CNN: Pope says condoms may be OK in some circumstances
Seriously breaking news. According to this CNN article, the Pope has recently stated that condom use may be permissible in cases where they can prevent against sexually transmitted diseases, especially AIDS. As a Catholic and a human rights advocate, this is seriously the best news I've heard in relation to both [combined] in a long time. This issue has been one of the most frustrating things in relation to the AIDS crisis in Africa in particular. The Pope has such a wide-reaching influence even among non-Catholics that the Church's stance on condom use has been very detrimental to efforts to combat the disease.
Of course, this permission does not include anything to deal with preventing pregnancy, which is understandable considering the Church's view on procreation. However, I feel that this is an important step in the Church towards a human rights-oriented worldview. For me, my religion and my human rights views are very tightly combined, but the issue of condoms has been a particularly unfortunate point in this. I'm definitely glad that these can now be more tightly reconciled.
Hopefully with these recent statements work towards containing the AIDS crisis not only in Africa but worldwide can flourish and expand. This is just great, excellent news and I hope that eventually it becomes official Vatican policy.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Thursday, November 18, 2010
The odd, odd world of sports
CNN: Finalist dies at world sauna championships
CNN: Snoring to success in Spain's first national siesta competition
Two equally interesting 'sports'-related stories on CNN. First, a Russian finalist at the world sauna championships died in early August. The second discusses the national siesta competition in Spain, which took place in a shopping mall in Spain.
On the first story- WTF? How is 'sauna' a sport? In my opinion, it sounds like the dumbest possible event ever. Let's all sit in a steaming hot room and see who can last the longest! Except you know why saunas have warning labels on them? Because you could DIE. Yeah, I'm gonna go right ahead and risk my life for something that is completely meaningless. The article said the deceased appeared to be suffering from skin burns. Kids, let this be a lesson to you- DON'T sit in saunas for extended periods of time. It's dangerous.
The second story, while at first seems kind of funny, actually goes into the possible extinction of the siesta in Spain. The contest organizers, it explains, are trying to save the tradition which is being pushed out by the desire to compete better on the global market. While I first laughed, it is very valid. Studies (I know they're out there, I just don't have where they are) have shown that napping in the middle of the day actually boosts productivity. I think the Spanish have always been on to something with the siesta, and it's the rest of the world that's falling behind. Of course economics could always prove me wrong, but I know at least I get super tired and sleepy around mid-day, which makes me pretty much useless at work after that point. A siesta would pep me back up and keep me going.
So, in closing, you go, Spain! Viva la siesta!
(And Finland, knock it off with the sauna crap already)
CNN: Snoring to success in Spain's first national siesta competition
Two equally interesting 'sports'-related stories on CNN. First, a Russian finalist at the world sauna championships died in early August. The second discusses the national siesta competition in Spain, which took place in a shopping mall in Spain.
On the first story- WTF? How is 'sauna' a sport? In my opinion, it sounds like the dumbest possible event ever. Let's all sit in a steaming hot room and see who can last the longest! Except you know why saunas have warning labels on them? Because you could DIE. Yeah, I'm gonna go right ahead and risk my life for something that is completely meaningless. The article said the deceased appeared to be suffering from skin burns. Kids, let this be a lesson to you- DON'T sit in saunas for extended periods of time. It's dangerous.
The second story, while at first seems kind of funny, actually goes into the possible extinction of the siesta in Spain. The contest organizers, it explains, are trying to save the tradition which is being pushed out by the desire to compete better on the global market. While I first laughed, it is very valid. Studies (I know they're out there, I just don't have where they are) have shown that napping in the middle of the day actually boosts productivity. I think the Spanish have always been on to something with the siesta, and it's the rest of the world that's falling behind. Of course economics could always prove me wrong, but I know at least I get super tired and sleepy around mid-day, which makes me pretty much useless at work after that point. A siesta would pep me back up and keep me going.
So, in closing, you go, Spain! Viva la siesta!
(And Finland, knock it off with the sauna crap already)
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Supersize nation
MSNBC: Report says school food making kids unfit to serve
There's a group of retired military officers saying that school lunches are making kids obese, and therefore reducing the number of people that would actually be able to pass a military health exam in order to enlist. The article also mentioned that many service members are now being discharged for weight problems. Ironically, the military is the same group that helped institute the school lunch program to begin with.
Despite the silliness of the headline (really, most headlines lately are absolutely ridiculous-sounding), they do make a valid point. Obesity really is detrimental to our national defense. If we end up having a nation of overweight people who either physically can't exercise or are too lazy to exercise, the country as we know it is going to go down the shitter pretty quickly. Imagine: an overweight police officer trying to chase down some young criminal. Granted, if they're both overweight I suppose they'd be easily matched, but chances are the young person's going to be smaller, more agile, and quicker than someone with 40 or 50 extra pounds on their frame. Another scenario: a firefighter wheezing under the weight of his equipment. These people now would never be allowed in those services, but if our country consists mostly of those who are overweight, those are going to be the only people left to fill those roles.
Between this new report, Michelle Obama's crusade against childhood obesity, and television shows tackling the problems in school lunches, I hope that some effective measures will finally take place. Thinking back to my school days, many of the lunches were not the most nutritious. Throughout high school, I ate pizza most days simply because there either were no other options or the options available looked disgusting. A few times they would offer vegetables, but I couldn't stand eating them. The corn was way too watery and really funny-tasting. The beans were simply a rubbery, atrocious mess. Any meat they offered was processed- chicken patties and those weird ground-up meat concoctions that were molded into the shape of ribs. [1] I think part of the problem is the standardized lunch system in public schools. We used one company, Sysco, which sent their food in huge vats. Clearly, the company's focus seemed to be on mass quantities of food, forsaking the quality of that same food.
The article also discussed healthier options in vending machines, something that I think gets missed a lot. At my high school, I think the district did a good job restricting options. We had a milk vending machine (yes, milk) as well as one that I believe sold Nestea and other similar drinks. If I remember correctly, there was also one that sold chips, which you could also get in the cafeteria itself. Soda was one thing not sold there. [2] According to people around school (so, pretty much hearsay as it was in high school), Coca-Cola offered a huge project to the school district that would provide massive renovations and remodeling, plus laptops for every student. In exchange, the district would put Coca-Cola vending machines in the schools. In an amazing show of doing the right thing, the district turned it down (Liverpool, however, did take Coca-Cola up on the offer- they have a pretty amazing school now, but at what cost?). When we've got corporations interfering in schools, there's a huge problem.
Quite honestly, with all the people advocating for healthier school lunches, if anyone can get it done it's the military. I'm glad they're on board with combating childhood obesity, regardless of the reason. As defense spending is an exorbitant amount of our national budget, it is clear that the government sets a high importance on the military. If they say something should be done for their benefit, it will get done.
__________________________________
[1] To tell the truth, those two were actually my favorite lunches (besides West Genny pizza day). Sad that mystery meat can taste that good.
[2] The sale of soda in schools has been a huge issue in this obesity battle due to the general unhealthiness of soda.
There's a group of retired military officers saying that school lunches are making kids obese, and therefore reducing the number of people that would actually be able to pass a military health exam in order to enlist. The article also mentioned that many service members are now being discharged for weight problems. Ironically, the military is the same group that helped institute the school lunch program to begin with.
Despite the silliness of the headline (really, most headlines lately are absolutely ridiculous-sounding), they do make a valid point. Obesity really is detrimental to our national defense. If we end up having a nation of overweight people who either physically can't exercise or are too lazy to exercise, the country as we know it is going to go down the shitter pretty quickly. Imagine: an overweight police officer trying to chase down some young criminal. Granted, if they're both overweight I suppose they'd be easily matched, but chances are the young person's going to be smaller, more agile, and quicker than someone with 40 or 50 extra pounds on their frame. Another scenario: a firefighter wheezing under the weight of his equipment. These people now would never be allowed in those services, but if our country consists mostly of those who are overweight, those are going to be the only people left to fill those roles.
Between this new report, Michelle Obama's crusade against childhood obesity, and television shows tackling the problems in school lunches, I hope that some effective measures will finally take place. Thinking back to my school days, many of the lunches were not the most nutritious. Throughout high school, I ate pizza most days simply because there either were no other options or the options available looked disgusting. A few times they would offer vegetables, but I couldn't stand eating them. The corn was way too watery and really funny-tasting. The beans were simply a rubbery, atrocious mess. Any meat they offered was processed- chicken patties and those weird ground-up meat concoctions that were molded into the shape of ribs. [1] I think part of the problem is the standardized lunch system in public schools. We used one company, Sysco, which sent their food in huge vats. Clearly, the company's focus seemed to be on mass quantities of food, forsaking the quality of that same food.
The article also discussed healthier options in vending machines, something that I think gets missed a lot. At my high school, I think the district did a good job restricting options. We had a milk vending machine (yes, milk) as well as one that I believe sold Nestea and other similar drinks. If I remember correctly, there was also one that sold chips, which you could also get in the cafeteria itself. Soda was one thing not sold there. [2] According to people around school (so, pretty much hearsay as it was in high school), Coca-Cola offered a huge project to the school district that would provide massive renovations and remodeling, plus laptops for every student. In exchange, the district would put Coca-Cola vending machines in the schools. In an amazing show of doing the right thing, the district turned it down (Liverpool, however, did take Coca-Cola up on the offer- they have a pretty amazing school now, but at what cost?). When we've got corporations interfering in schools, there's a huge problem.
Quite honestly, with all the people advocating for healthier school lunches, if anyone can get it done it's the military. I'm glad they're on board with combating childhood obesity, regardless of the reason. As defense spending is an exorbitant amount of our national budget, it is clear that the government sets a high importance on the military. If they say something should be done for their benefit, it will get done.
__________________________________
[1] To tell the truth, those two were actually my favorite lunches (besides West Genny pizza day). Sad that mystery meat can taste that good.
[2] The sale of soda in schools has been a huge issue in this obesity battle due to the general unhealthiness of soda.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Why women can't win
CNN: California governor candidates spar over 'whore' remark
Honestly, I am absolutely disgusted that this is even an issue. California's Democratic gubernatorial candidate (and current CA Attorney General) Jerry Brown is in the spotlight for using the word 'whore' in comments about the Republican candidate Meg Whitman.
Of course, the conversation in question was 'private' and the campaign has apologized for the comment. But that's not really the issue. The issue is, why is it acceptable to degrade female politicians and candidates simply based on their sex? Bitch, whore, slut... the list goes on and on of what politicians find appropriate to call their female opponents. The kicker is that anytime a woman actually speaks out against this, she is automatically labeled a crybaby or complainer, with people telling her to suck it up, that she should grow some thicker skin if she really wants to make it in politics. It makes me so furious- you never see gender-based attacks against male politicians!
The thing that really gets me is the comments section on the CNN website for this article. So many commenters see this as a joke, continuing to call Ms. Whitman a whore (which considering her background as former CEO of eBay, I'm pretty sure is false). I think this is my 'favorite' piece of commentary. And by 'favorite' I mean 'most despicable':
It's so nice to see that gender-based violence (since not all violence must be physical) is still so easily prevalent in the United States. God forbid a woman run on the merits of her own beliefs; instead, we are all forced to run on the basis of what's in between our legs. The Frisky recently had an article about these gender-based attacks, and how they have made it harder for women to be successful in running for office.
Attacks and comments such as these make it very hard for women to be seen as serious, intelligent candidates.* With women making the majority in all forms of higher education (undergraduate and graduate), it is astonishing that only 16.8% of Congresspersons are women. Unfortunately, Washington is still very much the good 'ole [white] boys club. People are making some noise over the fact that we now have three female sitting justices on the Supreme Court (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan). However, that is still 33%, not close to representing the actual gender makeup of this nation. However, they are doing much better than Congress as a whole, so it is a positive step.**
The American culture on both sides can be partly to blame for this. The movie Mean Girls makes an excellent point when Tina Fey's character says, "...you all have got to stop calling each other sluts and whores. It just makes it ok for guys to call you sluts and whores." Women can be so vindictive, catty, and just downright mean to each other that it seriously hinders gaining respect.
Men, too, are part of the problem. While I realize not all men are misogynists or blatantly sexist, there is still a culture of disrespect when it comes to women. As men have been the traditional power-holders, they are not used to it when their power is threatened by outsiders. In regards to women, they react the only way they know how- by degrading them sexually. In politics, it's an easy cop-out. When you can't argue against a woman's political viewpoints, argue against her vagina! It's something easy to point out.
I think both genders need to seriously work at discounting this type of gender bias. It is unfair to hold women to a completely different standard than men when they are both vying for the same position. It happens all over in so many fields, but this is so visible. If we all want to make an impact in changing the discourse around gender, the first area we should start is politics.
*Exception: Sarah Palin. While I denounce gender-based attacks on her, it doesn't change the fact that she's a fucking idiot.
**Even more awesome? If someday we had a female Chief Justice!
Honestly, I am absolutely disgusted that this is even an issue. California's Democratic gubernatorial candidate (and current CA Attorney General) Jerry Brown is in the spotlight for using the word 'whore' in comments about the Republican candidate Meg Whitman.
Of course, the conversation in question was 'private' and the campaign has apologized for the comment. But that's not really the issue. The issue is, why is it acceptable to degrade female politicians and candidates simply based on their sex? Bitch, whore, slut... the list goes on and on of what politicians find appropriate to call their female opponents. The kicker is that anytime a woman actually speaks out against this, she is automatically labeled a crybaby or complainer, with people telling her to suck it up, that she should grow some thicker skin if she really wants to make it in politics. It makes me so furious- you never see gender-based attacks against male politicians!
The thing that really gets me is the comments section on the CNN website for this article. So many commenters see this as a joke, continuing to call Ms. Whitman a whore (which considering her background as former CEO of eBay, I'm pretty sure is false). I think this is my 'favorite' piece of commentary. And by 'favorite' I mean 'most despicable':
Attacks and comments such as these make it very hard for women to be seen as serious, intelligent candidates.* With women making the majority in all forms of higher education (undergraduate and graduate), it is astonishing that only 16.8% of Congresspersons are women. Unfortunately, Washington is still very much the good 'ole [white] boys club. People are making some noise over the fact that we now have three female sitting justices on the Supreme Court (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan). However, that is still 33%, not close to representing the actual gender makeup of this nation. However, they are doing much better than Congress as a whole, so it is a positive step.**
The American culture on both sides can be partly to blame for this. The movie Mean Girls makes an excellent point when Tina Fey's character says, "...you all have got to stop calling each other sluts and whores. It just makes it ok for guys to call you sluts and whores." Women can be so vindictive, catty, and just downright mean to each other that it seriously hinders gaining respect.
Men, too, are part of the problem. While I realize not all men are misogynists or blatantly sexist, there is still a culture of disrespect when it comes to women. As men have been the traditional power-holders, they are not used to it when their power is threatened by outsiders. In regards to women, they react the only way they know how- by degrading them sexually. In politics, it's an easy cop-out. When you can't argue against a woman's political viewpoints, argue against her vagina! It's something easy to point out.
I think both genders need to seriously work at discounting this type of gender bias. It is unfair to hold women to a completely different standard than men when they are both vying for the same position. It happens all over in so many fields, but this is so visible. If we all want to make an impact in changing the discourse around gender, the first area we should start is politics.
*Exception: Sarah Palin. While I denounce gender-based attacks on her, it doesn't change the fact that she's a fucking idiot.
**Even more awesome? If someday we had a female Chief Justice!
Friday, September 10, 2010
Unbiased reporting?
CNN: Mortar lands outside kindergarten buildings in Israel
Just one question: where's the story about the countless number of Israeli mortars that have landed not only outside, but inside Palestinian kindergartens, elementary schools, and so on- actually killing students?
(If anyone wants to know more, just ask me for a copy of my paper on the realities of education for Palestinian children in Gaza and the West Bank. This was a result of careful research- not usually things you'd find in the front pages.)
Just one question: where's the story about the countless number of Israeli mortars that have landed not only outside, but inside Palestinian kindergartens, elementary schools, and so on- actually killing students?
(If anyone wants to know more, just ask me for a copy of my paper on the realities of education for Palestinian children in Gaza and the West Bank. This was a result of careful research- not usually things you'd find in the front pages.)
Thursday, September 9, 2010
The Hidden Violence
CNN: Doctors remove nail allegedly hammered into maid by employers
This article brought up a lot of reactions in myself when I read it. In summary, it discusses the plight of a Sri Lankan maid who underwent surgery to remove 18 nails that had been hammered into her arms, legs, and forehead, allegedly by her Saudi employers. The woman was a registered domestic employee in Saudi Arabia.
The article reflects (sadly) much of the news I encountered over the summer in the course of my research in Nepal. About once a week there would be an article in at least one paper, usually on the front page, detailing the plight Nepali workers faced abroad. What Americans, desperate to protect 'their' jobs from foreigners, may not realize is the actual practice of migration worldwide. The largest region for employing migrant workers? The Gulf countries (particularly Saudi Arabia and Kuwait). The majority of workers come from South Asia.
People in the US argue about laws being too protective of these types of workers (typically portrayed in the US as illegals). However, would Americans really want to live in a country where this type of abuse is common? Rarely this summer did I encounter an article about the benefits of Nepalis working abroad. The vast majority detailed the situation of an individual, abused sometimes to the point of full disability.
Sadly, this abuse is all too common, and people in the Western world know nothing about it. To the West's credit, news mostly focuses on local and national events, and international events only when it is relevant to the country as a whole.
I will say, there are other international issues that get attention that deal with human rights- Darfur and Burma to name a couple. However, those are few and far between, and usually brought to the spotlight by celebrity attention.
Where is the attention for these workers, who are forced to leave their countries due to a lack of opportunities in order to provide for their families? Sadly, this is one important issue that gets left out of a lot of discourse on human rights.
In searching Human Rights Watch's website, if one wants to find articles related to migrant workers, they have to be searched for specifically. Many of the articles in the 'Workers, Forced Labor & Trafficking' section focus on issues of human trafficking. Finding articles on abuse and/or exploitation of legal migrant workers requires a dedicated search on the subject. Casual viewers of the website looking for recent topics of interest will not find this. It is therefore difficult to bring this issue to light when even human rights workers keep it in the back of the closet.
This article brought up a lot of reactions in myself when I read it. In summary, it discusses the plight of a Sri Lankan maid who underwent surgery to remove 18 nails that had been hammered into her arms, legs, and forehead, allegedly by her Saudi employers. The woman was a registered domestic employee in Saudi Arabia.
The article reflects (sadly) much of the news I encountered over the summer in the course of my research in Nepal. About once a week there would be an article in at least one paper, usually on the front page, detailing the plight Nepali workers faced abroad. What Americans, desperate to protect 'their' jobs from foreigners, may not realize is the actual practice of migration worldwide. The largest region for employing migrant workers? The Gulf countries (particularly Saudi Arabia and Kuwait). The majority of workers come from South Asia.
People in the US argue about laws being too protective of these types of workers (typically portrayed in the US as illegals). However, would Americans really want to live in a country where this type of abuse is common? Rarely this summer did I encounter an article about the benefits of Nepalis working abroad. The vast majority detailed the situation of an individual, abused sometimes to the point of full disability.
Sadly, this abuse is all too common, and people in the Western world know nothing about it. To the West's credit, news mostly focuses on local and national events, and international events only when it is relevant to the country as a whole.
I will say, there are other international issues that get attention that deal with human rights- Darfur and Burma to name a couple. However, those are few and far between, and usually brought to the spotlight by celebrity attention.
Where is the attention for these workers, who are forced to leave their countries due to a lack of opportunities in order to provide for their families? Sadly, this is one important issue that gets left out of a lot of discourse on human rights.
In searching Human Rights Watch's website, if one wants to find articles related to migrant workers, they have to be searched for specifically. Many of the articles in the 'Workers, Forced Labor & Trafficking' section focus on issues of human trafficking. Finding articles on abuse and/or exploitation of legal migrant workers requires a dedicated search on the subject. Casual viewers of the website looking for recent topics of interest will not find this. It is therefore difficult to bring this issue to light when even human rights workers keep it in the back of the closet.
Sarah Palin says something smart?
CNN: Sarah Palin: Quran burning insensitive and un-American
Unbelievable, I know. But according to this article on CNN's Belief Blog, Sarah Palin responded to questions of whether or not she would comment on Florida's Terry Jones's plan to burn copies of the Qur'an at his ironically-named "Dove World Outreach Center" via Twitter and Facebook, denouncing the planned actions of Jones.
Of course, she then goes and equates Qur'an-burning with Park51 (again mistakenly calling it a mosque). Way to go. However, I think it does speak to the disgustingness of the act that there is such a wide base of criticism against this- Republicans, Democrats, a wide range of religious leaders (Jones's actions have also drawn a response from the Vatican, calling it an "outrageous and grave gesture"). That Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton can agree on something is nothing short of a miracle. In fact, the only big name I can think of hearing in defense of Jones (although condemning the act itself) is Michael Bloomberg.
It has sprung up a huge debate about First Amendment rights. The whole issue of Park51 and Jones's Qur'an-burning have the nation teetering on the balance of what is protected free speech. At what line does sensitivity take over the freedom of speech, assembly, religion? Palin argues that it is a sensitivity issue when Jones burns copies of the Qur'an, just as it is a sensitivity issue in building the community center (she believes the backers should be sensitive to 9/11 victims and build elsewhere). Bloomberg argues it is a freedom of speech issue- Jones has the right to burn the Qur'an, no matter how disgusting people may view the actions; the developers of Park51 have the right to build their community center, no matter how many people view their actions as insensitive.
So, where do we draw the line?
Unbelievable, I know. But according to this article on CNN's Belief Blog, Sarah Palin responded to questions of whether or not she would comment on Florida's Terry Jones's plan to burn copies of the Qur'an at his ironically-named "Dove World Outreach Center" via Twitter and Facebook, denouncing the planned actions of Jones.
Of course, she then goes and equates Qur'an-burning with Park51 (again mistakenly calling it a mosque). Way to go. However, I think it does speak to the disgustingness of the act that there is such a wide base of criticism against this- Republicans, Democrats, a wide range of religious leaders (Jones's actions have also drawn a response from the Vatican, calling it an "outrageous and grave gesture"). That Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton can agree on something is nothing short of a miracle. In fact, the only big name I can think of hearing in defense of Jones (although condemning the act itself) is Michael Bloomberg.
It has sprung up a huge debate about First Amendment rights. The whole issue of Park51 and Jones's Qur'an-burning have the nation teetering on the balance of what is protected free speech. At what line does sensitivity take over the freedom of speech, assembly, religion? Palin argues that it is a sensitivity issue when Jones burns copies of the Qur'an, just as it is a sensitivity issue in building the community center (she believes the backers should be sensitive to 9/11 victims and build elsewhere). Bloomberg argues it is a freedom of speech issue- Jones has the right to burn the Qur'an, no matter how disgusting people may view the actions; the developers of Park51 have the right to build their community center, no matter how many people view their actions as insensitive.
So, where do we draw the line?
Friday, May 7, 2010
Not good.
CNN: Bill aims to strip certain Americans of their citizenship
This is not good. This is seriously not good. A new bill introduced in Congress this week, the Terrorist Expatriation Act, moves to strip Americans of their citizenship if they have been "found to have provided material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization -- as designated by the secretary of state -- or participated in actions against the United States." This comes off the heels of the suspected attempted Times Square bomber, who received American citizenship last year. While Sen. Joe Lieberman states that this is simply updating the 1940 Immigration and Nationality Act to reflect current circumstances, it really goes farther than that.
Having studied refugee issues for a couple of years now, it allows for an interesting precedent for this issue. In current U.S. refugee law, any person applying for refugee status that has provided material support to a terrorist organization will be denied refugee status and deported. However, this law does not take into account whether that material support was willing or not. There have been numerous cases where people applying for refugee status in the US were forced to provide things to terrorist organizations (usually through extortion, death threats, etc.), yet still fell under the 'material support' clause.
Another issue is the list of organizations that the United States deems terrorist. This includes the CPN (M) [Communist Party of Nepal- Maoist], who actually seated a prime minister and are a part of the constitution-writing process. Having studied Nepal for the past semester in depth [read- ad nauseam], a few things are apparent in this (in my opinion) wrongful designation. First, the Maoists have not done much worse than the government did during the People's War. Second, Maoists have not done much worse (arguably, they have done better) than all of the right-wing dictatorships in Latin America during the 1980s, which the United States supported. Yet, because they have 'communist' in their name and have engaged in armed conflict, automatically they are deemed to be terrorists.
Connecting this to the issue of the proposed bill, the issue is that this has the potential to seriously impact Americans working abroad, among other issues. One of the largest issues is that it prevents aid, development, and other workers from assisting in many legitimate areas (particularly in government), because one of the prominent and legitimate political parties is deemed a terrorist organization by the United States government. One of my largest concerns about going to Nepal is working on some project that seeks reconciliation among Nepalis, and then getting into trouble back in the US because some of the participants were Maoists. Apart from my own potential legal troubles, this completely undermines any work that could be done to facilitate transition to a stable, functioning government. And isn't that what the US always wants abroad?
Long story short, the bill as described spells out bad news. I can agree with the sentiment of the bill, to protect the nation from treasonous citizens. However, there needs to be some serious oversight as to what this bill contains, to ensure the protection of those citizens who may be victims of extortion or terror themselves, as well as those working around the world to help create a safer global environment.
This is not good. This is seriously not good. A new bill introduced in Congress this week, the Terrorist Expatriation Act, moves to strip Americans of their citizenship if they have been "found to have provided material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization -- as designated by the secretary of state -- or participated in actions against the United States." This comes off the heels of the suspected attempted Times Square bomber, who received American citizenship last year. While Sen. Joe Lieberman states that this is simply updating the 1940 Immigration and Nationality Act to reflect current circumstances, it really goes farther than that.
Having studied refugee issues for a couple of years now, it allows for an interesting precedent for this issue. In current U.S. refugee law, any person applying for refugee status that has provided material support to a terrorist organization will be denied refugee status and deported. However, this law does not take into account whether that material support was willing or not. There have been numerous cases where people applying for refugee status in the US were forced to provide things to terrorist organizations (usually through extortion, death threats, etc.), yet still fell under the 'material support' clause.
Another issue is the list of organizations that the United States deems terrorist. This includes the CPN (M) [Communist Party of Nepal- Maoist], who actually seated a prime minister and are a part of the constitution-writing process. Having studied Nepal for the past semester in depth [read- ad nauseam], a few things are apparent in this (in my opinion) wrongful designation. First, the Maoists have not done much worse than the government did during the People's War. Second, Maoists have not done much worse (arguably, they have done better) than all of the right-wing dictatorships in Latin America during the 1980s, which the United States supported. Yet, because they have 'communist' in their name and have engaged in armed conflict, automatically they are deemed to be terrorists.
Connecting this to the issue of the proposed bill, the issue is that this has the potential to seriously impact Americans working abroad, among other issues. One of the largest issues is that it prevents aid, development, and other workers from assisting in many legitimate areas (particularly in government), because one of the prominent and legitimate political parties is deemed a terrorist organization by the United States government. One of my largest concerns about going to Nepal is working on some project that seeks reconciliation among Nepalis, and then getting into trouble back in the US because some of the participants were Maoists. Apart from my own potential legal troubles, this completely undermines any work that could be done to facilitate transition to a stable, functioning government. And isn't that what the US always wants abroad?
Long story short, the bill as described spells out bad news. I can agree with the sentiment of the bill, to protect the nation from treasonous citizens. However, there needs to be some serious oversight as to what this bill contains, to ensure the protection of those citizens who may be victims of extortion or terror themselves, as well as those working around the world to help create a safer global environment.
Birth control for men?
CNN: Where's the male birth control pill?
CNN posted a great article today not only about the evolution of women's birth control, but also about recent debates about male birth control. While women have many options to choose from when it comes to preventing pregnancy, the article states, men don't. Lately, researchers have been looking into developing a male pill that would theoretically reduce or shut off sperm production. It has also noted that researchers also have injections and contraceptive gels in clinical trials as well.
This is actually some fantastic news in terms of sex and gender parity. First, it will hopefully (as long as clinical trials are successful) give people another additional layer of protection against pregnancy, which is something that I am seeing ridiculously too often (especially among others of my generation). Second, it takes a lot of pressure off of the woman to be the solely responsible one for birth control. Currently, the status quo seems to be men encouraging women to go on birth control so a) they won't get pregnant; and b) men don't have to wear condoms. [1] That whole standard is really unfair to women, who are then forced to bear sole responsibility for reproduction, something that actually requires two people to make happen.
I think it would be interesting to see a whole role-reversal with birth control, showing women encouraging their men to go on the pill. It should cause some more understanding, especially understanding all of the effects that birth control has on the body. Reading the info sheet that comes with my prescription, I got a little nervous first taking the pill. One of the worst side effects I noted was ovarian cysts, which trust me, are excruciatingly painful. The fact that women are forced to put up with that is beyond ridiculous, and maybe if men were forced to take pills full of hormones, they may be a little more understanding if a woman doesn't want to use it and would rather use a condom.
Personally, I see this advancement as not only an advancement for reproductive health, I see it as an advancement for women as well. It is creating more equal responsibility in reproduction, and will hopefully shift the burden from almost entirely off of women to a shared burden for equal partners in a relationship. Although it seems small, it really will make a large step towards equality, especially in such a powerful arena.
____________________________________
[1] Which is a stupid thing anyway. Men, would you rather be slightly 'uncomfortable' during sex or would you rather have a baby? I'm pretty sure I know the answer.
CNN posted a great article today not only about the evolution of women's birth control, but also about recent debates about male birth control. While women have many options to choose from when it comes to preventing pregnancy, the article states, men don't. Lately, researchers have been looking into developing a male pill that would theoretically reduce or shut off sperm production. It has also noted that researchers also have injections and contraceptive gels in clinical trials as well.
This is actually some fantastic news in terms of sex and gender parity. First, it will hopefully (as long as clinical trials are successful) give people another additional layer of protection against pregnancy, which is something that I am seeing ridiculously too often (especially among others of my generation). Second, it takes a lot of pressure off of the woman to be the solely responsible one for birth control. Currently, the status quo seems to be men encouraging women to go on birth control so a) they won't get pregnant; and b) men don't have to wear condoms. [1] That whole standard is really unfair to women, who are then forced to bear sole responsibility for reproduction, something that actually requires two people to make happen.
I think it would be interesting to see a whole role-reversal with birth control, showing women encouraging their men to go on the pill. It should cause some more understanding, especially understanding all of the effects that birth control has on the body. Reading the info sheet that comes with my prescription, I got a little nervous first taking the pill. One of the worst side effects I noted was ovarian cysts, which trust me, are excruciatingly painful. The fact that women are forced to put up with that is beyond ridiculous, and maybe if men were forced to take pills full of hormones, they may be a little more understanding if a woman doesn't want to use it and would rather use a condom.
Personally, I see this advancement as not only an advancement for reproductive health, I see it as an advancement for women as well. It is creating more equal responsibility in reproduction, and will hopefully shift the burden from almost entirely off of women to a shared burden for equal partners in a relationship. Although it seems small, it really will make a large step towards equality, especially in such a powerful arena.
____________________________________
[1] Which is a stupid thing anyway. Men, would you rather be slightly 'uncomfortable' during sex or would you rather have a baby? I'm pretty sure I know the answer.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Drill baby drill? How about don't baby don't!
As there are so many news stories about this, I will be linking throughout instead of one giant link at the beginning.
This oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is getting bad. Really bad. So far (as of Monday), an estimated 2.6 million gallons of oil have leaked from BP's pipeline in the Gulf, equalling approximately 60,000 barrels. According to the CNN article, the oil slick created is about the size of Delaware (for reference, that's 2,044 square miles- land and water). When size estimates are coming in relation to states, there's a serious problem.
BP (according to the previously mentioned CNN article) has constructed a containment chamber to capture oil still leaking out of the largest of the pipeline's three leaks. Apart from the fact that there are three leaks in the line, another issue is that these leaks are at the deep-sea level: 5,000 feet below sea level. Even if the containment chamber works, it's going to be pretty hard to even get the oil out of the chamber.
The latest news as of Thursday is that some oil has now reached one of Louisiana's barrier islands. This is even worse news, because the oil spread is getting worse. The last thing that anyone wants to happen is for oil to reach the coast, but it seems as though that's what's going to happen. The containment chamber has finally reached the leak, but still, the damage has already been done. Hopefully it will be successful and capture any more oil leaking out from that spot.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what we need to convince people of the real dangers of offshore drilling. Although supporters do acknowledge the possibility of oil spills, I don't think any of them have ever taken the time to actually consider the impact that an oil spill or leak, such as what is occurring right now, would actually have. Some people are so concerned over whether or not we're going to have enough oil that they forget other issues that are going on, such as the future of energy as a whole. Instead of wasting so much time worrying about oil, possibly (likely) decimiating the nation's coastal areas, we should be focused on clean energy (and no, there is no such thing as 'clean coal').
One of the greatest things in terms of energy to happen recently is the approval of a windfarm off the Massachusettes Bay which has long been opposed by the Kennedys due to the fact that it would 'ruin their view'. Now, I like the Kennedys and all, but what total bs. You're going to deny an easy source of clean, renewable energy because of your own selfish interests? How pathetic. But anyway, back to the energy. Wind energy is easily the best form of renewable energy out there. Ethanol, while cleaner than coal, actually takes more energy to produce than oil. Until that process is refined, ethanol's really not the most viable option. But wind- wind! Wind is everywhere! If you slapped some windmills up along the Hudson River, you could probably power the entire city! (Ok, in reality you could power a small section of Manhattan due to sheer population size and energy consumption- I got excited.)
One of the best things to happen to New York State in recent years was the passage of net metering laws, which allow people to put up windmills and/or solar panels on their property. Any additional energy they make can actually be sold back to energy companies. [1] In places like Oswego, people would save on energy and become more environmentally responsible at the same time. What on earth could possibly be wrong with that? [2] And yet people keep fighting it, for reasons that I don't even know, and if I did, I would be able to cut them down for being straight-up wrong.
Hopefully a few things will come out of this. First, Obama will reconsider his plans for offshore drilling (which he is doing), and hopefully nix the plan. Second, Sarah Palin will shut the hell up about 'drill baby drill'. Third, everyone else in the country will wake the hell up and realize that there could be worse things in the world than purchasing oil from the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, I might note, is one of the US's biggest allies in the region- so basically we're buying from friends anyway). We could decimate an entire ecosystem, put an entire industry (fishing) out of business, and kill the livelihood of all families involved. The choice is ours.
________________________________________
[1] For some great info, check out NYPIRG's website. And no, I'm not plugging them simply because I used to work for them. They really do great stuff.
[2] Rhetorical question. Because of course nothing is wrong with that.
This oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is getting bad. Really bad. So far (as of Monday), an estimated 2.6 million gallons of oil have leaked from BP's pipeline in the Gulf, equalling approximately 60,000 barrels. According to the CNN article, the oil slick created is about the size of Delaware (for reference, that's 2,044 square miles- land and water). When size estimates are coming in relation to states, there's a serious problem.
BP (according to the previously mentioned CNN article) has constructed a containment chamber to capture oil still leaking out of the largest of the pipeline's three leaks. Apart from the fact that there are three leaks in the line, another issue is that these leaks are at the deep-sea level: 5,000 feet below sea level. Even if the containment chamber works, it's going to be pretty hard to even get the oil out of the chamber.
The latest news as of Thursday is that some oil has now reached one of Louisiana's barrier islands. This is even worse news, because the oil spread is getting worse. The last thing that anyone wants to happen is for oil to reach the coast, but it seems as though that's what's going to happen. The containment chamber has finally reached the leak, but still, the damage has already been done. Hopefully it will be successful and capture any more oil leaking out from that spot.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what we need to convince people of the real dangers of offshore drilling. Although supporters do acknowledge the possibility of oil spills, I don't think any of them have ever taken the time to actually consider the impact that an oil spill or leak, such as what is occurring right now, would actually have. Some people are so concerned over whether or not we're going to have enough oil that they forget other issues that are going on, such as the future of energy as a whole. Instead of wasting so much time worrying about oil, possibly (likely) decimiating the nation's coastal areas, we should be focused on clean energy (and no, there is no such thing as 'clean coal').
One of the greatest things in terms of energy to happen recently is the approval of a windfarm off the Massachusettes Bay which has long been opposed by the Kennedys due to the fact that it would 'ruin their view'. Now, I like the Kennedys and all, but what total bs. You're going to deny an easy source of clean, renewable energy because of your own selfish interests? How pathetic. But anyway, back to the energy. Wind energy is easily the best form of renewable energy out there. Ethanol, while cleaner than coal, actually takes more energy to produce than oil. Until that process is refined, ethanol's really not the most viable option. But wind- wind! Wind is everywhere! If you slapped some windmills up along the Hudson River, you could probably power the entire city! (Ok, in reality you could power a small section of Manhattan due to sheer population size and energy consumption- I got excited.)
One of the best things to happen to New York State in recent years was the passage of net metering laws, which allow people to put up windmills and/or solar panels on their property. Any additional energy they make can actually be sold back to energy companies. [1] In places like Oswego, people would save on energy and become more environmentally responsible at the same time. What on earth could possibly be wrong with that? [2] And yet people keep fighting it, for reasons that I don't even know, and if I did, I would be able to cut them down for being straight-up wrong.
Hopefully a few things will come out of this. First, Obama will reconsider his plans for offshore drilling (which he is doing), and hopefully nix the plan. Second, Sarah Palin will shut the hell up about 'drill baby drill'. Third, everyone else in the country will wake the hell up and realize that there could be worse things in the world than purchasing oil from the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, I might note, is one of the US's biggest allies in the region- so basically we're buying from friends anyway). We could decimate an entire ecosystem, put an entire industry (fishing) out of business, and kill the livelihood of all families involved. The choice is ours.
________________________________________
[1] For some great info, check out NYPIRG's website. And no, I'm not plugging them simply because I used to work for them. They really do great stuff.
[2] Rhetorical question. Because of course nothing is wrong with that.
Teens and drinking
CNN: Let teens drink? Parents wrestle with the question
One of the biggest debates of this age is that of the drinking age. It has been fiercely debated from both sides of the aisle, with no changes made during the entire discourse. The article focuses on the views of a few parents, some of whom have had very personal experiences regarding underage drinking.
The issue of alcohol abuse is prevalent in all age groups, not just teens/young adults. A few years ago a neighbor of mine (whose children were my age) died due to alcohol poisoning. It was a very tragic thing for the whole community, as she was very well-known and liked, but I think it does reflect the widespread issues involved in the whole debate. Yes, teens are statistically the group most likely to have alcohol-related deaths, but they certainly aren't the only ones dying. In any age group, young or old, control is the issue. If people can't control what or how much or how often they're drinking, eventually there's going to be a serious issue.
I found some of the cases in the story interesting, particularly that of Debbie Taylor, whose son Casey died of alcohol poisoning. Ms. Taylor stated that she told her son not to drink underage, but if he did, not to drive. Quite honestly, she didn't do anything wrong there (although she feels she did). To think that forbidding her younger son to drink underage was what made him not do it, I think she needs to rethink that. The fact that his older brother died of alcohol poisoning was probably the largest factor in him holding off drinking- not simply the fact that she said no.
Sadly, I feel as though that's the place where parents are putting all of their emphasis and think that just that alone will work, in particular MADD. More important than being strict with your children is being open with your children. My family, although very open about drinking at home or with relatives, were (like most parents) concerned about my brothers in particular going out and drinking while underaged. Instead of 'banning' them from drinking alcohol, they instead very strictly laid out that if they were to go out and get drunk, they should call home for a ride at any time.
While my parents certainly didn't want my brothers to go drinking in high school, they understood the realities of the situation and laid down rules from there. A child whose parents strictly say 'no alcohol' is a lot more likely to get in the car with a drunk driver (or drive themself) than a child whose parents ask them to call. Sheri Reed, another parent from the article, got it right. A recovering alcoholic herself, she knows the realities that she won't be able to prevent her children from drinking before 21. Instead, her plan seems to consist of being open with her children, which can allow for a healthy dialogue between parent and child.
One of the employees where I went to college who was close to a lot of students always made it clear to anyone that they could call her whenever if they ever needed a ride while drunk. And students actually have called her, and she shows up. A cousin of one of my college roommates always calls her whenever she's been out drinking and needs a ride. Knowing that there is someone who will come and take care of you is much better than getting drunk and making stupid decisions.
Honestly, I feel like many of these organizations against teen drinking are just ridiculous and are trying to take us back towards Prohibition (which, duh, didn't work). For every study that says having the drinking age at 21 has saved lives, another one says that hasn't. The research-based debate (and much of that is by people who don't actually understand the research) is so convoluted that it seems as though there is no one real answer. Hopefully someday soon the country will grow up and realize that drinking alcohol and teaching people how to enjoy it responsibly is not the end of the world.
And of course, all through this nothing has been mentioned of the fact that the U.S. government's actions regarding the drinking age is pretty unconstitutional, although they did manage to weasel through a loophole to do it.
One of the biggest debates of this age is that of the drinking age. It has been fiercely debated from both sides of the aisle, with no changes made during the entire discourse. The article focuses on the views of a few parents, some of whom have had very personal experiences regarding underage drinking.
The issue of alcohol abuse is prevalent in all age groups, not just teens/young adults. A few years ago a neighbor of mine (whose children were my age) died due to alcohol poisoning. It was a very tragic thing for the whole community, as she was very well-known and liked, but I think it does reflect the widespread issues involved in the whole debate. Yes, teens are statistically the group most likely to have alcohol-related deaths, but they certainly aren't the only ones dying. In any age group, young or old, control is the issue. If people can't control what or how much or how often they're drinking, eventually there's going to be a serious issue.
I found some of the cases in the story interesting, particularly that of Debbie Taylor, whose son Casey died of alcohol poisoning. Ms. Taylor stated that she told her son not to drink underage, but if he did, not to drive. Quite honestly, she didn't do anything wrong there (although she feels she did). To think that forbidding her younger son to drink underage was what made him not do it, I think she needs to rethink that. The fact that his older brother died of alcohol poisoning was probably the largest factor in him holding off drinking- not simply the fact that she said no.
Sadly, I feel as though that's the place where parents are putting all of their emphasis and think that just that alone will work, in particular MADD. More important than being strict with your children is being open with your children. My family, although very open about drinking at home or with relatives, were (like most parents) concerned about my brothers in particular going out and drinking while underaged. Instead of 'banning' them from drinking alcohol, they instead very strictly laid out that if they were to go out and get drunk, they should call home for a ride at any time.
While my parents certainly didn't want my brothers to go drinking in high school, they understood the realities of the situation and laid down rules from there. A child whose parents strictly say 'no alcohol' is a lot more likely to get in the car with a drunk driver (or drive themself) than a child whose parents ask them to call. Sheri Reed, another parent from the article, got it right. A recovering alcoholic herself, she knows the realities that she won't be able to prevent her children from drinking before 21. Instead, her plan seems to consist of being open with her children, which can allow for a healthy dialogue between parent and child.
One of the employees where I went to college who was close to a lot of students always made it clear to anyone that they could call her whenever if they ever needed a ride while drunk. And students actually have called her, and she shows up. A cousin of one of my college roommates always calls her whenever she's been out drinking and needs a ride. Knowing that there is someone who will come and take care of you is much better than getting drunk and making stupid decisions.
Honestly, I feel like many of these organizations against teen drinking are just ridiculous and are trying to take us back towards Prohibition (which, duh, didn't work). For every study that says having the drinking age at 21 has saved lives, another one says that hasn't. The research-based debate (and much of that is by people who don't actually understand the research) is so convoluted that it seems as though there is no one real answer. Hopefully someday soon the country will grow up and realize that drinking alcohol and teaching people how to enjoy it responsibly is not the end of the world.
And of course, all through this nothing has been mentioned of the fact that the U.S. government's actions regarding the drinking age is pretty unconstitutional, although they did manage to weasel through a loophole to do it.
Monday, May 3, 2010
In brief
A selection of articles, quotes, links, etc. with brief comments.
CNN: Nadya Suleman: I feel guilty every day of my life
Well, duh. Did you ever think how you were going to handle 14 children before you had in vitro fertilization to get them? I also love the fact that she doesn't have time for a full-time job (which is understandable when raising 14 kids), yet has three nannies and says she doesn't want to consider adoption or public assistance (which she's received in the past). Apparently this woman's some sort of master of quantum mechanics to figure out how to pay for all of this.
CNN: Guilt-free eating: 10 nutrition myths debunked
Basically, this just goes along the line of everything that's widely understood about food, nutrition, and eating: everything in moderation. Instead of all these stupid myths and then going about debunking them, let's just remember that whatever we eat, do it in moderation and we'll all be ok.
Are you kidding me?!? The Dalai Lama has a freakin' twitter account!
CNN: Nadya Suleman: I feel guilty every day of my life
Well, duh. Did you ever think how you were going to handle 14 children before you had in vitro fertilization to get them? I also love the fact that she doesn't have time for a full-time job (which is understandable when raising 14 kids), yet has three nannies and says she doesn't want to consider adoption or public assistance (which she's received in the past). Apparently this woman's some sort of master of quantum mechanics to figure out how to pay for all of this.
CNN: Guilt-free eating: 10 nutrition myths debunked
Basically, this just goes along the line of everything that's widely understood about food, nutrition, and eating: everything in moderation. Instead of all these stupid myths and then going about debunking them, let's just remember that whatever we eat, do it in moderation and we'll all be ok.
Are you kidding me?!? The Dalai Lama has a freakin' twitter account!
Friday, April 30, 2010
Living past abortion
CNN: Italy investigates report baby lived through abortion
This is a seriously troubling article in so many ways. A baby (there's really no other way to phrase that) who was aborted at 22 weeks in Italy apparently lived through the procedure for "a whole day" after. The article states that hospital staff left the baby to die after the procedure, implying that they knew the baby was still alive after the abortion.
This is going to raise some serious questions worldwide in the abortion debate. I think the most concerning issue here is that the fetus was clearly viable outside the mother's body, as the baby lived for nearly a day afterwards [1]. The Wikipedia article on feticide (the killing of a fetus) has an interesting quote on feticide during abortions, especially the use of drugs injected into a fetal heart in order to kill it.
This whole situation will most likely promote another debate over when life starts. Some say at conception, some say when the fetus is viable outside the mother's body, others say when the baby is actually born. This 'complicaton' of having a baby survive after an abortion procedure is certainly going to throw a wrench into this whole debate. No matter what, things are only going to get messier from here.
On a different note, in the course of writing this post I came across this story, which was a very moving tale about what the author called aborting a "wanted pregnancy". To me, it seems as though this is one thing that is missing in the abortion debate (although this pretty much falls under the classification of 'if the health of the mother is in danger', I feel this should be separate). So much is discussed about unwanted pregnancies, but nobody talks about wanted pregnancies, at least in specifics. It would be interesting to see which category the Italian woman's pregnancy fell under. Although the article cites Italian law as allowing abortions past 20 weeks if the fetus shows defects or if the mother's physical or mental health requires it, as the procedure was so messed up it would be interesting to see the actual circumstances of this particular procedure.
__________________________________
[1] I will be using the terms 'fetus' and 'baby', but they are not interchangeable in these circumstances. Here, 'fetus' refers to while it is still inside the mother's body, and 'baby' refers to it after it is removed from the mother's body.
This is a seriously troubling article in so many ways. A baby (there's really no other way to phrase that) who was aborted at 22 weeks in Italy apparently lived through the procedure for "a whole day" after. The article states that hospital staff left the baby to die after the procedure, implying that they knew the baby was still alive after the abortion.
This is going to raise some serious questions worldwide in the abortion debate. I think the most concerning issue here is that the fetus was clearly viable outside the mother's body, as the baby lived for nearly a day afterwards [1]. The Wikipedia article on feticide (the killing of a fetus) has an interesting quote on feticide during abortions, especially the use of drugs injected into a fetal heart in order to kill it.
When used before labor induction, feticide prevents the possible complication of live birth. [Emphasis added]I find it very disturbing that live birth is considered a 'complication', seeing as how this is generally how pregnancies are supposed to end, although, this does appear to be a 'complication' in the Italian case. The real complication, though, is why they left the baby to die when they should have been able to tell (and therefore most likely did tell) that the abortion resulted in a live birth.
This whole situation will most likely promote another debate over when life starts. Some say at conception, some say when the fetus is viable outside the mother's body, others say when the baby is actually born. This 'complicaton' of having a baby survive after an abortion procedure is certainly going to throw a wrench into this whole debate. No matter what, things are only going to get messier from here.
On a different note, in the course of writing this post I came across this story, which was a very moving tale about what the author called aborting a "wanted pregnancy". To me, it seems as though this is one thing that is missing in the abortion debate (although this pretty much falls under the classification of 'if the health of the mother is in danger', I feel this should be separate). So much is discussed about unwanted pregnancies, but nobody talks about wanted pregnancies, at least in specifics. It would be interesting to see which category the Italian woman's pregnancy fell under. Although the article cites Italian law as allowing abortions past 20 weeks if the fetus shows defects or if the mother's physical or mental health requires it, as the procedure was so messed up it would be interesting to see the actual circumstances of this particular procedure.
__________________________________
[1] I will be using the terms 'fetus' and 'baby', but they are not interchangeable in these circumstances. Here, 'fetus' refers to while it is still inside the mother's body, and 'baby' refers to it after it is removed from the mother's body.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Overbearing parents
CNN: Moms quit jobs for their child's college dreams
This article talks about the apparently growing trend of successful career moms quitting their jobs so they can help their children get into the top colleges. According to the reporter, it seems that a lot of these moms who have turned from their jobs to focusing on their child's college applications are women who have worked hard to get their own postgraduate degrees.
To me, this just seems to be one step further in this ridiculous helicopter parenting trend. I can understand women quitting their jobs to raise a newborn baby until the child is old enough to go to school. However, I cannot understand women quitting their jobs and focusing excessively on their children at a time when their children should be learning to become more independent.
Luckily for me, I missed out on helicopter parenting for the most part. However, I did have my parents place excessive amounts of pressure on me to do well academically so that I could get into a decent college, especially since neither of my brothers expressed interest in going. As the youngest, I became the sort of 'last chance' of having a college-educated child, and they would be damned if they didn't have a single child go. So, everything fell to me as the youngest and highest-achieving child to succeed to the maximum. Of course, as anyone who has too much pressure placed upon them can tell you, I cracked. I rebelled. I started doing bad in school, not because I couldn't handle the work, but because I didn't want to anymore. I thought high school was stupid, and screw everybody and their expectations.
Due to my experiences, I can see nothing but bad come out of this. Even if a child does respond to their parent's pressuring positively by exceding academic expectations, they may grow to resent you. In my case, once I had signaled to my parents in high school that I was going to do what I thought was best for me, they relaxed a lot more when it came to changing career paths in college. They're still a little uneasy at times, but at least now they understand that doing what makes me happy is better than having ridiculous expectations and forcing me to do something that I don't want to do.
These parents seriously trouble me. They're not allowing their children to do anything for themselves, which is going to be seriously detrimental to them in the long run. I had a professor in college comment on how she had a student's parent call because the student got a bad grade in her class. The lesson of that story, she said, was that we have to be responsible for our own achievements. No more relying on mommy and daddy to help us out when things go wrong. Unfortunately, when parents get this overly involved in their children's lives, it doesn't help the children learn how to help themselves out. Instead of creative thinking and finding solutions to problems (like my brothers and I were raised for the most part), incoming college students will do the only thing they know how to- cry to mom and dad.
Yes, I was never an all-star student grade-wise (although my high test grades always shocked teachers that were used to me pulling 70's and 80's in their classes). Yes, I never applied to all the fancy Harvards and Yales. However, I did get into every college that I did apply to, and what's more, I did it on my own. I've had friends go to larger, more well-known schools, and a lot of them were miserable. Name branding isn't everything, and it shouldn't be in education as well. Parents need to let go of these ridiculously high expectations and let their children flourish on their own. They never know- their child may just surprise them.
This article talks about the apparently growing trend of successful career moms quitting their jobs so they can help their children get into the top colleges. According to the reporter, it seems that a lot of these moms who have turned from their jobs to focusing on their child's college applications are women who have worked hard to get their own postgraduate degrees.
To me, this just seems to be one step further in this ridiculous helicopter parenting trend. I can understand women quitting their jobs to raise a newborn baby until the child is old enough to go to school. However, I cannot understand women quitting their jobs and focusing excessively on their children at a time when their children should be learning to become more independent.
Luckily for me, I missed out on helicopter parenting for the most part. However, I did have my parents place excessive amounts of pressure on me to do well academically so that I could get into a decent college, especially since neither of my brothers expressed interest in going. As the youngest, I became the sort of 'last chance' of having a college-educated child, and they would be damned if they didn't have a single child go. So, everything fell to me as the youngest and highest-achieving child to succeed to the maximum. Of course, as anyone who has too much pressure placed upon them can tell you, I cracked. I rebelled. I started doing bad in school, not because I couldn't handle the work, but because I didn't want to anymore. I thought high school was stupid, and screw everybody and their expectations.
Due to my experiences, I can see nothing but bad come out of this. Even if a child does respond to their parent's pressuring positively by exceding academic expectations, they may grow to resent you. In my case, once I had signaled to my parents in high school that I was going to do what I thought was best for me, they relaxed a lot more when it came to changing career paths in college. They're still a little uneasy at times, but at least now they understand that doing what makes me happy is better than having ridiculous expectations and forcing me to do something that I don't want to do.
These parents seriously trouble me. They're not allowing their children to do anything for themselves, which is going to be seriously detrimental to them in the long run. I had a professor in college comment on how she had a student's parent call because the student got a bad grade in her class. The lesson of that story, she said, was that we have to be responsible for our own achievements. No more relying on mommy and daddy to help us out when things go wrong. Unfortunately, when parents get this overly involved in their children's lives, it doesn't help the children learn how to help themselves out. Instead of creative thinking and finding solutions to problems (like my brothers and I were raised for the most part), incoming college students will do the only thing they know how to- cry to mom and dad.
Yes, I was never an all-star student grade-wise (although my high test grades always shocked teachers that were used to me pulling 70's and 80's in their classes). Yes, I never applied to all the fancy Harvards and Yales. However, I did get into every college that I did apply to, and what's more, I did it on my own. I've had friends go to larger, more well-known schools, and a lot of them were miserable. Name branding isn't everything, and it shouldn't be in education as well. Parents need to let go of these ridiculously high expectations and let their children flourish on their own. They never know- their child may just surprise them.
Monday, April 26, 2010
More good news for rights
MSNBC: China may ease one-child rule
China's long-standing one-child per family rule may be coming to an end. The rule, meant to curb China's ever-growing population, has led to sterilization, forced abortions, and infanticide. However, officials have noted that the policy may actually create a people shortage in the future, particularly noting a shortage of women. While nothing has been made official, there are discussions to 'refine' the policy without fully disbanding it.
The policy, particularly in rural areas, has not been strictly followed, with many rural families having two (occasionally more) children. Also, in areas where the one-child policy is strictly followed, it comes to the detriment to females. The Chinese culture greatly favors males over females, and therefore sons over daughters. In previous eras, this meant wide infanticide of newborn girls. Now, with more advanced technology that can determine the sex of a fetus before birth, this means aborting female fetuses.
Ignoring all of the ethical issues that comes with aborting females or committing infanticide, this targeting of girls means that there will be a much smaller female population than the male population. From a purely logistical standpoint, having a massively huge gap between the female and male populations means that there will be less women for men to marry, thereby reducing future populations (less women=less babies). According to the article, the Chinese government has also realized this by reconsidering their policy.
This potential reversing of the one-child policy will be a great victory for women's rights and reproductive rights. Too often do other people insert themselves into the very private issue of women and reproduction, particularly when it comes to government policies. Although there will still be the need to overcome spousal interference, eliminating a cap on children (and therefore on a woman's reproductive system) will hopefully lead to increased women's liberation in other areas of life as well.
China's long-standing one-child per family rule may be coming to an end. The rule, meant to curb China's ever-growing population, has led to sterilization, forced abortions, and infanticide. However, officials have noted that the policy may actually create a people shortage in the future, particularly noting a shortage of women. While nothing has been made official, there are discussions to 'refine' the policy without fully disbanding it.
The policy, particularly in rural areas, has not been strictly followed, with many rural families having two (occasionally more) children. Also, in areas where the one-child policy is strictly followed, it comes to the detriment to females. The Chinese culture greatly favors males over females, and therefore sons over daughters. In previous eras, this meant wide infanticide of newborn girls. Now, with more advanced technology that can determine the sex of a fetus before birth, this means aborting female fetuses.
Ignoring all of the ethical issues that comes with aborting females or committing infanticide, this targeting of girls means that there will be a much smaller female population than the male population. From a purely logistical standpoint, having a massively huge gap between the female and male populations means that there will be less women for men to marry, thereby reducing future populations (less women=less babies). According to the article, the Chinese government has also realized this by reconsidering their policy.
This potential reversing of the one-child policy will be a great victory for women's rights and reproductive rights. Too often do other people insert themselves into the very private issue of women and reproduction, particularly when it comes to government policies. Although there will still be the need to overcome spousal interference, eliminating a cap on children (and therefore on a woman's reproductive system) will hopefully lead to increased women's liberation in other areas of life as well.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Score one for [rights]
MSNBC: Saudi girl, 12, divorces 80-year-old husband
A 12-year-old Saudi girl successfully obtained a divorce after being forced to marry her father's 80-year-old cousin. The girl, with the help of the Human Rights Commission, was able to take the case to court, eventually settling out of court between the families.
I can not accurately express how amazing this case is. It is a victory for children's rights, women's rights, and human rights in the Middle East in general. The interpretation of Islam that Saudi Arabia follows, Wahhabism, is so restrictive towards women that they are not even allowed to drive (among the many other things that women are prevented from doing). According to their interpretation of the Qur'an, Hadith, etc., since one of Muhammad's wives was nine when they married, child brides are therefore acceptable under Islam. [1] In so many parts of the world, child brides are very common. Therefore, this is a big deal. Most child brides are unable to get out of their marriages and are forced into early pregnancy, which leads to severe health complications (e.g. fistulas) or death. In cases of severe health complications such as fistulas, these young girls can be abandoned by their husbands, leaving them alone with a child and no resources at the age of eleven.
One great thing that came out of the case, as the article mentions, is this new consideration of creating a minimum age for marriage (sixteen) in Saudi Arabia. Marriage many times in these situations leads to sex soon after the marriage; at the ages that these young girls are being married, their bodies are not developed enough to be physically capable of such a thing, let alone becoming pregnant.
Also, the question of marriage and divorce is raised in the Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in Article 16. The text of Article 16 is long in itself (but well-worth the read), but I will cite some of the important points. Section 1 states that equality is encouraged in regards to entering into marriage and freely choosing one's spouse. Section 2 states:
All in all, this is such an excellent development, particularly in terms of young girls' rights. My greatest hope is that many more young women across the globe will follow this girl's brave example and start challenging the laws and conventional practices in their countries for their own benefit. Particularly after last week's news about the Yemeni child bride who died as a result of intercourse with her significantly older husband soon after their wedding. [2] Hopefully soon we will reach the day where these stories are gone from the international stage and are simply a reminder of our terrible past.
__________________________________________
[1] This is an extremely simplified explanation; if you want something more in-depth, I suggest you read a book on the subject.
[2] Great CNN article on this
A 12-year-old Saudi girl successfully obtained a divorce after being forced to marry her father's 80-year-old cousin. The girl, with the help of the Human Rights Commission, was able to take the case to court, eventually settling out of court between the families.
I can not accurately express how amazing this case is. It is a victory for children's rights, women's rights, and human rights in the Middle East in general. The interpretation of Islam that Saudi Arabia follows, Wahhabism, is so restrictive towards women that they are not even allowed to drive (among the many other things that women are prevented from doing). According to their interpretation of the Qur'an, Hadith, etc., since one of Muhammad's wives was nine when they married, child brides are therefore acceptable under Islam. [1] In so many parts of the world, child brides are very common. Therefore, this is a big deal. Most child brides are unable to get out of their marriages and are forced into early pregnancy, which leads to severe health complications (e.g. fistulas) or death. In cases of severe health complications such as fistulas, these young girls can be abandoned by their husbands, leaving them alone with a child and no resources at the age of eleven.
One great thing that came out of the case, as the article mentions, is this new consideration of creating a minimum age for marriage (sixteen) in Saudi Arabia. Marriage many times in these situations leads to sex soon after the marriage; at the ages that these young girls are being married, their bodies are not developed enough to be physically capable of such a thing, let alone becoming pregnant.
Also, the question of marriage and divorce is raised in the Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in Article 16. The text of Article 16 is long in itself (but well-worth the read), but I will cite some of the important points. Section 1 states that equality is encouraged in regards to entering into marriage and freely choosing one's spouse. Section 2 states:
The betrothal and marriage of a child shall have no legal effect, and all necessary action, including legislation, shall be taken to specify a minimum age for marriage and to make the registration of marriages in an official registry compulsory.As the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) clearly sets the age of child at 18, these child brides quite easily fall under this category. This is a contentious international legal issue, as Saudi Arabia's reservation to CEDAW states that anything contrary to Islamic law will not be followed. However, as the government is now consulting with legal scholars along with human rights advocates and health care professionals (see the news article), hopefully this clause will no longer be contrary to Islamic law and will start to be followed.
All in all, this is such an excellent development, particularly in terms of young girls' rights. My greatest hope is that many more young women across the globe will follow this girl's brave example and start challenging the laws and conventional practices in their countries for their own benefit. Particularly after last week's news about the Yemeni child bride who died as a result of intercourse with her significantly older husband soon after their wedding. [2] Hopefully soon we will reach the day where these stories are gone from the international stage and are simply a reminder of our terrible past.
__________________________________________
[1] This is an extremely simplified explanation; if you want something more in-depth, I suggest you read a book on the subject.
[2] Great CNN article on this
Friday, April 23, 2010
Michele Bachmann is an idiot
Gawker: Michele Bachmann Convinced Bill Clinton Wants Her Dead
In completely idiotic news, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) believes that Bill Clinton wants to "take her out" because he politely defended the government as elected officials, not the gangsters that Bachmann says they are. City Pages links to a video of Bachmann in which she states, "Because I'm using a statement like 'gangster,' I'm responsible for creating the climate of hate that could lead to another Timothy McVeigh and another Oklahoma City bombing."
Honestly, Bachmann, with all the crap you and your buddy Sarah Palin come out with, I think your out-of-context statement has a good point. You are creating a climate of hate, and it has certainly already caused violence. Just ask Virginia Rep. Tom Perriello, whose brother had gas lines cut at his house. Or how about numerous other representatives who have received threatening phone calls or had offices vandalized. According to Fox News, Tea Party activists had posted the address of Perriello's brother, thinking it was Perriello's house, asking people to drop by his house to say 'thanks' for his vote on the health care bill.
Bachmann states that she is surprised that she's 'that important to take out' as a second-term congresswoman. Well, anyone responsible for inciting hatred and violence is important enough to 'take out'- that's just common sense. I can understand the Tea Party movement from one aspect- they disagree with what the government is doing and they want to change it. However, the methodology they use to achieve their ends is nothing but criminal at some points. They use faulty rhetoric (Beck, Limbaugh, Palin, etc.), scare tactics (carrying guns at rallies), and downright violence to gain followers and 'achieve' their aims. And that's what makes me scared. Blind followers and violence.
In completely idiotic news, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) believes that Bill Clinton wants to "take her out" because he politely defended the government as elected officials, not the gangsters that Bachmann says they are. City Pages links to a video of Bachmann in which she states, "Because I'm using a statement like 'gangster,' I'm responsible for creating the climate of hate that could lead to another Timothy McVeigh and another Oklahoma City bombing."
Honestly, Bachmann, with all the crap you and your buddy Sarah Palin come out with, I think your out-of-context statement has a good point. You are creating a climate of hate, and it has certainly already caused violence. Just ask Virginia Rep. Tom Perriello, whose brother had gas lines cut at his house. Or how about numerous other representatives who have received threatening phone calls or had offices vandalized. According to Fox News, Tea Party activists had posted the address of Perriello's brother, thinking it was Perriello's house, asking people to drop by his house to say 'thanks' for his vote on the health care bill.
Bachmann states that she is surprised that she's 'that important to take out' as a second-term congresswoman. Well, anyone responsible for inciting hatred and violence is important enough to 'take out'- that's just common sense. I can understand the Tea Party movement from one aspect- they disagree with what the government is doing and they want to change it. However, the methodology they use to achieve their ends is nothing but criminal at some points. They use faulty rhetoric (Beck, Limbaugh, Palin, etc.), scare tactics (carrying guns at rallies), and downright violence to gain followers and 'achieve' their aims. And that's what makes me scared. Blind followers and violence.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Women and the mafia
CNN: Ex-cop: Child prostitution marks new low for mafia
...Which of course just seems so ironic, as organized crime is pretty low to begin with. According to this article, the infamous Gambino crime family has now segued into child prostitution. Apparently, the mafia was running an underaged sex trafficking ring, along with its various other exploits (drugs, murder, etc.). The biggest shocker, though, was the identity of one of the accused- a woman, Suzanne Porcelli. The article makes note of what a big deal this is- the mafia is one of the last remaining 'boys only' institutions. The fact that a woman was high enough up in the ranks to be charged with running a prostitution ring seemed to be the second most important thing in the article. Despite the atrocious nature of her supposed crimes (after all, innocent until proven guilty), one thought kept coming up in my mind: Hooray for feminism?
In all rational thinking, this would not appear to be the logical thought. However, look at it this way: a woman has finally broken into the ranks of one of society's oldest and most gendered institutions (despite the fact that this organization is responsible for murders, drug trafficking, prostitution, and then some). One particular part I found interesting was this quote from a former NYPD officer:
The downside to this, of course, is her prominently anti-female action of engaging in child prostitution and sex trafficking. As a woman, she should understand how wrong that is. If a woman wants to engage in prostitution of her own accord, I say go for it. I have my own views on prostitution, the women that enter into the trade, and the emotional/psychological impact of it, but they are grown women and can make decisions on their own (even if they may be wrong). However, a child is not mentally, emotionally, or psychologically capable of making those decisions. Also, forcing someone into prostitution regardless of age is just wrong. It's an assertion of control over something that doesn't belong to you- decisions regarding sex should only be made by the persons actually engaging in the activity, not by some external third party.
I guess it's good that the mafia does (or at least did, before this all broke) have some standards. Honor among thieves and whatnot. So can they go back to leaving the women and children out of this? Especially the children who are female. Thanks.
__________________________
[1] This sentence should of course be taken in a partly sarcastic light, as I certainly cannot condone any actions of anyone associated with organized crime, or really crime in general.
...Which of course just seems so ironic, as organized crime is pretty low to begin with. According to this article, the infamous Gambino crime family has now segued into child prostitution. Apparently, the mafia was running an underaged sex trafficking ring, along with its various other exploits (drugs, murder, etc.). The biggest shocker, though, was the identity of one of the accused- a woman, Suzanne Porcelli. The article makes note of what a big deal this is- the mafia is one of the last remaining 'boys only' institutions. The fact that a woman was high enough up in the ranks to be charged with running a prostitution ring seemed to be the second most important thing in the article. Despite the atrocious nature of her supposed crimes (after all, innocent until proven guilty), one thought kept coming up in my mind: Hooray for feminism?
In all rational thinking, this would not appear to be the logical thought. However, look at it this way: a woman has finally broken into the ranks of one of society's oldest and most gendered institutions (despite the fact that this organization is responsible for murders, drug trafficking, prostitution, and then some). One particular part I found interesting was this quote from a former NYPD officer:
"...never has there been any case where a female becomes an influential person in mob operations, because it's seen as men's work, something that women and children should be protected from and kept out of."Through twisting words and implications (and believe me, I'll be doing a lot of that in this post), Suzanne Porcelli's role can be seen as a woman breaking into the man's world, proving that a woman can do "men's work" just as well as a man can. I suppose this can actually be backed up by the fact that she was running a sex trafficking ring (something that usually only men are heard to do) and got arrested with the rest of the crime family and associates. You go girl, succeeding in a man's world! [1]
The downside to this, of course, is her prominently anti-female action of engaging in child prostitution and sex trafficking. As a woman, she should understand how wrong that is. If a woman wants to engage in prostitution of her own accord, I say go for it. I have my own views on prostitution, the women that enter into the trade, and the emotional/psychological impact of it, but they are grown women and can make decisions on their own (even if they may be wrong). However, a child is not mentally, emotionally, or psychologically capable of making those decisions. Also, forcing someone into prostitution regardless of age is just wrong. It's an assertion of control over something that doesn't belong to you- decisions regarding sex should only be made by the persons actually engaging in the activity, not by some external third party.
I guess it's good that the mafia does (or at least did, before this all broke) have some standards. Honor among thieves and whatnot. So can they go back to leaving the women and children out of this? Especially the children who are female. Thanks.
__________________________
[1] This sentence should of course be taken in a partly sarcastic light, as I certainly cannot condone any actions of anyone associated with organized crime, or really crime in general.
Friday, April 16, 2010
When does free speech become unprotected speech?
CNN: Experts: Angry rhetoric protected, but can be disturbing
This is a pretty important topic that I feel has come up a lot in many of my classes this semester. One of the most important mainstays in human rights dialogue (and just about the only type of human right that the US acknowledges) is that of free speech. In the US, free speech is protected under the First Amendment (a refresher for those of you whose last American history class was too long ago):
Now, Back to the Tea Party. When your free speech involves sending death threats to Senators/Representatives, it is no longer free speech. It is dangerous speech, and don't whine that you have a constitutional right to it- according to the Supreme Court, you don't. Also, for all their dissing of liberal protesters during the last administration, there wasn't nearly as much violence (read: I don't remember any) as what these Tea Partiers are bringing. Tea Party, if you didn't have your heads shoved so far up your asses, you could learn something that is seen throughout history: protesters and those trying to reform/revolt are usually much more successful when they don't use violence. If you stopped vandalizing offices and waving guns around (and also get a more legitimate party goddess than Sarah Palin), people might actually take you seriously. Granted, they'll probably still think you're dead wrong, but at least you might get some respect. And isn't that what we all want?
P.S. Oh boy, I think this is my favorite quote out of the whole article: "Those committing violent acts against congressmen no more represent the Tea Party than suicide bombers represent Islam, she said." Carol Swain, the professor this is attributed to, also said that it was an attempt to "draw spurious links between the Tea Party and radical elements of the right." Can someone say 'irony'? Those idiots are always the ones who believe that Islam is all suicide bombers and radical jihad. Once again, spurious links!
_______________________________________
1 Source. Yeah, I'm citing Wikipedia. Sue me.
2 Wikipedia again. Sorry. Although I must comment that I am glad this case overturned Schenck v. United States, as I always thought that it was a bullshit ruling, prosecuting someone for war protesting. But that's a rant for another time.
This is a pretty important topic that I feel has come up a lot in many of my classes this semester. One of the most important mainstays in human rights dialogue (and just about the only type of human right that the US acknowledges) is that of free speech. In the US, free speech is protected under the First Amendment (a refresher for those of you whose last American history class was too long ago):
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."So, now that we're all caught up, what does this mean for those Tea Partiers? It means there's a division between total freedom of speech and dangerous speech, inciting violence. The most popular anecdote of this comes from Schenck v. United States (1919), from which we get the phrase about shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre.1 This was the landmark Supreme Court case that delineated limitations to freedom of speech. My reading of this (which seems to be the consensus) is that free speech is protected only as long as it does not cause or incite to cause physical harm to another person, or as long as it does not infringe upon another person's rights, whether it is free speech or some other right (Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes used the term 'clear and present danger', which I feel my definition fits. Also, Brandenburg v. Ohio, clarifies that speech must be directed to incite/likely to incite "imminent lawless action").2
Now, Back to the Tea Party. When your free speech involves sending death threats to Senators/Representatives, it is no longer free speech. It is dangerous speech, and don't whine that you have a constitutional right to it- according to the Supreme Court, you don't. Also, for all their dissing of liberal protesters during the last administration, there wasn't nearly as much violence (read: I don't remember any) as what these Tea Partiers are bringing. Tea Party, if you didn't have your heads shoved so far up your asses, you could learn something that is seen throughout history: protesters and those trying to reform/revolt are usually much more successful when they don't use violence. If you stopped vandalizing offices and waving guns around (and also get a more legitimate party goddess than Sarah Palin), people might actually take you seriously. Granted, they'll probably still think you're dead wrong, but at least you might get some respect. And isn't that what we all want?
P.S. Oh boy, I think this is my favorite quote out of the whole article: "Those committing violent acts against congressmen no more represent the Tea Party than suicide bombers represent Islam, she said." Carol Swain, the professor this is attributed to, also said that it was an attempt to "draw spurious links between the Tea Party and radical elements of the right." Can someone say 'irony'? Those idiots are always the ones who believe that Islam is all suicide bombers and radical jihad. Once again, spurious links!
_______________________________________
1 Source. Yeah, I'm citing Wikipedia. Sue me.
2 Wikipedia again. Sorry. Although I must comment that I am glad this case overturned Schenck v. United States, as I always thought that it was a bullshit ruling, prosecuting someone for war protesting. But that's a rant for another time.
Nudity, sex, and art
"Where are we heading, in this no-holds-barred fight for ratings? All possible forms of sexual activity have already been shown, in every possible exotic or cosmopolitan scenario. Now all we are lacking is the grand climax: a love scene between animals of the same sex but different species: steamy lesbianism between a female crocodile and a painted lynx..."1Augusto Boal, Legislative Theatre, Routledge: New York, 1998,
This is a section from Boal's Legislative Theatre, which I think should be a prerequisite reading for every single Peace and Global Studies/Theatre Arts major (what, just me?). Even though Boal is talking about Brazil, I think he hit the nail right on the head with this one. Earlier in the section, he talks about this form of the artist selling out- everything for ratings. First a naked woman, then a naked woman with a naked man, then sex between those two naked people, then God knows what else. I think he makes a really good point- how low have we sunk? How much lower can we possibly sink?
By traditional definitions, I am not a prude. I am standard, normal, following normal behavior. By today's standards, I am Ms. Prudy McPrudenstein, queen of the prudes. I'm seen as conservative- I don't have sex, don't believe in casual sex (seriously ladies, you're only hurting yourself there) and still believe in saving yourself, if not for marriage then at least for someone that you are deeply committed to (this means dating for longer than 2 months, to all those silly young teens that think they're "in love"). When did these beliefs become abnormal? Why is it that when people hear the dreaded 'v' word (virgin), they automatically say, "We have got to get you laid!" Well thanks, but I'm perfectly capable of getting laid on my own- I just don't want to. Geez.
It does make me laugh to think of this facebook group, "When I was your age I lost a tooth, not my virginity." I remember being in eighth grade on the bus, listening to a sixth grader talking about how she lost her virginity the previous year (a.k.a. fifth grade- elementary school) to an 18 year old. Apart from the statutory rape there, why on earth does a fifth grader need to have sex?!? I don't think I knew anybody that even hit puberty at that age. Although, to the girl's (dis)credit, she was a trashy girl from a trashy part of town that dropped the 'f' bomb just about every other word. Clearly something's wrong with the parenting here. Either that, or they just needed to get the hell out of Warners.2
But seriously, back to art/television/selling yourself out. There is so much sex on HBO that I'm just waiting for the day that it turns into an all-out porn channel. There's nothing wrong with nudity in itself, or even sex for that matter. The problem is when it turns exploitative, using sex to make a quick buck. I'm not trying to make an analogy to prostitution (although it feels like I'm leading it there), I'm trying to talk more about exploitation. It's almost amusing whenever an actress makes some comment whether she is or is not willing to do a nude scene in a movie. Either way, the reaction is the same- those that aren't are villified for being prudish. 'Come on, nudity's the standard! Get with the program!' If she decides to do nude scenes, the reaction is automatically 'Wow, way to sell your body.' I'm not saying there's no positive reaction to either: both do have a background of support. But the strong reactions are just so crazy.
But seriously, back to art/television/selling yourself out. There is so much sex on HBO that I'm just waiting for the day that it turns into an all-out porn channel. There's nothing wrong with nudity in itself, or even sex for that matter. The problem is when it turns exploitative, using sex to make a quick buck. I'm not trying to make an analogy to prostitution (although it feels like I'm leading it there), I'm trying to talk more about exploitation. It's almost amusing whenever an actress makes some comment whether she is or is not willing to do a nude scene in a movie. Either way, the reaction is the same- those that aren't are villified for being prudish. 'Come on, nudity's the standard! Get with the program!' If she decides to do nude scenes, the reaction is automatically 'Wow, way to sell your body.' I'm not saying there's no positive reaction to either: both do have a background of support. But the strong reactions are just so crazy.
To me, it's personal preference, and I don't judge any actress for her decisions regarding it. In all honesty, I blame the writers/directors, for insisting upon nudity in the script, the producers, for using nudity to sell their product (you know, as opposed to selling it based on its actual merits), and the consumers, for falling for this crap. Why do we need to see sex everywhere? Honestly, if it's central to the story or actually makes sense within the story's context, that's great. Go ahead, use sex/nudity. However, most times it just seems so superfluous and forced. We don't need that.
So, I guess in conclusion, I'll say the following thing: people, keep your damn pants on. On-screen, off-screen, out in public (especially). Unless it contributes logically and positively to what you're doing, no one wants to see your goodies displayed gratuitously. If they do, they can watch porn.
_________________________
1 Augusto Boal, Legislative Theatre Routledge: New York (1998) 185.
2 Town on the outskirts of Camillus, NY. Generally viewed (apart from the housing developments that have recently sprung up) as the part of town where all the trashy/dirty kids from school lived.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
New!
So, the premise of this is pretty simple. I read the news (usually my favorite standby, CNN). And then I write about it (or rant, or complain, whatever I feel about it). Simple? Cool.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)