Now that I drive a Mercedes-Benz, I should acknowledge the reality of my comfortable middle-class status. Which would be a much funnier thing to say if I actually had a picture of my car to go with it; I'll put one up eventually, I promise. For now, let me show you my aunt's new vacation condo in the Florida Keys, which has a similar expectation:reality ratio:



But seriously: I make more money now than my parents did when I was little, even adjusting for inflation. And if I weren't planning to quit my job, blow a big chunk of savings on a laptop and a trip to Europe, and retire to a life of quasi-poverty as a graduate student in the fall, I could have easily bought a genuinely nice car, the kind where you have a warranty that lasts for more than a month and you worry about getting little dents and shit.

Whoa.

(more...)

• Great discussion chez Hugo on PETA's dubious tactics and building uneasy coalitions. In particular, Pip weighs in:
  

  
  What I'm suggesting is that in this case and many others, the absence of "common [ideological] ground" isn't a barrier to co-operation, it's the *basis* of it. Both sides are entirely clear-sighted about the nature and limits of the partnership. There's no dreamy talk of "we all want the same thing really" -- the point is, in a specific scenario, we all want *this* thing.
  
  On the other hand, if you're not entirely sure where you yourself are coming from ideologically -- if you just somehow feel sure the war in Iraq is a BAD THING -- then stepping out on a peace march in the company of Islamist fascists may not be such a great idea.
  

  
  Now I can put my finger on why I feel uneasy at ANSWER events! They're always ostensibly about a fairly specific thing, but judging by the people and the signs and the chants, they're really about the communist revolution and veganism and all sorts of other things. It's not that I don't know where I'm coming from - I'm just always too lazy to bring my own sign, so I feel that my presence is being co-opted by movements which I either blandly fail to support (animal rights) or actively oppose (violent revolutionaries of various stripes). And I feel a little bit taken advantage of, too, when this tacit agreement to focus on a specific cause is violated.
  
  I think I owe Hugo a fuller response on the PETA thing, too. Or maybe I just owe it to myself, I don't know. Anyway I'd like to write one, but I've found myself unable to articulate it yet.
  
  


• Distinguishing schools of feminist thought at Alas.


• A discussion on the correct application of science-fu has erupted over at Pharyngula. In particular, I delight in these (woefully out-of-context, but the context is so dull!) remarks from Razib:
  

  
  kevin drum, who has a degree in math from cal tech, seems at least as able to comment on network dynamics as PZ, a biologist.
  [...]
  non-trivial correction, drum went to cal tech for two years and majored in math, but transferred to cal state long beach and graduated with journalism.
  

  
  Finally, someone recognizes that a Caltech undergraduate education does indeed give significant additional gravitas to one's random spoutings-off on all things vaguely sciencey - HAH! Take that, everyone who didn't like my plate tectonics post!
  
  More relevantly, the virtues of science-fu are at issue in the upcoming Pasadena school board election. Scott Phelps - a geophysicist turned high school science teacher - writes in the voter guide that "I believe in using my Caltech-science sense to detect unscientific arguments and to not be 'snowed' by the administration." Unfortunately for him, he's running against incumbent Susan Kane, who lists her occupation as "research scientist" - she's the associate director of research at the City of Hope medical center. I know Scott; he was one of the model teachers in my high school science teaching course. He's a good guy; I don't trust his political instincts (he caused a bit of a flap a while back...) but I do trust his take on the gritty details of curricula and testing. Since I haven't been following local school politics, it's hard for me to say which of these things is most important.
  


• I'd like to round this out with a link to something funny, but I haven't seen anything notably funny today. Say something hilarious in the comments, won't you?

Another 2D political quiz. I'm in the moderately upper left:

• Ideologies: Social Democratism


• US Parties: No match.

Ain't that the truth. Sigh.

We have a call and response and variations on the theme of brazen wimmins asking lovely shy manpeople on dates, and particularly, why a feminist who takes no crap from The Rules might still not want to do such a thing. Reasons discussed include (in ascending order of silliness):

1. She's shy, and society affirms that shyness.
   
2. She's scared that once she invites a little bit of attention, she'll lose the ability to put a stop to it, and she'll be annoyed/stalked/assaulted.
   
3. She's Venusian and wants to date a Martian.
   
4. She's from Earth, but thinks men are from Mars and will blast her with their phallus ray guns if she reveals herself as an Earthling spy never take her seriously if she fails to approximate a Venusian for the first N minutes of their acquaintanceship.
   

I'm primarily concerned, here, with the practice of telling women that traditional gender roles will keep us safe(r). While there are differences in the truth values of "math might make your uterus explode" and "flirting with a strange man might make him decide not to stop following you around in hopes of more attention" ... I'm not sure that they serve such different rhetorical functions.
(more...)

Recently I was reminded of a bit of old lore about rapists: just as vampires cannot speak the name of Christ, rapists cannot speak the name of Andrea Dworkin. Which in turn reminded me of the sorry state of the common wisdom imparted to women as regards our personal safety: we are given nonsensical instructions about avoiding attractive clothing and seedy bars, but no one mentions the real-life practical tips that could save our maidenhoods from creepy crawly creatures of the night, vampires and rapists alike.

Below the fold: Three foolproof tricks for identifying rapists! And the things you should keep in your purse at all times - if you're not a slut who's asking for it.
(more...)

It's unfortunate that the top Google result for Roe vs. Wade is a site full of anti-abortion propaganda. Following
RadGeek's suggestion, then, it's time to start pointing out more appropriate sources of information about abortion.

This has been a public service announcement. Now, I need some more ripe-key-limeade - in what universe does it make sense to have limes turn yellow when they're ripe? I demand that botany be rejiggered to look more like a cartoon.

Goodness, isn't Joe Lieberman a hideous piece of slime? No slimier, I suppose, than the 59 other Senators who voted to confirm Alberto "It's Not Torture If The President Approves" Gonzales - but it's much more satisfying to pick on a slug in sheep's clothing.

Anyway! Look at Lieberman's charming remarks about the use of the word "quaint" to describe the Geneva Conventions!

I think, respectfully, Judge Gonzales was being restrained and diplomatic in using the word "quaint." To offer these benefits [...] the ability to receive scientific equipment, musical instruments or sports outfits [...] would not be quaint, it would be offensive. It would be ridiculous. It would be ultimately unjust.

Joe Lieberman would be offended if I tried to send a trombone to an imprisoned family member - and they say feminists are overly sensitive! To be fair, he was specifically talking about sending a musical instrument to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, so perhaps he wouldn't find it offensive if I tried to mail a trombone to someone who was being held in Gitmo indefinitely without trial.

Terrorist suspects are not generally well-known for their trombone skills, so it probably would be ridiculous if I chose one at random and mailed him a trombone. Plus trombones are more expensive than the usual amount of my charitable contributions, and that's not even counting postage. Yes, it would definitely be ridiculous - I guess one out of three ain't bad. No wonder this man was almost Vice President!

In the real world, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings is busy complaining that PBS teaches children to be nice to gay people.

LA LA LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!

Fantasy Secretary of Education Gene Ray is working on a new initiative to bring Nature's Harmonic Time Cube into schools. However, he is running into problems with the NEA:

Dumb ass teachers fear Time Cube and will eat dung before debating it.
Dumb students are educated stupid.

I already fucked up Not One Damn Dime Day by buying gas, of all things - not only buying it, but spilling a bunch onto the pavement 'cause the auto-pump-shutoff gadget failed. Sorry, fishies! But there's a much better game, over at Rad Geek People's Daily (among other places). So like the title says, let's play fantasy cabinet!
(more...)

1. If liberal culture was more firmly entrenched, wouldn't we all recognize that the failure to give one's employees a day off "for diversity" is the same thing as allowing the Klan to solicit contributions in the cubicle farm? Racism hurts everyone, white privilege or no, and I'm being unjustly deprived of a nice day for a picnic. Waaah.
   
2. I'm curious about the etiology of colds. Why is a snotty nose presaged by a sore throat? And why is it only snotty in one sinus at a time?
   
3. Via Bitch, Ph.D comes an anecdote about Harvard's President's daughter:
   

   
   In his talk, according to several participants, Summers also used as an example one of his daughters, who as a child was given two trucks in an effort at gender-neutral parenting. Yet she treated them almost like dolls, naming one of them ''daddy truck," and one ''baby truck."
   

   
   Just because you're "confrontational" and "straight-talking" doesn't mean you're not also "a sexist asshole". The numerous flaws in Summers's supposed "arguments" can be easily pointed out by any halfwit* and I leave them to it**.
   

   
   What I'm curious about is the unspoken assumption that if girls can be demonstrated to be more nurturing than boys, then they obviously can't be expected to be as good at math. Because the ability to do math can only be developed by skewering bunnies and kittens on your pencil, and then dancing in a shower of cute-baby-animal blood while reciting your multiplication tables.
   

(more...)