The sound of X-Files fangirls squeeing

Some interesting dailies from the X-Files have recently leaked onto the interwebs. There's a scene in 1998 X-Files movie "Fight the Future" where Mulder and Scully almost kiss. Right as their lips are about to meet, Scully is stung by a bee carrying a designer mutated alien virus (don't ask if you never watched the show) and passes out. Mulder/Scully shippers would have to wait another year and a half for an actually kiss between these two. (It finally happened on New Years' Eve 1999 in the episode "Millennium.")

In any case, it turns out that they shot alternate takes of the almost-kiss scene in the movie where Mulder and Scully do in fact kiss . . . and quite passionately. Putting this in the movie would have changed the entire dynamic of the TV show afterwards. Whether it would have been for better or worse will be the source of much fandom debate. However, I post this "what if" for the viewing pleasures of you X-Philes out there.

Deserted Island Music

"If you were stranded on a deserted island . . ."

I’m sure that phrase has been the beginning to many an interesting conversation. It is also an incredibly overused cliché that can sometime lead to eye-rolling. I’m hoping this entry will be in the former category.

This past weekend, I was catching up with some episodes of my not-nearly-as-good-as-the-original Dawson’s Creek replacement One Tree Hill. I was super excited to see one my favorite cult TV actors and music genius John Doe on the show as a special guest star (appropriately playing a not-as-well-known-as-he-should be music almost-legend). I’ll save the googling for some of you and say that he was in the (in)famous 80s LA punk band X and was on the TV show Roswell. He and his fictitious maybe/maybe-not daughter, Peyton, – an independent record label owner – were having a conversation that revolved around the question:

If you were stranded on a deserted island, what 5 albums would you want with you?

They both had some good choices: Led Zeppelin’s Physical Graffiti, U2’s The Joshua Tree, Nirvana’s Nevermind, Elvis Costello’s My Aim is True. Hopefully the episode motivated some teeny-boppers to check out some of these amazing albums.

However, this inspired me to come up with my own deserted island album list. Of course, nowadays we could change the phrase to “If you were stranded in space billions of miles from human civilization . . . or “if you were the lone survivor of the zombie apocalypse . . .” The point is that these are albums you could listen to over and over and continue to enjoy them (or get sick of them more slowly than other albums). Therefore, this list is not necessarily what I currently listen to most frequently, or even what I have listened to the most over my lifetime. Is it the music that would keep my sane and connected to humankind if I isolated and alone.

Unfortunately, I could not just limit it to 5. So in no particular order, here are the 10 albums I would want with me if I were stranded on a deserted island/lost in space/zombie apocalypse survivor:

1) David Bowie, The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust
2) Pixies, Doolittle
3) The Beatles, St. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band
4) The Smiths, Hatful of Hollow
5) The Who, Who’s Next
6) R.E.M., Life’s Rich Pageant
7) Weezer, The Blue Album
8) Ben Folds Five, Underground
9) New Order, Low-life
10) Death Cab for Cutie, Transaltanticism

Honorable mentions (i.e. these could rotate in and out of the list depending on my mood that day):
11) The Clash, London Calling
12) Led Zeppelin, IV
13) Nick Drake, Bryter Layter
14) R.E.M., Murmur
15) R.E.M., Document
16) The Beatles, The White Album
17) The Cure, Boys Don’t Cry
18) Belle and Sebastian, Dear Catastrophe Waitress
19) The Lemonheads, It’s a Shame about Ray
20) The Police, Synchronicity

Comments? Questions? Glaring omissions? Rants about my musical taste? I’d love to hear it. And, by the way, what are your top 10 deserted island albums?

Secular Humanism 101

I just came across this post that Paul Kurtz recently wrote for the Washington Post's On Faith section. Kurtz is the chairperson of the Council for Secular Humanism and an emeritus professor of philosophy. The following is a fantastic and short piece which nicely sums up the views of Secular Humanism, an ethical movement I strongly identify with. For those of you curious about my moral views as an atheist, this is definitely worth a read.

Belief in God Essential for Moral Virtue?

A growing sector of world civilization is secular; that is, it emphasizes worldly rather than religious values. This is especially true of Europe, which is widely considered post-religious and post-Christian (with a small Islamic minority). Secularist winds are also blowing strong in Asia, notably in Japan and China. The United States has been an anomaly in this regard, for it has suffered a long dark night in which evangelical fundamentalism has overshadowed the public square, with its insistence that belief in God is essential for moral virtue. This is now changing and secularism is gaining ground.

The “new atheists” have attempted to balance the scales, for religious dissent until now has been largely muffled. They have appealed to science to criticize the unexamined claims of religion. This has shocked conservative religionists, who respond that atheists are “too negative.” Perhaps, but this overlooks the fact that there are varieties of unbelief and that secular humanists (the bete noire of fundamentalists during the Reagan years) define their outlook affirmatively in the light of positive ethical values, not by what they are against but what they are for.

Secular humanists are generally nonreligious, yet they are also good citizens, loving parents and decent people. They look to science, the secular arts and literature for their inspiration, not religion. They point out that religious belief is no guarantee of moral probity, that horrendous crimes have been committed in the name of God, and that religionists often disagree vehemently about concrete moral judgments (such as euthanasia, the rights of women, abortion, homosexuality, war and peace).

The ethics of secular humanism traces its roots back to the beginnings of Western civilization in Greece and Rome, through the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the scientific and democratic revolutions of the modern world. Secular humanists today affirm that every person should be considered equal in dignity and value and that human freedom is precious. The civic virtues of democracy are essentially humanist, for they emphasize tolerance of the wide diversity of beliefs and lifestyles, and they are committed to defending human rights.

But, “how can you be ethical if you do not believe in God?” protests the believer. Perhaps such a person should enroll in an elementary course in ethics, where there is a rich philosophical literature dealing with this question. The good is usually defined as “happiness” though there are differences between the eudemonistic, emphasizing enriched self-development, and the hedonistic, particularly American, brand of intemperate consumption. Perhaps a harmonious integration of the two theories can be achieved. I would call it rational exuberance. Philosophers have emphasized the importance of self-restraint, temperance, rational prudence, a life in which satisfaction, excellence, and the creative fulfillment of a person’s talents is achieved. It does not mean that “anything goes.” Humanist ethics focuses on the good life here and now.

Secularists recognize the centrality of self-interest. Every individual needs to be concerned with his or her own health, well-being, and career. But self-interest can be enlightened. This involves recognition that we have responsibilities to others. There are principles of right and wrong that we should live by. No doubt there are differences about many moral issues. Often there may be difficulties in achieving a consensus. Negotiation and compromise are essential in a pluralistic society.

However, there is now substantial evidence drawn from evolutionary biology that humans possess a moral sense (see Marc Hauser, Steven Pinker, and David Sloan Wilson). Morality has its roots in group survival; the moral practices that evolved enabled tribes or clans to survive and function. This means that human beings are potentially moral. Whether or not this moral sense develops depends on social and environmental conditions. Some individuals may never fully develop morally–they may be morally handicapped, even sociopaths. That is one reason why society needs to enact laws to protect itself.

There is also of course cultural relativity, but there are, I submit, also a set of common moral decencies that cut across cultures–such as being truthful, honest, keeping promises, being dependable and responsible, avoiding cruelty, etc., and these in time become widely recognized as binding. Herein lie the roots of empathy and caring for other human and sentient beings. Such behavior needs to be nourished in the young by means of moral education. In any case, human beings are capable of both self-interested and altruistic behavior in varying degrees.

Secular humanists wish to test ethical principles in the light of their consequences, and they advise the use of rational inquiry to frame moral judgments. They also appreciate the fact that some principles are so important that they should not be easily sacrificed to achieve one’s ends.

To say that a person is moral only if he or she obeys God’s commandments–out of fear or love or God or a desire for salvation–is hardly adequate. Ethical principles need to be internalized, rooted in reason and compassion. The ethics of secularism is autonomous, in the sense that it need not be derived from theological grounds. Secular humanists are interested in enhancing the good life both for the individual and society.

Today, a new imperative has emerged: an awareness that our ethical concerns should extend to all members of the global community. This points to a new planetary ethics transcending the ancient religious, ethnic, racial, and national enmities of the past. It is an ethic that recognizes our common interests and needs as part of an interdependent world.

For more information about secular humanism, check out the Council for Secular Humanism, the American Humanist Association, or wisdom from the moths of babes in this post from one of my favorite blogs "Parenting Beyond Belief."

My new news crush

I know I'm pretty late to the game in my new-found devotion to Keith Olbermann. However, I mostly get my news from reading the Washington Post on my iphone in the mornings and checking news online. I just don't watch news on TV anymore . . . until now. Last week I started TiVoing Countdown on MSNBC after seeing the following two videos online. Keith Olbermann, you're my new crush :)

One of the best commentaries on Proposition 8 I've seen. Watch him almost tear up towards the end:





What many of us wanted to say in response to the "pro-American and anti-America" line of Michelle Bachman, Palin's "real Virginia" line, and other similar ignorant comments a few weeks ago:




Now I just want to doodle kArA-N-kEiTh 4EVA on my spiral notebook. New(s) crush!

You may say I'm a dreamer . . .

I woke up this morning and felt tears coming to my eyes. I cried all last night as I was watching the election returns. I cried during our next president's speech. I was crying tears as I feel asleep. Tears of hope, joy, optimistic, and most of all, pride in my country. As I opened my eyes, I turned my head away from my husband and dried my tears on the pillow. I wouldn't want him to think I was silly and emotional. I just need a minute to collect myself, I thought.

The weather report online said it was raining in DC but I stepped out on my balcony and it was not. A little gray and overcast, but a perfect temperature for a my morning walk with the dog along the Potomac to Starbucks. A good portent for the day ahead. While my route was was the same as always, everything looked a little different. The Kennedy Center, Roosevelt Island, the Georgetown Waterfront, the Key Bridge were all a bit more radiant, even under the cloudy sky. While these DC landmarks reminded me of the importance of where I was living, it was the people along my walk I noticed. The people that kept making tears well up in my eyes again and again.

As a was walking through the hallways of my condo building, I pass by a young El Salvadorian woman who is part of the cleaning crew. I wonder what she is thinking. Can she vote? Does she wish she could have? Does she feel proud to live in America today? What did she endure during the El Salvadorian civil war? What price did she pay to be able to live in this country and clean apartments? Does today make her feel like her sacrifices were worth it? She gives me a gigantic smile and says "hello." I do the same. The tears start to come back.

The Saudia Arabian embassy appears across my field of vision as I step onto the sidewalk. It's quiet and austere as always. I wonder if Muslim and Arab Americans feel a little more welcomed, a little more secure in their own country today? And how do people in the Middle East feel about the fact that the next American president's middle name is Hussein? Will that change anything at all for them?

I round a corner and see three city workers who are African American men in the distance. As they are about the start trimming the grass along Rock Creek Parkway, one of them shouts a big "good morning" to me. I give them a double thumbs up and say "what a GREAT morning!" They all get smiles on their faces, nod their heads, and offer affirmations back at me. I turned my head away and started quietly crying again.

I dry my tears in time to say hello to an elderly white women walking her dog whom I often cross paths with. She was still wearing her "I Voted" sticker from yesterday. She was smiling and happy, as she always is in the morning. I wondered whether she shares in the elation over the Obama win with so many of her fellow DC residents. Was she able to overcome the prejudices of her generation and vote for a man of color? And even if she didn't vote for him, was it purely because of policy differences and not because of the ethnic origin his father? I couldn't answer those questions but I imagined how a day like today would have been unimaginable when she was my age. I think how far we have come as a country and how far we have to go to overcome discrimination and racism. I hope some of the optimism of today affects her no matter what her opinions or prejudices. The tears start coming again as I walk away from her.

As I get close to my destination at the Georgetown Waterfront, I group of people get off a commuter bus. They are mostly young professionals all dressed the same in suits and collared shirts. They are black, white, latino, asian, and many other identities. Since this is DC, I assume many of them are politically active. However, I think of all the young Americans previously ambivalent about politics who voted for the first time ever yesterday. I think of a young generation finally energized to political awareness and action. I hope that momentum continues.

I enter my regular Starbucks and note, like I have many times in the past, that all the employees are African-American. A certain positive spirit affects the mood of the entire store. Patrons seems more awake than usual, chattier, friendlier. The woman whom I place my order with almost every morning forgets to give me enough change. I gently mention this, and add "we're all a little out of it today." She gives me a big smile and I smile back. I leave all my change as tip. Even the older barrista who looks perpetually tired and overworked, like life has worked him too hard is beaming today. Even he smiled at me when I verfied my Americano was decaf. And he never smiles. I wonder if he is now able to tell his children and grandchildren that they too can be president one day. I think of all he has endured and wonder if he ever thought he could honestly say that to his younger generations. I walk out of the coffee shop with the tears starting to return.

I notice all the Latino and African-American workers on the street, heading to their construction jobs in the condo buildings on my block. Do they see this country any differently today? Do they feel a small part of their burden has been lifted?

As I return home, I think of the elderly Indian gentleman with a Ph.D. who sometimes works behind the front desk at my building, who came to the U.S. on a scientific research fellowship decades ago but now hands white people their mail because it pays better. Does he feel like he wasted his education and his intelligent mind for all these years working a menial job? Does today make him feel like it worth it? Does he see an even brighter future for his family in an American that can elect a man of color as president?

As I sit down to sip my coffee and read the news online, I think about the someone close to me who said hurtful and prejudice things about Obama voters on the phone last night. Someone who I normally consider fair and open-minded. I know he, like some Americans today, is disappointed and frustrated over the way the vote turned out. I wonder if these people, too, can feel the optimism and exhilaration in the air today. I hope they can put aside their policy differences and their perceived personal economic self-interest to feel a small bit of what so many Americans feel today. The sense of community and connectedness, the weight of history being lifted, and enormous swelling of pride in our country. I wonder if they could see the faces I saw today and hear their stories if they would still be so hurt.

Today I feel for the first time that we are all truly Americans. A feeling of unity that has been elusive for so long that it is worth almost any price. The tears are coming back. I think they will be flowing for a while.

Running from hell

As a teenager in Topeka, KS, I personally witnessed the evolution of the Westboro Baptist Church from a loony primitive Baptist congregation to one of the most vicious hate groups in America. One of the Phelps cult escapee children, Nathan, is now living in Canada and recently did this interview with a local paper. It really doesn't tell us anything new about the Fred and his posse. it just verifies that they are a bunch of hate-filled filth-spewers and that Fred Sr. was a severe abuser who should be locked up in jail.

However, Nathan's story of his path away from religion and the torment he still deals with everyday is quite compelling. I hope he is able to find the peace that he so desperately deserves.

2008 - the year of the woman in politics . . . and mediocrity?

The Washington Post today has an interesting read - "Ideology Aside, This Has Been the Year of the Woman." It's basically about the positive impact that both Hillary and Palin have had on the role and perception of women in American politics. There's a discussion about Palin and feminism, with comments from liberal and conservative women activists as well as "regular" women about what feminism means in 2008. WHile I don't agree with everything it says, it's definitely worth a look.

However, I bring it up because the absolute best part of the article comes in the last paragraph.

. . . some GOP women, along with their Democratic counterparts, have openly questioned Palin's qualifications. [Conservative activist and lawyer Cleta] Mitchell has an answer to that. "Even if Sarah Palin is as 'unqualified' as the left would have us believe," she wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal, ". . . then former congresswoman Bella Abzug's lifelong goal has been achieved. She used to say that she was 'working for the day when a mediocre woman could get as far as a mediocre man.' "

Ha! I guess after decades of mediocre male politicians, Sarah Palin demonstrates that women can be just as inexperienced and average as men in politics. Classic. Go equality!

Lost Season 5 promo

I think I just piddled myself a little when I watched this. I too much of a geek. Now if they'd just explain that damned 4-toed statue!

Political models predicting Obama win and Congressional seat gains for Dems

This is one of the few times I'm actually going to say something positive about modeling in political science. I've talked in the past here and here about why I intensely dislike the hegemony of mathematical modeling and statistical methods in the discipline. However, I will allow myself to be completely hypocritical when I serves my own personal viewpoint.

The American Political Science Association recently came out with press releases claiming that the majority of Presidential election forecasting models are predicting an Obama win in the popular vote and that Democrats will make seat gains in both the House and Senate. If both these predictions actually come true I will eat my words on modeling in political science . . . well for just a few days :)

Armchair anthropologist - Seveteen Magazine then and now

I was at my fabulous hairdressers today getting a touch-up on my color (re: gray hairs were starting to poke through again) and I accidentally picked up a Seventeen magazine instead of The Economist. Imagine my shock when instead of the latest news on the global financial meltdown I saw pictures of Zac Ephron and a how-to- feature on French kissing!

Okay, okay, I admit it. I picked up Seventeen on purpose. As I was riffling through the stack of magazines next while waiting for my color to set, I came across Seveteen and was intrigued. I hadn't looked at a copy since . . . well . . . probably since I was 17 if not younger. Call it armchair cultural research. I was like an anthropologist re-entering a community she had lived in 15 years after she had left. And what I found was intriguing.

Many things wer exactly as I remembered them. Celebrity gossip, notes on hot fahsion trends, pictures of cute famous boys (even I can admit Zac Ephron is pretty dreamy), relentless hocking of overpriced beauty products. Even some of the clothes wer similar to what I was wearing (or more likely what I wished I was cool enough to wear) 20 years ago. There were two things I was not expecting, though.

First, was a noticable different in the "romance and dating" sections. Sure there was a section on kissing that could have been ripped from the pages of Seventeen in 1990 or even 1980. However, that was by far the most innocent article on this topic. What I found that would never have been there 15 years ago was a frankness and openness about sex. There was a discussion about the benefits and side-effects of going on the pill, with a heavy slant towards encouraging teenagers to go on it even if they are just thinking about having sex, along with Planned Parenthood's national 1-800 number (as well as a reminder that abstinence was the only 100% effective method). There were frequent references to having sex with boyfriends in the advice and "personal horror stories" sections. A story about getting over a break-up included tips that assumed some couples will have been sexually active. And there was a wonderful feature about a college-aged lesbian couple who had met in high school and recently were able to marry in California. I was quite surprised.

It's not that teenagers are having sex at such as higher rate now than they were when I am in high school. (I am not substantiating this empirically. It's just an educated assertion. Call me out if I'm wrong.) But in 1990 magazines geered towards teenaged girls (that are also read by tweens) were not that explicit in recognizing the sexual activeness of its readers. And you know what? I think this is a wonderful thing. It made me smile the whole time I was reading it. If all teenagers in this country were raised in a culture of openness, education, and self-awareness that I felt Seventeen magazine was promoting, then perhaps we would have lower rates of teen pregnancy and more sexually well-adjusted adults.

The second thing that surprised me was a full-paged ad promoting Seventeen magazine's Body Peace Treaty. A number of teen-world celebrities had signed it (Miley Cyrus, Fergie, Amanda Bynes, Ashlee Simpson, Carrie Underwood) aned the magazine was encouraging all of its readers to sign the plege for themselves. It would have been nice to see some fuller-figured celebrity names on it, but I did notice that a couple of the models in the fashion spreads were larger girls, so at lease they're trying. I looked up the Body Peace Treaty online so I could re-print it here. I think it's something worth mulling over for woman of all ages.

I vow to:

• Remember that the sun will still rise tomorrow even if I had one too many slices of pizza or an extra scoop of ice cream tonight.
• Never blame my body for the bad day I'm having.
• Stop joining in when my friends compare and trash their own bodies.
• Never allow a dirty look from someone else to influence how I feel about my appearance.
• Quit judging a person solely by how his or her body looks — even if it seems harmless — because I'd never want anyone to do that to me.
• Notice all the amazing things my body is doing for me every moment I walk, talk, think, breathe...
• Quiet that negative little voice in my head when it starts to say mean things about my body that I'd never tolerate anyone else saying about me.
• Remind myself that what you see isn't always what you get on TV and in ads — it takes a lot of airbrushing, dieting, money, and work to look like that.
• Remember that even the girl who I'd swap bodies with in a minute has something about her looks that she hates.
• Respect my body by feeding it well, working up a sweat when it needs it, and knowing when to give it a break.
• Realize that the mirror can reflect only what's on the surface of me, not who I am inside.
• Know that I'm already beautiful just the way I am.

You go Seventeen!

Elitism and American Politics

In an election where Barak Obama has been charged by many from the right with "elitism" and Sarah Palin proudly flaunts her lack of Washingon experience, I think it's important to ask what is so bad about elitism in politics? Why do so many Americans look down on experience and education in favor of someone who is just your "average Joe" (or Jane is this election)? and In his Newsweek column a couple weeks ago, Sam Harris address this very question.

. . . how has "elitism" become a bad word in American politics? There is simply no other walk of life in which extraordinary talent and rigorous training are denigrated. We want elite pilots to fly our planes, elite troops to undertake our most critical missions, elite athletes to represent us in competition and elite scientists to devote the most productive years of their lives to curing our diseases. And yet, when it comes time to vest people with even greater responsibilities, we consider it a virtue to shun any and all standards of excellence. When it comes to choosing the people whose thoughts and actions will decide the fates of millions, then we suddenly want someone just like us, someone fit to have a beer with, someone down-to-earth—in fact, almost anyone, provided that he or she doesn't seem too intelligent or well educated.

I think this is kind of attitude that got W. elected and re-elected and is behind much of the popularity of Sarah Palin. Of course, there's also the fact that supposed "elitists" tend to be more of the rationalist persuasion, and therefore don't believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Perhaps "elitism" is just a code word for "educated enough to not believe in irrational nonsense."

The entire article is worth a read for it's engagin criticism of the cringe-inducing mixing of religion and politics we would get with Palin running the country.

V is coming back!

What Generation X-er doesn't have fond memories of lizards-wearing-human-skin-guinea-pig-eating aliens? For all of us into sci-fi nostalgia TV, Variety is reporting that ABC is developing an updated version of V, the (in)famous 1980s miniseries and TV show. W00t!

If it's half as good as the new version Battlestar Gallactica, I am so there.

A religious movement a can get behind - the Unitarian Jihad

Found this manifesto of the "Unitarian Jihad" from a freethinking website (don't remember now which one). I guess it circulated around the internet a few years ago, but I missed it then. I did a little research and it actually turns out it was a humor piece Jon Carroll of the SF Chronicle. Enjoy.

Greetings to the Imprisoned Citizens of the United States. We are Unitarian Jihad. There is only God, unless there is more than one God. The vote of our God subcommittee is 10-8 in favor of one God, with two abstentions. Brother Flaming Sword of Moderation noted the possibility of there being no God at all, and his objection was noted with love by the secretary.

Greetings to the Imprisoned Citizens of the United States! Too long has your attention been waylaid by the bright baubles of extremist thought. Too long have fundamentalist yahoos of all religions (except Buddhism -- 14-5 vote, no abstentions, fundamentalism subcommittee) made your head hurt. Too long have you been buffeted by angry people who think that God talks to them. You have a right to your moderation! You have the power to be calm! We will use the IED of truth to explode the SUV of dogmatic expression!

People of the United States, why is everyone yelling at you??? Whatever happened to ... you know, everything? Why is the news dominated by nutballs saying that the Ten Commandments have to be tattooed inside the eyelids of every American, or that Allah has told them to kill Americans in order to rid the world of Satan, or that Yahweh has instructed them to go live wherever they feel like, or that Shiva thinks bombing mosques is a great idea? Sister Immaculate Dagger of Peace notes for the record that we mean no disrespect to Jews, Muslims, Christians or Hindus. Referred back to the committee of the whole for further discussion.

We are Unitarian Jihad. We are everywhere. We have not been born again, nor have we sworn a blood oath. We do not think that God cares what we read, what we eat or whom we sleep with. Brother Neutron Bomb of Serenity notes for the record that he does not have a moral code but is nevertheless a good person, and Unexalted Leader Garrote of Forgiveness stipulates that Brother Neutron Bomb of Serenity is a good person, and this is to be reflected in the minutes.

Beware! Unless you people shut up and begin acting like grown-ups with brains enough to understand the difference between political belief and personal faith, the Unitarian Jihad will begin a series of terrorist-like actions. We will take over television studios, kidnap so-called commentators and broadcast calm, well-reasoned discussions of the issues of the day. We will not try for "balance" by hiring fruitcakes; we will try for balance by hiring non-ideologues who have carefully thought through the issues.

We are Unitarian Jihad. We will appear in public places and require people to shake hands with each other. (Sister Hand Grenade of Love suggested that we institute a terror regime of mandatory hugging, but her motion was not formally introduced because of lack of a quorum.) We will require all lobbyists, spokesmen and campaign managers to dress like trout in public. Televangelists will be forced to take jobs as Xerox repair specialists. Demagogues of all stripes will be required to read Proust out loud in prisons.

We are Unitarian Jihad, and our motto is: "Sincerity is not enough." We have heard from enough sincere people to last a lifetime already. Just because you believe it's true doesn't make it true. Just because your motives are pure doesn't mean you are not doing harm. Get a dog, or comfort someone in a nursing home, or just feed the birds in the park. Play basketball. Lighten up. The world is not out to get you, except in the sense that the world is out to get everyone.

Brother Gatling Gun of Patience notes that he's pretty sure the world is out to get him because everyone laughs when he says he is a Unitarian. There were murmurs of assent around the room, and someone suggested that we buy some Congress members and really stick it to the Baptists. But this was deemed against Revolutionary Principles, and Brother Gatling Gun of Patience was remanded to the Sunday Flowers and Banners committee.

People of the United States! We are Unitarian Jihad! We can strike without warning. Pockets of reasonableness and harmony will appear as if from nowhere! Nice people will run the government again! There will be coffee and cookies in the Gandhi Room after the revolution.

Sign me up! Oh, and according to the Unitarian Jihad Naming Committee, my jihad name is Sister Holy Axe of Compassion. I'm putting that on my business cards (if I ever get any).

Google's Mail Goggles Prevents Drunk Emailing

This is pretty amusing and it would have helped me save face on more than one occasion. My only comment - wouldn't a spellcheck test have worked just as well? Some people might not be able to solve the math problems sober, but all drunk emails, in my experience, have egregious spelling errors.

Google’s Mail Goggles Prevents Drunk Emailing | Epicenter from Wired.com

Tina Fey is my hero

I know I've been neglecting this blog for the past couple of weeks. I promise to post something more substantial soon. However, to tide everyone over, I'm posting the most recent installment of the Tina Fey SNL parodies of Sarah Palin. Enjoy.



I also know that most of my posts recently have been political. I'll try to mix it up a bit in the near future.

I used to respect Elizabeth Dole . . . until now

I have always had a good deal of respect for Elizabeth Dole. Even though we differ substantially on a number of political issues (I'm very socially liberal), I could admire her for her accomplishments, especially as a woman in a era where women were just beginning to hold positions of political power. From cabinet posts under Reagan and Bush I, to president of the Red Cross, to Senator and presidential candidate, I always thought she encapsulated the values of the moderate wing of the Republican party. I always thought she would be above dirty politics and hate-mongering. Until now.

On August 26th, Dole's Sentate re-election campaign came out with a press release which is one of the most official bigoted statements I have recently read by an American politcian in regards to secular and non-religious Americans. In it she vilifies an opponent for daring to meet with the "Godless Americans Political Action Committee" (a euphemism for the Secular Coalition for America), a group whose mission, as stated in the press release, is to protect the civil rights of non-religious Americans. Here's the press release text. I've highlighted the worst parts of it:

"Godless Americans PAC?"

Email Story
Print Story

Hagan Heads to Boston for Fundraiser in the Home of Leading Anti-Religion Activists

On September 15th, Kay Hagan is heading to Boston, Massachusetts to attend a fundraiser for her Senate campaign. What may surprise mainstream North Carolinians is that the fundraiser will be in the home of leading anti religion activists Wendy Kaminer and her lawyer husband Woody Kaplan -- who is an advisor to the "Godless Americans Political Action Committee."

Kaminer is the author of Sleeping with Extra-Terrestrials, in which one reviewer said Kaminer is ". . . trying to save us from ‘the perils of piety’-the pestilence of organized religion and its encroachment on public life. Should we be surprised that Katha Pollitt, atheist-in-chief at The Nation and author of a book called Reasonable Creatures, has given Kaminer's book a gushing blurb?” (Norah Vincent, Op-Ed, “Unbelievable,” National Review, 11/22/99)."

Kaminer is also an advisory board member (Woody is the chairman) of The Secular Coalition for America which is "the national lobby for atheists, humanists, freethinkers and other nontheistic Americans with the unique mission of protecting their civil rights.” (Secular Coalition For America, Press Release, 1/16/08)

Kaminer's husband, Woody Kaplan, is also an advisor to the Godless Americans Political Action Committee which sees itself as a counter-force to religious groups in public policy debates.

"Kay Hagan is trying to run a campaign in North Carolina that casts her as a moderate but the money that's paying for it is coming from the left-wing fringe of political thought," said Dole Campaign Communications Director Dan McLagan. "You can tell a lot about a person by their friends and these are friends most North Carolinians would not be comfortable having over for dinner."

Hagan's campaign is being largely funded by labor unions intent on ending North Carolina's status as a right to work state, liberal trial lawyers and ultra left wing groups like MoveOn.org which is a deeply anti-military organization. Now Hagan has added anti-religion activists from Boston Massachusetts to the list.

"Kay Hagan does not represent the values of this state; she is a Trojan Horse for a long list of wacky left-wing outside groups bent on policies that would horrify most North Carolinians if they knew about it," McLagan said. "This latest revelation of support from anti-religion activists will not sit well with the 90% of state residents who identify with a specific religious faith."

I don't even know where to begin. I guess somehow seeking equal rights and civil liberties for a minority non-religious group has become "anti-religious." And the way in which the atheists and other non-religious are characterized is a clear scare tactic. By mocking the name of the organization by calling them "Godless Americans PAC" she consciously plays into stereotypes, misconceptions and fear about secularism. As the Atheist Revolution blog points out, this is a classic example of "othering" and intolerance:

What Dole is saying here is that persons seeking representation for nontheistic Americans are merely "anti religion activists." She uses "atheist" as an insult to devalue, distance, and dehumanize. For Dole, atheists are useful only as the vilified other. She projects her hatred of atheists onto North Carolina residents by claiming that the people she represents would not want an atheist over for dinner. She characterizes North Carolina as an intolerant place where her constituency would be "horrified" that anyone would bother to represent the atheists among them.

Even the mere association of someone with an atheist, either through meeting with them to hear their political grievances or even having them over for dinner creates a kind of guilt by association. Doesn't this all seem way too similar to the tactics of racists, sexists and homophobes? Austin Cline makes this argument:

Judging people simply because they don't believe in any gods is on the same moral level as judging people for their skin color or their sexual orientation. This places Elizabeth Dole and her Communications Director Dan McLagan on the same level as racists — and worse, racist politicians who exploit the racism of voters in order to turn them against more liberal politicians who dare to associate with racial minorities and/or those who support equal rights of racial minorities.

So let's rework Dole's press release to target a different group besides atheists, secularists, and the non-religious and see what it would sound like. Let's pretend like Dole's opponent was meeting with the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and change just a few words of the press release.

"Terrorist Americans PAC?"

Email Story
Print Story

Hagan Heads to Boston for Fundraiser in the Home of Leading Anti-Christian Activists

On September 15th, Kay Hagan is heading to Boston, Massachusetts to attend a fundraiser for her Senate campaign. What may surprise mainstream North Carolinians is that the fundraiser will be in the home of leading anti Christian activists Wendy Kaminer and her lawyer husband Woody Kaplan -- who is an advisor to the "Terrorist Americans Political Action Committee."

Kaminer is the author of Sleeping with Extra-Terrestrials, in which one reviewer said Kaminer is ". . . trying to save us from ‘the perils of piety’-the pestilence of evangelical Christianity and its encroachment on public life. Should we be surprised that Katha Pollitt, terrorist-in-chief at The Nation and author of a book called Reasonable Creatures, has given Kaminer's book a gushing blurb?” (Norah Vincent, Op-Ed, “Unbelievable,” National Review, 11/22/99)."

Kaminer is also an advisory board member (Woody is the chairman) of American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee which is "the national lobby for muslim and arab Americans with the unique mission of protecting their civil rights.”

Kaminer's husband, Woody Kaplan, is also an advisor to the Terrorist Americans Political Action Committee which sees itself as a counter-force to Christian groups in public policy debates.

"Kay Hagan is trying to run a campaign in North Carolina that casts her as a moderate but the money that's paying for it is coming from the Islamic fringe of political thought," said Dole Campaign Communications Director Dan McLagan. "You can tell a lot about a person by their friends and these are friends most North Carolinians would not be comfortable having over for dinner."

Hagan's campaign is being largely funded by labor unions intent on ending North Carolina's status as a right to work state, liberal trial lawyers and ultra left wing groups like MoveOn.org which is a deeply anti-military organization. Now Hagan has added anti-Christian activists from Boston Massachusetts to the list.

"Kay Hagan does not represent the values of this state; she is a Trojan Horse for a long list of wacky left-wing outside groups bent on policies that would horrify most North Carolinians if they knew about it," McLagan said. "This latest revelation of support from Arab and Muslim activists will not sit well with the 90% of state residents who identify with a specific Christian faith."

Can you imagine the outcry of bigotry that would occur if Elizabeth Dole's scare tactics were directed at another group besides atheists?

Respecting the wishes of the founding fathers . . . from the 1950s?!?

I guess I'm on a Sarah Palin roll today - two blog posts in a row.

Just came across this gem from Daily Kos. When asked 2006 whether she was offended by the phrase "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance, Palin replied: "If it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me."

I guess that means the U.S. was founded in 1954, because as I noted in a recent post, that the year when the phrase "under god" was officially put in the Pledge. (The original version of the pledge itself was written in 1892.) I guess Sarah Palin's founding fathers are Dwight Eisenhower and Joe McCarthy.

Wow. Just wow. This woman's political ignorance astounds me.

The other Palin for VP

I saw this video posted at one of my favorite blogs, Pharyngula. Absolutely brilliant. Makes me want to go re-watch Monty Python instead of enduring the next two months of U.S. Politics.

Does Congress really apply the Establishment Clause to itself?

As I mentioned in my last post, I was recently on a tour of the Congress with a group Europeans and Americans during my LSE class reunion. We had a fun time listening to the House Republicans talk about energy policy, and I'm sure the Europeans enjoyed listening to the complex and well-informed rhetoric coming from the House floor that day. (Yes, I am being sarcastic.) However, the thing that really mystified some of them was the opening prayer.

Sure, what we saw was not an official session of Congress. However, it is true that every regular business day in the Congress is opened with a prayer from the House and Senate chaplains. This has been the case since 1789. After leaving the chambers, my European friends were wondering how a prayer is permissible given that separation of church and state is part of the US Constitution. Doesn't this act violate the first amendment?

The easy answer is that while the US purports to uphold the principle of separation of church and state, our government violates it frequently. Let's not forget that public officials are sworn in on a bible or other type of religious book, our money has "in god we trust" written on it, and the public school children recite the line "one nation under god" during the pledge of allegiance each morning. (Interesting to note - that line was not in the original pledge of allegiance adopted in 1892 but was added by Congress during the Eisenhower administration in 1954. "In god we trust" was also not put on U.S. currency until around the same time). And being a non-theist means 50% of Americans would not even consider voting for you, no matter how qualified you are. So much for the "no religious test" clause of the Constitution.

(Some of my friends claimed that being too openly religious would not get you elected in their home countries. How ironic that while many European countries still have official state religions, they are in practice some of the most secular, non-religious countries in the world?)

After our tour, I did a little research on the topic of the Congressional prayer. In 1983, the Supreme Court took up this question of opening prayers during legislative sessions in March v. Chambers. The Court ruled to permit this practice under the Constitution, However, the majority decision was based mostly on the history and tradition of allowing opening prayers in Congress. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Burger wrote:

In light of the unambiguous and unbroken history of more then 200 years, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society. To invoke Divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making laws is not, in these circumstances, an "establishment" or a step toward establishment; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country.

This seems like a pretty weak argument to me, especially considering we're talking about a Constitutional issue and not a question of what is a desirable policy. As Brennen's minority opinion points out, the majority did not apply the commonly used "Lemon test" on issues dealing with religion. (If they did it surely would have failed.) The phrase "tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country" smacks of majority rule trumping minority rights, the very thing the Bill of Rights was supposed to ensure against. One could easily argue that many traditional were once a part of the "fabric of our society" and "widely held" beliefs, such as slavery, racial inequality, women not voting, etc. An institution of the federal government officially invoking "divine guidance" every day is state endorsement of religion, IMHO.

So what about the argument that participating in the Congressional opening prayer is voluntary? This was indeed the point that our more conservative tour guide made. No one is forced to participate in the prayer. I personally had my head up and eyes open during the recitation at our tour. I did a little more research and found out that in 2000, the US Supreme Court ruled in Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe that even voluntary prayers led by an elected student chaplain at high school football games were unconstitutional. Justice Stevens made these remarks in his majority opinion for this case:

School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherants "that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherants that they are insiders, favored members of the political community."

As an atheist and an American, I fully relate to these words. Take out the word "school" and insert "congressional" and think of the statement in relation to the voluntary prayer lead each session by the Congressional chaplains. (Chaplains who are employed by and paid by the federal government.) To me, interpretation implies that non-religious persons are outsiders, not "real" Americans and not full-fledged members of the American political systems. This is about as clear a case of discrimination and not upholding separation of church and state as I can think of.

Oh, wait. I forgot. Congress sometimes does not apply the very legislation it passes to itself. I guess the same must be true about the Constitution now. Silly me.

A fun time at the House of Representatives

This last Friday, as part of the organized activities for my LSE class reunion in DC, we had a tour of the U.S. Capitol. One of our DC classmates was able to get a staffer from the Republican House minority leader's office to be our guide. While I'd been in the Capitol a few times for work when I was with UNHCR, I had never visited as a tourist. The tour itself would have been a fun experience in and of itself. However, a couple of other aspects of the tour made it even more interesting.

Little did we know when we arranged the tour, but the House Republican energy bill protest was going on. Basically, a handful of the more conservative Republicans had decided to keep giving speeches about energy policy on the house floor during the August recess. The mikes were off, the C-SPAN cameras were dead, and the Democrats (and most of the other Republicans) were back in the their home districts campainging. But these Republicans wanted to put pressure on the Democrats to consider expanding U.S. off-shore drilling. Regardless of my problems with both the politics and ethics of this move, watching this "shadow session" for a few minutes was entertaining. And because Congress was not in session, all the tourists got to sit on the House floor, in the seats where Representatives usually sit. (Typically tourists must stay in an upper level gallery.)

Our LSE group was a mix of Americans and Europeans. The Europeans were pretty amused with the energy policy arguments, especially one individual who is a policy expert on energy and environmental issues. I would have liked to see him ask the Republicans a few questions. The level of discourse was very dumbed down (they were addressing tourists and not other Representatives) and it was actually a bit embarrassing for the Americans IMHO.

The best part of the energy speeches was Rep. Thelma Drake's (from the Norfolk area) justification for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). She claimed that she always envisioned ANWR as a "pristine" and "beautiful" place. However, after going there and seeing that it wasn't as pristine and beautiful as she imagined, she now thinks it's okay to drill there. So I guess that means our standards of environmental preservation should be based on what we think is "pretty." Who cares about fragile ecosystems, the food web, special preservation, etc.?The only thing that matters is whether people think it would look good on a postcard. I guess that means we should only worry about cute endangered species and not the ugly ones. This woman would have gotten reamed if she would have made this argument to anyone else but tired, sweaty tourists.

One aspect of the Republican speeches we witnessed that really confused the Europeans was the opening prayer. More on that in my next blog entry. I have to do a little more research before discussing that issue.

I love my LSE friends but being around them can sometimes depress me

Every once in a while you have one of those experiences that causes you to assess your life and re-examine where you've been and where you're going. This past week has been one of those times for me.

We had the 9th reunion here in DC for my Master's program at the London School of Economics. In the fall of 1998, myself and about 60 other people from around the world began a year-long program in Politics of the World Economy. I learned a lot that year, not just about world politics and economics, but about myself personally and what I wanted out of life. I also made a bunch of wonderful lifelong friends. Every year since we graduated in the summer of 1999, we've organized reunions in different cities internationally. I stayed away the first few years for a variety of reasons. This year in DC was only the second reunion I've attended. However, after so many years and so much distance, I still feel like I know these people as well as I did back in London.

However, for as much as everyone is the same in terms of their personalities, professionally everyone has naturally advanced quite far. I'm always so amazed by the accomplishments of my LSE cohort. Our group has some series intellectual capital. At the DC reunion alone, we had successful attorneys (both in government and the private sector), national government diplomats, International Organization bureaucrats and negotiators, policy and think tank experts, private finance big wigs, and business consultants coming from Brussels, London, DC, Rome, Oslo, and Amsterdam. It's not uncommon for people from our class to encouter each other in professional situations.

And then there's me. Still working on my Ph.D. dissertation. A dissertation I should have finished years ago. I think of my "career trajectory" post-LSE. I first moved back to Kansas for a few months while I applied to Ph.D. programs. Then I moved to Ohio to start the Ph.D. program at Ohio State. After two years I left the program and moved to DC. Worked in an entry-level position at a United Nations agency. Then I left the UN to re-start my Ph.D. at George Washington. Five years later I'm struggling to finish the dissertation. If I work hard and am real lucky, I will complete the Ph.D. a few months after I turn 34. If I don't go into academia, then I will be back on the job market, probably working for a think tank, non-profit or the federal government in a position at a level that most of my LSE collegeaues were at a decade ago. I will most likely have superiors 5 years younger than me. If I encouter any of my LSE classmates in professional settings, I might be the person assigned to get them coffee. (Okay, that may be a little extreme, but you get the picture.)

When I started the LSE almost 10 years ago, where did I think I would be a decade later? I can tell you it was no where near the position I am in now. I thought I would be a published university professor, a policy expert at a think tank, or an upward bound State Department official. Certainly not still a grad student sitting in front of her computer day after day trying to overcome a series case of writers block.

I guess the whole "who did you think you were going to be when you grew up" game is a bit unfair to play. Our lives never turn out the way we think they will. And I am very happy personally. But I still can't shake this feeling of professional failure every time I get together with my LSE friends. There's a constant cloud of "if I had only" that hangs over my mind. I think of all the different paths my life could have gone down and wonder if the one I have chosen professionally is really the one that will allow me to live up to my potential.

And then I get even more depressed when I realize we can't drink near as much as we used to back in London without serious hangovers! I really need a couple days of rest just to recover. Maybe then I won't be so melancholy.

Cosmopolitan' Institute Completes Decades-Long Study On How To Please Your Man

Just frakking awesome.


'Cosmopolitan' Institute Completes Decades-Long Study On How To Please Your Man

The best part is at the end when the male reporter asks "What is next? Maybe the sensual pleasures of women?" and both the female reporter and the female researcher just laugh. Awesome.

What do McMansions say about American culture?

This article in the Sunday Washington Post caught my eye - "The Dreams that Drive Us." It's a brief yet interesting overview of the interaction of the architecture of the American home and American culture over the past 100+ years. The author is a professor of architecture at Columbia who has a book about the history of American modern architecture.

My favorite part of the article is her comments about McMansions.

A McMansion is rife with contradictions. It's an exhibitionistic house, yet it's set far back from the street, with tall gates and security systems. These Hummer houses appeal to people who want a truly conspicuous display of wealth. They've given freedom of expression a new and rather disturbing meaning: the right to do whatever you want, to be totally self-absorbed. Which is where we are, for the most part, today.

I couldn't have said it better myself. What will people in 40-50 years think when they look at current residential architecture? I think of now how so many people are into mid-century architecture and covet designs from the 50s and 60s. I can't even imagine a similar movement in the future. I doubt there will ever be nostalgia for shoddy construction, garish ornamentation, and tasteless mixing of architectural styles. But who knows? Maybe McMansions will be "retro" gems in the future. Of course, to be nostalgic about McMansions, that would mean that residential architecture in the U.S. would have to come up with something worse than McMansions. I shudder at the thought.

Moonwalker reopens UFO files

I consider myself an open-minded skeptic when it comes to things like UFOs. I don't believe in them based on the evidence I've seen. However, I'm not completely closed off to the possibility that I will see evidence in the future that will convince me of their existence. That is why this tidbit about the believe in UFOs and alien visitations to earth by a respected Apollo astronaut intrigued me. Or maybe the X-Files marathon David and I are doing this summer has gotten to my head!

Moonwalker reopens UFO files - Cosmic Log - msnbc.com

Buffy Animated Series Pilot

I remember a couple of years back when Joss & Co. were developing an animated Buffy series. It never really got off the ground unfortunately. However, this short pilot recently surfaced on the internet. Just a tease of what might have been. I still miss Buffy so much!

Why do all the immortal protagonists hate immortality?

One my husband’s favorite TV shows of all times is The Highlander. As I’m heading to bed, he pulls out the DVDs and watches Duncan McCloud nobly behead other immortals in cheesy, low-production-values fight scenes. There’s one song they play over and over in multiple episodes that often gets stuck in my head - “Who wants to live forever?” by Queen. And it totally encapsulates my pet peeve about the way immortality is often represented in TV and movies.

Duncan McCloud, like many other fictional immortals, is dark and broody about his immortality. Immortality is portrayed as a burden he would gladly get rid of if he could. He has to watch friends and lovers grow old and die while he stays young and handsome until the end of the world (or until he gets be-headed by another immortal). Many episodes are about a moody Duncan reminiscing over friends or girlfriends that are long gone.

Well boo-frakking-hoo. Poor baby. Too bad the fact that YOU GET TO LIVE FOREVER doesn’t make up for it. Oh wait. It does! Sure it sucks to see people die and it’s hard making new friends every few decades, but let me remind you that YOU GET TO LIVE FOREVER!!! Let’s just pretend, Duncan, that you get turned back into a mortal. You settle down, have a few young-uns, work a respectable job, and retire to Florida. As death approaches after a rousing game of bridge, is the last thought on your mind going to be “Gee, I’m sure glad now that I’m staring into the abyss that I gave up that pesky immortality thing”? I think not.

This phenomenon of immortals hating their immortality extends well beyond Duncan McCloud (and his cousin Connor). Other fictional immortal protagonists whining about wanting to become human again are:

Angel (Buffy the Vampire Slayer and his eponymous show Angel) – Poor Angel. He can’t have sex with his true love, Buffy, because of his vampire-with-a-soul-curse. Now don’t get me wrong. I love sex with someone you deeply love as much as anyone else, but I would gladly trade it for immortality. (Sorry, David.) He was offered a possibility of a future Shanshu (Buffy-verse speak for mystical reward that will turn Angel human), but thankfully signed it away by the end of the series. So now he’s free to be a vampire detective for another few centuries. Angel’s guilty of muttering the horrible pun “Immortality? I’m dying to get rid of that.”

Nick Knight (Forever Knight) – another vampire detective who desperately wanted to be mortal again. He was all morose about all the bad things he did – blood sucking, pillaging, killings – that he used his well-hones vampire instincts to fight crime in Toronto and atone for his sins. In the end, he gets his vampire mentor to kill him and so that he doesn’t have to turn his dying human girlfriend into a vampire. Wow. He must have really loved her to want them both dead and rotting in the ground.

Mick St. John (Moonlight) – the most recent in a time-honored tradition of vampire dectective heroes wishing they were mortal again. Mick wants to be mortal so badly that he takes a “temporary” cure, and then proceeds to get beat to a pulp by sensible I-like-being-immortal-and powerful vampires.

John Amsterdam (New Amsterdam) – I didn’t watch this “blink and you miss it” show from last season. However, the main plot is that John Amsterdam will become mortal when he finds true love. Isn’t that sweet? Then they can be dead together . . . forever.

Arwen (Lord of the Rings) – The elf who gives up immortality for to be with her human love, Aragorn. While the elves say they viewed the mortality of humans as a gift, how many of them besides Arwen actually stayed behind in Middle Earth instead sailing to Valinor (where they would stay immortal)? I believe the answer is none.


So why do we have these fictional immortals who are so willing to give up their immortality? While short-sightedness is the first thing that comes to mind, there is clearly something deeper going on here. We have to remember that these stories are created for human consumption. As mortal beings who are typically obsessed with death, there is clearly an allure to the idea of immortality. However, a narrative about a happy, go-lucky immortal who loves his/her life and has no problem living forever would not make an exciting story (These kinds of characters are often sidekicks, mentors, roguish friends, etc. – Methos in Highlander, Spike in Buffy/Angel, Josef in Moonlight.) We the viewers need conflict, inner turmoil, something for to propel the narrative forward. And while we can fantasize about being immortal ourselves, we ultimately come to feel good about our own mortality when the protagonist we secretly envy actually envies our mortality and normalness.

Except for me. I totally want to be immortal and think these characters are being silly. That’s why I’m investing in cryogenics. You may think I’m joking . . .

There’s an academic paper in here somewhere.

Liberal guilt and the "n" word

A recent controversy in the Chicago suburb of Wilmette, IL caught my attention. A planned outdoor production of "Ragtime" has been steeped in controversy over the play's use of the infamous "n" word in reference to African-American characters. While it was eventually decided that the play will run (although indoors and for a more limited engagement), some members of the mostly white, middle and upper class community were upset by the public expression of these words in a public forum.

This article quotes Ty Perry, the African-American director of the play, who explains the context of the use of the "n" word in "Ragtime":

"If you don't want people to use the word," he said, "this is the perfect opportunity to show them why they shouldn't." Setting aside euphemism, he quoted examples of its use in the musical. "There is a song in which Coalhouse Walker [the black protagonist] sings the line, 'I'm not their nigger,'" he says. "And at another point when Willie Conklin [the racist villain] demands a toll, Coalhouse asks, 'Since when?' And Conklin says, 'Since some high falutin' nigger and his whore could drive that car of theirs any place they please. That's since when.'"

Mr. Perry then goes on to give what I think is one of the best comments I've recently read about the use of this word in contemporary American culture.

"I understand it makes white people nervous, but to take that word out of 'Ragtime' would be to invalidate my heritage as an African-American man. I was talking to my partner about this and he said, 'I can't understand what you feel when you hear that word.' And I said, 'I can never understand the guilt you feel when you hear that word.' We both have a common bond with that word. So let's deal with that."

I like the idea of a common bond between African-Americans (who have been victims of this label) and whites (who feel guilty over the way whites have used this word to denigrate African-Americans) through the recognition of our lack of being able to completely understand what it's like to be in the other position. Unfortunately, it's rare to hear an idea that actually could help race relations in the U.S. move forward.

"Coded prejudice is cloaked dagger"

Came across this article from the Trib on coded prejudice. Since openly using racial slurs is no longer cultural acceptable (at least in most places) people use code words to refer to minority groups. Well, duh! How many times have white people talked about going to the "urban" (i.e. black) part of town or about a neighborhood that is "gentrifying" (i.e. kicking out all the poor, black people). What's interesting about the article is the implication for federal discrimination law.
Coded prejudice is cloaked dagger -- chicagotribune.com

Sex & Gender Part II - Sissy boys and Buffy girls

I am of the opinion that the next big step our culture needs to make towards gender equality is the acceptance of femininity for men. We are now at the point where it's becoming increasingly tolerated for women to exhibit masculine characteristics and behaviors - full-time careers, competitive behavior, engaging in physical violence. In some areas it's even expected. For example, women who choose not to have a career and be "traditional" stay at home moms are looked down on by some. (I admit I've been guilty of this.) Of course we still a long way to go. Women who are assertive in their careers are still often labeled "bitchy" while assertiveness in men is seen as an asset. And let's not forget the myriad of sexist comments made about Hilary (including the infamous "nagging wife" comment) that play on stereotypes about femininity and masculinity.

That being said, it's still a lot easier in our current society for a girl to be a tomboy that a boy to be a sissy. Girls can now play with trucks, excel at sports, read comic books, etc. and not be seen as deviant. But most parents would discourage their boys from having dolls, learning to cook, playing dress up, crying when they get hurt, etc. (Many would think this means their son was gay –oh the horror!). Women can now be Buffy. They can kick ass and look great doing it. In fact, one could argue the butt-kicking, hot woman has become a pretty standard straight male sexual fantasy. So while it's certainly not acceptable for women to exhibit characteristics from the full range of masculine behaviors and attributes, things have certainly come a long was in the past few decades. However, an effeminate man is still a negative stereotype.

There are a few small signs that this is changing, though. First, obviously, are the tremendous strides the gay rights movement has made in recent years, and the increased visibility of individuals who do not conform to gender stereotypes. Also, there is a small but growing number of men in the U.S. who are choosing to be stay-at-home dads. I read an interesting article in the Washington Post a while back that claimed in 2007 there were 159,000 stay-at-home dads, which is around 2.7 percent of the total stay-at-home parents in the U.S. While this sounds low, the article said that number almost tripled in the past 10 years. On the flipside, even though we may see the men in this article as being egalitarian, they all make it clear that they still work at least part-time from home. None of them are true house-husbands. That probably would have been way too feminine to be acceptable.

Finally, there is the phenomenon of men taking their wife's last names when they get married. I couldn't find any statistics on this, but I was able to find quite a few anecdotal journalistic accounts. David actually told me he was willing to do this when we got married. My immediate reaction was to think he was joking, which shows how ingrained some of these traditions are in our society. I thought about the potential reaction to David changing his name, the teasing and ribbing he would get from his friends and colleagues (esp. men) who would make jokes about his masculinity.

Along those lines, this article about a man who took his wife’s name describes the chuckles he got at his wedding and the flak he took from his friends. The same article talks about another man who had people tell him to turn in his “man card” and ask what “sissy juice” he was drinking. Lovely. Compare that to the relatively mundane reaction I got when I didn’t change my name, as well as the total unquestioning acceptance from people if I would have changed my last name to David's.

There are legal aspects to gender discrimination of name changing as well. This article talks about a California man who had to jump through two years of fees, paperwork and bureaucratic red tape to change his surname to his wife’s. He finally took his case to the California ACLU who helped get the law changed in that state. The article goes on to say, however, that in over 40 states there is still no place on marriage license applications for a man to change his last name.

So my question is when do we get the Buffy for men? When will there be a male pop culture icon that can be a stay at home dad, do all the cooking and cleaning, take his wife’s name, but still also watch sports, love cars, be competitive, etc.? When will the stereotype of the “sissy” go away? Only then can we really achieve true gender equality IMHO.

Watch out Spanlish . . . here comes Chinglish

Interesting article from Wired about the emergence of a particular English dialect among native Chinese speakers. With the globalization of English as the lingua franca, I would be surprised if thus phenomenon isn't already happening in many other places around the world. I'm personally not worried about this, though. I see language as a constantly evolving process, and holding on to some "proper" form of English is a bit archaic and elitist IMHO. Also, I enjoy the idea of being able to travel all over the world and people being able to have some common language to speak to one another with - even if we all have our different dialects.

How English Is Evolving Into a Language We May Not Even Understand

The Google Defense

Ran across this interesting article in the Post:
The Google Ogle Defense: A Search for America's Psyche - washingtonpost.com

It's about a recent court case in Pensacola, Florida where a man was charged with violating obscenity laws by creating & selling internet porn. His lawyer was planning on using google metrics from the Pensacola area to show that people searched for purportedly obscene topics like "orgy" significantly more than more mundane topics like "apple pie" and "boating." Therefore, the community standard definition of obscene should be a lot narrower than the prosecution was arguing. The case was eventually settled out of court, so the defense was never presented in court. However, I'm sure it's not long before we see the google defense used actively in a similar court case.

Dr. Horrible is my new lover

I am a whore for all things Joss Whedon. That means I would metaphorically have sex with anything Joss Whedon produces for money. Hell, not even for money. I would copulate with any TV show, movie, comic, book, webisode, email, grocery list, or doodle he produced. So you can imagine how worked up I am over the new trailer for his web musical "Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog".



I'm sure it will be brilliant. (My typical reliance on skepticism and objectivity disappears whenever Mr. Whedon is involved.) And who can't love the pairing of Neil Patrick Harris and Nathan Fillon as arch-nemeses. This will be even better than the Fringe pilot!

Rumors Barack Obama's campaign shouldn't try to correct. - By Christopher Beam - Slate Magazine

Rumors Barack Obama's campaign shouldn't try to correct. - By Christopher Beam - Slate Magazine

Sex & Gender Part I - Culture v. Biology

Many days instead of dissertation writing, I mull over various thoughts I have regarding "liberal" issues like racism, gender socialization, gay rights, attitudes towards evolution, and the like. I always think about how I should write down some of these thoughts (and therefore parlay them into something academically useful instead of just an interesting distraction). Therefore, today I'm going to start a multiple-post arc on issues of culture & biology in sex and gender.

One big question I've struggled with for years is: How much are gender differences biologically versus culturally determined? By gender I mean the traits, characteristics, behaviors, etc. associated with being masculine and feminine. The standard line is that sex is biological (women have boobs, men have gonads) but gender is socially constructed. The controversial question issue is how much is gender connected to sex? How much of femininity is biologically ingrained in women and how much do genes tell men to be masculine? (Interesting aside - Judith Butler argues both sex and gender are socially constructed.)

I've always leaned on the far side of the socialization scale. Girls like frilly dresses, the color pink, playing with dolls, and acting demurely because they are raised that way. And even when parents explicitly try bring their daughter up differently, influences like television, music, toys, movies, friends, family members, school, and practically everything else in our culture teaches them to adhere to a certain gender role. In this way gender is like a role we perform, where our gender identities are constantly reconstructed and reinforced through the repetition of everyday gendered acts, behaviors, words, etc. (See more about the performative theory of gender here.) Certainly things have changed a lot in contemporary U.S. culture over the past few decades, but it's still quite shockingly prevalent. (Think of gender stereotypes constantly used by the media, especially during Hillary Clinton's recent presidential campaign.)

Of course, many would point out (including my mother) that I am completely ignoring the large stack of research that demonstrates biological differences between the sexes. I'm not denying it completely. However, I would make three points. First, sex and gender are different concepts. Just because there are biological differences does not mean that they automatically lead to a behavioral gender attribute. So if the area of the brain that controls language tends to be larger in women, does this automatically mean women are inherently gossipy (as the gender stereotype says they are)? Absolutely not. I concept like "gossip" is a cultural construct. Maybe biology would say women tend to be better at remember the large amounts of information and social relationships that are part of "gossip" but the tendency for women to engage in this very specific kind of language activity (and the negative social connotations associated with gossip) are socialized IMHO.

Second, we can probably never truly test nature v. nurture arguments such as these. Short of finding a bunch of kids raised by wolves, there is no way to remove individuals completely from culture (and then we'd just be seeing the effects of socialization into wolf culture). In scientific experimental terms, we can never successfully apply the "treatment" of biology alone/no culture. Confounding cultural variables will always get in the way.

Third, biology and gender research can lead us down a dangerous ethical path. Here is one of my biggest pet peeves in the whole biology v. cultures debates. Why does a biological basis for any human behavior, attribute, belief, etc. differences make it somehow more justified? Why is “because it’s natural” a good justification for ethics and ideas about how society should be constructed?

For example, take the supposition that XYY men biologically tend to be more violent. (While the most recent research demonstrates XYY men are not more aggressive, just assume it for the sake of this point.) Can you imagine a judge who gave an XYY male a lighter sentence on an assult or rape charge because "he's biologically predisposed" to be more violent and therefore his behavior was "natural"? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. As a society we have an ethical standard against violence in most cases (with certain exceptions, of course), and we purport to apply this equally to all individuals, regardless of the amount of testosterone in the bodies.

Along those same lines, why should we tolerate arguments about women's role in the military, political leadership positions, math and science abilities, etc. that rely on supposedly biological differences between men and women. Just because it’s natural and there’s a biological explanation doesn’t mean it’s ethically correct. We construct our own ethical view of how the world should be independent of biology and use culture to shape biological, not vice versa. So, therefore, the biology v. culture in gender and sex differences debate should not be as meaningful as many think it is.

Part II and III to come later. I'm sure you can't wait!

Something decent to watch this summer

Just found this on The Underwire blog on Wired.com: Fringe Pilot Leaks Online Three Months Before Premiere

I'm already downloading the Torrent. This will be a nice compliment to the X-Files summer marathon David and I are having. It will be interesting to compare the two. I wonder if conspiracy-minded FBI agents on TV are more or less paranoid about the government in the 21st century than in the 1990s? How will Fringe contribute to our long history of conspiracy culture in the US? (I must stop thinking about this or I will get even more distracted from dissertation writing!)

UPDATE: I watched the Fringe pilot on a train ride to NYC last week and it was awesome! 1 hour and 20 minutes of scifi/conspiracy/pop culture bliss. I hope the rest of the series is as good as the pilot. If anyone wants a copy just let me know.