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

Fugitive Child Rapist Freed on Technicality

Posted on July 12, 2010 by Jeff Fecke

Convicted child rapist and fugitive from justice Roman Polanski was freed this morning by a Swiss court, on the grounds that the American request for extradition might not have been sentenced to more than 90 days in jail, and that he really didn’t think he’d be arrested despite, you know, being a fugitive:

In rejecting the extradition request from the United States, the Swiss ministry cited two factors: first, the Swiss said, the U.S. had failed to provide the records of a January hearing in Los Angeles County Superior Court that would have shown the judge in charge of the Polanski case in 1977 agreed that “the 42 days of detention spent by Roman Polanski in the psychiatric unit of a Californian prison represented the whole term of imprisonment he was condemned to.”

Second, the Swiss said, when Mr. Polanski traveled in September 2009 to the Zurich Film Festival where he was arrested as he arrived at the airport, he did so in “good faith” that “the journey would not entail any legal disadvantages for him.” The Swiss justice ministry noted that Mr. Polanski had been staying regularly in Switzerland since 2006, and though “he was registered in the Swiss registry of wanted persons, he was never controlled by the Swiss authorities.”

Well, that’s nice. I’m going to use that should I ever be arrested on an outstanding warrant. “Judge,” I’m going to say, “when I went to the mall, it was on good faith that I wouldn’t be arrested for my outstanding warrant for punching a mime. I mean, I wasn’t arrested yesterday. So that means that the warrant doesn’t count. So there.”

Obviously, this is a defeat for those of us who view child rapists as people who deserve punishment, and a defeat for the rule of law. It’s also a defeat for Roman Polanski’s legacy, though Polanski today is, I’m sure, ready to invite Bernard-Henri Lévy over to his posh Paris home for a big freedom party. This was Polanski’s last, best chance to get this over with, to pay his debt to society, to eliminate the “fugitive” part of “convicted fugitive child rapist.” He could have brought some closure to his victim, and maybe, just maybe, allowed the wound to heal. Instead, Polanski has guaranteed that when he dies, he will be remembered as much for assaulting a child as for his film legacy.

Polanski will always be remembered as a child rapist who, I assume, will die in exile. That’s his choice. It’s just too bad that the Swiss courts had to agree.

Posted in crossposted on TADA, Rape, intimate violence, & related issues | 10 Comments

I Have No Idea If Ken Howell Should Have Been Fired Or Not

Posted on July 12, 2010 by Ampersand

[Crossposted on “Alas” and on “TADA.”]

An adjunct professor who taught courses on Catholicism at the University of Illinois has lost his teaching job there, and he claims it is a violation of his academic freedom.

Kenneth Howell was told after the spring semester ended that he would no longer be teaching in the UI’s Department of Religion. The decision came after a student complained about a discussion of homosexuality in the class in which Howell taught that the Catholic Church believes homosexual acts are morally wrong.

One thing that makes this story interesting is that we can actually read the email Howell sent his class, which prompted the complaint (which we can also read).

My initial reaction, upon reading this story, was to think the U of I was wrong to fire Howell (technically, Howell wasn’t fired — he was just not asked to return).

After all, the Catholic Church does believe homosexual acts are wrong. A professor should be able to describe the Church’s arguments in a course about Catholicism. And Howell sounds very agreeable when he says things like this:

Howell said he was presenting the idea that the Catholic moral teachings are based on natural moral law, and the Catholic understanding of what that means.

“My responsibility on teaching a class on Catholicism is to teach what the Catholic Church teaches,” Howell said. “I have always made it very, very clear to my students they are never required to believe what I’m teaching and they’ll never be judged on that.”

There’s an obvious free speech value in professors being able to state controversial and disliked opinions without being fired. And, as well, an educational value in students encountering a variety of views, including views that I hope most students disagree with.

So Howell’s firing was unjustified, right?

I’m not sure.

1) We don’t actually know that Howell was fired (or not asked back) because of the student complaint. That one event follows another doesn’t prove that one event caused the other.

2) Howell’s account is disputed. Howell claims to run a classroom in which students are encouraged to disagree with Howell’s own views. On the other hand, the letter of complaint claimed Howell “would preach (not teach) his ideology to the class …the teacher allowed little room for any opposition to Catholic dogma.” If that claim is true, then U of I is entirely justified in not asking Howell to return.

Of course, I have no idea if the claim is true or not.

3) Judging from the one example of his teaching we can see — the email — Howell is arrogant, hypocritical, ignorant, and a bad teacher. As PZ says, “I think it entirely reasonable to boot Kenneth Howell out of UI because he’s not very bright and doesn’t meet the intellectual standards I expect of UI professors.”

In his email, Howell wrote:

Unless you have done extensive research into homosexuality and are cognizant of the history of moral thought, you are not ready to make judgments about moral truth in this matter.

In context, it’s clear that Howell considers himself to be someone who is ready to make judgments, based on what I can only assume he considers to be his own “extensive research into homosexuality.” Which is laughable, because Howell also wrote:

To the best of my knowledge, in a sexual relationship between two men, one of them tends to act as the “woman” while the other acts as the “man.” In this scenario, homosexual men have been known to engage in certain types of actions for which their bodies are not fitted. I don’t want to be too graphic so I won’t go into details but a physician has told me that these acts are deleterious to the health of one or possibly both of the men.

So Howell is plainly an ignoramus. But worse: He’s the kind of arrogant know-nothing who believes he knows a lot, and presents myths to students as if they were facts. And he presents a terrible example of scholarship for students to emulate (i.e., “a physician has told me” — now there’s a valid academic source!).

If this email is a fair representation of Howell’s abilities as a teacher, then it’s likely that his students become more ignorant, and worse scholars, because they took his class. Frankly, if that’s why Howell was let go, then the only thing I’d ask is “what took them so long?”

Posted in crossposted on TADA, Education, Free speech, censorship, copyright law, etc., Homophobic zaniness/more LGBTQ issues, In the news | 108 Comments

Open Thread & Link Farm, Baleful Stare Edition

Posted on July 12, 2010 by Ampersand

A gallery of detailed close-up photos by Igor Siwanowicz, mostly insects but also some other critters. Super neat stuff.
Oscar Grant: A Victim of American Fear
Amanda Hess on sexism and the lack of female corespondents on The Daily Show. The best thing I’ve read about this issue (even though I don’t agree with all of it).
Skinny dreams meets skinny reality: Becoming thin doesn’t make fat people happier, just thinner.
The gender gap in math is driven by social factors, not biological differences.
GOP candidate for governor Tom Emmer believes that some waiters get paid over $100,000 a year; a local columnist goes to apply for one of those $100,000 waiter positions.
Exercise ‘won’t cure child obesity’
Legal blog Balkinization has an excellent, excellent discussion/debate about the recent DOMA decision in Massachusetts: First Jack Balkin, then Andrew Koppelman, then Balkin again, and Koppelman again.
Tea Partiers support overturn of DOMA Hooray for a refreshing lack of hypocrisy! Alas, I’m convinced that the part of the decision they agree with is the least likely to survive appeal.
Being a parent reduces happiness everywhere, but the effect is weaker in welfare states
Brad Plumer, Things Break and Jim Manzi — a conservative who I have to respect somewhat because of this post on National Review — debate climate change and what should be done about it. Manzi begins, then Plumer, then Manzi again, then Things Break, and finally Plumer again.
“A new University of British Columbia psychological study used a new acronym to help explain why results from behavioral studies on people in Western nations don’t usually represent the rest of the world. It’s because we’re WEIRD (“Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic.”)”
Why we shouldn’t worry about the lack of Protestants on the Supreme Court.
Immigration and the US Economy, in graphs.
On Disability and the Public Service Announcement » Sociological Images
Amanda dubunks stupid Trig Palin conspiracy theories
Could Joe Arpaio’s dad be a legal immigrant today?
Study shows that fat people who lose significant weight have higher mortality rates than fat people who don’t. “In all, 1602 deaths were identified. After adjusting for age, race, smoking, health status, and preexisting illness, overweight men with weight loss of 15% or more, overweight women with weight loss of 5–<15%, and women in all BMI categories with weight loss of 15% or more were at increased risk of death from all causes compared with those in the same BMI category who lost <5%; hazard ratios ranged from 1.46 to 2.70. Weight loss of 5–<15% reduced risk of death from cardiovascular diseases among obese men.”
Yes, the stimulus worked. It was, however, too small.
Black Power’s Gonna Get You Sucka: Right-Wing Paranoia and the Rhetoric of Modern Racism
I Don’t Care What You Think – Seriously: Rejecting the Notion of Objective Beauty. “The radical part about Lesley’s assertion, however, is not that she doesn’t care if other people find her beautiful, it’s that she herself doesn’t – and doesn’t consider this to be negative.”
“…if porn’s so great, how come after more than 40 years of (relatively) legal status, there’s still not much that’s worth defending on anything more than principle?”
I really want to see the Israeli film A Matter of Size, about fat people who take up sumo wrestling.
How to Tell if Someone Wants to F**k You
Lots of issues about Amy’s hitting on — or sexually assaulting? — Doctor Who.
Musicians whose music was used as torture at Gitmo, going to Gitmo to play a concert.
Who’s your favorite fictional feminist?
Matthew Yglesias » People Want to Tax The Rich

Posted in crossposted on TADA, Link farms | 35 Comments

Don't Be a Commie!

Posted on July 11, 2010 by Ampersand

Clarissa writes:

So I’m filling out a permanent residency questionnaire, and after the expected questions of whether I plan to practice polygamy or engage in acts of terrorism I encounter the following question:

“Have you EVER been a member of, or in any way affiliated with, the Communist Party or any other totalitarian party?”

That sounds kind of weird.

I can’t say this is an issue that matters a lot to me, but this does seem like a clear-as-glass case of viewpoint discrimination.

Posted in crossposted on TADA, Immigration, Migrant Rights, etc | 14 Comments

Launchpad, Day Minus One

Posted on July 11, 2010 by Mandolin

Mirrored from Ecstatic Days.

Several months ago, when I went to Orlando for the Nebula Awards, my husband and I received a piece of mail from NASA. “Hey!” shouted my husband, waving the unopened mail. “It’s our tickets to the shuttle launch!”

“Not necessarily,” I pointed out. “It could be materials about launch pad.”

“You mean…” said Mike, pausing significantly, “We’re getting _two_ pieces of mail from NASA?”

He has been boasting about this achievement at work ever since. Apparently, it impresses his coworkers no end.

I arrived in Denver this morning at 9 a.m. by plane. Marjorie Liu and I met up in the airport, and waited for Carrie Vaughn, who drove us to Laramie, Wyoming, where we have each been given a dorm room with two raised beds, ethernet, paired sinks, and a fan. Our lounge–which has luxury wireless–overlooks evergreens pushing into the distance, and behind them, rolls of purple, green, and brown hills.

This is where we’ll stay while we attend Launch Pad.

What is Launch Pad? I’ll cheat and quote their website:

Launch Pad is a free, NASA-funded workshop for established writers held in beautiful high-altitude Laramie, Wyoming. Launch Pad aims to provide a “crash course” for the attendees in modern astronomy science through guest lectures, and observation through the University of Wyoming’s professional telescopes.

Yes, I get to go to a free class in which awesome scientists will teach me awesome things about astronomy.

OK, it may not be as cool as being taught prognostication by the soccer match predicting octopus, but it’s a close second.

After showing us to our dorm rooms, Jim Varley, one of our instructors, took us out to lunch at a local place in downtown Laramie, and explained some of his goals for the workshop.

“We want accurate science in fiction,” he said. “It’s easy for people to get misconceptions in their heads about what science is and what’s real. These misconceptions can be really persistent. People learn the wrong thing, or just come to the wrong conclusions. For instance, I once asked my students, how often is the moon visible during the day? They said it’s not visible during the day, only at night. This tells me where they’re at. We want fiction that accurately represents science, so that even if it’s a werewolf novel, at least the phases of the moon will be right.”

Having obtained my classmates’ permission, I’ll be blogging about the classes, mostly focusing on the science rather than the setting. I’ll be blogging my class notes, in a way… although y’all won’t get to see my doodles.

See you tomorrow!

Posted in Whatever | 4 Comments

Who would you rather learn about sex from, a feminist critic or a feminist?

Posted on July 11, 2010 by Ampersand

(Note: Comments on this post on “Alas” are open to self-identified feminists. Comments on this post on “TADA” are open to everyone.)

Feminist critic Cathy Young, in the comments of her blog, wrote:

I really can’t think of anything that would kill the moment (at least, for a lot of people) more than stopping in the middle of the mating dance for a clear and rational “consent” discussion.

Feminist and occasional “Alas” guest poster Clarisse Thorn wrote:

Consider the following example: during my last vacation to America, I had an S&M encounter with a dude I’ll refer to as Klark. (It’s not my fault. He requested the pseudonym.) At one point, Klark was experimenting with hurting me, and I had my eyes closed and was whimpering / crying out in a totally glorious way. (The poor overnight desk clerk. He was only one short flight of stairs away from us.) I think Klark was legitimately having trouble detecting whether I was enjoying myself, though — understandably, because we had only just met, and I enjoy sinking myself into dramatic masochistic misery — so he leaned over me and said, in a low dark voice, “Red, yellow, green.” Immediately, I gasped back “Green”. Because he spoke in a gritty and dominant voice, and the check-in was quick, we were able to maintain the mood — and it was actually kind of hot in itself. […]

If you aren’t sure how to read your partner’s reactions and you suspect ze may be uncomfortable with what you are doing, then you might consider checking in even if ze hasn’t safeworded, because your suspicion may be right. […]

So anyway, the biggest moral of the story with safewords and check-ins is that consent does not only happen once. Consent is always happening, and can always be renegotiated or withdrawn. Adapting my understanding of sexuality to reflect this — even in my non-BDSM sex — might have been the best thing that ever happened to my sex life.

Clarisse’s example comes from BDSM, but her point is that the principles she’s learned in BDSM — including how to good communication helps keep sex hot — are applicable to all kinds of sex, including “vanilla” sex.

Okay, now let’s imagine that Alas University offers two sex-ed classes for first-year students. Class “A” teaches how to have sex based on Cathy’s principle — checking for consent during sex kills the moment. Class “B” teaches based on Clarisse’s principle — checking for consent helps keep sex hot. Randomly assign 50% of students to class “A,” and 50% to class “B.” Check back in a year and survey the students and their sexual partners. ((It’s possible that at some point, the University’s committee on the ethical treatment of human subjects will object to your planned study. The solution to this is to have everyone on the committee shot.))

I’d bet a lot of money that the folks in class “B” — and their partners — wind up having hotter, better sex lives.

There’s a myth that communicating about sex ruins sex; and that by emphasizing consent, feminists are in effect opposed to hot sex. I don’t think either myth is true.

Posted in crossposted on TADA, Feminism, sexism, etc, Sex | 42 Comments

Political Attitude Test

Posted on July 10, 2010 by Myca

Hey, folks. There’s a general political bias test below that I’d like people to take if they have a free moment. I don’t want to know anyone’s individual answers to individual questions, but if those who take it could post their point total in comments, that would be great.

I’d prefer that there be no discussion of the test or comments other than point totals for now, but other than that stricture this post is unmoderated and open to everyone.

A future post will discuss the test, so if you have a burning need to tell me why Question #14 is grossly unfair, save it. Just point totals for now.

Thanks!

————-
This survey is part of an investigation of general public opinion concerning a variety of social issues. You will probably find that you agree with some of the statements, and disagree with others, to varying extents. Please indicate your reaction to each statement on the line to the left of each item according to the following scale:

Write down a -4 if you very strongly disagree with the statement.
Write down a -3 if you strongly disagree with the statement.
Write down a -2 if you moderately disagree with the statement.
Write down a -1 if you slightly disagree with the statement.
Write down a +1 if you slightly agree with the statement.
Write down a +2 if you moderately agree with the statement.
Write down a +3 if you strongly agree with the statement.
Write down a +4 if you very strongly agree with the statement.
If you feel exactly and precisely neutral about an item, write down a “0.”

Important: You may find that you sometimes have different reactions to different parts of a statement. For example, you might very strongly disagree (“-4″) with one idea in a statement, but slightly agree (“+1″) with another idea in the same item. When this happens, please combine your reactions, and write down how you feel on balance (a “-3″ in this case).

___ 1. The established authorities generally turn out to be right about things, while the radicals and protesters are usually just “loud mouths” showing off their ignorance.
___ 2. Women should have to promise to obey their husbands when they get married.
___ 3. Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us.
___ 4. Gays and lesbians are just as healthy and moral as anybody else.
___ 5. It is always better to trust the judgment of the proper authorities in government and religion than to listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our society who are trying to create doubt in people’s minds
___ 6. Atheists and others who have rebelled against the established religions are no doubt every bit as good and virtuous as those who attend church regularly.
___ 7. The only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to get back to our traditional values, put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading bad ideas.
___ 8. There is absolutely nothing wrong with nudist camps.
___ 9. Our country needs free thinkers who have the courage to defy traditional ways, even if this upsets many people.
___ 10. Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not smash the perversions eating away at our moral fiber and traditional beliefs.
___ 11. Everyone should have their own lifestyle, religious beliefs, and sexual preferences, even if it makes them different from everyone else.
___ 12. The “old-fashioned ways” and the “old-fashioned values” still show the best way to live.
___ 13. You have to admire those who challenged the law and the majority’s view by protesting for women’s abortion rights, for animal rights, or to abolish school prayer.
___ 14. What our country really needs is a strong, determined leader who will crush evil, and take us back to our true path.
___ 15. Some of the best people in our country are those who are challenging our government, criticizing religion, and ignoring the “normal way things are supposed to be done.”
___ 16. God’s laws about abortion, pornography and marriage must be strictly followed before it is too late, and those who break them must be strongly punished.
___ 17. There are many radical, immoral people in our country today, who are trying to ruin it for their own godless purposes, whom the authorities should put out of action.
___ 18. A “woman’s place” should be wherever she wants to be. The days when women are submissive to their husbands and social conventions belong strictly in the past.
___ 19. Our country will be great if we honor the ways of our forefathers, do what the authorities tell us to do, and get rid of the “rotten apples” who are ruining everything.
___ 20. There is no “ONE right way” to live life; everybody has to create their own way.
___ 21. Homosexuals and feminists should be praised for being brave enough to defy “traditional family values.
___ 22. This country would work a lot better if certain groups of troublemakers would just shut up and accept their group’s traditional place in society.

Done them all, as best you could? Then let’s score your answers. First, skip your answers to the first two statements. They don’t count, they’re just “warmups.”

Start therefore with No. 3.
Questions 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 22 are scored thusly:
If you wrote down a “-4” that’s scored as a 1.
If you wrote down a “-3″ that’s scored as a 2.
If you wrote down a “-2″ that’s scored as a 3.
If you wrote down a “-1″ that’s scored as a 4.
If you wrote down a “0″ or left the item unanswered, that’s scored as a 5.
If you wrote down a “+1″ that’s scored as a 6.
If you wrote down a “+2″ that’s scored as a 7.
If you wrote down a “+3″ that’s scored as an 8.
If you wrote down a “+4″ that’s scored as a 9.

Now we’ll do the rest of your answers, starting with No. 4.
Questions 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 18, 20, and 21 are scored like so:
If you wrote down a “-4″ that’s scored as a 9.
If you wrote down a “-3″ that’s scored as an 8.
If you wrote down a “-2″ that’s scored as a 7.
If you wrote down a “-1″ that’s scored as a 6.
If you wrote down a “0″ or left the item unanswered, that’s scored as a 5.
If you wrote down a “+1″ that’s scored as a 4.
If you wrote down a “+2″ that’s scored as a 3.
If you wrote down a “+3″ that’s scored as a 2.
If you wrote down a “+4″ that’s scored as a 1.

Please total up your points from all questions, and post the total in comments.

Posted in crossposted on TADA, Whatever | 106 Comments

Q: What is a Black Man's Life Worth?

Posted on July 9, 2010 by Myca

A: A black mans’ life is worth 2-4 years of a white man’s life.

I heard about the verdict just after my wife and I left Mandolin’s place, where we’d met her for lunch. As we drove north on 101, I turned on the radio, and as the NPR reporter discussed the verdict and the protests, my wife silently wept.

2-4 years.

I’m 35. My life is worth somewhere between 9 and 17 black men’s lives.

And you know, if Oscar Grant’s murder hadn’t been caught on tape, Mehserle wouldn’t have even received the slap on the wrist he got.

The woman who sits next to me at work is black and from Louisiana. On Tuesday, she talked about how worried she was about the possibility of riots, and how she’d told her children to stay at home and stay inside, just in case. She lives in San Francisco, just across the bay from Oakland.

I said that if we don’t want people to riot, we have to show them a reason to buy into the system. We have to give them a reason not to burn shit down. We never give black men a reason not to burn shit down. How long can we possibly say, “deal with this peacefully,” when everyone knows that what we mean is, “don’t deal with this at all. Allow your children to be fucking executed and don’t say a fucking thing.”

And yeah. I hope that people do deal with this peacefully. Ghandi’s strategy was to rely on the basic decency and humanity of the British. He believed that if their options were to become monsters or grant India it’s freedom, they would choose the latter. He believed that they would be too disgusted and horrified by the things they’d done to continue them endlessly.

Look at yourself, America. Take a good long look. Are you disgusted? Are you horrified? I sure as fuck am.

This cannot continue.

Please do not comment unless you accept the basic dignity, equality, and inherent worth of all people.

Also, if you want to justify the verdict, do it elsewhere.

Posted in crossposted on TADA, Prisons and Justice and Police, Race, racism and related issues, Whatever | 37 Comments

"Alas Debate Annex" now open for business

Posted on July 8, 2010 by Ampersand

He's doing a split! Get it? Get it? (Click to see source).

The “Alas Debate Annex” is now open for business. This will be a parallel blog, for the moment moderated by me, which will have looser rules on who can comment, and what comments are allowed, than the main “Alas” blog.

Right now, I’m the only “Alas” poster posting at the Debate Annex, and the only thing I’ve posted so far are cross-posts from “Alas.” Other “Alas” posters are free to cross-post as well; just choose “crossposted to the Alas debate annex” as one of the categories for any post, and it’ll be automatically crossposted there. This is a strictly opt-in program; if you’d rather not see your posts (or any particular post) there, just don’t check the “crossposted to…” category.

The plan is that discussions on “Alas” will become less welcoming to debate from right-wing an anti-feminist views than it has been, while simultaneously discussions on the Debate Annex will be more open to criticism from the right and from anti-feminists than “Alas” has been. (Although I’ll still be banning people who I think are acting like total assholes.) How exactly this will all work out in practice is something we’ll have to discover as we go.

I’d be interested in hearing comments or suggestions from everyone.

Posted in crossposted on TADA, Site and Admin Stuff | 13 Comments