This is an open thread; use it to post what you like, for as long as you like, with whomever you like. Self-linking is healthy and normal.
I ran across Pageofbats’ drawing on Flickr, and was very much taken with a series of beautiful black-and-white sketchbook drawings he’s posted. This one is called “In Heaven You Get All Your Old Dogs Back.”
I enjoy Alas very much and wonder if Alas readers might enjoy Sociological Images, a blog written by a team of sociologists (including me) who post images with light commentary. It’s intellectual without being overly dense and spans a wide range of topics.
I lodge my complaint with customers who are lemming-like in their faithfulness to brand names.
I have a Memoriam to one of my heroes, Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated a year ago this past Thursday.
There is also the introduction to my series ““Veiled Contempt” about the parallels between Western and Islamic sexism.
And finally, I register my disgust and contempt with Israel’s disproportionate use of force in Gaza.
There’s still discussion going on about the Avatar live action movie casting problems over in fandom if anyone was still following it. It’s more wide ranging and nuanced then the discussion that happened here. There’s some interesting contextual/history of whitewashing stuff as well.
Sad, Racist, or Firebendingly Hillarious?
i am furious (yellow)
Who do I have to blow to get some representation around here??
Basically a link farm in itself.
AVATAR: THE LAST AIRBENDER
what we talk about when we talk about
Popeye will apparently go into public domain…in England.
Anyone here a fan of “Ren and Stimpy”? I interviewed one of the artists who worked on the show.
http://bakertoons.blogspot.com/2008/12/interview-with-eddie-fitzgerald.html
He gives his thoughts on outsourcing and his reaction to the firing of the original R&S staff.
Dammit, Amp, that picture made me cry.
Okay, in a good way.
My inner writer was unleashed not long ago. I think she’s out for good, and apparently she’s taking over. I’m not quite sure of what’s happening, but I’ve sunk all my teeth in and I’m hanging on for dear life. I have taken up residence in the blogosphere and making myself at home at the Worley Dervish.
I was pleased this week to read that the Obama administration appears to be connecting the dots between immigration and the labor market.
As Dubya winds down his occupancy of the White House, I’ve been thinking back over the horror of the last eight years and remembering a sign I used to pass regularly: Abuse of Power Comes as No Surprise.
Many thanks to Ampersand and all for the open thread and the chance to self-link. Happy New Year all!
The illegal hijab: Muslim women are being thrown out of court and imprisoned for refusing to remove their hijabs
If you’re a black transwoman your life is in danger: Looking at the high level of violence faced by TWOC.
If you can make a black woman smile: Looking at the history of black women from slavery to the present day.
Black men take off the dress: Looking at the sexist minstrel show that black men play when they use black women for comedic relief.
Call me crazy but the first thing that came to mind when I saw that pic was, “Imagine if that was a color by numbers picture. Damn”
Lately I’ve been taking note of what MRAs and feminists are talking about and trying make sense of it all.
Pop Quiz :What resolutions have you made for the coming year?
Rap and gender relations : BigFred is talking about rap and how it is effects and is affected by gender relations.
Here’s a question for everyone here.
What is the best way for a government to deal with a guerrilla war?
For purposes of this discussion, first assume that neither the guerrillas or the government is currently in a position of moral superiority; both sides’ history contains exactly as much evil, and neither cause is more just.
(Second, assume that the population of the country consists of, approximately:
1% who are fanatical followers of the guerrilla leaders and would literally rather die than allow the current order to stand
14% that strongly support the guerrillas, but would rather live under the current government than die fighting
35% that doesn’t care either way, and primarily wants to avoid getting killed
30% that strongly support the current order, but don’t want to put their own lives at risk
20% that are willing to risk their lives on behalf of the current order)
I know of three ways that the government can deal with the guerrillas. Roughly, they consist of fighting to win, fighting to draw, or making concessions.
Fighting to win involves taking the kid gloves off and crushing the guerrillas with all available force and little regard for “civilian” casualties. Tyrants usually find this method to be the most appealing. After all, the fighting isn’t going to stop until the last member of that 1% of the population is dead, so your goal is to kill them all. That 14% that gives aid and comfort to that 1% are useful resources for that 1%, so killing them brings the fighting to an end sooner. Furthermore, if you threaten them enough, they just might turn in that 1%. The 35% that don’t care are going to side with whomever they fear most, so if you make it clear that you really will kill everyone who doesn’t help you, then they’ll make sure to be very, very helpful. This method isn’t pretty and may see you up in front of a war crimes tribunal, but it works, at least in the short run – as long as you actually have that 50% that will stick with you. If you don’t have a strong base of support somewhere, your only hope is to “make a wasteland and call it peace” – or just cut your losses and find a friendly country to retire to.
“Fighting to draw” is what most democracies do when facing a guerrilla war. Instead of simply killing people until everyone is too afraid to shoot back, just hunt down and kill people as they show themselves, while hoping to mitigate the damage. Guerrilla wars fought in this way rarely come to a decisive end; if the government finally wins, it’s because 30 years have passed, and the guerrillas have essentially gotten old and died. Sometimes this works tolerably well, and sometimes it doesn’t. If the guerrillas are sufficiently weak, you can just live with the damage they can inflict; completely suppressing the guerrillas would cost more in blood and treasure than they could ever inflict on you. Additionally, some guerrillas are simply less brutal than others; guerrillas that do not commit atrocities are both easier to live with and to come to a negotiated settlement with.
The final way that a government can deal with guerrillas is to, well, give them what they want. At some point, fighting becomes more trouble than it’s worth. A sufficiently civilized guerrilla movement with well-defined leaders is often open to negotiation, and some demands are reasonable ones which aren’t too difficult to meet. (“Get your army out of our country and leave us alone” is often a reasonable demand to make of a foreign power.) On the other hand, the only way to appease some guerrilla movements is for the government to completely dissolve itself and let the rebels take over. (Which has happened. The Shah of Iran decided to relinquish power rather than attempt to fight the Iranian Revolution with military force, and the Chinese Communists, under Mao Zedong, eventually forced the previous Chinese government to flee to Taiwan.)
It’s getting late, but I believe that I can make a case that sometimes it can be better to end a guerrilla war decisively by committing a few massacres right now rather than let it drag on and continue to claim innocent lives for another thirty years.
Saddam Hussein’s regime caused the deaths of somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 Kurds. Estimates of the number of violent deaths in Iraq since the 2003 invasion vary, but one estimate, from the Iraqi Health Ministry, puts the figure at approximately 150,000. We haven’t been much better at keeping people alive than Saddam was.
The Hama massacre resulted in the deaths of between 5,000 and 20,000 people. Since then, Syria has not faced an uprising of any kind.
About two million Vietnamese civilians (on both sides) died between 1960 and 1795, when South Vietnam finally fell.
Trying to fight brutal guerrillas humanely tends to drag out the conflicts to the point where the final death toll is comparable to what you get when brutal dictators fight guerrillas. If you kill them all now, the death toll stops rising; 15 or more years of “humane” fighting doesn’t necessarily result in fewer deaths when the shooting stops.
If it doesn’t matter when the deaths occur, then it’s better to kill X people today than one person a month for Y months, as long as Y > X.
Danny thanks for the shout out. The two posts that you highlighted on your blog are good. Others should read them.
In addition to the recent post I have on rap and gender relations pt.1 (it’s ongoing series), I made a quick post about new legislation on banning circumcision that is gaining traction in Denmark. The post about it on my blog is here.
My take on a disgusting new country song in which the singer describes “checking you for ticks” in a completely creepy way…
http://www.shaesplace.com/blog/?p=233
Thanks for the shout out Fred. Amp sounds like he wants dialogue. Why not give him some?
Just wanted to say: Happy New Year to everyone!
Shae,
I thought the “Ticks” song was clever for its genre — though it plays into fairly standard stereotypes of woman-must-pretend-to-chastity, what doesn’t? — but then I haven’t had the traumatic tick experiences you apparently have.
Happy New Years!
Some thoughts on mental illness and how treatment of the mentally ill intersects with other social justice issues.
Using news clips to construct a troubling narrative of power in Gaza.
Bush did something right for once! New retirement protections for same-sex couples.
Renee, I read that post about a woman wearing a hijab being penalized for it. It turns out (as you know from reading the post) that the rule is actually that no one is allowed to wear headgear in court (common around the country, BTW – I’ve run into it in Chicago). The author states that the law as applied is racist and sexist. She voices the presumption that Jewish men would not be required to remove their yarmulkes, nor would turban wearers (primarily Hindus and Sikhs) be required to remove their turbans. But she offers absolutely no citations to back it up; she says that they would not be required to remove their headgear, not that they are not.
The argument seems to be that the system is sexist, therefore men would not be required to remove their religious headgear, and therefore the system is sexist. She offers no evidence to back any of this up.
Saddam Hussein’s regime caused the deaths of somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 Kurds. Estimates of the number of violent deaths in Iraq since the 2003 invasion vary, but one estimate, from the Iraqi Health Ministry, puts the figure at approximately 150,000. We haven’t been much better at keeping people alive than Saddam was.
Doug S., did Saddam Hussein’s regime only kill Kurds? For one thing, I seem to recall that a large number of Iranians died at the hands of his army. Then there were the Marsh Arabs. How many indigenous Shiites did he kill? I think your number is likely a bit short.
Take Your Stand for the Constitution and the Rule of Law!
Well, Amp, points of great interest to you and I have just intersected. The BSA has just come out with a new medical form, found here. It has to be completed once a year and give to the leader of whatever unit you belong to in order for you to go on campouts, etc. That represents a change (it used to be once every 3 years if you were under 40), but that’s not the biggest one.
No, the biggest one is on the 3rd page, part B. Anyone engaged in a high-adventure activity (e.g., a multiday backpacking trip or canoe trip) or any activity where you are somewhere that it will take more than 30 minutes to get someone out to you to evacuate you must meet height/weight guidelines as composed by the revised Dietary Guidelines for Americans from the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture and the Dept. of Health & Human Services.
The BSA is about to block a whole bunch of Scouts from going on high-adventure trips and just about all other of the activities that they most enjoy and that are what get and keep kids in Scouting. Not by disqualifying the kids, mind you (although it might) but by disqualifying most adults from being able to go (and you have to have 2 adults minimum on such trips).
For example: I’m 6′ 2″. According to this chart the recommended weight for that height is 148 to 219 pounds. I was last within that weight range when I was in college, and that only briefly because I was on a diet study. The “Allowable Exception” range is 211 – 252. I haven’t weighed less than 260 for about 20 years. Of course, during the last 15 years I’ve been on about 12 canoe trips into Canada, Minnesota and Michigan with no problem.
I wonder why they did this?
*cough*
I think most of us have answers.
I think that you won’t like them.
—Myca
Amp interesting pic and thanks for the open thread.
RonF,
Thanks for bringing this to the attention of Amp and Alas readers — it seems completely insane that the BSA doesn’t provide for exemptions through doctor approval. That is, even if they’re going to be the BMI Nazis, they at least can acknowledge that BMI doesn’t capture an individual’s health accurately, and can allow a doctor to note that your organs, joints etc. all work fine and that you have no health problems of concern (e.g. no high blood pressure), so you can go on such trips safely. Frankly, it just seems stupid to make people get a doctor’s form and base so much of it on BMI and so little on actual medical measurements of health.
It might make sense if the weight limits were based on what rural health providers could handle — there *are* weights that exceed what 1980s-era stretchers and ambulances can handle — but those would be so high (literally a quarter ton) that it’s extremely unlikely a person that heavy would be able to participate in a canoe trip.
I wonder if I would be accepted.
When I was 15, I was just about 5’0″, and about 85 lbs (range is 97-138).
As an adult, I’m about 5’6″, and about 100-105 lbs (range is 118-167).
No mention is made of underweight. Maybe they think it’s so rare it doesn’t exist except in modeling/gymnastics etc where there’s tons of pressure to maintain absurdly low weight?
The ranges are “Recommended Weight” and “Allowable Exceptions”. A third column in the table is entitled “Maximum Acceptance” and restates the top weight of “Allowable Exceptions”.
“it seems completely insane that the BSA doesn’t provide for exemptions through doctor approval.”
A point being made repeatedly in the Scouting lists. Now, at Philmont this same table has been used for years and they’re quite strict about it. Few people made a fuss because a week-long or 10-day trek at Philmont is truly stressful (it’s in the Sangre de Cristo mountains in N.E. New Mexico), to the point that one or two people die from a heart attack every other year there. But they didn’t use it anywhere else. Now, apparently, they are.
BMI Nazis, eh? Is that where this table comes from?
So I take I would be refused for being below the recommended weight, even though the table and form seems to say it’s about preventing people who are overweight* (and no mention of people who are underweight*) from risking their lives.
*According to BMI anyways.
Ever since I reached double digits age, I’ve been below recommended weight. No one has made a fuss about it though. Even less since transitioning (I had comments “You should eat more” before – ironically, pre-transition no one would have said much for being overweight, but post-transition they would probably say “You should lose weight”).
In heaven do we get our kitties back too?
Or do we have to be thin?
Did you all see this? A nice little dose of snark I wasn’t expecting in the New Yorker.
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2009/01/05/090105sh_shouts_ozols
On Gaza: i write about the politics of expecting American Jews to speak out against Barak’s war and about the emotional impact of images of violence
I have given your site an award. Please visit my site at http://glennscult.blogspot.com/2009/01/our-first-award.html to see the award and my comments about your site. I love it and please keep the great stuff coming!!!!
In the aftermath of Prop. 8, I decided to find out if my small university town in Texas played any kind of significant role. Imagine my surprise when I found that two academics at our large research university, Texas A&M, had contributed thousands to the Yes on 8 campaign.
Intrigued, I wanted to know if there had been any local “victims.” I found a local gay male couple who had been married in California during that five-month window between the overturning of Prop. 22 and the adoption of Prop. 8.
Here is the first installment in a multi-part series about Prop. 8’s long reach to southeast Texas. Come back in a couple of weeks and I’ll have more:
http://theaggieinsurgency.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/aggies-dont-lie-cheat-steal-nor-break-up-other-aggies-marriages-prop-8s-long-and-intrusive-reach-to-texas-am/
The Scouting list threads on the issue have been following a course that based on what I’ve seen here was quite predictable. Numerous people are taking the attitude of “No big deal, the big folks just need to stop eating as much and exercise more”, while others are pointing out that a lot of quite healthy people don’t fit those categories. This is going to get interesting. Ther are a lot of people who have been leading Scouts on activities for years that just won’t fit those categories – like me, for example.
My bet is that the Scouts will have to rescind this one when they can’t find enough thin adults. (Once long ago I would have been underweight; now, of course, I’m on the other end of the curve, so to speak.) Perhaps while they’re at it they could rethink their other discriminatory policies.
The BSA’s membership policies are basically a function of the fact that a good 1/3 of their units are sponsored by Lutheran, Mormon and Catholic churches and the national representatives of those churches to the National Council have told the BSA “If you permit gays, we’ll stop sponsoring units”. Other organizations like the American Legion will probably drop units as well. Not to mention the numerous parents who would probably pull their kids out. Sure, other people who are holding kids out might then join the BSA, but the BSA’s best guess right now is that those folks won’t make up for their losses.