Sorry no blogging yesterday… as you can (I hope) see, I spent yesterday working on getting “Alas” to look more like “Alas” should look. I’ve finally gotten the background colors right (which took forever - I kept on trying to fix it in the CSS, when actually there were background images I needed to change), and I’ve added in some graphic dividers between posts and comments. I’ve also fixed up some other things - the comments are numbered again, the archives provide full posts instead of just the first hundred words, the entire header (instead of just the words “alas, a blog”) is now a link back to the top page, that sort of thing.

More to come - I’m looking forward to returning the bighead drawings to the blogroll (they’ve been absent for months now).

The most intractable problem I’m having right now is that I can’t figure out how to modify the default WordPress 1.5 layout to allow a bigger footer image. (UPDATE: This problem has now been solved, thanks to Jennhi in the comments!) If any “Alas” readers are CSS or WordPress mavens, please feel free to look at the files and make suggestions - here are links to text files of the stylesheet, the header php file, and the footer php file. (WordPress 1.5 has separate files for all the elements, rather than putting them all in a single file).

Anyway, feel free to use this thread to offer me advice, or to make suggestions about “Alas.” I’m here to serve - well, actually, I’m here to serve me. But I’m interested in what you have to say, too. :-P

Not including deleted comments (mostly spam), and not including several hundred comments that have been lost in this or that move from one software system to another…

But including some trackbacks (that’s how WordPress works, alas)…

In other words, counting only those comments that my software keeps count of…

There have now been over 25,000 comments posted to “Alas.” As of a few minutes ago.

So, cool. Frankly, although I hope some of my posts are good, it’s obvious to me that the comments discussion is by far the best thing about this blog. Keep it up, folks!

* * *

Oh, hey, and I hope people like the new “italics,” “bold,” etc, buttons (they came from here).

In my previous post, I said that others are now writing much better posts about Terri Schiavo than I can. Here’s four examples.

• Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings has written the unequalable if-you-read-only-one-post-about-Terri-Schiavo-this-should-be-it post. Hilzoy’s post (which is long) starts off by laying out the background, so if you’re already familiar with the case you may want to skim that section. The post also contains a discussion of the ethical issues involved which is both persuasive and impeccably well written.
• There’s also an idea spreading around the left blogosphere that there are cases - especially in Texas - where conscious patients are being unplugged by hospitals just because the patients are broke, and it’s all because of a law that George Bush signed, and aren’t those right-wingers hypocrites? I can understand the eagerness to take that position, especially since some leading onservatives have been repulsively eager to use Terri Schiavo to paint liberals as evil death-cultists. And there is some genuine hypocrisy there. (And here, as well.)

  Nonetheless, the real issues aren’t as simple as some of my lefty allies are painting them; given finite resources, it does make sense for hospitals to be able to refuse genuinely futile measures. Lean Left has an excellent discussion of the more complicated reality.

• A writer at the Democracy Cell Project is eloquently appalled at how Terri Schaivo’s death, which should be a private matter for her family, has been twisted into a platform for political grandstanding.
• Finally, go check out Majikthise for a list of many, many more recent (mostly lefty) posts about Terri Schiavo.

And now I promise: my next bunch of posts will NOT be about Terri Schiavo.

I don’t plan to post much more about Terri Schiavo. In late 2003, When I started blogging about Schiavo, it seemed that I was one of a bare handful of lefty bloggers who even knew the case existed. Now, however, lots of people are thinking about it; and many of them are doing a better job of it than I could.

For me, there are three central issues to consider in the Terri Schiavo case.

1) First, the constant claims that Terri may be conscious, Terri is trying to speak, Terri has spoken, Terri could get better with treatment, etc, demonstrates both a failure of the American media to educate the public about the basic scientific issues involved, and also demonstrates the fruits of the right-wing cultivation of anti-science sentiment (see also the “controversies” over global warming and evolution). Terri Schiavo lacks her cerebral cortex; without a cortex, she cannot speak, or feel, or suffer, or think, or experience anything at all. Every part of her capable of any desire or awareness died many years ago. There is no legitimate controversy over this question.

Since I posted a CT scan of what Terri’s brain looks like, dozens of blogs have reproduced it or linked to it. That image, or ones like it, should have been constantly on display in the mainstream media; and what it tells us about the claims that Terri is aware, could suffer, or could recover should be repeated in every news story. As far as I know, no mainstream news outlet has reproduced any images of Terri’s brain; instead, they’ve reduced the controversy over her diagnosis to “side A says, side B says” quotes without real analysis. As a result, too many people have been easy marks for the lies told about Terri.

2) Second, the controversy over Terri’s treatment is about the rule of law versus theocracy. The law says that Terri has a right to refuse treatment, and if she cannot, then either Terri’s chosen guardian or a court can determine what Terri would have wished. Right-wing Evangelical theology says that’s not acceptable, and Terri must be kept alive regardless. (I realize that not everyone who opposes removing Terri’s feeding tube is a right-wing Evangelical, but that doesn’t change the fact that virtually all the political muscle being flexed to keep Terri’s body alive is coming from the religious right).

When right-wing Evangelicals and the law are in conflict, what happens? I hope the law will end up carrying the day, but it’s not certain it will.

3) Finally, in both “Terri’s Law” in Florida and in the more resent actions in the national Congress, this is about maintaining the Constitutional separation of powers. The courts conduct trials and protect Constitutional rights; the legislature can change the laws (within constitutional limits) and thus affect future trials, but they shouldn’t be able to conduct a trial by legislation.

* * *

On a personal level - and I acknowledge that Terri may not have felt the same way - the more I think about this case, the more horrified I become imagining myself in Schiavo’s position.

Here’s what gets to me: After I’m dead, the main way I’ll continue existing is in the memories of my friends and relatives. It’s macabre to imagine that my loved ones, rather than remembering me as I was, could instead focus on a shell, animated by a brain stem and reflex motions but completely empty of self. Over the years, all the dominant memories of me - what I was like before the accident - would be gradually replaced by memories of my mindless body making random motions and sounds in a hospital bed.

And then I’d really be gone, gone even from the memories of my friends and relatives, removed from their brains in favor of an empty shell. It’s hard for me to imagine anything more gruesome.

(Here’s a free online source of Living Will documents, by the way.)

Here’s my cartoon for Dollars and Sense from two months ago. (My contract requires me to let them publish the cartoons first, so I always wait a couple of months before putting them online). I think the drawing for this one came out pretty nice.

[I'm "promoting" this comment left by "Cerebrocrat" in the Terri Schiavo News thread. --Amp]

Cerebrocrat wrote:

But there’s something being lost in this discussion of brain imaging methods. The fact that an MRI would give a better structural picture of Terri Schiavo’s brain does not at all mean that the existing CAT scan isn’t good enough for present purposes. I see much serious armchair scan-reading in this thread that signals ignorance of the subject. Let me tell you: if you are sufficiently familiar with brains and brain images, you do not need an MRI to tell you how severely the brain in the pictured CAT scan is damaged, nor do you need to see more slices than the one depicted here. This single image shows a very severely damaged brain. The large “blue blobs” in the middle are ventricles, also present in healthy brains (you can see the two little dark crescent shapes in the brain on the right) that have expanded to such a large size because the overall brain volume is so low. Cranial space that would otherwize have been filled by gray matter is now filled with cerebrospinal fluid. And yes, that’s what the blue space is: cerebrospinal fluid that is filling up space left behind by necrotic brain tissue that has been scavenged and removed by the body. The white squiggly things are white matter - connective tracts that have the loose, uncoiled look about them that they do because, again, the grey matter that once compressed them is no longer there, so they “float” loosely in CSF. The gigantic ventricles, expanded white matter, and undifferentiated blue space in that scan all point to the same thing: massive loss of grey matter in the cerebral cortex. You don’t need an MRI to tell you that, it’s clearly visible in the CAT scan.

It is true that given the poor resolution of this image, it’s possible that some cortical tissue has been spared. But that doesn’t matter. Whatever wisps of cortex we might be missing in this image are not enough to sustain behaviors that could differentiate Terri Schiavo from any other vertebrate. All the neural equipment you need to do ocular following and emotional responses is subcortical. All the neural equipment you need to be a self-aware, reasoning, behaving human being is cortical. And since i gather this image was made some time ago, the present condition of the brain can only be worse.

There is no way any qualified brain doctor or scientist could look at this image and suggest that significant recovery of function is possible. The fact that we could have all this discussion on the subject is a triumph of politics over science. Tragic for Terri Schiavo, and really for us all.

(Please see the comments for Cerebrocrat’s description of his background).

Currently, it seems likely congress will pass a law allowing Terri Schiavo’s fate to be appealed to a Federal Court. Assuming the law passes, it seems likely that Ms. Schiavo’s feeding tube will be ordered re-inserted while the courts consider the matter. Watch Abstract Appeal for ongoing legal analysis.

• CBS News’ legal analysis Andrew Cohen is full of scorn for Congress’ action. His analysis, in Q&A form, is worth reading (via Eschaton). Here’s a small sample, but read the whole thing:

  QUESTION: Let’s start first then with Michael Schiavo’s expected arguments. Does he stand a chance of getting this law declared unconstitutional?

  ANSWER: Absolutely he has a chance. There are plenty of serious constitutional issues raised by this law. First, it applies only to one family and thus may create equal protection problems– after all, why shouldn’t other people who want to keep their loved ones on life support over the objections of others not also received tailor-made legislation? Second, as Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe points out, it arguably deprives Terri Schiavo herself of the constitutional right to “halt the unwanted bodily invasion by a tube” and does so without any due process to her (and her husband and guardian). Third, it raises big separation of powers problems and also federalism concerns– the Supreme Court in particular hasn’t been receptive to federal intrusion into matters normally resolved by the states– matters like guardianship laws.

  QUESTION: So you are saying that it is not a slam dunk that this effort by Congress ultimately will succeed even in getting another round of substantive hearings on the merits of Terri Schiavo’s rights?

  ANSWER: That is exactly what I am saying. And I will go a little further. I’m also saying that there are probably some smart folks on Capitol Hill who are supporting this legislation knowing that ultimately the courts will strike it down. That way, being the politicians that they are, they will be able to blame the heartless judiciary for the result and still will be able to say to their constituents that they tried their best. It is the politics of cynicism at its very best (or very worst).

  QUESTION: Okay, settle down. Now take me through the scenario if the law initially is declared constitutional.

  He also quotes Laurence Tribe referring to what Congress is trying to do as “trial by legislation,” which seems very apt.

• To no one’s surprise, Michael Schiavo is angry at Congress, too. (Via Abstract Appeal). He has a lot of good quotes, but here’s one:
  

  “To make comments that Terri would want to live, how do they know?” Schiavo said of the members of Congress who want to keep his wife alive.

  “Have they ever met her?” Schiavo said. “What color are her eyes? What’s her middle name? What’s her favorite color? They don’t have any clue who Terri is. They should all be ashamed of themselves.”

• A good article in the Tampa Tribune criticizes the media’s misleading focus on out-of-context video snippets of Terri. Via Abstract Appeal.
• Knight Ridder has a sympathetic article about Jay Wolfson, the court-appointed guardian ad litem for Terri Schiavo, who spent hours with Terri and regretfully decided that Terri has no consciousness at all. (He has refused to take a public position either way on pulling Terri’s feeding tube).
  

  Wolfson was dismayed to learn Friday that Barbara Weller, an attorney for the Schindlers, claimed that Schiavo tried to speak. “Terri does not speak,” he said. “To claim otherwise reduces her to a fiction.”

  One thing Wolfson never doubted was that for all their intense, mutual antagonism, both Michael Schiavo and Terri’s parents love and adore her.

• You can also read Jay Wolfson’s report to Jeb Bush (pdf link).
• Rivka at Respectful of Otters has an excellent discussion of the medical issues involved in this case. There’s too much good stuff to quote, so go read the whole thing, but I was particularly struck by this quote, from one of the doctors hired by Terri’s parents:
  

  Interestingly, some of the commands, such as close your eyes, open your eyes, etc. she tended to do several minutes after I gave her the command to do so. She had a delay in her processing of the action. However, when praised for the action, she would then continue to do the action repetitively for up to approximately 5 minutes. As we had moved on to other areas of the exam, at times she was continuing to do the previous command, then at inappropriate times since the focus of the exam had changed.

  As Rivka points out, Dr. Hammesfahr’s standards are “ludicrously low”: Even if Terri is closing and opening her eyes completely at random, he would still interpret her has having conscious intent.

• Evil Genius (and Mrs. Genius) has also written a good post on the medical issues.
• And, for yet more on the medical issues, there’s this Newsday article quoting several unaffiliated doctors. (Via Mahablog).
• Bioethics.net extensively quotes Art Caplan regarding the ethical issues involved. Via P.Z. Myers, who also comments briefly on the CT scan.

From a Harvard Crimson article regarding the Harvard faculty’s vote of “no confidence” in Larry Summers:

“Academic freedom is on trial, and…a victory for President Summers’ critics will be a very significant blow to academic freedom in American higher education,”? said Winthrop Professor of History Stephan Thernstrom, who likened criticism of Summers to McCarthy-era tactics of suppressing free speech.[...]

But Dillon Professor of the Civilization of France and Professor of Comparative Literature Susan R. Suleiman rejected [Thernstrom's] argument that Summers’ critics were silencing free speech.

“The one thing that really pushes my buttons is when people try to paint every legitimate action as a form of political correctness. I really find that that is a blunt instrument and that is McCarthyite tactics,”? she said, provoking applause from many faculty members.

Reality check: No one has released a list of 30,000 books which libraries are expected to pull from their shelves. No one is being yanked before Congress and asked to choose between “being in contempt of this Committee and going to jail or forcing me to really crawl through the mud to be an informer.” Ten thousand people (to use Ralph Brown’s conservative estimate) have not been fired. The FBI is not secretly talking with employers to make sure that blacklisted people remain unemployed. And as for academia:

The main academic purges occurred from 1952 to 1954 when the congressional committees had run out of more glamorous targets and turned to the nation’s colleges and universities. Dismissals were not automatic; an academic hearing usually followed the congressional one. Though the faculty committees that mounted the investigations did not normally demand that their colleagues name names, they did expect them to cooperate and discuss their past political activities. People who refused, who felt that such questions were as illegitimate as HUAC’s, were invariably fired. So were most of the others, especially at schools where conservative or politically insecure administrators and trustees refused to accept the favorable recommendations of faculty committees. In a few cases, if a professor had tenure, taught at a relatively less vulnerable private university, and cooperated fully with the institution’s investigation, he or she could retain his or her job. But these were exceptional cases and they often masked the less publicized dismissals of junior professors, who were invariably let go when their contracts expired. By the time the McCarthyist furor subsided, close to a hundred academics had lost their jobs for refusing to cooperate with anti-Communist investigators. Several hundred more were probably eased out under the FBI’s Responsibilities Program and similar measures.

Once fired, the politically tainted professors could rarely find other academic jobs. Like the Hollywood blacklistees, they were confronted with an unacknowledged but thoroughly effective embargo.

Does anyone seriously think that, say, Harvard professor and Summers supporter Stephen Pinker is going to be subjected to this sort of treatment? Or his critics?

In short, the criticism of Summers - and of Summers’ critics - doesn’t bear any real similarlty to McCarthyism, and suggesting otherwise trivializes McCarthyism.

Crimson link via Crescat Sententia.

So today Terri Schiavo is scheduled to have her feeding tube removed. Will it actually happen? I have no idea. (Update: Zuzu in the comments reports that Terri’s feeding tube has now been removed.) But even if her feeding tube is removed today, her body won’t die for a week or two, so this issue isn’t over.

Today, two Houses of Representatives - Florida’s and the country’s - passed laws intending to save Schiavo. Neither Senate went along, however. The newest delaying tactic is to subpoena Terri to testify before Congress (and forbidding anyone from removing her feeding tube in the meanwhile). Currently it appears that her feeding tube will be removed regardless. The subpoena seems to me almost a mockery - Terri can no more answer congress’ questions than she can fly counterclockwise around the Earth to turn time backwards. Several bloggers, who feel the same way I do, are pissed off by this latest development, and by the perceived cynicism - see Schussman.com, Stone Court, and Rude Pundit (who, I should warn you, lives up to her/his name).

But I realize that folks on the other side don’t look at it the same way. Some activists are going on a hunger strike to protest; I’m appalled, but I nonetheless admire their idealism and dedication. I hope they don’t harm themselves.

* * *

I hesitate to publish these next images. I’ve decided I’m going to, because the physical condition of Terri Schiavo’s brain is essential to any serious discussion of Terri Schiavo’s condition. By including these images, I don’t intend any disrespect to Terri Schaivo whatsoever.

On the left is a CT scan of Terri Schiavo’s brain (source). On the right, for comparison’s sake, is a CT scan of a healthy human brain. (You may also find it useful to look at these medical illustrations of the human brain, here and here.)

As I understand it - and goodness knows, I’m no doctor - the sparsely detailed dark areas in Terri’s CT scan (both the large dark area in the center and the smaller dark areas around the edges) are where Terri’s brain has been replaced with brain fluid. To quote myself: The conclusion the court came to is that, based on medical testimony and Terri’s CAT scan, her cerebral cortex has basically turned to liquid. The cerebral cortex is the seat of all our higher brain functions. Without a cerebral cortex, it is impossible for a human being to experience thought, emotions, consciousness, pain, pleasure, or anything at all; nor, barring a miracle, is it possible for a patient lacking a cerebral cortex to recover.

* * *

I’m not convinced that there is any legitimate doubt on this point. A National Review article (hat tip: Bob Hayes) quotes a few doctors arguing that CT scans are “useful only in pretty severe cases”; but what has happened to Terri Schiavo’s brain is, in fact, very severe.

When people argue that a CT scan could not possibly tell us anything about Terri Schiavo’s condition, logically they must believe one of the following two things:

1) CT scans cannot reliably detect when someone’s cortex has mostly turned to liquid.

Or:

2) That someone’s cortex has turned mostly to liquid does not tell us anything important about their condition.

I don’t think either of those propositions are defensible; therefore, I don’t think the proposition “a CT scan can’t tell us anything about Terri Schiavo’s condition” is defensible.

Finally, the National Review article implies that there’s some sort of death-cult conspiracy between the judge and the doctors to hide Terri’s true condition. I think that sort of conspiratorial thinking is ridiculous. But in any case, for it to be correct, it’s not only Michael Schiavo, the judge, and the two doctors hired by Michael who would have to be in on it; two court-appointed doctors and at least three more judges (pdf link) must be in on the conspiracy too. Not to mention all the other medical experts who have commented on the case and disagreed with the National Review’s conclusions (see the neurologists quoted in this article, for example). How far does the conspiracy go?

* * *

I thought this Abstract Appeal post - explaining why the question of “would Terri Schiavo have wanted to be kept alive?” wouldn’t normally come up during the malpractice lawsuit - was particularly well done. In general (and I know I’ve said this before), Abstract Appeal is the absolute-must-read blog for Terri Schiavo related news.

* * *

UPDATE: I’ve edited the post to remove an argument that I didn’t think I could stand behind; I’ve put the argument in the comments for posterity’s sake. I’ve also “promoted” an argument I made in the comments to the main post.

This is an actual piece of returned mail to a certain charity organization. Identifying details have been censored to protect the innocent my job.

Click on the image to see a larger version.

• Redneck Feminist goes a few rounds with the IWF’s ridiculous - and sexist - criticism of Million Dollar Baby. TKO.
• BadChristian Blog confesses the grossest event of his life, and, well, it’s gross. Really gross. If you don’t like well-written essays about grossness, then I suggest you not follow this link.
• Nicely-written, impressionistic guest-post post on Beauty Dish - written by Patia Stephens, whose blog I haven’t encountered before - discusses fat and beauty in a fat-phobic culture.
  

  I’ve spent time in the body-image trenches; I’ve read “The Beauty Myth” and “Fat!So?” and “Love Your Looks.” I know that looksism is a patriarchal tool of oppression, that weight doesn’t equal worth, that life’s too short for self-loathing and celery sticks. I’ve written papers on fat as a human rights issue and the social indoctrination of girls in “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.” None of these things change the fact that I just want to be loved.

  Via XX.

• Via Patia comes this collection of Weight Watchers Recipe cards from 1974. It’s much, much funnier than it sounds, I promise.
• And again via Patia, Losing It, a really interesting blog about body image, weight, and trying to fine a sane position on fat and dieting while living in a culture that can’t see “sane” with a telescope.
• Eugene Volokh, who I generally think of as one of the smartest, most reasonable right-wingers out there, thinks the Iranian government is right about torture. Instapundit agrees. There really isn’t much to say to that, but Aliciablog, The Right Coast, Matt Yglesias, and Digby nonetheless all have responses worth reading. Many links via Body and Soul.
• Speaking of torture, do you know what to call it when you kick someone in the crotch, slam them into walls and furnature, and force them to breathe water instead of air? Well, if you’re our government, you call it “involuntary manslaughter.” Disgusting.
• Trish Wilson has a great post on why a-list bloggers seem to have so much trouble finding women they want to link to, and on the “food fights” that pass for debate in the mainstream media. Shakespeare’s Sister, meanwhile, reports what some A-list bloggers say when they can be anonymous. And while we’re on the subject, don’t miss this op-ed by Katha Pollitt, and this typically thoughtful post from Body and Soul.
• The Two Percent Company favors the legalization of gay marraige, pluralistic marriage, and incest marriage. I also favor legalizing pluralistic marriage (aka polygamy), but I think it’s a bad idea - both logically and politically - to consider all three issues within a single discussion, as if they were all the same issue.
• Respectful of Otters discusses why “crack babies” - a mostly fictional threat - was such a huge story, while “lead paint babies” - a real and ongoing problem - was pretty much ignored by the mainstream media. It comes down to priorities:
  

  The lead problem is complex; it implicates delinquent landlords, decaying inner city housing stock, the shift in low-income housing assistance from federally maintained properties to the Section 8 system (which relies on private landlords), and state and municipal governments [...] In contrast, the “crack baby epidemic” was about poor black women being bad mothers…

STEP ONE: Go and read this debate between NOW head honchette Kim Gandy and Democratic Party biggish-wig Phil Singer (link via Feministing). I was struck by this comment, by Gandy, about who is and who isn’t expected to take it in the teeth for the good of the Democratic Party:

I think the Democratic leadership is trying to say, ‘We have a big tent,’ and it’s my rights that are being used to demonstrate the big tent. I don’t see them out there recruiting anti-organized labor candidates. I don’t see them out there recruiting candidates that are opposed to civil rights or affirmative action. I only see them out there, as with Langevin and Casey in Rhode Island and Pennsylvania respectively, recruiting candidates who are opposed to women’s reproductive rights over good, solid statewide elected officials that support the whole range of democratic values.

STEP TWO: Go read the Left Coaster’s modest proposal for another compromise: Democrats Must Find the “Evolutionary Middle.”

STEP THREE: Laugh or weep? You decide. Hell, do both if you want. Rest assured, the Democrats don’t care either way.

(Optional step four: Take that “third party” idea out of the closet and give it a good dusting. Hey, it’s looking better now, isn’t it?)

[This post reproduces a comment written by La Luba, left here on a previous thread. --Amp]

As a practical matter, most women are not going to choose either abortion or adoption, even if they know or suspect that they will receive no child support. My decision to carry my child to term and raise her was unrelated to financial concerns. Look. I’m a working class woman. I already have very little control over most financial concerns. Beyond being a saver, not a spender, I do the best I can with what little I have. Every time I see one of those articles about how much it costs to raise a child, I kick back and laugh. I already know I won’t be bankrolling my girl’s “Harvard education”. If she goes there (or a similar school) it will be on scholarship. I already know I won’t be buying her a car when she turns sixteen; she’ll be walking, biking, or riding the bus like I did at her age.

In other words, I already knew that in the event of birth control failure, I would be a mother, because the alternatives were unthinkable to me. And like my parents, and their parents, and so forth…..I would just do it. Period. There are more women who will follow this route than the others, statistically.

The “choice 4 men” crowd seems to think that no one ever has a conversation before having sex. The biodad of my daughter knew long before any sexual activity was taking place that in the event of birth control failure I would be raising a child, not obtaining an abortion or seeking adoption. He also knew I was using birth control, because he could watch me putting it in! He also had the option of using a condom, which he chose not to do. He never felt at the time that I had somehow “duped” him into fatherhood; but after I ended the relationship because of his newfound meth habit and refusal to enter rehab, he tells all and sundry that he was “duped” into fatherhood (this, despite no effort to obtain child support). Go figure. Many of the divorced women I know were told the same thing by their exes after two, three or more children that were produced in the context of a married relationship. “You just had those kids to get child support!!” None of those women were stay-at-home moms. The “duped” claim seems to be standard operating procedure at the end of a relationship, completely unrelated to actual circumstance.

I don’t see how a “contract” could be enforced. The conversations most people have before sex are not usually witnessed by anyone, and frankly most of the men who are inclined to abandon a pregnant woman and/or any child are not going to admit that beforehand. They’d never get laid, and they know that. Many women who really thought they would consider abortion or adoption find that they really can’t after pregnancy. Breach of contract? No. The bonding process starts before birth, and this process varies amongst women. It’s partly a physical process. Just like pregnancy takes place inside a woman’s body, the bonding process does too.

I still think the safest assumption is that sex between unsterilized men and women can result in pregnancy, even if birth control is being used properly. And that if a child is born, unless both parents agree to give that child up for adoption, both parents should contribute to that child’s well being. Choice 4 Men simply wants the right to strong-arm women into having abortions (or adoptions), either by a presigned contract or by financial fear. Kinda reminds me of Playboy championing abortion rights; hint: they aren’t doing it because they believe in feminism. Hell, “Choice 4 Men” isn’t even advocating responsibility for paying for an abortion.

I really intended to post on “Alas” today, but I got distracted into posting comments on this Family Scholars Blog thread instead. What’s at issue there is the argument that we shouldn’t have marriage equality because that might lead to people being criticized for saying that heterosexual marriage is best.

Aside from the total lapse of logic there (people will be criticized for saying that regardless of if same-sex marriage is legal), I’m struck by what seems to me to be the stunning pettiness of the argument. Who cares if people get criticized? What difference does that make?

A lot of the argument there seems to come down to the mysterious conservative belief that anyone has a right to a life free from criticism, and if they ever are criticized that’s the same as censorship. It’s the ultimate in entitlement politics, I think.

It reminds me of this exchange I had in the “Alas” comments a while back:

Mark O’Reilly: Women in the workforce are given privilege due to political correctness. IF you as much render a HINT of criticism toward a female you get the old and not so true anymore label of “Misogynist.” So that in itself, the denial of Free Speech for men will trump this entire list no matter how long it is constructed.

Ampersand: Just to clarify: are you saying that if a man is criticized for alleged misogyny, that means his Free Speech has been denied?

Mark O’Reilly: Ampersap,

Yes, absolutely! When you label someone “misogynist” you attempt to silence that person with intimidation and you try to discredit that person so no other person will listen to that person. It’s done all the time and it’s a tactic used by feminists so that nobody can question their credibility or hold them accountable. It’s like a fascist state.

I wouldn’t worry about this view if it were just one or two crackpots - but I run into variations on this “we conservatives are entitled to not be criticized” argument again and again. Although there were a handful of legitimate complaints having to do with overzelous “hate speech” laws, the majority of the complaints about “PC thought police” a few years back, consisted of conservatives saying it made them uncomfortable to be criticized when other students found their views misogynistic, heterocentrist or racist.

Did no one ever tell them that it’s not “thought police” when someone is criticized or made uncomfortable?

Hugo is going to be appearing on Glenn Sacks’ show again, this time to debate “choice for men.” I was rereading my old posts on the subject (if you’re curious, they are here, here, here and here), and I came across this post I wrote in the comments, which I thought was worth “promoting” to its own post.

Question: Is it really accurate to say that both parties have the opportunity to unilaterally prevent reproduction?

Making this statement, I am making some assumptions. First, that “you can chose not to have sex” doesn’t count as control, simply because we don’t accept that argument when referring to anti-choice positions (ie “if she doesn’t want to have a baby, she shouldn’t have had sex”).

The thing is, this argument assumes that the exact same standard should apply to both men and women; put another way, it assumes we should treat women and men the same. 99% of the time, I’d agree with that. But here’s the thing: when it comes to bearing children, men and women are NOT at all the same. Treating them as if they are doesn’t make sense.

To see what I mean, consider this question: Is it discrimination that men’s room provide urinals (letting men get in and out faster, leading to shorter lines) while women’s rooms don’t? Shouldn’t we treat men and women the same and provide them both with urinals?

Men and women are physically different. That means that we pee differently, which would make it foolish to treat men and women the same when it comes to bathroom fixtures. And it means that we have different roles in childbirth, which makes it foolish to act as if men and women are similarly situated when it comes to childbirth.

Both men and women should have every reproductive choice biologically possible. For men and women both, that means they should have the choice not to fuck, if they don’t want to. For men and women both, that means they should have access to every kind of birth control. And for women, that should mean access to abortion.

Cutting either men or women off from their biologically possible options is wrong, in my view. But “abortion” just isn’t one of men’s biologically possible options.

To say “well, if an argument’s valid for women, then it should be valid for men as well” is true most of the time - but it’s not true in a discussion of abortion, because men can’t have abortions. Men and women are not, when it comes to this issue, identically situated; and it’s illogical to act as if they are.

UPDATE: Be sure to check out this related post by Lorenzo at Unimpressed.net.

I think “Alas” is now back online! As you can see, it looks a bit weird around here - or, more precisely, it’s failing to look weird in the particular weird way I prefer. I’ll be fixing that gradually over the next while.

But in the meanwhile, the archives can be read, new comments can be left, and new posts can be written. After the last few days, this seems like a magnificently great status quo to me.

Huge, HUGE thanks to Podz, who stepped in and got “Alas” up and running when I was tearing my hair out in frustration. (If you enjoy “Alas” and you’d like to stop by and tell him “thanks,” this thread is probably a good place for it.)

UPDATE: I thought y’all might enjoy seeing this email from Podz (reproduced with permission) about getting “Alas” back online:

Of all the database rescues I’ve done, that was the second hardest, and by far the longest.

It’s a combination of factors - phpmyadmin / your hosts settings /file sizes and of course your incredibly verbose commenters :) Either way, yes it took some work to get it all back, but back it did go.

I hope you are running regular backups - that’s a huge site to lose !

So take note - this was partly your fault, you incredibly wordy comment-writers, you!

(Just kidding. I wuv you all).

If by any chance you’d like to thank Podz with a little cash, there’s a donation button on his page of Wordpress Help files. I’ve already left a little something, but I’m sure he’d appreciate a little bit more.

I’m going to upgrade my Wordpress install to 1.5 today, so the blog may function a bit oddly or look weird. This too shall pass.

UPDATE: Several days later, “Alas” is finally back online, and may I say that rereading this post gives me a curious sense of… well, a sort of “damn, irony sucks” feeling. Y’know?

Casting Will Smith’s love interest in “Hitch”? was not a simple black or white decision.

Eva Mendes was given the role opposite Smith because the moviemakers were worried about the public’s reaction if the part was given to a white or an African American actress, according to Smith. The actor is saying that it was feared that a black couple would have put off worldwide audiences whereas a white/African American combo would have offended viewers in the U.S.

“There’s sort of an accepted myth that if you have two black actors, a male and a female, in the lead of a romantic comedy, that people around the world don’t want to see it,”? Smith told the British paper, the Birmingham Post while promoting the flick overseas. “We spend $50-something million making this movie and the studio would think that was tough on their investment. So the idea of a black actor and a white actress comes up … that’ll work around the world, but it’s a problem in the U.S.”?

Eva Mendes … who is of Cuban descent … was seen as a solution because apparently, the black/Latina combination is not considered taboo.

Oy. Via Foreign Dispatches.

Via Popgadget (which was in turn via Utopian Hell). Popgadget also recommends the same manufacturer’s toilet brushes.

From the Boston Herald:

Methuen parents tell school their girl is now a boy
By Casey Ross
Saturday, March 5, 2005

A Methuen fourth-grader who was attending school as a girl before February break has come back to school as a boy.

The parents of the 9-year-old said their child was born with the body of a girl but the brain of a boy and has struggled with identity from an early age.

The unidentified parents are now asking school officials to instruct teachers and students to refer to the child as a boy and begin using a new name to address him. The student has been attending the elementary school since first grade.

The sudden change in the child’s sexual identity has generated some concerned calls to the school, but administrators said they intend to comply with the parents’ request, according to the Eagle-Tribune of Lawrence.

There are about 1,200 students in the elementary school, with nearly 150 in fourth grade. So far, school officials said, students are adjusting well to the change.

The mother of the child said the decision to change the child’s identity came after lengthy consultations with medical professionals. She said the child’s condition is the result of a birth defect that causes the body to develop as one gender, while the brain is hardwired for another.

The mother said the child began identifying as a boy at an early age and became so insistant that she and her husband sought medical help. The child has not undergone any medical procedure to change sexes.

I’m not sure I believe in the “boy brain in girl body” analysis; I realize that’s some people’s subjective experience, but I doubt real brains are that simply binary. Nonetheless, if it makes the child suffer to be considered a girl, and if considering him a boy makes him feel better, then I think this is probably the best course of action to take.