(no subject)
Nov. 28th, 2005 09:54 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ebonlockFirst, if you missed 60 Minutes story on Plan B last night, you can read about it here, their coverage of the FDA's decision not to allow it to be sold over the counter was absolutely fascinating. Infuriating too, of course, as they trace the decision back to a particular Bush appointed fundie "scientist":
Dr. Hager voted “no.” But his colleagues on the committee rejected his arguments, voting 23 to four in favor of offering the drug over the counter.
Such a lop-sided vote should have meant the application would sail through. But then the saga of Plan B took a strange turn.
Dr. Hager says someone at the FDA — he won’t say who — asked him to write a “minority report” in which he asked for more studies and more data on the use of Plan B by young girls.
A few months later something totally unexpected happened: The FDA ignored the committee’s overwhelming vote and rejected the proposal to sell Plan B over the counter, citing the very concerns in Hager’s report.
But the best part? When he flat out denies it was because he's a psycho pro-life fundie and they then play him making a speech at a church in which he outright claims that it is the reason he made this decision:
Some people believe Hager raised these objections because of his religious beliefs, but that’s something he denies. “The religious aspect did not enter into that decision for me,” he says.
But in to a speech he gave to a Christian college, he seemed to admit his role was all about religion. “God has used me to stand in the breach for the cause of the kingdom,” Hager said at the time.
He was talking about Plan B.
I just have to ask folks who still support Bush and his administration (surely one or two must have stumbled across this blog), how can you possibly justify this? Do you honestly feel comfortable living in a theocracy? Would you feel comfortable if condoms were no longer sold over the counter because of "moral concerns"? Because that's where this is heading, boys and girls, they won't be content with just stopping the ladies from having the sex, no, they'll want to stop the boys as well.
While I'm on the subject of men feeling that they should have some say over womens' bodies, you just have to check out the Feministe taking on "Dominionist Libertarian" Vox Day's latest screed on rape. But be prepared for some dry heaves because you quite literally won't believe the shit he and his commentors have posted. Let me give you just a little taste:
I have to confess that I don’t understand this ceaseless quest for victimhood. Being raped doesn’t confer some mystical moral superiority on a woman, it just makes her a victim. And unfortunately, in all too many cases, it just makes her a stupid one.
[...]
Actual rape is another area in which the feminists shot themselves in the foot. Back in the day, women had the protection of their fathers, husbands and brothers. Their fathers, husbands and brothers usually had guns. So what have the feminists been trying to do? Get rid of the men AND the guns!
[...]
Yes, in a profound and awesome way, rape is actually the possibility for life, whereas the other crimes - stealing, lying, murdering - are all about destruction.
[...]
He said she said is worthless. In the middle east a woman needs a Man as a witness to charge another man with rape. Women are not smart enough to realize what they are doing to innocent men.
[...]
“The silence of women in the church” also means women are to be silent in politics as well. What goes for the metaphysical sphere goes for the physical sphere. No females are to be in politics nor vote.
Those who reject the Scriptures, reject the way of life. Sadly, it is the Churches that lead their followers onto the way of Death—and that is exactly what Western Society is doing—following the Way of Death.
[...]
Any ideas on actual good sites for mail order brides? Seriously. There are many out there, but it is very hard to tell the difference between a legitimate bride store and a scam. There is travel, but that is more dangerous (if fun) and isn’t always possible. Just curious:) (oh, I would have emailed, but that doesn’t seem to show up anymore or am I missing something?) I would love a nice China girl for Christmas… keep the two front teeth, ha.
[..]
There's more, oh so much more, but I'm beginning to feel nauseated and must stop. If anyone can point out the difference between these assholes and the Taliban (and no, the fact that one set is Christian and the other Islamic doesn't count) I'd love to hear it.
And speaking of theocracies, looks like somebody is way off script these days:
Human rights abuses in Iraq are now as bad as they were under Saddam Hussein and are even in danger of eclipsing his record, according to the country's first Prime Minister after the fall of Saddam's regime.
'People are doing the same as [in] Saddam's time and worse,' Ayad Allawi told The Observer. 'It is an appropriate comparison. People are remembering the days of Saddam. These were the precise reasons that we fought Saddam and now we are seeing the same things.'
In a damning and wide-ranging indictment of Iraq's escalating human rights catastrophe, Allawi accused fellow Shias in the government of being responsible for death squads and secret torture centres. The brutality of elements in the new security forces rivals that of Saddam's secret police, he said.
...Allawi's bleak assessment is likely to undermine any attempt to suggest that conditions in Iraq are markedly improving.
'We are hearing about secret police, secret bunkers where people are being interrogated,' he added. 'A lot of Iraqis are being tortured or killed in the course of interrogations. We are even witnessing Sharia courts based on Islamic law that are trying people and executing them.'
via Pandagon
Well there goes the "Hey at least we're better than Saddam" argument.
Dr. Hager voted “no.” But his colleagues on the committee rejected his arguments, voting 23 to four in favor of offering the drug over the counter.
Such a lop-sided vote should have meant the application would sail through. But then the saga of Plan B took a strange turn.
Dr. Hager says someone at the FDA — he won’t say who — asked him to write a “minority report” in which he asked for more studies and more data on the use of Plan B by young girls.
A few months later something totally unexpected happened: The FDA ignored the committee’s overwhelming vote and rejected the proposal to sell Plan B over the counter, citing the very concerns in Hager’s report.
But the best part? When he flat out denies it was because he's a psycho pro-life fundie and they then play him making a speech at a church in which he outright claims that it is the reason he made this decision:
Some people believe Hager raised these objections because of his religious beliefs, but that’s something he denies. “The religious aspect did not enter into that decision for me,” he says.
But in to a speech he gave to a Christian college, he seemed to admit his role was all about religion. “God has used me to stand in the breach for the cause of the kingdom,” Hager said at the time.
He was talking about Plan B.
I just have to ask folks who still support Bush and his administration (surely one or two must have stumbled across this blog), how can you possibly justify this? Do you honestly feel comfortable living in a theocracy? Would you feel comfortable if condoms were no longer sold over the counter because of "moral concerns"? Because that's where this is heading, boys and girls, they won't be content with just stopping the ladies from having the sex, no, they'll want to stop the boys as well.
While I'm on the subject of men feeling that they should have some say over womens' bodies, you just have to check out the Feministe taking on "Dominionist Libertarian" Vox Day's latest screed on rape. But be prepared for some dry heaves because you quite literally won't believe the shit he and his commentors have posted. Let me give you just a little taste:
I have to confess that I don’t understand this ceaseless quest for victimhood. Being raped doesn’t confer some mystical moral superiority on a woman, it just makes her a victim. And unfortunately, in all too many cases, it just makes her a stupid one.
[...]
Actual rape is another area in which the feminists shot themselves in the foot. Back in the day, women had the protection of their fathers, husbands and brothers. Their fathers, husbands and brothers usually had guns. So what have the feminists been trying to do? Get rid of the men AND the guns!
[...]
Yes, in a profound and awesome way, rape is actually the possibility for life, whereas the other crimes - stealing, lying, murdering - are all about destruction.
[...]
He said she said is worthless. In the middle east a woman needs a Man as a witness to charge another man with rape. Women are not smart enough to realize what they are doing to innocent men.
[...]
“The silence of women in the church” also means women are to be silent in politics as well. What goes for the metaphysical sphere goes for the physical sphere. No females are to be in politics nor vote.
Those who reject the Scriptures, reject the way of life. Sadly, it is the Churches that lead their followers onto the way of Death—and that is exactly what Western Society is doing—following the Way of Death.
[...]
Any ideas on actual good sites for mail order brides? Seriously. There are many out there, but it is very hard to tell the difference between a legitimate bride store and a scam. There is travel, but that is more dangerous (if fun) and isn’t always possible. Just curious:) (oh, I would have emailed, but that doesn’t seem to show up anymore or am I missing something?) I would love a nice China girl for Christmas… keep the two front teeth, ha.
[..]
There's more, oh so much more, but I'm beginning to feel nauseated and must stop. If anyone can point out the difference between these assholes and the Taliban (and no, the fact that one set is Christian and the other Islamic doesn't count) I'd love to hear it.
And speaking of theocracies, looks like somebody is way off script these days:
Human rights abuses in Iraq are now as bad as they were under Saddam Hussein and are even in danger of eclipsing his record, according to the country's first Prime Minister after the fall of Saddam's regime.
'People are doing the same as [in] Saddam's time and worse,' Ayad Allawi told The Observer. 'It is an appropriate comparison. People are remembering the days of Saddam. These were the precise reasons that we fought Saddam and now we are seeing the same things.'
In a damning and wide-ranging indictment of Iraq's escalating human rights catastrophe, Allawi accused fellow Shias in the government of being responsible for death squads and secret torture centres. The brutality of elements in the new security forces rivals that of Saddam's secret police, he said.
...Allawi's bleak assessment is likely to undermine any attempt to suggest that conditions in Iraq are markedly improving.
'We are hearing about secret police, secret bunkers where people are being interrogated,' he added. 'A lot of Iraqis are being tortured or killed in the course of interrogations. We are even witnessing Sharia courts based on Islamic law that are trying people and executing them.'
via Pandagon
Well there goes the "Hey at least we're better than Saddam" argument.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-11-28 06:27 pm (UTC)Riiiight. Because your father, husband or brother could never be the one to rape you repeatedly, no.
Gah. I think my breakfast will threaten to make a reappearance if I continue reading....
no subject
Date: 2005-11-28 06:31 pm (UTC)I do recommend checking out Feministe's blog, her responses to this nonsense are definitely worth reading.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-28 06:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-28 06:52 pm (UTC)2. Use this information however you see fit.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-28 07:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-28 07:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-28 09:21 pm (UTC)How is it that CBS didn't see fit to air this little bit of trivia? Why isn't this man's history and allegations on his sexual conduct as fit for national television broadcasts as his views on Plan B?
no subject
Date: 2005-11-28 09:44 pm (UTC)How is it that CBS didn't see fit to air this little bit of trivia? Why isn't this man's history and allegations on his sexual conduct as fit for national television broadcasts as his views on Plan B?
To be honest I suspect that the fundie aspect was easier to get across within a short 15 minute or so segment. If they'd spent more time focusing on his obvious misogyny they'd have needed twice the time. Not, mind you, that I would've been opposed to an entire one hour program on the subject. Hmm, actually I think I'd prefer that on Frontline, I'm more inclined to trust their reporting overall.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-28 09:32 pm (UTC)My letter to him:
Why don't you link your author's page to your blog, and vice versa? Surely someone who claims to be the voice of the day isn't afraid that Lois Bujold and Pat Wrede might find his views appalling, or that he might end up ostracized at cons because his attempts at Jonathan Swift pastiches are so ham-handed as to pass the bounds of good taste?
His reply:
Why would I worry about any of that? People like Lois and Pat know who I am and what I do; they certainly know more about me than the random Internet surfer who thinks he's outing me. Follow the Latin into Greek, it's no secret and it never has been. Come to think of it, I was just speaking with Pat last week... anyhow, truly intelligent people are capable of understanding that they can bitterly disagree about things political and still be on good terms.
As for cons, I've been to precisely one, it was a complete bore and I can't imagine ever bothering to attend another one.
You can, and almost surely will dismiss everything I write. That's fine, most people do and I expect them to. You see, the crowd is usually wrong - reliably so, in some cases - and not thinking like most people is probably the single biggest advantage one can have in business, investing and life.
Regards,
Vox
Verdict: spoiled rich boy. Otherwise he'd never DARE ignore cons...con appearances are an SF writer's lifeblood.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-28 09:48 pm (UTC)Though I love the last paragraph with the self-important, "I don't run with the crowd, baby, I'm a lone wolf, hear me howl" schtick. You should send that one on to Feministe, it's a hoot!
no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 04:21 am (UTC)My reply to him:
I'm not dismissing anything you write...but you may find that your so-called friends are actually laughing at you behind your back. And you didn't answer the question: if you're so sure of your opinions, why not link?
His answer:
Well, I suppose that beats my actual friends who laugh at me to my face. Well, not so much laugh "Oh no, what did you write now?" tends to be the usual reaction. But if Pat and Lois want to laugh at me, I really don't mind. I still like and respect them. Hell, Stross has asserted that I'm a vile bigot; that doesn't change my opinion about his status as a writer and interesting thinker. As for your question, I don't link because I don't. It's not something I've ever thought much about. It's like trying to explain why I write, I don't know why I write, I just do. And nowadays, I find that not linking things keeps my critics happy; they're always so excited about outing me that I'd hate to deprive them of the pleasure.
I don't even bother correcting them about Daddy not being on the board anymore. He hasn't been for years.
Actually, now that you've made me think about it, I just realized why I don't link. Because in my opinion, ideas have to stand or fall on their own. If date rape is a myth, then it is true regardless of whether I am a serial rapist, a sluttish drunkard or a woman who was raped and left to die in a ditch. I totally reject the concept that the truth or falsehood of my ideological, spiritual or material opinions depends in any way on my personal life. If Jesus Christ rose from the dead, he did so regardless of whether I am a good Christian or my second novel sucks.
It's not a conscious decision, but an instinctive one that might stem from that.
Not only does he come across as a spoiled little rich kid, he's pretentious as hell. GK Chesterton did it a lot better a century ago, without claiming that the world was doomed because women had the vote.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 04:30 pm (UTC)I can actually point you at some contemporary writers who would continue to claim that...the saddest part is that quite a few of them are women.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-28 10:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 06:19 am (UTC)Historically speaking, I don't think this is the case. Boys can have all the sex, they just need to remember to keep it quiet and pretend that they're not. Self righteous hypocrisy is really the key here.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 08:07 am (UTC)It's kind of alarming sometimes, how often I mutter "I hate men" to myself (friends excluded, naturally). Mmf.
Though I think the Feministe is my new hero.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-30 08:19 am (UTC)and when they do, they freak. There was a pilot program, in Mich. IIRC, where they decided to try a new form of sensitivity training in high school. The concept was that for one hour, three days a week, all the boys in the class were treated the same way girls are all the time.
The teacher started right off the bat the first day by calling them diminutive names; i.e. - Timmy instead of Tim, etc.; and using terms like honey, sweetcakes, sugar in casual context. She did not look in their eyes when speaking, but at their pecs and crotches and asses. She called them up then stood inappropriately close to them, unexpectedly ran her fingers along their neckline or down their back or put her hand on their back or waist. She ignored what they had to say to focus on other things or her own ideas or how they looked.
It progressed to the next class where she encouraged the girls in the class to do the same thing. The girls took it one better and started comparing, without lowering their voices, package sizes and various boys potential in the sack.
By the third class there were parental complaints. It never got past the fourth class because the district had to shut it down. The complaints from the parents?
- that their sons were having nightmares
- their sons could not concentrate
- their sons were so upset about having to go to the class they were sick on the mornings the class was taking place
- some boys were purportedly wetting the bed
The lady who ran the pilot program (and please don't ask me, because it's been some years, and several computer changes and lost bookmarks, since it took place) concurred that it was probably better to not continue with the program. HOWEVER, she got the last word by asking the parents and the district council to consider the fact that the boys were only receiving the exact same treatment girls can expect to get all the time on a three day a week, one hour basis. So who really is the tougher sex?