Tuesday, January 13, 2004

Quick List: 3 Great Names For Salon Blogs That Have To Do With Sex Some of these, I peek in on from time to time.  If I feel like I can give a fair sense of what they do, I'll mention it.  In other cases, I'll just list why I like the name. Sexy Mothers Do Exist-OK.  I fully admit I went to this site hoping to see pictures of Sexy Mothers.  Hey, everybody likes sexy mothers, right?  Alas, I saw none.  From what I have gathered on my few visits to the site, the author started the blog as a way to deal with frustration and fallout from a recent divorce, but in the intervening time, found out that both her ex-husband and his wife were now reading her blog, so she decided to start a website at a different place, which she stealthily titled using her full name.  You can read about it on the site if you are so inclined.  (Note to author of SMDE: I fully admit this description is based on a scant reading of your overall material.  If I'm way off, feel free to let me know and I'll be glad to set the record straight.)  Anyway, I'll bet the name piles up the Google hits... Why Your Wife Won't Have Sex With You-I always mean to check her referrer rankings, just to see how many people who type "Why won't my wife have sex with me?" end up there.  There's a fair amount of "theory" writing that has to do with the title, or at least there used to be.  Since my wife has sex with me, I didn't feel compelled to read it.  Also, she's a Wes Clark supporter, so props for that. Simple Recipes That Will Help You Get Laid-Almost always true to form, this blog is literally about little things we can do to get laid, most of which have to do with food and drink.  It seems to be mostly a front page to promote a book by the blog's author of the same name.  But if I don't need to visit "Why Your Wife Won't Have Sex With You", I probably don't need to visit this site much, either.   4:13:47 PM    Say what?[]

Truth and Consequences Linus is learning about Martin Luther King, Jr. this week in his daycare.  They are going into a lot of detail, talking about the bus strikes, talking about the marches, talking, naturally, about the Dream.  It's great. One of the interesting things about young kids is that they just don't seem to have any concept of "color" or "race".  I mean, Linus understands that the kids in his class don't all look the same, but it's just never been something he's mentioned.  It's natural and beautiful and refreshing.  I hadn't anticipated it would have this effect, but introducing Linus to MLK is really to introduce him to those concepts, and how the way some people approach race and color has caused so much pain in the world.  As we drove home last night from daycare, I asked him what they had learned in school.  He proceeded to tell me about "Marvin Loofer".  (We've only done the "K" and "G" sounds in speech therapy so far...)  So I told him that was great, that Martin Luther King was a very important man who helped change the world, and that's why they were learning about him this week, because his birthday was coming up. Linus immediately said, "He doesn't have a birthday.  He's dead."  Uh...yes, he is dead, but we can still celebrate the day he was born, because he did so many good things.  Linus then told me that Marvin Loofer died because he was shot.  He then asked: "Who shot Marvin Loofer?" "Well, um...It was a guy named James Earl Ray..."  And I stopped, and I thought to myself, "But wait.  Wasn't there a deal a couple years ago, where Ray recanted his confession, and said somebody else either did it or paid him to take the fall, and didn't he even pass a polygraph before he died?"  I couldn't remember.  I knew there was at least some pall of doubt cast over the notion that Ray was the triggerman, but as best I could recall he died before there was really any resolution to that.  Then I thought, "Ah, no matter.  He doesn't need to know about that.  Just tell him James Earl Ray did it, and we can pick up this discussion again in 5 years if necessary." And that felt weird, you know?  Not that I have any deep-seated belief that James Earl Ray did or didn't kill MLK, because I surely don't know.  What felt odd was just the idea that I was willing to give him some information, then had doubts about it and knew that there might be more to the story, but ultimately decided that it was easiest to just give him the commonly accepted version. It doesn't have to be about James Earl Ray, necessarily.  I have found that there are many occasions that might lead a parent to have this strange kind of feeling.  You give them the shorthand version, the "accepted" version, almost as a kind of placeholder.  You just need them to get a version of the story that will allow them to move on and get through their days.  As an Agnostic, there are plenty of chances to feel that way.  A few days ago, he asked me what Heaven was.  I told him this: "Heaven is a place that people think we might go to when we die."  I didn't bother to tell him that a lot of people, including me, don't know if there is a Heaven.  Why?  Because he's going to ask that next question ("If we don't go to Heaven when we die, where do we go?"), and I don't know that we're ready to have that talk. So you give them what they need, even if it's not what you always thought you might be telling them.  And yesterday, he didn't need to know about the various forces that wanted MLK to not succeed.  He didn't need to know about Hoover or the KKK.  He needed to know that MLK was a great man, and that a man named James Earl Ray shot him, but that the police found him after he shot MLK and sent him to jail. Case closed.  Except, and I should have known; he asked: "Why did James Earl Ray shoot Marvin Loofer?"  Man.  They really know how to get to the heart of it, don't they?  I hadn't rehearsed this.  How to tell my thus-far colorblind son that some people aren't that way?  That some people would shoot someone for bringing people of different races together?  I pondered it as we sat now in our driveway, car still running. I said, "He didn't like what Martin Luther King was saying.  He was scared to live with people that weren't like him."  And I paused.  Should I add anything else?  I figured I should at least condemn the mindset, and I said, "But it's better for people who are different to like each other and live together."  Did I "cover it"?  Had I said everything I needed to say, in a way that I wanted him to take it forward?  I paused a few moments more, waiting for his reaction.  Which was, "Are we having macaroni for dinner?" 11:15:26 AM    Say what?[]

The LeBron Ad Slate's Seth Stevenson breaks down LeBron's Nike ad in Slate today.  You know the one if you've been watching any NBA; it's the one with Bernie Mac as the preacher, and it has that whole "church scene in The Blues Brothers" vibe to it. I had no idea Jerry West and Dr. J were in that commercial... 10:42:40 AM    Say what?[]

Krugman on O'Neill Here's Paul Krugman's take on the Paul O'Neill flap, essentially summed up like this: O'Neill doesn't say much we didn't already suspect, but the credentials of the Bush critics keep getting better and better. Oh, and notice how promptly they moved to investigate the release of a potentially classified document, and how that contrasts with the Plame case.   10:26:02 AM    Say what?[]

Square Pegs and Round Holes In Iraq A powerful Shiite cleric has rejected the U.S. plan for an elaborate and complicated caucus system for electing leaders in Iraq.  This has taken the Bush Administration by surprise, and has left them scrambling to come up with a new plan to ensure a democratic transfer of power by June 30 that will satisfy Iraqi demands for democratic transparency. Two things become apparent when I read this story.  The first is just how not in touch we are with the important leaders in Iraq.  How can it be that an internal leader with this much influence can't even be bothered to meet with the U.S.?  They're sending notes and messengers back and forth to each other, the they think only about 2/3 of the messages got through to the cleric.  Read that again: We are sending notes back and forth to a guy who has the power to hold up the entire process in Iraq! The second point of interest to me, and the most important one, are the many references in the story to the fact that the country just isn't ready for real elections yet, and they won't be ready in time for the June 30 power transfer, which as yet appears to be non-negotiable.  In other words, this is a quick-fix process that we have come up with because it meets the needs of the Bush Administration to get out prior to the election season.  Now, a powerful voice in Iraq has denounced that process, and they are forced to come up with an even quicker fix, which mostly sounds like cosmetic changes to a plan that has already been rejected.  Rather than stay the course and see this thing through, to the point where the country really is ready to have full-on elections, we're cutting bait.  It feels to me like the only thing that matters is that we are out of there before the election, damn the consequences. 10:17:50 AM    Say what?[]

Abortion, Breast Cancer, and the State of Minnesota The Minnesota Department of Health's website has been displaying misleading information that declares a link between having an abortion and developing breast cancer.  The Commissioner of Health, Dianne Mandernach, had the site developed with the assistance of pro-life groups, which probably wasn't too out of line with pro-life governor Tim Pawlenty's expectations or desires. The only problem is that no major medical group supports the claim that the Department of Health is making.  Among the groups that petitioned the state to remove the misleading language were such known partisans as the Minnesota Medical Association, the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Health, the Minnesota Breast Cancer Foundation, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.  I say "partisan", but only in the sense that these organizations choose to endorse respected medical opinion based on research as opposed to politically motivated scare tactics. Now, after much outcry, the Department of Health has changed the website.  But while some groups are lauding the changes, it seems the politics and scare tactics are just too hard to let go.  Check out the follow passage from the story linked above: The Web site will now say that in March 2003, scientists brought together by the National Cancer Institute, an agency of the National Institutes of Health, concluded that there is no evidence of a link between abortions and breast cancer. The site will also direct readers to a minority report from the conference that supports the claim that a link exists. The site will not say, however, that more than 100 scientists were in the majority and that just one person was responsible for the minority report. I love it!  One scientist out of 100 maintains the claim, and that earns it's own link as a "minority report".  Yeah, I'd say that qualifies as a minority report.  But no, we wouldn't want to tell people it was one out of 100, would we?  Of course, not everybody is happy with this decision to embrace the opinions of the experts over the appeal to fear and misinformation: The change drew fire from the executive director of Minnesotan Citizens Concerned for Life, Scott Fischbach. He said Gov. Tim Pawlenty caved in to special interest groups by allowing the department to change the information. "This was a real test for the governor. And the governor has failed," he said. Yep.  The Minnesota Medical Association, the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Health, the Minnesota Breast Cancer Foundation, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, they're all just special interest groups.  All they care about is human health and science and all that crap.  10:04:39 AM    Say what?[]

© Copyright 2004 DH. Last update: 2/2/2004; 11:29:59 AM.