CNN proves that it makes the news and that people can’t think for themselves

I’m sitting at the airport waiting for weather to clear up in NYC so I can fly from here through there to my destination.  I may have said before that I don’t have television at home.  The one (dis)advantage of hanging out in the airport lobby is that I have an opportunity to catch up on all my news, as interpreted by network television.  

CNN is on constant broadcast here, in between commercials made by the airport to get us psyched up about the terminal expansion with all its restaurants. Woo. Hoo.

Today all of the “news” is about Russia’s invasion of Georgia, what the US thinks, and whether George W. Bush misinterpreted what he saw in Vladimir Putin’s eyes (i.e his soul and that he was a trustworthy individual…)  In one bottom-of-the-screen heading, CNN proves several things:

What if…

THE RUSSIAN BEAR IS BACK

Just like during the cold war

The top “What if…” is above the thick red bar of text, easy to miss.  The THE RUSSIAN BEAR IS BACK is bolded as if it’s telling us an actual news item based on a discrete event and not a question that was introduced by the “What if.”  And the bottom phrase is there presumably as explanation for … whom?  The masses that aren’t paying attention and weren’t prior to the early 1990s either?  The people that weren’t old enough to listen to the news in the early 1990s?  Or just the general audience that has to be fed “analysis” with the consistency of pablum?

Thanks CNN, you rock.

Pharmacists: Just get a new job if you won’t prescribe Plan B

Feministing posted an email from a woman that works as a pharmacist for Walmart, who explains that her conservative male colleague illegally requested that the store not even supply emergency contraceptive Plan B.  What is shocking is that their manager complied.

Although the pharmacists are not required to dispense the ‘morning-after pill,’ they are required to keep it on the shelf.  According to this woman,

We are not allowed to order it, and if some does come in our order from the warehouse, he immediately arranges for it to be sent back to the warehouse. If someone calls asking for Plan B, we’re supposed to say that we’ve run out of stock.

The conservative pharmacist believes Plan B to be an abortifacient.  All you have to do is visit the Plan B website and right away it tells you: Plan B isn’t an abortion pill – it can’t terminate an existing pregnancy.

According to the writer of the email, despite the pharmacist’s refusal to even accept a shipment of Plan B, he does not feel a conflict prescribing birth control or any drug to artificially make men’s penises work (my words).

He does, however, have a problem with filling prescriptions for drugs that could potentially be used as an abortifacient but is more commonly used post-miscarriage.  He made a woman disclose her recent miscarriage to him even though her young son was accompanying her.  JFC people, whatever happened to confidentiality, or do privacy concerns not apply to pharmacists dealing with mothers of young children who shouldn’t have to hear about abortions and miscarriages?

I forget, who needs protecting again?

You can’t lie in politics and expect to have people’s confidence – ORLY?

Do we really care? I mean honestly, do we REALLY care?

Here’s the thing, people – everyone has a private life, everyone has a love life. It should not be our business. If the media accused you publicly of having an extramarital affair, and you were a politician in the limelight with a wife battling cancer, would YOU say, “Why yes, I do have a mistress, and I may even be the father of her illegitimate child! Wanna buy the photos?”

I thought not.

Although affairs are a given when considering historical or European political figures, for some reason it’s a big deal when we discover it in our midst, in the present time. So what? Everyone breaks laws and promises, and honestly – Jphn Edwards’ transgression is against his wife and family, not against the Democratic party.

In the NYTimes link above, the pertinent question seems to be regarding the child rather than the affair:

He absolutely does have to (resolve it). If it’s not true, he has to issue a stronger denial,” said Gary Pearce, the Democratic strategist who ran Edwards’ 1998 Senate race. “It’s a very damaging thing. … The big media has tried to be responsible and handle this with kid gloves, but it’s clearly getting ready to bust out. If it’s not true, he’s got to stand up and say, ‘This is not true. That is not my child, and I’m going to take legal action against the people who are spreading these lies.’ It’s not enough to say, ‘That’s tabloid trash.’”

And the AP article quotes Bonior, Edwards’ campaign manager for his 2008 presidential bid, as saying:

“You can’t lie in politics and expect to have people’s confidence.”

Well… don’t politicians do that all the time, over worse offenses?

Now – let’s get on with that invasion of Georgia I mean Olympics.

Coffee – mmm.

The NYTimes published a bit about coffee myths today.  If you are trying to stay awake on the road, don’t bother with the No-Doz (200mg caffeine) or the Mountain Dew (54 mg caffeine); go straight for a Starbucks grande 16oz. coffee (330 mg caffeine!!).

And, rest assured that your caffeine intake does not have much of a negative effect on your hydration, heart disease, cancer, hypertension, or bone loss.  It may even be beneficial in preventing liver cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and Type 2 diabetes.

Hearing too much about Obama or McCain? Maybe it’s the wrong type of coverage.

This article, titled “Obama: Time to cover the other guy?” is attempting to establish through a lit review of recent publications in other news sources that we are sick of hearing about Obama and need to hear more about McCain.  MSNBC has taken information from the Boston Globe, which says:

Barack Obama may be the fresh face in this year’s presidential election, but nearly half say they’re already tired of hearing about him, a poll says.

But frankly, I don’t buy their interpretation of the polls.  Simply because only 26% of people are hearing too much about McCain compared to 48% of people hearing too much about Obama, doesn’t mean we need to hear MORE about McCain.

One of the commenters on the MSNBC article makes a good point:

I think people are failing to make the distinction that Obama was being heard a lot because he was in a ridiculously long primary season that got a lot of coverage, while John McCain was at closed door fundraising and taking weekends off and not voting in the senate since April 2008.

In general, I think we’re hearing entirely too much about the presidential race.  I do not even have a television and I reached saturation point a long time ago via internet and radio.  What would be wrong with setting time and financial limits to the race?  Much less time, money and energy (of politicians, reporters, pollsters and citizens) would be wasted if politicians were not given over a year to dig themselves into holes, be followed around by reporters, and serve as polling fodder for a fatigued populace.  [Oh wait.  Am I being anti-capitalist and anti-economic growth? Sorry!]

We all know that people lie during the exit polls at least.  What encourages us to think that there is no bias in the conduct of any other poll, especially since the pollsters’ methodology rarely gets published with the results?

What would be wonderful is if we could hear a bit more about the actual issues, following what the candidates are saying, reviews of historical votes on the issue at hand, etc.  Of course all of this is available online, but certainly each new speech or appearance is an opportunity to review the aspects that truly matter, rather than simply rehashing the fact that the color of  candidate’s tie at the latest event represents how out of sync he is with some sector of the population.

The rest is merely distraction, but unfortunately distraction that could influence the race.

State law and international law: Executing Mexicans in Texas

Whether or not you believe in capital punishment, most people believe in due process.  A couple of weeks ago, I posted a link about Mexican inmates on death row in Texas that were denied access to Mexican consul.  Today there was an article posted in The Dallas Morning News’ Religion Blog regarding one of the inmates that was put to death last night.

Comments on the blog post run the gamut from “Bravo!” to “Good riddance” to “I’m glad they put this rabid animal down. His DNA deserved to be erased from exisitence. Go Texas. No mercy for evil doers,” etc.  I do not deny that the man’s crime was brutal, but I find it shocking that so many people, particularly on a Christian blog, have such a disregard for the law and process, and that they exhibit such hate and lack of compassion.  I am not saying that the man did not deserve the punishment meted out, but when did death become such a thing to cheer about, and when did criminals cease to be human beings?

The NYTimes piece about this event quotes the perpetrator, José E. Medellín, as saying to the witnesses before his execution: “I’m sorry my actions caused you pain…I hope this brings you the closure that you seek.  Never harbor hate.”  Unfortunately, it seems that Dallas’ blog commenters are doing just that.

It’s nice that the Lone Star State still feels that it is its own entity, outside the laws of the land, that somehow in a place with 25 cities over 100,000 people, frontier justice still ought to reign supreme. [Remember how we seized that land from another country?]

But the fact of the matter is, the state is one part of the nation, and the nation operates in a global system now, whether we like it or not.  The US will not get anywhere, and in fact is very likely to endanger its own citizens, by signing treaties that it refuses to honor, refusing to honor treaties it has signed in the past (Geneva Convention, anyone?), or refusing to sign treaties that everyone else has signed (Kyoto Protocol, perhaps?), in its efforts to reserve its desire to disregard the rights of and torture and kill anyone it wants, and to sacrifice the health of its citizens and those of other countries in favor of capital gain for a few.

What will McCain have to do to compete?

This particular news bit is already 5 days old, but it got me thinking – was a McCain/Jindal ticket really out of the question?

Bobby Jindal, for those that do not know, is the Republican (right wing Christian) governor of Louisiana. He ran in 2003 and lost to Democrat Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, in a watershed election that, although politically was not that radical, signified the end of white-male-only gubernatorial rule. Jindal is ethnically Indian, and Blanco is, you have probably deduced, a woman, so for the first time, Louisiana was faced with the certainty of not having a white male in the top office in the state.

After Hurricane Katrina and the subsequent lingering post-disaster concerns that did not receive timely or adequate state or national government attention, Blanco decided not to run for office a second time. Jindal won in a race against Senator Walter Boasso.

For many, Jindal is attractive because he is young (37), a person of color, dynamic, a good speaker, and has proven himself by moving up the ranks quickly. He has served as congressman and first ran for governor at age 32. But he is also very conservative and unfortunately, as a person of color, does not have a great track record with other POC in his state.

Despite Jindal’s claims last week that he had no plans to run on McCain’s ticket, it is a very interesting idea. McCain is an old white guy. Old seems to be a primary complaint of many, and faced with Obama’s widespread appeal as a POC, Jindal’s non-old, non-whiteness is even more attractive.

McCain has certainly reached a point in his campaign during which he must stop coasting on the Republican nomination and start to think about his competition. Just as photos on a golf cart with Bush Senior cannot compete with Obama’s tour of meeting international leaders, unfortunately he must also think about demographics and popular appeal. One obvious way to counteract the “old” argument is to choose a fresh young VP.

And frankly, if it is true that we vote largely on looks anyway, don’t you think that Jindal would make this ticket much more competitive with Obama?

For example, see below:

OR

OR

?

Ladies: take a drug for your depression, and then get some Viagra

Pfizer has just figured out how to make more money off Viagra: Give it to women that suffer a reduced sexual appetite due to consumption of antidepressants. The company has completed a small-scale study that would require corroboration with a much larger sample.

But the small study indicates that among women that took antidepressants for major depression, 72% saw improvements in sexual appetite and satisfaction when they took the drug 1-2 hours before having sex. One expert quoted below suspects that many women will not wait for the results of another study before implementing this potential solution to antidepressants’ sexual side effects on their own.

ETA: Another Viagra-related article – access to Viagra may be one of the reasons more seniors are still sexually active than 30 years ago.

Religious freedom vs. coercive secularism

French applaud decision to deny woman citizenship over veil

If you want to be able to express your religion through dress, you shouldn’t expect citizenship.  I’m not French, so I am not as sympathetic to the notion that the original culture of one seeking citizenship should be completely eschewed in favor of that of one’s adopted country.  (Can one even say that there is one French culture?)  But this is apparently what was recently expressed to a Muslim woman from Morocco that sought citizenship in France because her husband is French.  So are the three children that she has born since her arrival around 2000.

The Council of State, the country’s highest administrative court, said the woman’s acquiescence to the veil showed her failure to assimilate and demonstrated behaviour “incompatible with the essential values of the French community and, notably, the principle of equality of the sexes.”

The article posits that the woman’s French husband forces her to cover, and that she had attended meetings with government officials in a robe and veil that had only an eye slit.  It cites as one of the stronger positions against granting citizenship that of a woman named Fadéla Amara, “the Algerian-born junior minister for urban affairs and a founder of a Muslim women’s group, Ni Putes Ni Soumises (with translates as the provocative Neither Whores Nor Submissives), that fought successfully to ban the veil in French public schools four years ago”:

Like the veil, the niqab is a coercive means to oppress women, she [said]. “It’s not a sign of religiosity, but the visible expression of a totalitarian position.”

While I might agree with Amara on the significance of the veil, I find outright rejection of it by certain parties on behalf of all citizens a bit odd.  Same when they do it in Turkey – although their citizens only have to remove covering in public buildings such as schools.  You know, like in France.  Aren’t both of these examples of coercive secularism?  Or does such a thing even exist?

If France wants to take on inequalities and injustices through enforcing laws of equal opportunity, that makes sense.  But wearing niqab in this situation is a highly personal choice and a matter to be sorted between the couple.  Refusing to reject the naqib should not be grounds for denial of citizenship.

The article goes on to say that the couple’s religious affiliation was not grounds for rejection of the application, but her ignorance of French life was.  In addition to donning naqib, the woman appears to not stray very far from home.  The word “cloistered” was used.  OK, so she stays at home because her religion and her husband want her to, and she doesn’t go out to vote?  I don’t believe that these habits are the best idea, but I still think there are more appropriate tools out there.

Does France truly believe that granting citizenship to a minority that wear niqab or other variations of covering will change the national character more than France itself has changed, oh I don’t know, Basque culture?  The only difference here is that the French government has the power to deny access to would-be citizens (the Basque territory was taken over during the French Revolution).  Will they allow “Madame M” to remain in-country indefinitely as a permanent resident?  If so, what is the difference between her presence as such and her presence as a citizen?  If not, in the end, the result of the French government’s efforts will less likely be successful prevention of cultural norms that are probably no threat to the dominant culture anyway, and more likely will be the breakup of a family that may be forcefully separated when Madame M’s chances run out.

Hipster racism and plain old racism

Last week there was a furor over whether the cover of the New Yorker was satirical or racist. Many people went with satirical, because it’s not as comfortable to vote for racist. Or, because they genuinely thought it was funny. The one person that I know who thought it was funny is a loyal reader and perhaps had some insight that the rest of us in the general populace do not regarding the New Yorker’s brand of humor.

[In case you missed it, here’s the cover. In case anyone hasn’t thought about or read about this and didn’t get it immediately like I didn’t, the “satirical” aspect is that the lefty New Yorker is poking fun at conservatives’ fears of Mr and Mrs Obama successfully winning the White House. I haven’t been trolling around conservative blogs enough for this point to be so painfully obvious to me.]

But AJPlaid has a different take on it: this cover is an example of hipster racism.

I define hipster racism (I’m borrowing the phrase from Carmen Van Kerckhove) as ideas, speech, and action meant to denigrate another’s person race or ethnicity under the guise of being urbane, witty (meaning “ironic” nowadays), educated, liberal, and/or trendy.

….perhaps, Remnick and Co, thought they’d get a pass on the cover because they did good by Obama with the articles and thought people would catch the wink and nudge of the visual joke because, hey, they’re all on the right side anyway.

There is a whole lot of this type of commentary flying around lately, and for good reason. Another current example is that of the grad student in NYC who wore a shirt around emblazoned with the phrase, “Obama is my slave.” I am sure that many more people are walking around with the same shirt, but we heard about her because she was shoved and spat upon, and turned around and threatened to sue the designer because of the treatment she received. For some reason, she thought everyone would be in on the joke?? Again from AJPlaid:

And that’s the ultimate rub about hipster racism: as much as the people like to think they’re above it because they got degrees and live in the big city and befriend/sex up/marry people of color, these folks really aren’t above it.

It’s apparent from the comments to a post in LiveJournal’s NewYorker community about the t-shirt incident that many people are not hipster racists, but plain old racists, hiding behind thinly veiled and often inaccurate academic rhetoric or arguments built out of semantic objections. All of these arguments are built on a faulty understanding of where racism comes from and why. Many still subscribe to the idea that it’s “human nature.” Many don’t think the joke on the t-shirt is offensive at all – mainly because they are white and can’t conceive of a family history that includes slavery, with all its cruelty and dehumanization. And extremely few connect it to capitalism or economic gain, which is the reason that it was institutionalized with the rise of the slave trade (though the groundwork was laid long before).