, but what about the ones who aren’t? Or the ones who are but even so don’t want to die in childbirth, bear a hopelessly damaged baby or drop out of school at 15″“or 25? If Roe goes, whoever has political power will determine the most basic, intimate, life-changing and life-threatening decision women”“and only women”“confront. We will have a country in which the same legislature that can’t prevent some clod from burning a flag will be able to force a woman to bear a child under whatever circumstances it sees fit. It is hard to imagine how that woman would be a free or equal citizen of our constitutional republic.[…]

It’s hard to imagine because it’s true. Women won’t be free and equal citizens if Roe goes, or even if Griswold suffers the same fate. It would come down to how convenient our right to autonomy would be in the eyes of the mostly male politicians who would decide this.

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights, Elections and politics, Supreme Court Issues | 11 Comments

Rationality and pseudo-choice

Those who believe in a woman’s right to control her own reproduction are rightly afraid of those who believe that fetuses deserve the same legal protection as born children, but these are not the only enemies of choice. More insidious is the opposition from “pseudo-choicers” who believe abortion should be available – when they think it’s appropriate.

Just as Henry Ford reputedly offered his customers “any colour you want, as long as it’s black”, these “pseudo-choicers” support a woman’s right to choose, provided she makes a choice of which they approve. They agree that abortion is not murder, and they agree that the decision to end a pregnancy can be difficult – so difficult, in fact, that a foolish, hormonal woman cannot be trusted to make it alone.

My ex-boyfriend was a willing, even eager partner in the act that led to my baby’s conception, but afterwards began to have second thoughts, especially given that the burden of supporting me and the baby would fall mainly upon him. When the pregnancy was confirmed, after the first shock had worn off, he suggested that “now you know you can get pregnant, have an abortion and try again when it’s more convenient.”

I didn’t even consider abortion, because I very much wanted to be pregnant, but just in case this didn’t seem like sufficient reason, I marshalled others. He thought becoming pregnant was easy, but I’d tried and failed several times before I met him. And I didn’t know how an abortion might affect my chances of becoming pregnant in future. Most importantly, I had this chance to have a child, and I didn’t find convenience a compelling reason to throw it away.

I explained my reasons to him without making any impression. For him, there are two classes of women: those who can become pregnant easily and those who experience more difficulty. My pregnancy proved that I fitted into the first category: case closed. When I tried to argue, he became impatient. “I’m just trying to be rational,” he said.

The implication was that I was being irrational because my analysis led to a different result than his. Rationality doesn’t work that way: the conclusion depends on the premises. His disinclination to pay child support was no more rational than my disinclination to undergo surgery I didn’t feel I needed, but he couldn’t see that. His feelings were perfectly rational; mine were irrational, emotional and (dare I say it?) hysterical.

Luckily he had no power to compel me to accept his definition of rationality. If I’d been less certain of my own wishes, he might have been able to persuade or coerce me, but all he managed to do was convince me that for all his fine words about supporting my choice before we knew whether I was pregnant, he didn’t believe the choice was mine to make. That realisation marked the beginning of the end of our relationship.

If the right to choose means anything at all, it has to include the right to make a choice that is incomprehensible to others. A woman’s decision to end or continue a pregnancy doesn’t need to make sense to anyone other than her; she is often the only person with all the information – knowledge of her own personality and wishes – necessary to understand it.

Believing that affluent women in stable relationships should choose pregnancy and single women on benefits should choose abortion is not pro-choice. It is paternalism, with a hefty dose of classism and more than a nod in the direction of eugenics. Believing that a woman’s decision is not or should not be the final word in the debate is anti-choice, whether it’s expressed in terms of rationality or in terms of the rights of the fetus.

Rationality, to me, suggests that since the woman is the one who must live with the consequences of her decision, she should be the one to make that decision without having her competence called into question. The line between offering advice and passing judgement may be narrow at times, but no-one on the outside can tell which decision is the right one. Those who would tell a woman that her choice is wrong, selfish or irrational are not, whatever else they may be, pro-choice.

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights | 32 Comments