It’s hard to say whether or not the use of ‘hug the tar baby’ in Press Secretary Tony Snow’s first conference had any hidden racial significance or if he genuinely felt that the racist historical significance of the word was unimportant (well maybe not, but I’m trying to be generous here people). What isn’t hard is to see that Mr. Snow’s use of such language is the epitome of what people are talking about when they say ‘privilege’.

Having said that, I don’t want to hug the tar baby of trying to comment on the program… the alleged program, the existence of which I can neither confirm or deny.

First lets look at the etymology of ‘tar baby’. I decided to do a bit of informal ‘research’, which means not extensive, but did consist of about 3 or 4 hours of looking up every possible twist on the phrase and words to get all references I possibly could from the Internet. It seems that many feel it was initially a reference to dark skinned first generation slaves, most recognize it most easily by the late 1800’s story by Joel Chandler Harris of Uncle Remus and the Br’er rabbit series. In one particularly good academic critique of the stories, I found a really interesting interpretation which surfaced regularly in my search, but none so eloquently as by Julie Zbeda:

This story suggests that Br’er Rabbit has dual sides as both the victim and the aggressor. He also has a prideful nature as is shown when he refers to himself as “respectable” in comparison towards the tar baby. As racial and moral characterization is a big part of the Br’er Rabbit stories, the relationship between Br’er Rabbit and the tar baby may represent the subtleties of race relations, in which the tar baby is like a Sambo - an uneducated slave who is mentally bound to slavery as well as physically bound - the ideal creation of Br’er Fox, who represents the slave owner. This also poses the question of who is the dominant and who is the subordinate. Although Br’er Rabbit thought himself higher in the social order than the tar baby, when he gets stuck in the tar, he is at the mercy of the tar baby and its creator, Br’er Fox. This represents a warning for what happens when a position of authority is assumed by a slave in a society where it is not permitted. This tale functions as a commentary of plantation culture in regards to the conflicts between the slave and the master, and between the slaves themselves.

The fact is, most people understand that words can have many meanings (despite tar baby having questionable racist connotations to its very etymology) and can change significantly in different contexts. The question then becomes, is the need to use a word or phrase so crucial to making your point that no other word or phrase will do. In a great thread on the Democratic Underground, Fishwax summed it up pretty well by first addressing that Joel Chandler Harris had actually admitted in his introduction that the stories were done in partial defense of slavery, and that ultimately context does matter:

I think one of the chief flaws of the “outrage at the outrage” in this case is that it relies on a belief that context obliterates connotation. People have appealed to Tony’s context of use as if it were 100 percent conclusive, the final word. But context is most useful for determining denotative meaning. Connotative associations extend beyond the specific topical context of the conversation.

I read that and it really hit home for me. Why would the press secretary for the President of the United States be incapable of seeing if nothing else, that particular reference might cause discomfort. The answer for me was pretty clear - white privilege is about being shielded from discomfort and racism that isn’t experienced by them. I guess it’s hard for a middle-aged white man who lives a comfortable and cushy life to relate to why references that have had racially negative origins might bother some people. It’s also a pretty glaring example of cognitive dissonance. And really, it’s a pretty big stretch to call it necessary or defensible.

Here’s a few other questionable points about Mr. Snow’s history when it comes to the issue of racism and the need for sensitivity to other races and cultures:

The O’Reilly Factor on June 30th, 2005: Snow said that calling racism and poverty systemic is “making excuses” for cultural problems in the U.S. rather than trying to understand the situation of the poor. “When you say systemic, it sounds like you’re trying to make excuses…in other words, it sounds like you’re giving people a copout.”

Fox News, Sunday, October 30th, 1998: Snow said, “I love Thanksgiving. It is the least politically correct of all our holidays. It celebrates the old-fashioned bourgeois family. It praises God, who’s creator non grata in most of our public schools, and it bespeaks our national faith in higher truths and greater goods, as well as in our neighbors and ourselves.”

Chicago Tribune, November 20th, 1991: As a White House speechwriter Tony Snow defended former KKK leader David Duke, saying, “Duke is talking about things people really care about: high taxes, crummy schools, crime-ridden streets, welfare dependency, equal opportunity. A lot of politicians aren’t talking about these things.”

Fox News, Sunday, October 5th, 2003: Snow spoke about Rush Limbaugh’s controversial comments that Donovan McNabb was overrated and that reporters are disposed towards black quarterbacks. “The comment wasn’t racist,” Snow said, “but that did not stop political opportunists from accusing Rush of bias.” Snow added, “Racism isn’t that big a deal anymore.”

Stormfront Article, December 31, 1999: An article written by Tony Snow with a debunking theory of Kwanzaa for Stormfront that is archived on Martinlutherking.org. The site itself is worth looking at to get a better understanding of who Mr. Snow has worked for and with in the past - it’s a Martin Luther King hate site and that is littered with examples like this (please keep in mind this quote is not from Snow):

The political affiliations of Martin Luther King that Sen. Jesse Helms so courageously exposed are thus only pointers to the real danger that the King holiday represents. The logical meaning of the holiday is the ultimate destruction of the American Republic as it has been conceived and defined throughout our history, and until the charter for revolution that it represents is repealed, we can expect only further installations of the destruction and dispossession it promises.

And to finish this rather winding ramble of mine off, I found this quote from the Stormfront.org forums in defense of Tony Snow:

Anyone in the newsmedia who attempts to give a fair balanced presentation on the White Nationalist movement can expect to be slammed by the powers-that-be. We all know who those powers are and no elaboration is needed.

So while Tony Snow and the hill might feel comfortable in blithely brushing off the elephant in the room, I’m just sayin’….

Many discussions on Alas have boiled down to the idea that much would be solved if people would just begin to trust women. Trust in their intentions, trust in their motivations and trust in their decisions. The simple phrase ‘trust women’ has been introduced in conversations about rape and abortion consistently here, and even highlighted in one of Maia’s stories as she reminisced about a banner that was in her high-school that really spoke to her. It’s this phrase that resonated with me when I came across a story via my parenting group that launched the blog of Chris Musser, who has dubbed herself the ‘reluctant lactivist’.

So yeah, I’m going to launch into another one of my rants about the importance of supporting mothers in their decisions to breastfeed their children. Here goes.

Reluctant was out a few weeks ago at Gateway Freddie’s (Fred Meyers) shopping, when much to her inconvenience, her wee one of three months decided he was hungry. They do that to you, and they don’t do it on your preferred schedule, but their own ““ fancy that. Having to maneuver herself, her three month old and her three year old daughter, she looked around for a safe and contained place to nurse her son so she could get on with her shopping. She chose a bench near the check-out. And guess what happened then ““ you’d be right if you said rude people happened, but it wasn’t enough that customers wanted to be asshats, management decided to get a piece of the action too.

On April 4th I sat down on a bench at the Gateway Fred Meyer to nurse my two-month-old son. It was about five o’clock on a busy Tuesday afternoon. The last place I wanted to be nursing was in that spot as it was noisy and distracting, but at the time, I couldn’t think of better place to attend to my baby’s needs. I also had my rather flighty three-year-old daughter with me, so wandering around the store to find a quieter spot would’ve left me instead chasing a toddler while carrying a bawling baby. […]

After nursing for five minutes or so, my son seemed comfortable enough for us to start shopping. As I reached into my bag to get my sling, Troy Hardig, Gateway Store Director, approached me. He had a weird look on his face and as I was trying to figure out why he was approaching me when he opens with, “Oh, good. You’re getting a blanket.” He told me there had been complaints about my nursing, not that he minded, but that some people were offended. I was so stunned I couldn’t think of what to say, except to remind him that Oregon law protects a mother’s right to nurse in public. I felt absolutely humiliated. His comments left me feeling like I’d been doing something lewd.

Reluctant spent a few days feeling mortified before letting her very righteous anger replace the hurt, and she contacted one of the regional operations managers, and here’s what he had to say:

Unbelievably, when I spoke with Todd Heinle, Fred Meyers East Portland/SW Wash Operations Supervisor, a couple days later about the incident, he supported the store manager’s claim that I should have been more “discreet” and that three people had complained.

Now, my heart went out to Reluctant, but I also became severely pissed off when I read this. While it isn’t the closest or primary shopping place for our family, it is right smack dab in front of our doctor’s office so we do in fact go there. Well, did go there prior to this anyways (though I admit, Maddox has an appointment on Wednesday afternoon, and I’m ever so tempted to drop in and nurse her on that damn bench as an act of solidarity and support for Reluctant).

The story got the attention of KATU news, which did a good job of supporting nursing women by interviewing Reluctant while she nursed her son. And while Fred Meyer has at least offered a lame ‘oops, that shouldn’t have happened’, they get no cookie from this breastfeeding mother until they decisively make it clear to the public and to their employees that nursing mothers are not only welcome, but to be treated with respect and dignity. Reluctant has made a blog entry for people who want to offer support to her and other breastfeeding women by speaking out to Fred Meyer.

Following the links around, my favorite comments were from a woman named Marrit Ingram, who offered this:

American people want their lives to be totally antiseptic. We want to float around all day long in our individual bubbles of privacy and personal comfort. The world is our living room, and we want everyone on their company manners. If you don’t like mothers and babies, then by all means they should be expected to hide from you and not offend. It’s their problem, not yours. What’s a three-month-old doing in a store anyway? Aren’t you supposed to be on house arrest? Don’t you know that children annoy all the Real People who have a right to assembly? You might inconvenience someone.

These are strange times. Women are losing our reproductive rights, but we’re expected to raise children entirely in private without burdening anyone.

This got longer than I intended, but I’ll close with a customization of the rant I opened with, even though I know I’m mostly preaching to the converted:

Trust women that breastfeed to know when their child needs to be fed. Trust women to not be breastfeeding their child out of a malicious need to cause others discomfort, but rather solely for the nourishment and well-being of her child. Trust women when they decide the best place for the child to be fed when needing to nurse them in a public area. Trust women.

And beyond that, give ‘em a fucking break already.

So I was doing some web surfing which I tend to do nightly, or at least when the kidlets and life in general allows for it. Some masochistic part of liberal me keeps surfing on over to DailyKOS, which I’ve done for several years now, and it never ceases to amaze me how often sexism finds its way into the subtext of the blogging that goes on there.

So yeah, we’re all pretty much aware that conservatives don’t have the market cornered when it comes to sexism, but it still rankles when I come across the more blatantly sexist remarks that are left completely unchallenged at DailyKOS. At this point, I’ll explain what it was I saw, and let you all be the judge as to whether I’m being perceptive or judging too harshly.

Ever since last years repeated snarks against women and women’s issues on KOS, I’ve taken the time every now and again to search for keywords to see if the tone has improved any. Suffice it to say I’ve rarely been pleasantly surprised; however I did find a little gem tonight that I had to share.

In a nutshell; a Kossack named Arion (I wasn’t sure at this point of whether they were a man or a woman) decided to analyze the decision to use ‘choice’ as the tag name for abortion. They felt that we should address the issue more honestly and call it the ‘freedom of abortion’ movement, since the real question was one of liberty. Well, the argument wasn’t that strong, and I found myself kind of bewildered at some of the comments, but they weren’t all in left-field. One person (woman I think) replied with ‘I’ll stick with choice thanks’, and another explained that the word ‘choice’ is hard to twist. Another person felt that the term had been tarnished because choice wasn’t implying enough seriousness to the issue ““ they suggested ‘motherhood choice’. About here I went from kind of bored browsing to furrowing my brow and muttering at my screen ‘wtf?’ Are feminist blogs so secret and rare that our fancy-schmancy terminology of ‘reproductive choice and freedom’ is just our well kept little secret?

At this point is where I started reading with a lot less charity. So the thread continues on to claim that really ‘we’ need a new frame for the issue that will work. It was then suggested that perhaps we ought to make inroads through pointing out gun control as being a potential ‘next’ on the chopping block with regards to personal liberties and rights, since the government cared that much about what wives are doing with gynecologists. That seemed a reasonable enough reminder when taking on the issue of abortion. Next came the part where I began to cringe as the fog was lifted and I was faced with some commentary that was absolutely idiotic, sexist and patronizing. Bottom line, we’re totally screwed if this is the average representative of the moderate democrats that should be our allies on these issues. Why, oh why, do the big name networks and politicians think that DailyKOS is all that.

…I mean really. Thanks, chum, for giving us women a place of pride on this issue. WTF???

So here’s the question, am I just being a judgmental meanie, or does this sort of commentary come off as chalkboard torture to anyone else? Or am I simply spoiled at the level of intelligence and freedom from sexism that feminist blogs offer compared to our generic liberal contemporaries.

Remember getting chickenpox as a kid? The parties that mom’s would have where kids would all go to someone’s house that had contracted it so they could get the virus and work it out into immunity? Nowadays they have vaccinations for everything - even the chickenpox. As these advancements continue to surface, the concerns about the potential side-effects of these vaccinations surface along with them, and the result is the requirements for vaccinated children are becoming a hot topic. Matt and I struggled at first with the different choices regarding the vaccinations of our daughters. We agonized through each one because of the frightening things we heard about vaccinations and their potential effects on children. As a side note, both Sydney and Maddox are being vaccinated and have done well with them.

So anyways, in another thread on Alas, vaccination discussions have surfaced due to the controversial HPV vaccine. What was interesting to me was that instead of the debate being about whether or not trace amounts of mercury are going to cause reactions, or whether by immunizing against anything we are weakening ourselves against everything, the theme is whether forced immunizations are similar to forced pregnancies. Gee wiz, I’d never even considered it that way, but I can see how the comparison could be made. So it got me to thinking, and here is how I feel the two are different, and how they are the same.

Herd Immunity v. Individual Choice: The most interesting idea to me that first grabbed my attention was the notion of ‘herd immunity’. Barbara made a good post explaining herd immunity this way:

Someone made the point that when it is forced on someone for the sake of others, how is that different from forcing someone to bear a pregnancy. For pro-choice people, we argue that we should after all have the right to decide what goes in and comes out of our body, full stop, right?

M had a pretty good response to this, that as a parent of a five month old infant I can certainly understand:

Even so, after some time thinking about it, I came to the conclusion that I don’t agree with forced vaccination, but I don’t agree that it’s like a forced pregnancy either. This is why; a forced vaccination is intended to protect and secure the health of the individual it is forced on, as well as others around them that are fully endowed with all rights given to a born person. A forced pregnancy on the other hand is to protect and secure the health of a potential person that is not fully or even partially endowed with the same rights at the expense or health of a fully endowed person. That to me seems like a pretty big difference, regardless of which end of the forced or suggested spectrum you fall within regarding vaccinations.

Forced versus Pressured: Is ‘forced’ used in the same context or does it have the same meaning in these two cases. When we look at what forced means in the context of vaccinations, the force is of a bureaucratic nature. It occurs by schools refusing to teach children that have not been inoculated, or refusing to allow them to come to school if they have gotten a waiver when outbreaks occur. That doesn’t really seem like ‘force’ to me, but instead precaution. I’m hard pressed to think of what a legitimate argument would be to this being a form of discrimination or undue force. It has options that are reasonable for the people who choose to forego on vaccinations. Forced pregnancy, on the other hand, has the very real potential of compromising and altering the health and physical make-up of the woman hosting the pregnancy. Forced pregnancy doesn’t offer choice, other than adoption, which isn’t really what I’d consider reasonable after making a woman go through the entirety of a pregnancy.

So at the end of the day, while I don’t agree forcing vaccinations on others (though I do strongly recommend that people research and consider vaccinations for the sake of their children and others), I’m going to have to give a thumbs-down on the argument that forcing vaccinations and forcing pregnancy are like arguments.

Recently there was a conversation on the safety of contraception for women, and whether or not it was ever fatal and how. I got this in the mail today due to having used ortho products in the past, and decided to share it as a heads-up to any women that might use or have used the Ortho Evra contraceptive patch. By the way, this is by no means offered in any ‘anti-birth control’ manner; in fact I’m very much for the safe and informed use of contraception period. So anyways it seems a potential class action suit is being prepared and they are seeking women who might have suffered effects by using Ortho Evra contraceptive patch - here’s what I got:

If nothing else, this is good information to have / know when you’re in the market for contraception, or someone you know is in the market for contraception.

For obvious reasons, this new ban that will be going into effect in July in South Dakota has caught my eye - that isn’t to say it won’t be splashed all over the news by tomorrow (or it should be, in a sane world!). While of course most of us knew that this ban and others like it would become common place in the near future, it never really prepares us for the reality. Or it doesn’t prepare me, at the very least. So here it is, the first fairly comprehensive ban signed into law by Governor Mike Rounds, signed Monday aimed at challenging the 1973 Supreme court decision.

In defense of his position, CNN quoted Governor Rounds as saying:

“In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society,” said a statement released by Rounds, a Republican.
“The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them.”

The ban itself can only be described as extremist, going so far as to ban abortions in all cases except for medical necessities. Cases of incest and rape are not included in the exceptions:

The bill signed by Rounds allows doctors to perform abortions only to save the lives of pregnant women, but even then encourages them to exercise “reasonable medical efforts” to both save mothers and continue pregnancies.

Anyone who performs an abortion under any other circumstance — even in a case of rape or incest — can be charged with a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. The mother cannot be charged.

As can be expected, both Naral and Planned Parenthood have spoken out quick and harsh against this new law, and are rallying for support to keep this from happening in other states. Nancy Keenan, president of Naral had this to say earlier:

“Governor Rounds’ signing of this bill should spur all Americans to let their governors know that they oppose egregious actions that threaten a woman’s reproductive freedom. This law is a monumental setback for women in South Dakota and across the country. This ban contains no exceptions for women who are rape or incest victims, or whose health is threatened, and has an inadequate exception to protect a woman’s life.”

“Since the South Dakota Legislature first passed this abortion ban, pro-choice Americans have reacted with a renewed commitment to protect a woman’s right to choose. They are right to be concerned because this is not an isolated case. Anti-choice politicians in 11 other states are pushing similar bans. President Bush has created a climate with his judicial appointments in which anti-choice lawmakers feel emboldened to attack Roe v. Wade. Americans don’t want to see this landmark decision overturned, and President Bush and his anti-choice allies will pay a political price for advancing such an out-of-the mainstream agenda.”

A frightening ‘first’ has been acknowledged in a recent Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research Educational Trust. It seems that for the first time in United States history, the cost of health insurance for a family of four now exceeds the yearly income of a minimum wage earner.

The LA Times has reported on this survey, that gives the amount of $10,880.00 as the cost for insuring a family of four, whereas the income for a minimum wage earner is $10,712.00. Tragically, this rise in costs of premiums has also seen a dramatic downward shift in the amount of businesses offering health insurance plans to their employee’s, which helps illuminate why it is that we are seeing so many people dropping off the insured statistic grid in the United States.

“When we consider that it is small business that drives the economy … to have that engine resting on the backs of millions of uninsured workers is a bad proposition for the U.S. economy,” said Peter Lee, president of the San Francisco-based Pacific Business Group on Health, an alliance of employers that buys insurance for big companies.

“This has to be seen as a wake-up call to policymakers and healthcare providers, as it puts an increasing burden on an already frayed safety net.”

Interestingly enough, most people would like to point the finger at litigation as the primary reason for this, but more information is emerging that shows the symbiosis between insurance companies and health care providers is causing a huge portion of the inflated costs. What are often referred to as ‘usual and customary costs’ paid to health care providers by insurance companies are at this point far less than the amount charged for the services, and it is being speculated that medical providers are in turn trying to make up the difference by ordering unnecessary tests, or office visits.

Regardless, the tag line of the reporting article rang menacingly true to me:

“We’re in a new universe of healthcare coverage, where it is a commodity only for the wealthy,” said Jerry Flanagan, with the Foundation for Taxpayers and Consumer Rights, a Santa Monica consumer rights group.

As the studies accumulate in this new era of pseudo-science, it seems that some school systems are embracing the gender studies with a frightening enthusiasm that could prove extremely detrimental to future gender equality.

According to an article published by MSNBC in collaboration with Newsweek, some schools such as Foust Elementary in Owensboro, KY are trying a new program of dividing classes by gender, and using techniques that are gender specific to foster learning:

So Gray took a controversial course for educators on brain development, then revamped the first- and second-grade curriculum. The biggest change: he divided the classes by gender. Because males have less serotonin in their brains, which Gray was taught may cause them to fidget more, desks were removed from the boys’ classrooms and they got short exercise periods throughout the day. Because females have more oxytocin, a hormone linked to bonding, girls were given a carpeted area where they sit and discuss their feelings. Because boys have higher levels of testosterone and are theoretically more competitive, they were given timed, multiple-choice tests. The girls were given multiple-choice tests, too, but got more time to complete them.

It seems that Kentucky classrooms aren’t the only ones to utilize this approach, the article claiming that over 185 classrooms nationwide have also separated the sexes and used the new brain difference studies to establish their curriculums. Critics of this wolf in sheep’s clothing approach are pointing out the obvious dangers of this, but unfortunately to little or no avail:

To some experts, Gurian’s approach is not only wrong but dangerous. Some say his curriculum is part of a long history of pseudoscience aimed at denying equal opportunities in education. For much of the 19th century, educators, backed by prominent scientists, cautioned that women were neurologically unable to withstand the rigors of higher education. Others say basing new teaching methods on raw brain research is misguided. While it’s true that brain scans show differences between boys and girls, says David Sadker, education professor at American University, no one is exactly sure what those differences mean. Differences between boys and girls, says Sadker, are dwarfed by brain differences within each gender. “If you want to make schools a better place,” says Sadker, “you have to strive to see kids as individuals.”

NOTE: I wrote this right at the time that Katrina had hit, and felt I should hold off on publishing it at the time due not wanting to distract from the more pressing issues that deserved more immediate attention. Since it’s still interesting and noteworthy, I’m going ahead and publishing it now for your edification!

The ACLU has joined the Plan B advocation fray this Tuesday, by asking the Justice Department to release records that would explain why they are not advising hospitals to include emergency contraception counseling when treating rape victims.

In this time decade of what has felt like constant back-peddling with regards to reproductive rights, it’s reassuring to see that more organizations and people are starting to stand up and make their voices heard. According to an article in the Las Vegas SUN, the ACLU has joined with several other organizations in submitting a Freedom of Information Act request regarding the first ever national medical protocol that was distributed to state health departments last fall:

“It is time for the Department of Justice to be accountable for refusing to do everything it can to protect sexual assault survivors from unintended pregnancy,” said Louise Melling of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project.

It’s good to know that this rather astounding issue of obfuscation and negligent medical care is getting the attention it deserves, and the support it needs. Hopefully this is just the beginning of a bit of forward momentum.

This little bit of news is met by me with both approval and sadness. It seems that FDA official, Susan Wood, director of FDA’s Office of Women’s Health has resigned after the FDA decision on Friday to postpone the decision to make Plan B an over the counter drug indefinitely.

CNN reports that in her letter of resignation, Wood wrote;

“I can no longer serve as staff when scientific and clinical evidence, fully evaluated and recommended for approval by the professional staff here, has been overruled,” wrote Wood, who also was assistant commissioner for women’s health. “The recent decision announced by the Commissioner about emergency contraception, which continues to limit women’s access to a product that would reduce unintended pregnancies and reduce abortions, is contrary to my core commitment to improving and advancing women’s health.”

So for obvious reasons, it’s very sad to see an ally that potentially had pull within the lions den deciding to give up the fight, but on the other hand I can understand and appreciate her frustration in the face of continuously mounting opposition within the FDA via ultra-conservatives and fundamentalists being appointed to key roles.

Commissioner Lester tried to soft-pedal his objections, in an obvious attempt at pacifying people for the ignorant decision;

the agency considered over-the-counter sales to women 17 and older fine, but that younger teens would still need a prescription — and that the agency was unable to decide how pharmacies could enforce an age limit, or even if it was legal to have such dual sales.

Okay, not verbatim that, but just about. Here’s what I’m referring to:

A situation regarding the gratuitous ‘obesity’ commentary made by a doctor in New Hampshire has been causing quite a stir in both the media and in the blogosphere this week. I’ve been following the debate and commentary made about the situation and have been horrified at the sanctimonious bullshit people are spewing about the right of doctors to include inflammatory social commentary as part of their medical lecturing on the health risks of being overweight.

So here’s a bit of a rundown on what happened. Dr. Terry Bennett of Manchester, New Hampshire is being investigated for commentary he made to a patient that led to her filing a complaint against him with the New Hampshire Board of Medicine. According to MSNBC, Bennett is unapologetic and explains his actions as thus:

Dr. Terry Bennett, who practices in Rochester, said he has “an obesity lecture for women” that is a stark litany designed to get the attention of obese female patients.

He said he tells obese women they most likely will outlive an obese spouse and will have a difficult time establishing a new relationship because studies show most males are completely negative to obese women.

People have seemed to have a hard time grasping that not only is this charming doctor sizest, but he’s sexist to boot, and has a really poor concept of professional behavior.

A settlement was offered to Dr. Bennett by the New Hampshire Medical Board, but apparently Dr. Bennett feels that his actions were just fine and is in no need of changing his approach:

A settlement agreement was proposed that would have had Bennett attend a medical education course and acknowledge he made a mistake. He rejected the proposal.

“I’ve made many errors in my lifetime. Telling someone the truth is not one of them,” Bennett said.

The abrasive cacophony on web discussions is that being a doctor is a thankless job and the good doctor was being brave and kind for pointing out to the woman that she’s fat and that if her husband dies before her, she won’t be attractive to other men. I’m just boggling.

Recently I have had an interesting question put to me, first in terms of trying to understand the origins of feminism or an overlook of feminism, and now more specifically ‘why feminism?’ Bean offered the suggestion of a book called ‘Feminism is for Everybody’ by Bell Hooks, which I in turn offered to the young man questioning me. He has since directed this question at me, and I’m curious to hear others reactions and opinions to this question.

So besides the obvious answer of valuing equality as a societal virtue, what are some good solid answers for this question?

I picked up that book you said I should, Kim. I am on page 50. It is not answering my questions. It is discussing problems with the advancement of feminism, but it is not discussing why feminism is right.

My question:
Why not domination by men?

It’s true that not all societies have had this kind of domination, but in almost every society I have read about, including primitive hunter-gatherer ones, ones allegedly “egalitarian,” there tends to be greater access of men for power positions and the like. I’ve had feminist friends point this out. They despair of this. One friend said something like, “It’s like it’s human for men to dominate. It really makes me depressed.”

So why not domination? Why is feminism right in putting forth its agenda?

THAT is what I would like to understand. And if anyone can point me in the right direction of this, I would be grateful, but this book has done nothing to really grapple with a deeper philosophical problem. It said, “egalitarianism is good; feminism promotes egalitarianism.” But why is egalitarianism good? Why is it right? I need this question answered.

I am completely open-minded, but I am simply very skeptical. I really want to see all points of view, but I am having difficulty. This makes me think I am missing something. Feminism is one of the few political positions that I cannot personally identify with, and I want to change that. Not because I want to be a feminist, but I want to feel what it’s like to be a feminist. I hope this makes sense.

I wanted to share an interesting and thought provoking eye-opener about how the world might look if we represented it as 100 people. This idea was inspired by the writings of Donella Meadows, a woman who dedicated her activism to creating models of sustainability, and adapted into a web based mini-film by Allyson Lucca. Here’s a teaser excerpt:

If we could turn the population of the earth into a small community of 100 people, keeping the same proportions we have today, it would be something like this:

61 Asians
12 Europeans
14 Americans (from North and South America)
13 Africans
01 Australian (Oceania)

50 women
50 men

67 are not christian
33 are christian (Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox)

It’s definitely worth going to take a look at yourself.

Thanks to a friend who had been watching TV and come across a new documentary called ‘We Are Dad’, I recently became acquainted with a story of discrimination that is both heart-wrenching and inspiring. Perhaps some of you are already familiar with the case, but like myself, I’m sure some of you aren’t. At any rate, it’s worthy of shining the spotlight on it in hopes that more people will continue being vocal about the prejudices gays and their families face from the rabid right.

The story itself is about a gay couple Steven Lofton and Roger Croteau and their five HIV-positive foster children. In a recent article at Gay & Lesbian Times, the background of the story is given along with an interview of the director of ‘We are Dad’. Three of the children began their fostering in Florida, the prior residence of Lofton and Croteau before they made the cross country move to Portland, Oregon due to the need to be closer to Lofton’s elderly parents three years ago. Upon taking up residence, their family swelled to five children, though the three fostered out in Florida remained subject to the Florida laws and supervision.

Here’s where the story gets ugly. Apparently Bert, age 10, one of the three Florida children they have fostered since infancy has stopped testing positive for HIV, so Florida has deemed him adoptable. The kicker being that Florida is the only state that has a blanket ban on gay adoptive rights, which the Supreme Court has refused to consider:

On Jan. 10, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case of Lofton v. State of Florida, which challenged Florida’s ban on adoption by gay couples. The court declined by a 6-6 vote to reconsider an earlier 2-1 decision in 2004 by a three-member panel of the appeals court in Atlanta, Ga., which upheld the law. The ACLU, who filed challenge to the law in 1999, asked the Supreme Court to hear the appeal.

Florida is the only state with a blanket law prohibiting gays and lesbians from adopting children, and it stems from Anita Bryant’s 1977 “Save Our Children” campaign, which repealed the Dade County gay rights law. Bryant’s actions built an impetus against gay adoption in Florida.

Apparently to the people claiming to fight for ‘family values’, the only time it’s okay for children to be in long standing custodial supervision of gays is when the child is tainted with an ailment that makes them less normal. According to Lethimstay.com, a website dedicated to raising awareness of the struggles in the gay parenting community with regards to fostering and adoptions, it seems that since Bert is now a healthy adoptable child, the family that raised him is no longer suitable for him:

Every few weeks, a letter comes from the state, giving an update on the status of finding another family to adopt Bert. Because he no longer tests positive for HIV and is under the age of 14, Bert is deemed “adoptable.” Steve and Roger are legally prohibited from adopting him because of Florida’s ban. So the state continues its effort to find him another home, even though this is the only family he’s ever known…even though, like all five of the kids, he’s already home.

Anyways, I’d encourage people to take a look at this website and catch the documentary ‘We Are Dad’ if you can.

Far be it from me to proselytize for any religion, but I came across a unique and exciting movement that has entered the demand line for theory inclusion to battle it out against Evolution and Intelligent Design.

Apparently concerned Kansas citizen Bobby Harrison started out by writing a letter to the Kansas School Board and has since branched off into all out activism to vie for the inclusion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster universe creation theory. According to Bobby, the movement includes 10 million worldwide, and they are prepared to press the matter legally if need be:

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

One of the more interesting things about this particular worship group is the rather stringent dress code requirements necessary for proper respect to be shown in teaching this theory. Harrison explains that it is a necessity in order to avoid His wrath, and demonstrates through historical data how lack of compliance has affected society in the past:

I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

Thus far, Harrison has received two responses from Kansas School Board member’s expressing their understanding of the gravity of the situation:

Response from Mrs. Sue Gamble - District 2 - Received 6/26/05
Date: Jun 26, 2005 6:34 PM
Subject: Reply

Dear Mr. Henderson, Thanks for your message. Thanks for the laugh. Your web site is fascinating. I will add your theory to a long list of alternative theories I intend to introduce when it is appropriate. I am practicing how to do this with a straight face which is difficult since it’s such a ridiculous subject; it is also very sad that we are even having the discussion.

I will be one of the four member minority who will be voting against the flawed science standards currently being proposed by the six member majority.

Sincerely, Sue Gamble

…

Response from Mrs. Janet Waugh - District 1 - Received 6/25/05
Date: Jun 25, 2005 6:34 AM
Subject: Response from a member of the Kansas Board of Education

Thanks for your comments about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and all the supporters who have sent their support to members of the Kansas Board of Education. I am supporting the recommendations of the science committee and am currently in the minority. I think your theory is wonderful and possibly some of the majority members will be willing to support it.
Thanks again,

Janet Waugh

In closing, Shiver me timbers, matey, this could get ugly! Aarrrghh!

So I’ve been following the Roberts debate, as has the majority of the blogosphere with interest. I had to laugh when I came across an interview of Rick Santorum conducted by CNN Anchor Aaron Brown in which Santorum hotly contests the notion that Roberts should be obligated to answer any questions on Roe v. Wade. He invokes fairness as the reasoning:

BROWN: I saw a poll the other day that said 60 percent of the country wanted to know how Judge Roberts felt about Roe v Wade. It’s a settled case. Do you think the country’s entitled to know whether he believes that that case was decided correctly?

SANTORUM: You know my feeling is, you have to look at the standard of what’s been applied in the past. And what judges in the past have been forced to answer is, you know, how they felt about, you know, sort of the black letter law, if you will. Not really looking at, how would you rule in cases…

BROWN: I’m not asking how you’d rule. This is a settled case. Roe v Wade is a settled case, it is settled. Is this a fair question, do you agree that that case was settled correctly? Is that a fair question to ask him?

SANTORUM: Well, let me put it this way. That question was asked of Judge Ginsberg, it was asked of Judge Breyer and neither of them answered the question.

BROWN: So the answer is no you don’t think the country is entitled…

SANTORUM: Well I think, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. I mean, it’s remarkable that we have an ACLU lawyer, not just someone who — I mean, an ACLU lawyer who gets a pass on their ideology for the United States Senate and we have a lawyer who is really a lawyer’s lawyer, he’s been all over the place, is clearly not someone with an agenda and all of a sudden they have to answer litmus test kinds of questions. Is that fair? I would say it’s not fair.

BROWN: All I want to know is if — it’s really a simple question.

SANTORUM: I’m giving you the answer. The answer is no. If it wasn’t answered in the past, it shouldn’t be answered in the future.

Well, to an extent this seemed reasonable - why after all should we hold SCOTUS nominee’s to different standards with regards to questioning when it comes to divisive issues. But then I came across several posts of outrage, that indicated Ginsburg and Breyer had both answered the question in a way that allowed for some transparency (especially in the case of Ginsburg). I had to do some digging, but I found two interesting things - first of all, it seems that the Federalist Society is championing their amnesiac brother, Roberts. They have published an attack based breakdown of the Ginsburg hearing, coupling it with talking/arguing points that the conservatives might be able to use in order to shield Roberts from answering any questions put to him, as well as omitting the answers she gave that might prove detrimental should he answer them with the same candor she did .

Thankfully I was able to find the testimony that the Federalist Society omitted on her responses during her senate hearings to the issue of abortion at Issues2000.org:

Senator Hank Brown asked Ginsburg about equal rights for men and women on the question of abortion.

Ginsburg: I will rest my answer on the Casey decision, which says in the end it’s her body, her life, and men - to that extent - are not similarly situated. They don’t bear the child.

Brown then asked her to explain further about whether the rights of men and women are not equal in this case.

Ginsburg: I said on the equality side of it, that it is essential to a woman’s equality with man that she be the decision-maker, that her choice be controlling. If you impose restraints, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex.. The state controlling a woman would mean denying her full autonomy and full equality.

Breyer was vague and called it ’settled law’, which implied at least that he personally had no desire for it to be revisited. Quite honestly, I’d have liked more transparency, but then again Breyer didn’t have the same questionable background issues regarding this particular issue of ’settled law’ that Roberts does.

Ultimately it showed me that this in fact was considered not only a valid line of questioning, but also worthy of weight with regards to the Senatorial hearings, and their conclusions of particular nominee’s. With regards to the other answers Ginsburg refused to entertain or answered in a general manner, the responses also included detailed explanations of why her answers were thus.

In some questions regarding Antitrust issues, she indicated non-expertise having only 12 of such cases under her belt, but then offered further explanation on a particular case to give an example of her beliefs. This hardly constitutes an example of her attempting to stymie the process of fact finding.

Consistently she attempted to be specific to give ideas of her general ideology without addressing cases that as she stated were slated on the current or potential dockets.

While conservatives are attempting to paint a similar picture, what seems stunningly evident to me is that her answers were not so much evasions, like Roberts, but instead attempts to answer with transparency while respecting the integrity of the system. That’s my interpretation, at any rate.

While the discussion begins about John Roberts, and his decidedly sketchy history of arguing to overturn Roe v. Wade, conservatives seem to be latching on to the non-answers Roberts gave to the senate when he was first nominated to the United States Court of Appeals - DC District to the brief he co-authored and asserted this:

We continue to believe that [Roe v. Wade] was wrongly decided and should be overruled. As more fully explained in our briefs, filed as amicus curiae, in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 110 S. Ct. 2926 (1990); Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 109 S. Ct. 3040 (1989); Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986); and City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983), the Court’s conclusions in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion and that government has no compelling interest in protecting prenatal human life throughout pregnancy find no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.

When asked for clarification by the Senate, his response was one of ambiguous non-transparency that could only be seen as a non-answer:

“Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land…There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.”

The push now seems to be one where conservatives are chastising liberals for assuming his intentions would be to support the overturning of Roe v. Wade, because his early statements were made on behalf of the first Bush Administration as they framed their arguments for the Rust v. Sullivan case in 1991. While obviously there are a great many issues that need to be looked over thoroughly with regards to this new nominee to the SCOTUS, the definitive need for some transparency with regards to his regard for women’s reproductive rights needs to be addressed before he’s given a pass to the most powerful court system in the country, if not the world.

I did a lot of digging around after the nomination was announced, and all I could find that would give indication towards what his personal beliefs would be, if we are to be charitable and disregard his earlier brief that detailed why Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and came up with a few issues that seemed of particular import with regards to his personal beliefs.

- He’s considered a devout and faithful Catholic, which tends to imply he would agree with and support the Catholic stance of anti-choice on abortion.
- His wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, was vice-president of Feminists For Life, the notoriously anti-choice appropriators of the term ‘Feminism’ that support the banning of legalized abortions.

So what’s the bottom line here? Well, that still remains to be seen, and while as reports state John Roberts may well be a good person that is on some levels a friend to women, that he’s trustworthy to acknowledge the rights of women (and men) for reproductive autonomy and privacy in their family planning choices. So while it could have been worse, patience and transparency in the senatorial debates seem to be the only thing that will tell us by what margin.

UPDATE JULY 13, 2005:

While it’s unclear whether this means another vacancy will occur in the Supreme Court, it’s evident that Rehnquist’s days are numbered, at least with regards to his service. This comes as a frightening, while not unexpected blow to liberals around the country.

For obvious reasons, a concurrent vacancy with O’Connor’s is filled with concern and ‘what if’s with regards to the appointments that are to take place. News has been released that late last night Rehnquist was rushed to the hospital for a spiked fever, likely relating to the thyroid cancer.

July 13 (Bloomberg) — U.S. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who is fighting thyroid cancer, was admitted to the hospital last night with a fever, the Supreme Court said.

Rehnquist, 80, was taken by ambulance for observation and tests to Arlington Hospital in Virginia and remains there today, court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said.

In another blog article earlier this month I created a liberal ‘cheat sheet’ for the potential nominee’s. This news has come along with more SCOTUS nominee gossip that First Lady Laura Bush has been urging the president to consider another female nominee since they are confident of their hispanic base. The name bandied about is Judge Edith Brown Clement of the 5th Circuit Court. This particular bit of SCOTUS gossip also implies that Alberto Gonzales is not in the running.

It is unclear how seriously the president ever regarded Gonzales as a potential court choice or if he was steered away from Gonzales at the urging of conservatives who want Bush to move the court to the right in its judicial philosophy.

UPDATE (July 11, 2005):

So it would seem that O’Donnell was on target with the revelation of Karl Rove being the ’source’ that threw Valerie Plame to the press, however, the spin surrounding it is nauseating. So here’s what the lawyers and the spin-doctors are saying via the LATimes:

According to Newsweek, Cooper and Rove discussed Wilson’s wife in the context of who at the CIA had been responsible for the trip. Cooper noted in the e-mail that Rove was trying to raise concerns about the credibility of Wilson’s report.

Cooper wrote his bosses that Rove offered him a “big warning” not to “get too far out on Wilson,” saying that the trip had not been authorized by senior officials.

Rather, “it was, KR said, [W]ilson’s wife, who apparently works at the agency on [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip,” the e-mail stated, according to Newsweek.

Luskin, Rove’s attorney, declined to confirm or deny the contents of the e-mail.

But Luskin said in an interview Monday that Rove never identified Plame by name and never intended to reveal her identity. He said Wilson’s wife came up as an afterthought in a conversation that Cooper had initiated, primarily for a story about welfare reform.[…]

At the same time, Luskin declined to say whether Rove knew that Plame was a covert agent, even if he did not know her name, which analysts said was a crucial factor in determining whether the law was broken.

They also said that although Rove asserted he did not intend to disclose her identity, a jury might find otherwise based on other factors, such as whether he discussed Plame, even anonymously, with other reporters.

So lets recap on this. Apparently in this day of information and technology when you can Yahoo or Google the phone number of someone in a foreign country, national media would find the reference ‘Wilson’s wife’ to be unclear and are so incompetent as to not be able to find out her name? Who’s buying this nonsense?

How about the spin that she wasn’t ‘covert’? So now we spend millions of taxpayers dollars on issues that could have been answered without a grand jury, simply by stating that she wasn’t covert? Why bother with a grand jury at all if this was the case? Well, in a nutshell, because she was covert and this is all about spinning at this point.

The whole ordeal has left me so angry and outraged. I’m just hopeful that people won’t let this one slide under the rug, like the rest of the nasty things that have occurred with this administration. It’s time for some accountability.

Fresh off the press, it seems that political bombshells may well outshine the fireworks on the 4th of July. In the past few weeks, liberals and progressives have concluded Karl Rove, Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor had a big mouth - but just how big seems to be the new political bombshell looming on the horizon.

Word has it that Lawrence O’Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst claimed tonight on the syndicated show, McLaughlin Group, that the source behind the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame is none other than the president’s right hand man, Rove.

“What we’re going to go to now in the next stage, when Matt Cooper’s e-mails, within Time Magazine, are handed over to the grand jury, the ultimate revelation, probably within the week of who his source is.

“And I know I’m going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of…for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine’s going to do with the grand jury.”

So what will happen to Rove, should this statement by O’Donnell be proven true, considering revealing the identity of a CIA agent is a federal crime? Perjury charges? Treason charges? A Bush pardon and business as usual?

Interestingly enough, Joseph Wilson, former ambassador and husband to Ms. Plame named Rove as the source who leaked his wife’s name to the press from the beginning, was met with cynicism, disbelief and relative silence from that oh so ‘liberal’ (tongue in cheek!) press of ours. If Cooper does indeed name Rove as the source to the Grand Jury, I will be watching with fascination as to how the administration will wiggle out of this one.

Oh, by the way Karl, Pope Boniface VIII left a message for you:

“Silence is the genius of fools and one of the virtues of the wise.”

Well, when it rains it pours, or should we consider this yet another chip in the fragile rights of women in the United States. Wisconsin universities have been targeted by a bill that would ban both emergency contraception in the form of Plan B, as well as counseling on emergency contraception at the advocacy of anti-choice groups such as Pro-Life Wisconsin. Despite The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists report and affirmation that Plan B is not an abortificant, the group claims to represent 20,000 Wisconsin families in their quest to prohibit 26 state campuses from prescribing Plan B, or counseling on Plan B.

“The morning-after pill kills tiny embryonic human beings and very much harms women,” said Peggy Hamill, state director of Pro-Life Wisconsin.

According to an article written up in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, pro-choice and family planning advocates have a distinctly different point of view.

“This is just basic, basic female health care, and it’s extremely disturbing … that women’s health is under attack here and at the national level,” said Tanya Atkinson, field manager for Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin.

The article then goes on to talk about more anti-choice plans that Wisconsin legislators have in the works, including a bill that would support pharmacists to deny Plan B based on moral grounds, as well as denying birth-control pills on moral grounds.

Sickeningly, and in some ways entertainingly enough, Republican legislators in Wisconsin are under the impression that university women in Wisconsin consider Plan B a new and exciting form of Skittles, with a zany and sometimes useful after-affect.

“I think it puts young women at great risk when they are told by medical professionals it’s just OK to take these emergency contraceptives at whim,” said state Rep. Jean Hundertmark, R-Clintonville, a co-sponsor of the bill. “It shouldn’t be taken like candy.”

The only potential silver lining to this rather dark and disgusting cloud is that while the Wisconsin House has approved the bill, and the Senate may pass it as well, Governor Jim Doyle has vowed to veto the bill when and if it came to his desk.