Here's an interesting bit of related news of today: activists in the West Bank try to pull down Israel's security wall, and are met with tear gas.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8350939.stm
Some Bernstein and Beethoven to go with the drinks?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imv2M64t_og
Sniff.
I've always thought of this as one of the "do you remember where you were when..." moments of history. Only a happy one.
And I wonder if US soldiers would have the same grace and wisdom, to ignore orders for the sake of human decency, that the East German soldiers had that night. My family stayed up half the night, watching, hopeful, but still afraid that a moment's panic by some border guard could turn the whole thing into a bloodbath.
And then, a few weeks later, there was a postcard. From relatives who had never before dared send a letter to the US, who now could write without even trying to hide behind a sealed envelope.
Another Damned Medievalist wrote at #29:
You know, I'm still just boggling over the way the two main points of that first post have been ignored. Very little on whether or not the state has a right to exclude religious clothing (and by the way, is the UK guilty of encouraging the oppression of Sikh and Jewish men because it allows them to wear their traditional headcoverings and/or required facial hair?). Very little on whether or not it's cool that women who choose (or don't, for that matter) are now afforded the option of going out to public bathing venues.
Well, I’ll try to tackle this…
In the US, at least, the governing principle would be separation of church and state. The state, under this principle, shouldn’t have the right to ban a garment or form of dress specifically because it is religious. So a general ban on hijab (Muslim modest) clothing would not be allowed.
What could happen in the US might be a general law that happens to affect a type of religious dress. For example, it would be reasonable for a US city or state to pass a law saying that people in public can’t wear a garment that severely restricts their vision, including peripheral vision, because it’s dangerous to be walking about not able to clearly see and avoid the traffic around you. This would affect a variety of garments, such as very dark sunglasses, an old-fashioned sunbonnet with a deep brim (think “Little House on the Prairieâ€) and a burqa (the specific garment of a cap with a pleated veil attached, and a small section of mesh to see through, associated with Afghanistan.)
Or they might pass a law saying you can’t go about in public with your face obscured. This would affect bank robbers wearing masks during a robbery, KKK members trying to hide their identity during a cross-burning, people with a cold or the flu wearing a medical face-mask to avoid spreading germs, or Muslim women wearing a niqab (the specific garment of a veil hiding the lower part of the face, but not the eyes, associated with Saudi Arabia.)
Another potential law/regulation might be Army uniforms requiring a particular sort of hat or helmet in certain situations. This would affect Sikh men wanting to wear a turban, Muslim women wanting a head-scarf, sports fans thinking they have to wear their lucky cap on the day that their favorite team has a game, etc.
***
Of course, the situation in the original article is happening in France, not the US, and their focus is, legally, more on maintaining a deliberately secular state, rather than on merely separating church and state. In this situation, place becomes a bigger issue, because places where the government is in control are expected to be secular. So state-run schools, public government buildings, municipal parks and swimming pools, and other places controlled by the state become the focus of regulation.
*****
*****
A separate issue is the idea of dress-codes and modesty-codes, and how they are implemented. There seems to be a tendency to see more required covering as oppressive, and less required covering as not oppressive.
I tend to think that what matters more is the spirit in which the code is interpreted.
In this situation, many people are calling the “burqini†an expression of oppression.
Frankly, the people who think women need to be controlled by oppressive measures would never have come up with the idea of a burqini. People with an oppressive/authoritarian mindset would simply look at existing bathing suits, label the suits immodest, and tell women that they aren’t allowed to go swimming because swimming and bathing suits are immodest. The authoritarian demands that you choose between modesty and immodesty, between a narrow, restricted life and doing things you might enjoy.
The burqini is an expression of a liberal mindset. The attitude that went into designing it is one that wants to increase freedom and options. The liberal mind says: “you want to dress modestly, and also enjoy swimming? Lets figure out a way for you to do both of the things you want!†It’s a problem-solving mindset that should be familiar to SF fandom, which confounds the authoritarian and oppressive mind.
****
****
And finally, as a feminist, I see an important line as being whether or not the woman in question appears as a unique human being. In particular, I see a bright line in whether or not the face is obscured. When people can see your face, you’re an individual to them. When your face is obscured (with the burqa and niquab) you are de-individualized, not recognizable at a casual glance as a unique human being. With the more common forms of hijab dress (headscarf, chador [the long black cloak, associated with Iran], jilbab [a long, somewhat snug-fitting jacket worn over ordinary clothes when you go out – you see this on younger women in Iran fairly often], etc.) the body is covered, but the face is seen, and the woman wearing the garment retains her identity as an individual in the public eye.
Now, the reason this comes up in health care reform, IMO, is that everyone who's paying attention knows that we have to find a way to control costs. Sooner or later, that must come down to providing less care, or excluding some care. This has to be done on financial grounds--we don't have the money to spend $10M trying to buy you another two or three months of life, we're just not that wealthy. And saying this openly is really hard, because nobody likes the idea that he might be the guy whose experimental chemotherapy isn't covered, or that some bean counter (whether working for Medicare or Kaiser) is going to decide that two or three months of your expected lifespan isn't worth the cost.
Of course, if you want to cut costs, the most humane way would be to cut all the costs that come with supporting dozens of different insurance companies and hundreds or thousands of different plans. The multiple billing systems, the complications of doctor's offices ensuring that the right form is filled out for each patient and sent to the appropriate company, the duplication of bureaucracy in each different company, the diversion of "health care" funds to things like profit margins, advertising, and dividends.
And it's gotten to the point where it is easier to imagine solutions that let people die then to imagine solutions that kill off corporations.
If Medicare was to pay for visiting the doctor for the sole purpose of discussing end of life issues, how many visits might that involve?
My health is really good, but I seem to visit a doctor at least twice a year.
Merging a once per 5 years discussion with one of the other 10+ medical visits in that time period doesn't seem difficult or unlikely.
People who are actually in bad health will probably see a doctor at least once a month and will have plenty of opportunities to discuss such things.
For this type of discussion to be meaningful, you need to have the time to do it right. Talk about end-of-life issues from a variety of perspectives, ask questions and get them answered, discuss different ways in which people can die and different issues one can face when dying. (Pain, loss of intellect, physical disablity, dependancy, expense, etc.) Also to discuss who is available to make end-of-life decisions on behalf of the patient (friends, family) and who they might want to specifically exclude (e.g., if one's closest relative is mentally ill.)
These days, the typical doctor's visit is quite short. Maybe a quarter hour, often less. That's not enough time to discuss these issues in a way that is appropriate.
Rushing is probably more likely to leave a patient feeling as if they are pushed towards a doctor's preferred end-of-life philosophy. When you see a doctor for 10 minutes for an infection, you don't have time to discuss every possible antibiotic, its history, and all its possible effects. But for end-of-life decisions, you do want the time for in-depth discussion.
Ideally, I'd think that these sorts of discussions should happen over something like a weekend seminar. Take the time to have lectures about different issues, group discussion where questions are answered, private discussions with one's loved ones, and then privately fill out the appropriate forms. Work through something like "The Five Wishes section by section.
Scott @ #9 wrote: Maybe they could sue the employer for the medical costs? It's the employer's fault they don't have coverage, after all. Seems like a civil suit might be the way to go.
They probably could sue, and likely win.
But given the employer's financial problems (which led to the nonpayment of insurance) I suspect that there wouldn't be money there to pay the expenses.
From what I remember reading, there was a problem, not just with the books being gone, but with user-created material, such as notes and comments, disappearing as well. (e.g., a student taking notes on the text as they read it for class.)
Does anyone know if Amazon has figured a way for users to regain their own material?
That seems to be, in a way, a bigger legal issue - Amazon didn't just take back the illegal books, it stole/destroyed the original work of Kindle owners. Returning the money spent to buy the book doesn't even the tally, as the time spent studying/note-taking is wasted, and the notes themselves were not paid for when removed.
I've enjoyed the tor.com coverage of this, but I feel a bit sorry for all the writers who submitted essays. Any one of them could have inspired a great deal of conversation and comment, but with so many at once, it seems as if conversation couldn't get enough of a focus to develop.
I don't know if or how they get paid, but my guess is that some of the payback for an author who is active at tor.com is getting good conversation and response from the fans.
Kirby @ #2 wrote: It makes me a little wistful - born in 1974, there really isn't an equivalent televised moment of wonder for my generation. (Especially not in the realm of science.) To be sure, we've witnessed more than our fair share of technological revolutions, but, the discovery of these has tended to be more personal and often gradual.
Not scientific, but I was born in 1972 and find the fall of the Berlin Wall to be this sort of memory.
Yes, we were anticipating that there would be some sort of opening up - but that night, in that way, was breathtaking. World-shaking political change doesn't typically come in the form of a spontaneous street party.
Chris @ #39 wrote: Same people felt very differently a decade ago on a different stage, didn't they? But the real unspoken offense is holding office they feel you aren't entitled to.
I'd say it is even more crude than that. Attacks come when it is politically beneficial for the attacker, distraction comes when it is politically beneficial to downplay the actual offense.
They went after Clinton because it gave them a chance to disrupt the Democrats agenda.
They went after Spitzer because it laid the groundwork for the Senate coup and possibly regaining control of the NYS Senate.
They're distracting on Sanford because having attention paid to conservative political negligence looks bad for them. There isn't anyone with significant power in SC to move an impeachment forward who has a political interest in the outcome of a successful impeachment.
As long as liberals look at these controversies and attacks as being purely based on the political competence of the party being attacked, rather than the political needs of the attackers or defenders, we'll keep being blindsided by irrational attacks, or by the predictable political consequences of legitimate attacks, or by the bizarre way that conservatives let themselves be diverted from doing anything about genuine political corruption on their own side.
It seems obvious to me that simply attacking the governor for his secular irresponsibility to the duties of office won't move anyone in a useful direction.
I suspect the goal is exactly the opposite.
If the focus is on dereliction of his secular duties as governor, then there is a very powerful reason to impeach him.
But if it is all about his spiritual and personal shortcomings, then there is no reason to act, because impeaching someone for spiritual shortcomings would violate the separation of church and state, and personal shortcomings aren't really relevant to the issues of impeachment.
The legislature in SC is quite conservative, and doesn't want to have to deal with an impeachment scandal against a conservative leader, so they aren't looking for a reason to act, they're looking for a reason not to act.
Sanford is playing to that audience - by making a big deal about how this is about his relationship with God and his wife, he's letting them ignore how it is about his relationship with his duties to the state.
Actually, this rather reminds me of the Lake Palace in Rajastan, India. Particularly the way that the walls seem to come almost to the edge of the island.
The location makes sense as some sort of luxury retreat (where the elites go to escape the summer heat), or perhaps a temple or some other ceremonial use, rather than as a functioning community or fortress.
It isn't a town - it would be hard to keep supplied, and there isn't really room for any farming, etc. Similar problem as a fort - you could retreat to it, but it would be hard to counterattack from it. A functioning fort needs a lot of contact with the surrounding community to support it - providing food, firewood and all the other necessities of life.
The Roman forts you linked to all seem to have long rectangular barracks - a feature I don't see here. All of the rooms/buildings seem to be square.
The Roman examples also have a space between the buildings and the wall, while this has the fortress wall serving as one of the walls for the rooms/homes/buildings that border the wall.
There is also the wide-open square space in the center, larger than any of the rooms/buidings, which is another feature missing in the Roman examples.
I'd have to go with Randolph that this looks more like a four-walled square court building.
Andrew:
In addition to the good lists others have linked to describing privilege, there are other things you can do.
1. If you are in charge of hiring for a position, don't make a decision until you have interviewed several women. Pay attention, because you've recognized that if you aren't paying attention, you're a person who can exclude without thinking about it.
2. If taking a reference or suggestion for a potential hire, consider the potential sexism of the person who is giving the reference. Are they the sort of person who says derogatory things about women programmers? If so, they aren't qualified to give you a good reference or recommendation, as they're ignoring the potential talent of women programmers, and possibly leading you away from good hires.
3. Ask for recommendations from people who you see working well with women, and including many women in their own groups. Take your cues from people who you see are an example of the type of boss you want to be.
4. If you're a supervisor, do the people you supervise make sexist jokes, or treat your work space like a locker room? If so, they're the type of people who are likely to to make a good woman programmer think she's unwelcome, when she comes to the workplace to interview.
5. Even if you don't have women working in the area now, the atmosphere needs to be one where "professional" includes "comfortable for any professional to drop in and work with us, unannounced, and without changing our habits - because our habits are good and welcoming."
6. When you hire someone new, and are introducing them around, be sure to include introducing them to any women in your group, and watch how they interact. It isn't a 100% foolproof screen, but if someone can't manage to behave well to the women in the work group during an interview, they'll cause problems down the line.
7. If the women who are in your group mention that there is a problem, take them seriously. But don't assume that there is no problem if they don't mention one, because they've had to deal with sexist crap so much that they're used to being called the problem if they mention a problem.
Anyone have luck with the latest version?
I have the latest version of Word for Windows, but I tend to just keep using 2003, as they changed the interface so much that I find myself wasting a lot of time trying to figure out how to do things that I'm completely certain I should be able to do, but I just can't find the right trick in the new interface to do it.
New features are great, but hiding established features from experienced users isn't so great.
Plus, the new interface has many tools much larger on the screen than the old interface, plus fewer tools available on any given "tab." Which means that making a series of changes that could be done in a few clicks before requires more work switching back and forth to get to the tools you want.
I remember reading, some time back, that the biggest shift in Michael Jackson's appearence (with the ultra-tiny nose, the whitened skin, etc.) came at the same time as when he was badly burned while shooting a Pepsi commercial in 1984.
I haven't seen anyone try to document this, putting pictures in order by date, before and after the burn. But it would explain a lot. I don't know what the limits of plastic surgery were in 1984, in terms of being able to reconstruct a badly burned face.
Albatross @ 88:
No, I'd merely say that Democrats need to be careful about rushing to judgement ahead of the facts, and aware of who is making accusations and what their ulterior motives may be.
The problem with Spitzer's situation was that no one on the Democratic side was asking the questions about political motives and the political implications of the removal.
Which left them blindsided for the actions of the past few weeks. They should have seen the possiblity of the senate coup, and taken steps to keep a close watch over the various senators, to cut off any attempts to lure them to the other side.
There is also the problem that if Republicans protect their own, but Democrats will throw you under a bus, there is a strong motive for a politician facing an inquiry (whether guilty or not) to be tempted to side with those who will protect them. Which may have also been a factor in the senate mess, as the two Democrats who switched sides were both facing career-threatening problems.
It is good for Democrats to insist that their members be effective and not corrupt. It isn't good for Democrats to be in a position where they are easily manipulated out of power because their ideals lead them to overlook blatent political manipulation.
#76: Spitzer burned but this guy isn't going anywhere.
That is, I think, one of the more disturbing aspects of IOKIYAR. Back when they were going after Spitzer, I commented on a few threads on liberal websites questioning the wisdom of going along with throwing Spitzer out quickly, without consideration of how it would affect the balance of power in the NY Senate. My concerns were mostly ignored.
The mess the senate is in right now is a direct consequence of forcing Spitzer out. The lieutenant governor became governor, and the Democrats lost the tie-breaking vote.
As long as Republicans protect politicians who have done wrong while Democrats push them out, there will be an undemocratic benefit for Republican majorities.
There needs to be some awareness on the part of Democrats that these investigations may be biased, and a willingness to push harder against Republicans who have done wrong and to protect Democrats who may be the targets of investigations/smear campaigns intended to upset legislative balance.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2009 | 36 |
| 2008 | 101 |
| 2007 | 114 |
Total: 251 comments. View all these comments on a single page. (May take some time to load.)
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Ursula L:
Show all comments by Ursula L.