October 23, 2009

Click on image to enlarge.

Standing Up

September 29, 2009

U.S.S

September 6, 2009

Two by Two by Two

September 5, 2009

This Jezebel article on where should jails house a transsexual prisoner is a short, but interesting read. It just makes our society and our institutions of control a wee bit more complicated. I wonder if they will make ‘A’ get surgery? She says she needs a ‘period of time’ as a woman in order to decide whether or not to go through with the surgery, fair enough, it’s a big decision…but what is a period of time? I doubt the jail will ever force her into the surgery, but it must be hard having to house her seperately.

Does NHS cover those types of surgeries even?

Although the reason A is in jail is really messed up, considering the surgery. Yes, woman-on-woman rape does occur. I wonder what her therapist is saying.

Myth # 1: “Dependence on Foreign Oil”

This myth basically suggests that the problem with oil prices is due to America’s “dependence” on foreign oil. One of the worst economic myths, it plays on economic nationalism and on xenophobic feelings that are sometimes pervasive in the United States.

The high price of oil has nothing to do with its origin; the price of oil is determined in international markets. Even if the United States were to produce 100% of the oil it consumes, the price would be the same if the worldwide supply and demand of oil were to remain the same. Oil is a commodity, so the price of a barrel produced in the United States is basically the same as the price of a barrel of oil produced in any other country, but the costs of labor, land, and regulatory compliance are usually higher in the United States than in third-world countries. Lowering these costs would help increase supply. Increasing supply, whether in the United States or elsewhere, will push prices lower.

Importing a product does not mean you “depend” on it. This is like saying that when we “import” food from our local supermarket we “depend” on that supermarket. The opposite is usually true; exporters depend on us, since we are the customers. Also, importing a product usually means buying at lower prices, whereas producing in the United States often means consuming at higher prices. This point is proven when we see the cheap imports we can purchase from China and the higher prices of many of these same products manufactured in the United States. The amazing thing is that the protectionists claim, on the one hand, that America should be “protected” from cheap imports, but when it comes to oil, they say we should be “protected” from “expensive imported” oil.

Most, if not all, of the higher price of oil can be explained by the expansion of the money supply or the debasement of the dollar. The foreign producers are not at fault; our national central bank is the culprit.

Kyriarchy

July 24, 2009

Kyriarchy – a neologism coined by Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza and derived from the Greek words for “lord” or “master” (kyrios) and “to rule or dominate” (archein) which seeks to redefine the analytic category of patriarchy in terms of multiplicative intersecting structures of domination…Kyriarchy is best theorized as a complex pyramidal system of intersecting multiplicative social structures of superordination and subordination, of ruling and oppression.

Patriarchy – Literally means the rule of the father and is generally understood within feminist discourses in a dualistic sense as asserting the domination of all men over all women in equal terms. The theoretical adequacy of patriarchy has been challenged because, for instance, black men do not have control over white wo/men and some women (slave/mistresses) have power over subaltern women and men (slaves).

– Glossary, Wisdom Ways, Orbis Books New York 2001

That is an awesome word. Far more interesting. It makes things more complicated, which is good thing. Power is not a simple concept, nor can it easily or simply be reduced to something simple. (Was that over-convoluted pun too much?)

The blog kicks ass too.

I miss theory, so much. I miss reading entire books filled with those kind of wonderfully difficult concepts. I miss forcing myself to read and re-read and cry out of frustration, because nothing felt better than finally understanding and being able to apply what I read, to what I learned, am learning, and will learn.

“There’s a simple reason that since the 1980s the world has witnessed thousands of suicide bombings: It’s the most efficient form of violence at close range. The spread of this seemingly unstoppable technique has made political violence much more potent by enlisting an unlikely cadre of perpetrators—the middle class.”

Of course, this isn’t the first to accuse the middle class of violence. Many a revolution has been credited to them. The article isn’t really fantastic, either. For something called “Foreign Policy” I expected a lot better.

“Clandestine, confrontation-avoiding violence such as suicide bombing is a fourth pathway around confrontational tension. It succeeds only because the attacker is good at pretending that he or she is not threatening at all. People accustomed to the typical macho forms of violence are not good at this; gang members would make lousy suicide bombers. But mild-mannered middle-class people are ideal for it. Since they are not confrontational by nature, they do not have to control a blustering or threatening demeanor that would warn their victims.” Seriously? Where are we getting these ideas from?  “Self-directed introverts, they do not need to hear cheering as they stalk their prey.” Now, on the Discovery Channel, a very special show on the hunting habits of the middlus classus. “Middle-class culture is especially accommodative, adept at maintaining a smooth surface of conventionality. Whatever our private feelings, we learn not to express them on the job, in social situations, or in public. This is good training for carrying a bomb under one’s clothing until the target is so close that massive damage is certain.” I thought it made people sexually repressed, but that’s just me.

The whole, “it’s always that quiet kid that no one notices in the corner that finally snaps!” point is cute, but really it could have been done better. It’s a weak argument. Plus, their idea of the “middle class” confuses me. “I suggest it is because suicide bombing is the easiest form of violence for conventional middle-class people to carry out, if they decide to commit violence at all.” So what is it that finally makes the “middle class” snap? Is it the same catalyst in every single case? Would an Australian middle-class man in 1950 snap for the same reason as an Afghani middle class woman in 1970? They don’t define the parameters.  They just suppose that this phrase is so descriptive on its own. This chameleon “middle class” is perpetuating the violence. Any statistics? Any proof?

Oh gosh, should we watch the (shrinking) middle class closely now?

Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18, 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury’s words) “a false, distorted or slanted story” about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows. They further maintained that she deserved protection under Florida’s whistle blower law. Akre was awarded a $425,000 settlement. Inexplicably, however, the court decided that Steve Wilson, her partner in the case, was ruled not wronged by the same actions taken by FOX.

FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to Akre. The Court held that Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation.” In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a “law, rule, or regulation,” it was simply a “policy.” Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.

During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob Linger commented, “It’s vindication for WTVT, and we’re very pleased… It’s the case we’ve been making for two years. She never had a legal claim.”