I’m away, so I can’t provide links to new posts that have appeared this week. Instead, I have created this small collection of my own posts from the past that deserve to be resuscitated.
My encounters with weird men 3 years ago.
One of the very few instances when Dr. Phil was progressive. I guess some things are so self-evident that even Dr. Phil can’t avoid noticing them.
Why I’m happy I was born in a 3rd World country.
Paper books are such a weird invention.
The dangers of using a prissy textbook in class.
Feel free to leave interesting links and self-promote in the comment section.
Clarissa's Blog 
I wrote about women in film, namely, how can there be so few of them in the movies I consider favorites?
I’m also starting a series on the backyard where I grew up and how it’s changed in the 30+ years I’ve known it. First, my grandma’s pool, as they had the house before my parents did.
LikeLike
The history of gun control in US:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/23/120423fa_fact_lepore
LikeLike
Since you wrote about wanting a C-section, I thought it’s an important link:
In a study of 13,258 pregnant women who had had a prior cesarean section, 36% elected to schedule their next c-section delivery before 39 weeks of gestation, the safety cutoff recommended by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG). ACOG’s guideline is based on studies showing that prior to 39 weeks, babies’ lungs are often too undeveloped to function properly outside the womb, and babies at this age tend to have difficulty regulating their blood sugar. In the trial, led by Dr. Alan Tita at UAB and published in this week’s New England Journal of Medicine, babies delivered at 37 weeks by elective C-section were twice as likely as those born at 39 weeks to have complications ranging from respiratory problems, heart issues, sepsis and seizures — conditions that typically require resuscitation or ventilator support in a neonatal intensive care unit. (See the Year in Health, from A to Z.)
…
“The fact that one-third of elective cesareans were done before 39 weeks was surprising,” says Tita. “And we demonstrated an increase in morbidity associated with early delivery, which is why we think the ACOG recommendation should still stand, and that women should wait to have an elective cesarean until 39 weeks.”
Why the trend toward earlier delivery? For many women, it comes down to convenience — to accommodate their work schedules or to avoid being pregnant any longer than necessary. Part of the trend may also be traced to women’s confusion over the official guidelines: While ACOG recommends that 39 weeks of gestation is ideal for both vaginal and Cesarean deliveries, 37 weeks is technically considered full term. So, many women question why they have to wait an additional two weeks to schedule a c-section if their baby is at term.
Experts point out, however, that there is a difference between an elective cesarean, in which the doctor and mother are deciding when a baby will emerge from the womb, and a labor-induced delivery, which can occur any time after 37 weeks and in which the baby is initiating the process. “In a vaginal delivery, that baby instigated the labor, and is therefore ready and can be healthy at 37 weeks,” says Dr. Catherine Spong, chief of the pregnancy and perinatology branch at NICHD and one of the co-authors of the paper. These results also do not apply to women who go into labor prior to 39 weeks and end up having a cesarean; likewise for them, the baby instigated the labor process and is more likely to be ready and healthy at whatever time the labor begins.
The new data will likely have the most impact on discussions between doctors and women who are planning a repeat elective cesarean. Although most obstetricians are disinclined to schedule c-sections prior to 39 weeks, they still feel pressured by their patients to do so. The new study ought to shift the substance of that dialogue, the authors hope. “This will be one more piece of useful information in any discussion about deciding when to schedule that delivery,” says Tita, ideally in favor of the babies.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1870244,00.html#ixzz21QjiXuxN
LikeLike
Ah, more women -bashing! Why am I not surprised?
LikeLike
I didn’t give this link to “women- bash”, but to bring possibly new to you factual information about the recommended time for C-Section.
LikeLike
I didn’t mean you bash women. I mean the article does. Will the time come when women will be left in peace to manage their own bodies without being second -guessed and vilified.
LikeLike
Interesting point:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/07/the_aurora_shooting_bulletproof_vests_swat_gear_and_body_armor_refute_the_nra_.html
What distinguished Holmes wasn’t his offense. It was his defense. At Columbine, Harris and Klebold did their damage in T-shirts and cargo pants. Cho and Loughner wore sweatshirts. Hasan was gunned down in his Army uniform.
Holmes’ outfit blew these jokers away. He wore a ballistic helmet, a ballistic vest, ballistic leggings, a throat protector, a groin protector, and tactical gloves. He was so well equipped that if anyone in that theater had tried what the National Rifle Association recommends—drawing a firearm to stop the carnage—that person would have been dead meat. Holmes didn’t just kill a dozen people. He killed the NRA’s answer to gun violence.
…
really bad guys—guys capable of planning a serious rampage—aren’t stupid. If you want to take your time murdering a theater full of people, the prospect of some would-be hero drawing a weapon is no problem. Just go to the U.S. Justice Department’s body armor standards page, where you’ll find a list of 69 companies that sell government-certified bullet-stopping gear. The list includes phone numbers, addresses, and URLs.
…
Essentially, Holmes has called the NRA’s bluff. It may be true that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. But the best way to stop a good guy with a gun is a bad guy with body armor. And judging from Holmes’ vest receipt, he wasn’t even buying the serious stuff.
LikeLike
Thank you, I really appreciate you keeping me updated while I’m on vacation. I’m mostly cut off from the newsfeed here in the DR.
LikeLike
A link from http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/41030/#more-41030
Meanwhile, this sample of the insanity of today’s “security” thinking.
•The latest Colorado shooter — like Jared Loughner of Tucson, Seung-Hui Cho of Virginia Tech, and the countless others whose names we forget after they have done their damage — could not legally have walked onto an airplane carrying a water bottle, or without taking off his shoes.
•But he could walk down the street with a legally purchased assault rifle, body armor, and as much ammo as he could lift.
…
And while we’re on the “madness” topic, please consider:
•The lasting distortion in our airport operations and travel “security” rules if these same 12 people had been killed and dozens injured on an airplane. We’d have Congressional hearings, sackings of TSA officials, new inspections and screening machines “to keep us safe,” and so on.
•The military, diplomatic, and cultural consequences if the Batman murderer had happened to yell “Allahu Akbar!” or “Death to America!” before dispatching his victims.
LikeLike
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/106409/jewish-blood-is-cheap
For the past few months there has been a concerted effort to get the International Olympic Committee to set aside one minute of silence at the opening ceremony at this year’s games to commemorate the Israeli athletes who were murdered—not killed, murdered—at the Munich games in 1972.
The games, held this year in London, are 17 days long. That’s 24,480 minutes. Despite the fact that petitioners were asking for only one of those minutes, it is now fairly evident that their efforts have failed. Before speculating on why the IOC has been so steadfast in its refusal, it is worthwhile to reflect on what precisely happened in Munich 40 years ago.
When the Olympics returned to Germany in 1972, the German government was intent that nothing about them evoke the memory of the 1936 Berlin games, held under the heavy hand of Nazi militarism. The Germans wanted these to be “the Happy Games.” Security would not be in evidence: Athletes freely climbed over the chain link fence surrounding the Olympic Village when they forgot their identification badges. Everything had to be relaxed. Germany had a new face to show the world.
That all changed on the morning of Sept. 5, when Palestinian terrorists from Fatah’s Black September organization scaled the fence around the Olympic Village. Armed with machine guns and grenades, they immediately killed two Israeli athletes and took nine others hostage. They demanded that Israel release 234 Palestinian prisoners and Germany release the two founding members of the Baader-Meinhof Gang.
When the release did not materialize by the late afternoon, the terrorists demanded a plane to take them to Egypt. German officials agreed but planned an ambush at the airport. The ambush was completely botched: A team of German police assigned to entrap the terrorists walked off the job as the terrorists were on their way to the airport. There were more terrorists than German snipers—and the snipers could not communicate with each other or with the officials in charge. Armored cars, which were ordered for backup, got caught in an hour-long traffic jam around the airport.
A gun battle erupted between the German forces and the terrorists on the tarmac, and the athletes, whom the captors had bound one to another in the helicopters that had brought them to the airport, were caught in the middle. When the terrorists realized that they could not escape, they shot the hostages and then threw a grenade into the helicopters to ensure that they were dead.
Competition at the games had continued until mid-afternoon that Tuesday. Only after a barrage of criticism did IOC President Avery Brundage suspend activities. Brundage, who served as president of American Olympic Committee in the 1930s, had been a great admirer of Hitler and, as late as 1971, had insisted that the Berlin games were one of the best ever. In 1936, when some Americans tried to organize a boycott of the games, Brundage fought the effort vigorously until he decided to use it as a fundraising tool. He assumed that Jews who were embarrassed by the threat of a boycott would give to the AOC and help decrease anti-Semitism in the United States. Brundage’s plan apparently came to naught.
At the Munich memorial service, held on Wednesday, Sept. 6, the day after the massacre, Brundage defiantly declared: “The games must go on.” His cry was met with cheers by the crowd. (Red Smith of the New York Times described it as more pep rally than memorial.) The games did go on, but the Los Angeles Times reporter Jim Murray described it as “like having a dance at Dachau.”
In the years since, the families of the victims have repeatedly told the IOC that all they want is a chance to mark the murder of athletes who had traveled to the games to do precisely what athletes do: compete at their very best. These victims deserved to be remembered by the very organization that had brought them to Munich.
Why the IOC refusal? The Olympic Committee’s official explanation is that the games are apolitical. The families were repeatedly told by long-time IOC President Juan Samaranch that the Olympic movement avoided political issues. He seemed to have forgotten that at the 1996 opening ceremony he spoke about the Bosnian war. Politics were also present at the 2002 games, which opened with a minute of silence for the victims of 9/11.
The families have also been told that a commemoration of this sort was inappropriate at the opening of such a celebratory event. However, the IOC has memorialized other athletes who died “in the line of duty.” At the 2010 winter games, for example, there was a moment of silence to commemorate an athlete who died in a training accident.
The IOC’s explanation is nothing more than a pathetic excuse. The athletes who were murdered were from Israel and were Jews—that is why they aren’t being remembered. The only conclusion one can draw is that Jewish blood is cheap, too cheap to risk upsetting a bloc of Arab nations and other countries that oppose Israel and its policies.
I have long inveighed against the tendency of some Jews to see anti-Semitism behind every action that is critical of Israel or of Jews. In recent years some Jews have been inclined to hurl accusations of anti-Semitism even when they are entirely inappropriate. By repeatedly crying out, they risk making others stop listening—especially when the cry is true.
Here the charge is absolutely accurate. This was the greatest tragedy to ever occur during the Olympic Games. Yet the IOC has made it quite clear that these victims are not worth 60 seconds. Imagine for a moment that these athletes had been from the United States, Canada, Australia, or even Germany. No one would think twice about commemorating them. But these athletes came from a country and a people who somehow deserve to be victims. Their lost lives are apparently not worth a minute.
LikeLike
I also listened to
http://www.tabletmag.com/podcasts/106685/what-went-wrong-in-munich
What Went Wrong in Munich
How oversensitivity toward Germany’s Nazi past contributed to the murder of 11 Israeli athletes in 1972
David Clay Large is a historian of modern Germany who has written about the 1936 Berlin Olympics, Munich under Nazi rule, and, most recently, about the 1972 Olympic Games. He joins Vox Tablet host Sara Ivry to discuss what role Germany’s and Israel’s national identity played in the events leading up to the 1972 massacre, how the event is remembered in Germany and Israel today, and why the IOC is disingenuous in its refusal to have a memorial service this summer. [Running time: 22:00.]
LikeLike
May be you’ve written about it, but if not, I got a new idea for a post, inspired by this Amanda Marcotte’s article (which also links to another article on the issue):
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/25/charlie-sheen-is-loved-because-not-despite-the-violence/#disqus_thread
“Charlie Sheen Is Loved Because, Not Despite, The Violence”
Do you completely differentiate between artist and art? F.e. somebody is an actor or a comedian (never heard of this man before), but also a convicted wife-beater. What about a writer, who abuses his wife, rapes her or somebody else, etc.? Where does your limit lie?
LikeLike
OK, I have managed to follow the link. I have no idea who this Charlie Sheen character is but if he is, indeed, a convicted wife-beater (I don’t know if he is because I know nothing about him), I consider every single person who watches his shows (or movies, or whatever) to be a diseased freak.
People must have something deeply wrong with them. If he were Cervantes or anything of the kind, I’d question whether to ditch his books (and then probably would ditch them). But this guy sounds like some dime-a-dozen aging starlet. Why burden your conscience for an insignificant performer like him?
LikeLike
//If he were Cervantes or anything of the kind, I’d question whether to ditch his books (and then probably would ditch them).
Interesting. From what I understand, you would’ve the same reaction even if the artist were dead long ago and not getting your money?
I wondered whether you had something to say about your approach RE artist vs. art in general. And also art vs. morality.
artist vs. art — A really horrible person can write a great book, right? If he’s long dead and your money won’t support him anyway, why not make a complete distinction between them? After all, demanding “moral purity” is something a fascist / religiously fanatical regime would do.
art vs. morality — Can somebody write a wonderful book serving a horrible ideology (like Nazism) or is it an oxymoron? If yes, any examples and your reactions to them? If not, why? Is great art inherently moral?
Would love to read a post (or even 2 🙂 ) about those questions. Have been wondering about the 2nd question for a while, and don’t see why not. Many literature that’s today considered great is misogynistic. I do think it hurts its’ quality, but it still can be great, right? So why not take it a bit further?
LikeLike
I think we just departed in a completely different direction here. I thought we were talking not about what an artist says or depicts but about what s/he actually does in his / her life. Nabokov wrote Lolita and that makes him a great artist. But if he, as a private person, molested children, he would be a pedophile and a criminal. People should depict whatever they want in their art. Ruth Rendell described dozens of murders on her books, yet she is an inoffensive kind old lady.
LikeLike
The thing is, I’m not a regime. I’m a private individual who has the freedom of choice as to where I invest my free time. I don’t suggest that any works of art by anybody be banned. God forbid! If that were to happen, I’d be the first person to protest and demonstrate against such a ban. The last thing I want is any form of censorship based on my personal morality. But I feel entitled to make my choices on any basis that pleases me. If I want to avoid reading books by artists who, say, wear orange shirts because I feel like it, then I will do so.
LikeLike
//I think we just departed in a completely different direction here.
Yes. I’ve asked 2 completely different questions.
To depict a murder in a murder mystery is 1 thing, but to write a book, which promotes “a horrible ideology (like Nazism)” is something completely different.
LikeLike
I can’t really even think of a great work of art that promotes any ideology. Sholokhov wrote Quiet Flows the Don, got every literary prize under Stalin. However, the novel is a lot more complex than any political manifesto. Many people see it as very anti-Soviet. This is yet another case when the art ran away from its creator and ended up being something completely different. This is precisely why, in literary criticism, we don’t speak of what the author intended to do with the work of art.
LikeLike
Here is an article, AM links to (in case you can read 1 but not another):
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/23/charlie-sheen-anger-management-on-fx-directv-fiat.html
LikeLike
I’ve just read this and got frightened (pasted all relevant text, so you don’t need to try and follow the link):
http://www.2ndcouncilhouse.co.uk/blog/2012/07/26/things-women-should-know/
Is it true? I’ve never heard anything like this before. 😦
On completely different topic, also read “The Liberal Case for Gun Ownership” and Related Link: “Support Mental Health, Or I’ll Kill You” at the end of the post:
http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.co.il/2007/11/liberal-case-for-gun-ownership.html
LikeLike
I heard about it. I don’t know how true it is but what I try to do is wear bras without the underwire and these nasty metal things in the sides. It’s so hard to find such bras in my size! But I do feel like those metal underwires are hurting me.
LikeLike
//wear bras without the underwire and these nasty metal things in the sides
I too started doing this several years ago. Much more comfortable!
I wish bras were an item, one could choose or not, instead of Must Wear To Hold a Job and, in general, walk on the street. For many women, without them is *much* nicer. 😦
What did women wear before bras and before corsets?
LikeLike
I’m not especially modest (see me discussing my chest size on a blog read by my college administrators :-)) but I do teach teenagers. I want them to concentrate on the learning matter instead of on these huge things moving in front of them. I don’t lecture from behind a lectern. I have to be very mobile in class, jumping, running, walking around, etc. Once I had to dance on a table in class for learning purposes. 🙂 I can’t afford to look like a porn star while doing it. I’d so happily ditch the bra if I saw a valid alternative.
As for the earlier historical eras, most women didn’t live long enough to need to worry about breast cancer, so we can’t know if whatever it was they did wear made any difference.
LikeLike
As for bras not having any practical benefit, this is obviously not a big -chested person writing. Managing a big chest is quite a job. I don’t know how to do it without a bra.
LikeLike
I’m also planning to blog about gun control soon.
LikeLike
//I’m also planning to blog about gun control soon.
Wonderful! When you decide to write about it, could you, please, look at those 2 terrierman’s posts I linked to too? I don’t agree with everything, but think his pov is important. Also, I understood some US realities through his posts and comments.
LikeLike
Hard to know what to believe. This article calls bras-cancer link a myth, but in comments women share what their doctors said, after they got cancer:
From here:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/the-myth-of-bras-and-breast-cancer/?apage=1#comments
LikeLike
What the study seems to forget to do is take into account different chest sizes. Women with bigger chests are more likely to wear bras to bed because you literally can’t sleep without one. These women are also likelier to get breast cancver because their chests are bigger. There is simply more space to develop the disease. This might be a factor contributing to the statistic that women who sleep in bras are likelier to develop breast cancer. Researchers often forget to look at all factors, for instance to see what else these women have in common, such as the reason why they wear bras to bed.
I also don’t like the suggestion that the only reason why we wear bras is that we’ve been brainwashed by the lingerie industry. My bras don’t look even remotely pretty. They are these huge harness-like things that are ugly as hell. I wear them because if I don’t, I will be physically in pain. They are hugely expensive and next to impossible to find in my size. So vanity is REALLY not the reason I wear them. And the lingerie industry does nothing for me. As much as I might be attracted to Victoria Secret ads, the company simply doesn’t carry anything even remotely close to my size.
I will now be stuck on this issue for a very long time. 🙂
LikeLike
Last comment on the topic:
The Article states, “He and colleagues compared National Cancer Institute data on breast cancer risk for women treated for melanoma who had several underarm lymph nodes removed and those who did not. The surgery, which is known to block lymph drainage from breast tissue, did not detectably increase breast cancer rates, the study found, meaning that it is extremely unlikely that wearing a bra, which affects lymph flow minimally if at all, would do so.”
I researched this alleged “study”, which is in the Breast Journal, Volume 15 Number 4, 2009. This was a letter, NOT a peer reviewed study! It also admits that there were too few women in their “study” to come to valid conclusions. However, they did also find increased incidence of skin cancer in the women who had had lymph node dissection. So lymphatic blockage was associated with increased cancer incidence.
The ACS concludes that women should feel reassured by their flimsy, non-peer reviewed “study” to continue wearing bras. Of course, the ACS also promotes bras on their website, and the lingerie industry works closely with the
and also finds breast cancer research, just as the tobacco industry funds lung cancer research.
Naturally, the bra issue is very worth studying. But how will the ACS ever admit this oversight, ignoring the most obvious factor impacting on breast health? It’s like researching lung cancer while ignoring the effect of smoking.
The one sidedness of the presentation of this information smells like a cover-up. What else does the ACS have to hide?
— James
LikeLike