March 7, 2003
Well... Duh
U.S. Economy in Worst Hiring Slump in 20 Years
Was it really only two years ago that under former President Clinton we lived in peace, prosperity, and we had a budget surplus?
WTF happened? We've gone so far downhill under pResident A Few Freedom Fries Short Of A Happy Meal. Somebody wake me when the nightmare is over.
(Note: You'll need to register to read the New York Times Online.)
posted at 7:14 PM by Trish Wilson | Link
Hey, Kids! Turn In Your Family and Friends For Fun and Profit!
You Thought Ready.Gov was a Satirist's Dream... Honest to God I am not making this up -- The CIA has a Homepage For Kids. It was created in compliance with the President's April 18, 1997, Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies.
Call me a cynic, but this is a great companion for the Terrorist Information and Prevention System (TIPS) Program. Kids, if your parents won't let you eat fifteen candy bars for supper, turn 'em in. Extra points if they're liberal feminist tree-hugging anti-war wackos who voted for Gore.
Make sure you see the "Try A Disguise" page. I don't know which disguise I liked better, the moose antlers or the arrow through the head.
posted at 6:47 PM by Trish Wilson | Link
Hallitosis... Er, I mean Halliburton
I just posted about Halliburton on Stand Down (No War Blog). I'm sure Halliburton isn't the only company with a tie to the Bush administration that stands to benefit from this hypocritical "war on terra."
Now I'm really in a pissy mood. I bet I won't be able to digest my dinner properly.
posted at 5:57 PM by Trish Wilson | Link
Halliburton Wins Contract on Iraq Oil Firefighting
The paybacks begin. Remember my earlier post about Bechtel getting the contract to clean up the mess Iraq made of Kuwait? This was after Bechtel managed the engineering and construction of a petrochemical plant near Baghdad.
Forbes reports that "A Halliburton Co. subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR) has won the contract to oversee any firefighting operations at Iraqi oilfields after any U.S.-led invasion, a Defense Department source said on Thursday."
What other palm-greasings don't we know about?
posted at 5:45 PM by Trish Wilson | Link
This Is Dedicated To All The People Who Have Found My Blog
By Running A Google Search For
Michael+Jackson+Sleeps+With+Boys and
Sarah+Kozer+Foot+Fetish+Video.
Lots of people found my blog after I broke down the Michael Jackson documentary fallout and the normalization of pedophilia. The academic adult/child sex debate has made its way into popular culture. Mark O'Keefe's March 26, 2003 Star Tribune article, Some In Mainstream Contend Certain Cases Of Adult-Minor Sex Should Be Acceptable cites the Usual Suspects: Harris Mirkin. Judith Levine. The Rind Study's Bruce Rind, Robert Bauserman, and Philip Tromovitch.
Check out this excerpt:
Sex between adults and children has been a societal taboo so strong that it's considered one of our few unquestioned moral principles. But arguments have emerged in academic journals, books and online that at least some such sex should be acceptable, especially when children consent to it.Just makes you feel warm and fuzzy all over, doesn't it?
Those making the case aren't just fringe groups, such as the North American Man-Boy Love Association, but a handful of academics at mainstream universities.
Members of this school of thought stress that they don't condone coercing children into sex, and that they are not pro-pedophilia, as the term is commonly understood. But several contend that minors are capable of agreeing to and even initiating sex with adults.
These academics seek to change the language, moving away from "pedophilia," which often evokes a charged negative response, particularly in light of the priest-pedophile cases challenging the Roman Catholic Church. In its place would be more neutral terms such as "intergenerational sex" or "adult-child sex."
posted at 11:00 AM by Trish Wilson | Link
More For The Pedophile+Pictures+Neverland+Boys Crowd...
Now that Roman Polanski is up for awards for The Piano, the tabloids and mainstream press (I wonder if there is a difference between the two...) have splashed the story of his rape of 13 year old Samantha Geimer all over their pages. This one is tough for me because I have always enjoyed Polanski's films. My favorite is Repulsion. Then again, I'll watch anything starring Catherine Deneuve. Having worked in films and television myself, I know the hard work that goes into them. I understand completely when Geimer said that "I don't think that the movie has anything to do with me or what he did to me. A lot of people worked on that movie besides him."
Polanski certainly isn't the first entertainer whose behavior leaves a sour taste in one's mouth. There are also Charlie Chaplin, Woody Allen, Errol Flynn, Bob Crane, Fatty Arbuckle, Alfred Hitchcock... the list goes on. The "mental case," "tragic," "diva," and "hystrionic" labels tend to get slapped on women like Vivien Leigh, Joan Crawford, Sean Young, Peg Entwhistle, Angelina Jolie, Barbra Streisand, and Margot Kidder in a derogatory manner. Some, like Kidder and Leigh, are and were manic-depressive. There is no shame in that. Some, like Streisand, are powerful personalities who can't be pushed around.
But back to Polanski and Geimer.
It seems that every time Polanski is in the news, Geimer is dragged in behind him whether or not she wants to be there. So, to head the rubbernecking off at the pass, she went to the media herself this time. Geimer, now an adult, has recently urged the public to judge the movie and not the man in an op-ed for the L. A. Times and in person on Larry King Live. The media had attacked her and her mother when they first made the accusations, accusing them of seeking publicity and taking advantage of Polanski's fame. The public blamed Geimer for Polanski's actions, and it blamed her mother for allowing her to go with Polanski in the first place. A 13 year old was being blamed for sexual molestation committed by a man approximately 40 years of age. When she wasn't blamed, her mother was always a convenient target.
Although public sentiment about rape has improved since then, victims continue to be blamed for their own attacks. Roger Friedman went on a smear campaign for Fox News, the channel that has elevated the smear campaign to a national sport. He thought it was "pretty magnamimous" that Geimer insisted that The Piano be judged on its merits. He cites an anonymous source at the L. A. Times who told him that Geimer would be paid for her op-ed, although her lawyer denies it. He "knows" the folks at Focus Features. He says they claim to be "mystified by Geimer's actions," although he quotes none of them by name. These phantom folks he "knows" say that "it doesn't quite make sense to them either that a mother of three would voluntarily go into the press to discuss her rape -- and pretty much absolve her rapist."
The thing is, Geimer did not absolve her rapist.
Every time Polanski makes the news, her privacy is invaded. Her phone rings off the hook. People ask all kinds of nosy questions. (I see the irony in writing about this, so don't bother to e-mail me about it.) She did not want him to get more time in jail not to absolve him but so that the fixation on her would end. On Larry King Live, she said "the publicity was so traumatic and so horrible that, I mean, his punishment was secondary to just getting this whole thing to stop. I mean, it was crazy. There was people outside my house and, you know, it was horrible."
She has not absolved him. She was never upset over the plea bargain. She was relieved when he fled because it "kind of ended it" for her. Polanski is "this connection that never seems to go away." She just wants it to stop. If the mess is settled once and for all, maybe that will finally happen. And she will be able to live in peace.
Oh, by the way, there are no pictures of Geimer at either the Fox News or the Larry King link, so you skankmonkeys who may find this blog entry by typing crap like Roman+Polanski+rape+pictures and Samantha+Geimer+pedo+pix better find somewhere else to get your rocks off.
posted at 10:59 AM by Trish Wilson | Link
March 6, 2003
Bullshit Bingo
Atrios is looking for suggestions for a press conference drinking game. I say take it a step farther. Ever hear of "Bullshit Bingo?" As many people as possible should go to one of these press conferences with a bingo card in hand. Put words like "Nu-cue-ler," "evil," "axis," "regime change," "duct tape," "patriot," "terra," "liberate," "pre-emptive strike," "Bill Clinton," "evildoers," "make no mistake," etc. in each block. Every time Bush, Ari, whoever says one, mark it off. When you get five blocks horizontally, vertically, or diagonally, yell BULLSHIT! Then, begin again.
posted at 9:25 PM by Trish Wilson | Link
The Female Anti-Feminist Cheering Section
Ampersand made a great post describing a popular sleight-of-hand committed by anti-feminists who make broad, sweeping attacks against feminism without adequately backing up their statements. This is especially interesting when anti-feminist women do it. He quoted Sara at Diotima, who wrote "[w]hile identity politics may not depend on 100% of a population agreeing with a position, they do, it seems to me, depend on decreeing a certain position the "authentic" or "real" women's position or Hispanic position or whatever. When anti-affirmative action blacks and anti-feminist women are not longer called "oreos" and "men in drag," then I'll believe the left is willing to accept women are individuals and not a moment sooner." Amp replied "[t]his is how Sara hedges her bets, rhetorically. By rarely linking to examples of actual feminists saying the awful things Sara implies feminists commonly say, she avoids being criticized for picking unrepresentative feminists, or for quoting selectively or unfairly or falsely."
Sara defended herself by selectively quoting quips attributed to well-known leaders of NOW. I'm always amused by anti-feminists who seem to equate their perceived horrors of feminism with NOW, as if there aren't any other feminists out there. Sara wrote that Patricia Ireland said that there weren't "authentic females" in office, and that Gloria Steinem called Kay Bailey Hutchison a "female impersonator." Both are quoted out of context and they are a far cry from something as awful as "oreos" and "men in drag."
Anti-feminist women aren't innocent. They've attacked feminist women and feminism itself. No feminist woman has ever divided up feminist thought into camps she liked and camps she didn't like, but Christina Hoff Sommers had done exactly that when she coined "equity feminism" (what she agrees with) and "gender feminism" (the bulk of the mainstream feminist movement she regularly attacks). In an article denouncing research about difficulties experienced by girls in school, she denigrated a feminist conference with a sweeping and false generalization when she stated that she "learned... these "equity experts" believe that the school yard is a training ground for domestic battery." Cathy Young penned a eulogy for feminism on September 17, 2002. She wrote "it is true that the feminist movement, already at low ebb, has slid further into irrelevancy."
Hardly. Young didn't bother to report this.
Name-calling isn't really the issue. Feminists criticize and correct each other all the time, and they can be quite heated about it. As Ampersand wrote, Backlash and Fire With Fire are as concerned with criticising feminists as anything else. Brownmiller's In Our Time: Memoir of a Revolution and Chesler's Woman's Inhumanity to Women went farther to show how women, including feminists, have sabotaged and competed with each other. My colleagues and I have often criticized mainstream feminism's lack of attention to motherhood issues. We took issue with Martha Burk's position on joint custody. We definitely did not agree with her. However, we recognize her valuable contributions to feminism.
Anti-feminism is problematic whether a man or a woman supports it. Women who support the patriarchy are heavily touted by anti-feminist men because it is assumed by many people that if a woman would support these kinds of ideals, then they must not be all that bad. Plus, many of these women tout themselves as being "true" feminists. Too many people believe it's a given that all women would support women's rights, or at the very least that all women would support ideals that would benefit other women. That's not necessarily the case. Anti-feminist women spout the very same myths, misinformation, and denigration as anti-feminist men. Anti-feminist men are well aware of this, and they use it to their advantage.
I recall when Newt Gingrich was in office some statements he made at the Republican Women's Leaders Summit held in Washington, D. C. He stated to a room full of Republican women supporters that for the public to hear the kinds of policies he was presenting come from a man, they wouldn't support it for a minute. They'd look at it with a skeptical and critical eye. However, to hear the same presentations come from a woman, well ... it would be much harder to turn away. A woman supporting programs that will damage women's welfare sugarcoats the inevitable destruction. After all, according to his strategy, if a woman supports it, it can't be that bad.
The guys love it when women take over their anti-feminist causes for them. It saves them the trouble of doing the grunt work themselves. Anti-feminist women sometimes promote anti-feminist ideals with more zeal than anti-feminist men. These women freely admitted that they have often taken the lead. In fact, they're quite proud of it. Elizabeth Larson wrote in her article Women Behind the Fathers' Rights Movement that "[a]ccording to an organizer of one group, it is the stepmother, second wives, sisters, even grandmothers and aunts, who make the initial phone call to inquire about a fathers rights organization; the men, it seems, have often just thrown their hands up in frustration and despair." I've seen many second wives delude themselves into believing they are supporting their men against his evil ex-wife and a court system that they believe is blatantly biased against fathers. Larson presents the second wife's position in this manner. However, she doesn't describe what often happens to these women should their marriages fail, which is a great risk for them since second and subsequent marriages are more likely to end in divorce.
The dutiful second wife who made the phone calls, contacted the lawyer, found the fathers' rights organization, filled out the legal forms, searched for advice and "factual information" on fathers' rights web sites, and provided all that moral support to her frustrated and despairing husband in their mutual battle against his horrible ex-wife gets the same shoddy treatment should she end up divorcing him. It's always interesting to see this when it happens. Sometimes a new replacement wife/girlfriend fills her old shoes and makes the phone calls, contacts the lawyer, etc. This situation becomes more miserable if he fights her for custody of any children they may have had. If she supported joint custody and lower child support out of "fairness" when it came to his ex-wife, she'd have little credibility should she change her tune in her own divorce and custody case.
Jenn Pozner's excellent article, Female Anti-Feminism for Fame and Proft outlined characteristics of anti-feminists who are funded by Right Wing family foundations such as Scaife, Bradley, and Olin:
1. Claim you are a feminist.
2. Denounce all other feminists
3. Take a lesson from Monopoly - go directly to the media. Up the college lecture circuit. Do not turn down close to $200K in Right Wing grants. Wait for the money to roll in.
Why any woman would want to support movements that use bogus medical syndromes to punish mothers, that demean victims of domestic violence and rape, that pretend that men and women have achieved pay parity, and recommend nefarious ways of hiding income and assets in order to lower child support is beyond me. Don't these women know how easily they could directly suffer from these tactics, especially if they lose the favor of the anti-feminist men they support?
posted at 8:42 PM by Trish Wilson | Link
The Salem Witch Trials
In discussing the Salem witch trials, M. Brooke Robertshaw brought up a possible explanation that I had heard before, but primarily as a means of explaining the convulsions of women accused of witchcraft in Europe: ergot poisoning. Ergot is a mold that has been found in contaminated rye. Symptoms of ergot poisoning include convulsions, crawling sensations along the skin, tingling in the fingers, and hallucinations. Those who claimed to have been hexed by witches had suffered those symptoms and many more.
I have a different take on the witch trials. I believe that political divisions between residents of Salem Village as well as religious, sexual, and gender oppression built up over decades to culminate in the witch trials. "Salem Possessed: The Social Origins of Witchcraft" by Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum addressed pre-existing social and economic conditions in the area of Essex County, Massachusetts where Salem was located. At the heart of some of these conditions were conflicts between the merchants and the farmers/landowners. The Salem, Massachusetts that exists today is a far cry from the Salem that existed then. Several regions had already split from Salem Town to become independent townships: Wenham in 1643, Manchester in 1645, Marblehead in 1648, and Beverly in 1668. Salem Village was the last to seek autonomy from Salem Town. It would later achieve that goal to become modern day Danvers, Massachusetts. The Putman family of Salem Village lead the faction who sought independence for Salem Village. The Porter family lead the faction who wanted to maintain political and mercantile ties to Salem Town. The Salem merchant/landowner division theory is not without its flaws. Most of the people accused were from neighboring communities outside Salem such as Andover and Topsfield.
Boyer and Nissenbaum's account did not delve into the religious, sexually oppressive, and gender-related factors that also laid the groundwork that made such a tragedy possible. Carol Karlsen addressed the influence of societal attitudes about women in her 1987 book "The Devil in the Shape of a Woman: Witchcraft in Colonial New England." Karlson pointed out that "not those accused but those convicted of witchcraft in Salem and elsewhere were overwhelmingly women over the age of forty, with women over sixty being at an especially high risk for both accusation and conviction. The men convicted tended to be the family members of convicted female witches. Further, although those convicted of witchcraft in England tended to be poor, those accused of witchcraft in Salem were frequently relatively wealthy or powerful; for example, in addition to the wives of selectmen and some wealthy widows, two sons of former Governor Simon Bradstreet were accused but not tried, as was Captain John Alden, son of the legendary John and Priscilla Alden of Plymouth Colony."
In my opinion, the wealth and power of the accused Salem women reflected the merchant/land owner conflicts as well as gross gender bias. The existing gender, religious, and sexual oppressions were compounded due to the fact that some of these accused women owned land and they had no male heirs. Owning land and having wealth gave them power.
Here are some more links:
Salem Massachusetts Witch Trials (a Salem, MA web site)
Salem Witch Trials: Documentary Archive and Transcript Project
Of interest: Nathanial Hawthorne's great grandfather was John Hathorne, one of the magistrates who presided over the trials. Hawthorne was so embarrassed and enraged over his familial tie to the trials that he altered his last name. He became an outspoken critic of his late great-grandfather's actions.
posted at 2:16 PM by Trish Wilson | Link
March 5, 2003
That Explains Why Everyone Was Laughing
I should have cleaned the wax out of my ears. Someone had e-mailed me to kindly tell me that Ari Fleischer said that "nations were not buyable" in that audio clip I had posted on March 2. It sounded to me like he said "viable." What Fleischer really said made it so much more clear to me why the press laughed so hard. Ari Fleischer. Saying nations aren't buyable. I guess he tried and failed. Nyuk Nyuk.
posted at 8:34 AM by Trish Wilson | Link
Alternatives To War
Jeanne D'Arc links to a Washington Post article by William Raspberry that called for alternatives to war. Jessica Tuchman Matthews has called for "truly muscular inspections." Joan B. Krok Institute For International Peace Studies, provides a link to its Sanctions Project. Congresswoman Barbara Lee introduced House Concurrent Resolution 473, "which urges the United States to re-engage the diplomatic process and stresses our government's commitment to the U.N. inspections process. Containment and inspections have worked and can work in the future." While Michael Renner's recommendations to reduce our dependence on an oil-based energy system are sound, he has not addressed the Bush administration's imperialist world agenda.
posted at 8:15 AM by Trish Wilson | Link
March 4, 2003
Sure, There Is Sexism In The Blogosphere,
But Don't You Worry Your Pretty Little Head About It
I just finished reading three of Dru Blood's recent posts about sexism in the blogosphere. In order, they appear here, here, and here. She was angry over the exclusion of women bloggers in Jon Lebkowsky's Austin Chronicle article about blogs. Out of twenty people mentioned in the article, only two were women. I may be wrong, but I don't believe that Blood was asking for a quota system that would cite an equal ratio of female to male bloggers. I think she sought recognition of the ways women's contributions are erased, ignored, and trivialized in the blogosphere. Ignoring content in blogs created by women perpetuates, in Blood's words, "the myth of the nonexistent female blogger."
It's easy to see why women seem invisible in the blogosphere. It should come as no surprise to anyone that the first blog I visited was Glenn Reynolds's Instapundit because I read about him in the newspaper. Media accounts of blogs tend to cover those created by men, especially conservative men. Interestingly, the blogs mentioned most often in the media accounts I have read had been created by men who had already established themselves in one way or another as professional writers. They were "names," like Mickey Kaus and Andrew Sullivan. All male. All known writers. All heavily trafficked sites. Glenn Reynolds has hooked up with MSNBC. Tim Cavanaugh's Online Journalism Review article about blogs (particularly warblogs) overwhelmed the few women cited with repeated mentions of "celebloggers" Ken Layne, Matt Welch, Reynolds and Sullivan. Newsweek's interview with Userland founder Dave Wiener included links to seven bloggers, all male. Articles about blog software and the companies that own them, in particular articles about Google's acquisition of Pyra Labs (who made Blogger), named and quoted the men who had founded them.
The Austin Chronicle article showcased male bloggers over female bloggers. One of the two women cited was Melanie Griffith. The other was Carla Sinclair, of BoingBoing. Of the many wonderful, inventive women bloggers to cite, the limited space went to.... Melanie Griffith. She's not even from Austin.
Blood's anger over sexism was palpable. She took issue with a familiar stopper: when she brings up the sexism she perceives in the blogosphere, she is "accused of being "mean" or "flying off the handle" or "being hysterical" or "Throwing a temper tantrum."" She does not like to be dismissed, patronized, demeaned, or tossed off as a mental case. Dawn Olsen was steamed when she wrote about the same thing in September, 2002. In a post full of vitriolic attacks against several A-List bloggers, she wrote that Reynolds has linked to what she has written, but she noticed a trend in what he links to: "it's never any of my more heady posts, but usually something sexual, which taken out context, comes off as condescending or even vaguely insulting." She later apologized for lashing out in such a harsh manner. She did lash out, but her main point was a valid one: her insightful posts were ignored in favor of linking to her posts about sex. She felt demeaned. I've seen that kind of treatment of women's blogs from men myself, such as choosing to giggle about cat blogging and at the same time ignore posts with more substance. Some women who have noticed this trivialization have become pissed. Some men and women are put off by women who express rage over accurately perceived examples of sexism, whether that sexism is found in a blog, at school, on the street, in the home, or at the workplace. That's when the accusations of "over-reacting," being "mean," etc. come about.
Granted, I haven't been in the blogosphere very long. March 1 was my second month's anniversary. There's a lot I don't know, but I've had enough exposure to form an opinion. Blogosphere sexism reflects the sexism that already exists in the world at large. The media has depicted the blogosphere as the Undiscovered Country, rife with the promise of opportunities for new voices to emerge and be heard. It's no accident that this world has been called a "blogtopia." It may be disappointing for bloggers to discover that this utopian depiction is marred with the same pockmarks as the "real" world: petty squabbles, sandbox popularity wars, name-calling, demeaning and patronizing treatment. For the female blogger who notices sexism, it's especially disquieting to discover that the media treats women bloggers as if they don't exist. Olsen and Blood were aware of all of this, and they were upset that they had been directly affected by it again, here in the blogosphere. In my opinion, their rage was a collective rage, a build-up of similar experiences over time. The blog sexism may be seen as "same shit, different bandwidth."
I search for blogs with content that I enjoy. I don't purposefully look for blogs by women, although I have linked to many of them. Since feminism is a topic of interest to women (and to me), I have found more blogs created by women. Blogsisters is the only blog I've seen so far that has been written exclusively by female bloggers. The blogroll is women-only. When it comes to political blogs, I believe that more men than women write them. I definitely believe that there are more male than female warbloggers. I've noticed more men than women in the blogrolls of my favorite blogs, even blogs written by women. However, I do not believe that the male/female ratio excuses sexism. Saying "more men write blogs" should not be used as a reason to relegate women's blogs to the sidelines, as if the numbers alone are an adequate reason to ignore them.
Blood brought up a good point in one of her comments. Prentiss Riddle, one of the guys in a photograph that had accompanied the Austin Chronicle article, tried to explain the lack of female representation by stating that Lebkowsky based his article partially on face-to-face interactions with a self-selected group of people who used a local web site to meet about blogging (Meetup). Apparently, most were white guys. Blood responded: "I'm not just talking about the local bloggers who were mentioned...I'm talking about the fact that, out of TWENTY bloggers mentioned in the article, FOUR were women. By your reasoning, this would indicate the problem is actually WORSE, because if Jon was getting his information from the Austin bloggers he talked to at meetup, you guys don't even MENTION female bloggers when they're not present. Wow. Ouch." To be fair, Lebkowsky had done a lot of research. He included a great deal about the local journalers and other women bloggers in his original draft. Most journalers are women. Most bloggers are men. I learn something new every day. You'd never know how inclusive the original article was by the way the female editor (Yeah, a woman. Women can be guilty of sexism, too.) recommended whittling it by removing passages primarily about the female blogging community, including the section on the journalers. If I lived in Austin, despite the off-putting lack of representation, I probably would have used that article as a launching point to find bloggers who lived near me, but I would have wished that more people like me (female, over 40) were covered. This made me wonder how many women bloggers had been edited out of other articles about the blogosphere, and how aware the editors and writers were that they were making half of the human population disappear in the process. If they were aware, I wonder if they cared?
Riddle had mentioned in Blood's comments section that another guy mentioned in the article, David Nunez, had pointed out at least once that it "bugged him" that these meetings consisted mostly of white men. Riddle himself had considered that issue for years in a lot of groups, but in the end decided that it might be best to "just relax and let the [meeting] be whatever it turned out to be. It's not as if anybody wanted the group to be unrepresentative. It's just one of the sad facts of entirely voluntary, self-selected groups that they often appeal to particular demographics more than to others." They were aware that women and minorities were not well represented. Good. They let it go. Not so good. I can see wanting to hang out with people who are like yourself and who share your interests. I have no issue with that. I do it myself. However, it is not a "sad fact" that we should just relax and let things turn out however they will turn out because certain types of people simply are not represented. It doesn't have to be that way. This complacency has lead to to women's contributions being erased in the blogosphere and in other forums.
An ugly example of such exclusion recently appeared in the Boston Globe. Harvard psychologist Jerome Kagan and a former student, Conor Lister, have been under fire for a paper they had written for the journal, Nature. Critics have complained that their paper "obscured extensive and well-known research by other scientists that had reached essentially the same conclusions, particularly work by Patricia J. Bauer of the University of Minnesota. These scientists also contended that Liston and Kagan breached scientific guidelines by not disclosing that the methods used in their study were devised by Bauer."
Two men took credit for a woman's work. That's bad enough, but the minimizing didn't end there.
Liston and Kagan wrote a correction for Nature, but they refused to disclose Bauer's first name. No one would know she was a woman. They wrote that their article "implied that [it] was the first to demonstrate the emergence of long-term memory . . . in infants,'' adding that ''on the contrary, a large body of work by P. Bauer, among many others, addresses this issue exactly and also forms the basis of the methodology used in the study." Although Bauer was pleased that the correction was written, she wasn't pleased that it was relegated to a small note at the bottom of a page. Considering the seriousness of their omission, their correction warranted more attention. She said: ''The prominence given to the correction is not proportional to the significance of the issue. It wasn't just me who wasn't appropriately credited, but a community of scholars."
It was this type of exclusion -- the type that the perpetrators are not even aware that they have committed -- that I believe was of primary concern to Dru Blood when she wrote about sexism in the blogosphere. The exclusion itself is bad enough. That those who do it may not even aware that they are doing it equally bad. That those who do so knowingly and don't care is worse.
There are many points to make about this issue, and I know I've left a lot unsaid. What I've written addresses only a fragment of the discussions I've seen. I'm sure this isn't my final word.
posted at 6:51 PM by Trish Wilson | Link
March 2, 2003
It's official: Ari Fleischer denies viability of other governments
From CSPAN 2 White house briefing
Fleischer: "You already have the answer about what this will be decided on, but think about the implications of what you are saying. You are saying that the leaders of other nations are viable, and that is not an acceptable proposition."
posted at 3:19 PM by Trish Wilson | Link
Consortium News Stirs Up Dust
Another article about the missing 8,000 pages of the Iraqi dossier, Former Pres. Carter's "green light," Former Pres. Reagan's Iraqi tilt, U. S. companies that had supplying chemicals and equipment to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war, etc., etc., etc.
posted at 3:18 PM by Trish Wilson | Link
McDonnell-Douglas Urban Legend
It ain't true, but it's still funny. The whole story is available at The Urban Legend References Pages (Snopes)
This was actually posted very briefly on the McDonnell Douglas web site by an employee there who obviously has a sense of humor. The company, of course, does not (have a sense of humor) - and made the web department take it down immediately. (McDonnell Douglas is one of the world's chief suppliers of military aircraft).
Thank you for purchasing a McDonnell Douglas military aircraft. In order to protect your new investment, please take a few moments to fill out the warranty registration card below. Answering the survey questions is not required, but the information will help us to develop new products that best meet your needs and desires.
1. [_] Mr. [_] Mrs. [_] Ms. [_] Miss [_] Lt. [_] Gen. [_] Comrade [_] Classified
[_] Other First Name: Initial:
Last Name:Password: (max 8. char)
Code name:
Latitude/Longitude/Altitude: / /2. Which model aircraft did you purchase?
[_] F-14 Tomcat
[_] F-15 Eagle
[_] F-16 Falcon
[_] F-117A Stealth
[_] Classified3. Date of purchase (Year/Month/Day): / /
4. Serial Number:
5. Please check where this product was purchased:
[_] Received as gift/aid package
[_] Catalog showroom
[_] Independent arms broker
[_] Mail order
[_] Discount store
[_] Government surplus
[_] Classified6. Please check how you became aware of the McDonnell Douglas product you have just purchased:
[_] Heard loud noise, looked up
[_] Store display
[_] Espionage
[_] Recommended by friend/relative/ally
[_] Political lobbying by manufacturer
[_] Was attacked by one7. Please check the three (3) factors that most influenced your decision to purchase this McDonnell Douglas product:
[_] Style/appearance
[_] Speed/maneuverability
[_] Price/value
[_] Comfort/convenience
[_] Kickback/bribe
[_] Recommended by salesperson
[_] McDonnell Douglas reputation
[_] Advanced Weapons Systems
[_] Backroom politics
[_] Negative experience opposing one in combat8. Please check the location(s) where this product will be used:
[_] North America
[_] Iraq
[_] Iraq
[_] Aircraft carrier
[_] Iraq
[_] Europe
[_] Iraq
[_] Middle East (not Iraq)
[_] Iraq
[_] Africa
[_] Iraq
[_] Asia/Far East
[_] Iraq
[_] Misc. Third World countries
[_] Iraq
[_] Classified
[_] Iraq9. Please check the products that you currently own or intend to purchase in the near future:
[_] Color TV
[_] VCR
[_] ICBM
[_] Killer Satellite
[_] CD Player
[_] Air-to-Air Missiles
[_] Space Shuttle
[_] Home Computer
[_] Nuclear Weapon
10. How would you describe yourself or your organization? (Check all that apply)[_] Communist/Socialist
[_] Terrorist
[_] Crazed
[_] Neutral
[_] Democratic
[_] Dictatorship
[_] Corrupt
[_] Primitive/Tribal11. How did you pay for your McDonnell Douglas product?
[_] Deficit spending
[_] Cash
[_] Suitcases of cocaine
[_] Oil revenues
[_] Personal check
[_] Credit card
[_] Ransom money
[_] Traveler's check12. Your occupation:
[_] Homemaker
[_] Sales/marketing
[_] Revolutionary
[_] Clerical
[_] Mercenary
[_] Tyrant
[_] Middle management
[_] Eccentric billionaire
[_] Defense Minister/General
[_] Retired
[_] Student13. To help us understand our customers' lifestyles, please indicate the interests and activities in which you and your spouse enjoy participating on a regular basis:
[_] Golf
[_] Boating/sailing
[_] Sabotage
[_] Running/jogging
[_] Propaganda/disinformation
[_] Destabilization/overthrow
[_] Default on loans
[_] Gardening
[_] Crafts
[_] Black market / smuggling
[_] Collectibles / collections
[_] Watching sports on TV
[_] Wines
[_] Interrogation/torture
[_] Household pets
[_] Crushing rebellions
[_] Espionage/reconnaissance
[_] Fashion clothing
[_] Border disputes
[_] Mutually Assured Destruction
Thank you for taking the time to fill out this questionnaire. Your answers will be used in market studies that will help McDonnell Douglas serve you better in the future - as well as allowing you to receive mailings and special offers from other companies, governments, extremist groups, and mysterious consortia. As a bonus for responding to this survey, you will be registered to win a brand new F-117A in our Desert Thunder Sweepstakes!Comments or suggestions about our fighter planes? Please write to:
McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION
Marketing Department
Military Aerospace Division
posted at 2:45 PM by Trish Wilson | Link
Let's Pitch In and Buy John Podhoretz an "I'm Surrounded by Idiots" T-Shirt
Scott Rosenberg puts a spotlight on yet another example of the Bush administration pointing fingers at people it had previously glad-handed. University of South Florida professor Sami Amin Al-Arian was arrested last week on charges of terrorism. Al-Arian is charged with fifty counts of terrorism. John Podhoretz called two New York Times reporters "idiots" for raising questions about the Al-Arian case.
Podhoretz needs to update his "idiot" list. He should put George W. Bush and Karl Rove at the top of it.
This picture shows George and Laura Bush with Al-Arian during the 2000 campaign in Florida. Bush called him "Big Dude."Newsweek even reported that Al-Arian even went to a White House briefing with Karl Rove. Thanks to Democrats.com and The Scoop (New Zealand) for detailed information about this mess. More kudos for that lovely picture that has been circulating.
Sure brings to mind another picture that has been circulating the Net...
Rove... Rumsfeld... Dubya... don't forget: when you throw mud, some of it manages to stick to your hands.
posted at 2:19 PM by Trish Wilson | Link
William Rivers Pitt wrote the following two articles about The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) for Truthout.org:
Blood Money
Of Gods and Mortals and Empire
I've posted quotes from these articles plus links to my archived information about PNAC at Stand Down (No War Blog). or those who would like to view those archived posts again, they are here, here, and here.
posted at 1:40 PM by Trish Wilson | Link
