Man, I never know what to write about in this stupid blog.
Today I'm just going to brag:
I swim with a master's swimming class 3 times a week, and last night we had a really tough workout. I kicked ass. Normally, as long as we get in at least 3,000 yards in the 1.5 hours, we call it a good workout. Last night: 4,100. Google calculator informs me this is 2.32954545 miles.
kick. ass.
Also, 400 of that was a 400 IM. As in a 100 fly. I suck at fly. I can't make it more than a length and a half without my breathing getting all fucked up. But I survived, and then went on to swim a 100 of each of the other strokes too! I didn't die!
So pretty much, I'm the queen of the universe.
p.s. In other news, I'm apparently allergic to running. I ran on the treadmill on Tuesday, and it literally gave me hives. I wonder how that works?
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
What I think about abortion.
It's the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and abortion is probably the first issue I really got politically engaged in. It's also an issue I've gotten more conservative about over the past few years (though, don't tell my first year roommate because this is one of our greatest sources for long arguments, and I refuse to cede any ground to her) so I kind of want to lay out what I think now and why I think it.
the short version: I'm not really sure what to think because I can't come up with an internally consistent position about its morality. I doubt anyone else can either, so I don't think it should be legislated.
the even shorter version: I'm still pro-choice, but sometimes I'm uncomfortable about it.
I also think it's important to remember that even if a fetus has rights, the mother does too. It seems like a lot of people forget about the mother when they're talking about abortion. This is why I really like the violinist thought experiment. To quote Judith Jarvis Thomson:
In other words, even if you think that fetus is a whole human being with all sorts of rights, those rights don't necessarily supersede your own right to autonomy over your own body. Why should you have to act as a life support machine to something that would die on its own?
This argument is most effective in cases of rape or if pregnancy puts your life at risk. Otherwise, you willingly took on the risk when you decided to have sex, so it's not like you'll die by doing it, so you can't back out now.
But that doesn't sit well with me. What if you used a condom or were on birth control? At a certain point, if you took reasonable precautions, I think you have a right to expect that you won't have to be pregnant. Besides, in the real world, do you want women to have to prove that they were raped or that they were using a condom that one time in order to have access to an abortion? that seems like a huge invasion of privacy.
It's complicated, so I end up judging each situation as it comes up and relying a lot on my own moral intuition. I think this is basically the correct way to go about things, so I want to reserve the right for pregnant women to do the same. This makes me pro-choice.
the short version: I'm not really sure what to think because I can't come up with an internally consistent position about its morality. I doubt anyone else can either, so I don't think it should be legislated.
the even shorter version: I'm still pro-choice, but sometimes I'm uncomfortable about it.
- one reason I think abortion is wrong:
- It's wrong to kill babies. There is not much difference between a baby right after it's been born and a baby a month before it will be born.
- obvious rebuttal:
- This is really only an argument against third trimester abortions. You should still be okay with earlier ones.
- obvious rebuttal to rebuttal:
- Why is it okay to kill something that will be a baby really soon, when it's not okay to kill a baby?
- rebuttal to rebuttal to rebuttal:
- It's not a baby right now. that's all that's relevant. If it's not conscious and can't live on its own it doesn't have human rights yet. If you believe otherwise, you reach some deeply unintuitive conclusions. After all, if its not okay to kill something that will be a baby really soon, then it shouldn't be okay to kill something that will become something that will be a baby really soon. Is preventing an embryo from ever implanting on the wall of a uterus wrong? Does that embryo have rights? What about the egg and the sperm before they become an embryo?
- rebuttal to rebuttal to rebuttal to rebuttal:
- We consider other people who are not conscious and can't survive on their own to be human. What about terminally ill people in comas? They're basically only alive because a machine is feeding them or breathing for them, but we're not just allowed to pull the plug. We need prior consent. And these are people who will *never recover* from their conditions. Fetuses generally will recover by, you know, being born. If you believe that consciousness and viability are necessary to being human, why is there debate about end of life issues?
I also think it's important to remember that even if a fetus has rights, the mother does too. It seems like a lot of people forget about the mother when they're talking about abortion. This is why I really like the violinist thought experiment. To quote Judith Jarvis Thomson:
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.
In other words, even if you think that fetus is a whole human being with all sorts of rights, those rights don't necessarily supersede your own right to autonomy over your own body. Why should you have to act as a life support machine to something that would die on its own?
This argument is most effective in cases of rape or if pregnancy puts your life at risk. Otherwise, you willingly took on the risk when you decided to have sex, so it's not like you'll die by doing it, so you can't back out now.
But that doesn't sit well with me. What if you used a condom or were on birth control? At a certain point, if you took reasonable precautions, I think you have a right to expect that you won't have to be pregnant. Besides, in the real world, do you want women to have to prove that they were raped or that they were using a condom that one time in order to have access to an abortion? that seems like a huge invasion of privacy.
It's complicated, so I end up judging each situation as it comes up and relying a lot on my own moral intuition. I think this is basically the correct way to go about things, so I want to reserve the right for pregnant women to do the same. This makes me pro-choice.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
it's snowing
Shamelessly stolen from the Washington Post: a lion at the zoo enjoying today's weather.
I spent far too much time today reloading this page in hopes the federal government would give us a partial snow day. (my company follows the federal government's lead.) Despite the fact that this region really cannot handle winter weather at all, we did not get so much as liberal leave. bah.
My coworkers and I did amuse ourselves by watching a porsche struggle mightily to exit the parking lot this afternoon. he eventually succeeded, but we're pretty sure he'll get in an accident at some point today. yay for schadenfreude? p.s. the words schadenfreude and porsche are fun to say for precisely the same reason. maybe this is a sign I should take German.
Man, you can tell you're really living life to the fullest when the most exciting event of the day is watching a guy spin his wheels in the parking lot at work.
Monday, January 14, 2008
magic words
My favorite music group does political satire. My favorite NPR show is a news quiz. I have a favorite NPR show. Suffice it to say, I am a news junkie.
Today, I'm tired of news.
Here's the story that did it.
The first I heard about this story was an NPR news reporter saying something like, "Obama's campaign rejects charges from the Clinton campaign that he misinterpreted her remarks on Martin Luther King Jr."
I kid you not.
She made a comment. He commented on the comment. She commented on his comment on the comment. He commented on her comment on his comment on the comment.
And all this made it onto the evening news.
So what were the words of the offending comment? From the Washington Post:
This apparently underplays Dr. King's role in the civil rights movement. also, Johnson was white. so she kinda, sorta, if you squint your eyes and give yourself a lobotomy said that it takes a white person to advance the cause for black people. see, she's racist?!
What I can't get over is how utterly inconsequential and stupid this is. She said like 20 words. They weren't, at least in my estimation, even offensive words. Who the fuck cares?
Today, I'm tired of news.
Here's the story that did it.
The first I heard about this story was an NPR news reporter saying something like, "Obama's campaign rejects charges from the Clinton campaign that he misinterpreted her remarks on Martin Luther King Jr."
I kid you not.
She made a comment. He commented on the comment. She commented on his comment on the comment. He commented on her comment on his comment on the comment.
And all this made it onto the evening news.
So what were the words of the offending comment? From the Washington Post:
The primary source of the debate is a comment Monday from the New York Democrat: "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act," she said, adding that "it took a president to get it done."
This apparently underplays Dr. King's role in the civil rights movement. also, Johnson was white. so she kinda, sorta, if you squint your eyes and give yourself a lobotomy said that it takes a white person to advance the cause for black people. see, she's racist?!
What I can't get over is how utterly inconsequential and stupid this is. She said like 20 words. They weren't, at least in my estimation, even offensive words. Who the fuck cares?
Thursday, January 10, 2008
hillary clinton/gloria steinem
So this is a little stale now that Clinton's won the NH primary, but I wanted to talk about Gloria Steinem's op ed endorsing her.
I alternate between liking it a lot and being incredibly frustrated with it.
First she talked about how women need a lot more experience to be considered qualified than men do. She invented "Achola Obama," someone with Barack Obama's experience who was female, to prove her point. I agree that often women do need more experience to be considered qualified than men do, but I don't think either candidate actually has a ton of experience, so I'm not sure it's a relevant point for this race. The example did imply that being a mother with young children would hurt a candidate (why isn't she at home raising them?) while being a father with young children helps him. (aww, isn't his family adorable?) This is completely true. Still not relevant to this particular race, but interesting to consider.
Next she talked about how this election is following the same old pattern. For a while, blacks and women are allies, but then black people break barriers before women do. In a very qualified, wishy-washy way, I agree with her. It's a lot more complicated than that, but it's unquestionably historically true that, for example, black men and women, and white women all worked for suffrage together, but black men got the vote before any women did. But the reason black people achieved those legislative victories first is because they were demonstrably worse off to begin with. Women were not, for example, getting lynched. Discrimination against black people was violent and overt, whereas discrimination against white women was much more subtle and muted, and therefore easier to ignore.
Next she said "sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was." I agree SO MUCH with this. People in the mainstream LOVE to talk about inherent differences between the sexes. Major American newspapers feature stories claiming that women talk more than men, that they have a worse sense of direction than men, that they're worse at science than men, or any other number of poorly supported worn out cliches. Outside of the James Watsons of the world, you do not find people talking about inherent differences between the races because it's offensive and stupid.
She started to lose me when she essentially talked about the ways that sexism is supposed to be worse than racism, though. She said anything that affects males is seen as more serious than things that affect females. I think there's a grain of truth to this, but she's seriously overstating her case. She went on to say powerful women make men regress to childhood, whereas black men are stereotyped as "masculine" so to other men they are masculinity-affirming. When I was writing down my initial thougts on her piece, next to this I wrote, "omg, shut up with the pop psychology, gloria steinem!" It's such a bullshit thing to say. It's a deeply weird argument. The ways that black men have historically been stereotyped as "masculine" are very dehumanizing. They also don't apply to Barack Obama who's a major intellectual (hello, editor of the Harvard Law review). Intellectuals are pansies. we all know that. It's kind of why George W. Bush got elected.
Next, she started to sound like she worked for the Clinton Campaign.
She talked about how abolition and suffrage worked well togetherm so Clinton and Obama have to keep working together. (how DARE he challenge her. he should wait his turn!)
She said Clinton had more experience: look at all that "on the job" training. This is totally overvalued. no doubt, she's been thinking seriously about political issues for a long time and she has the years in the white house to prove that, but you don't need to live in the east wing to think seriously about the issues. the things she actually *did* in the White House after the republicans steamrolled her health care reform are insubstantial.
She said, "What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations."
Okay, maybe. except obama is *very careful* about how much he brings up civil rights. Clinton's trying to be fairly careful too. The "old boy's club" comment, I think was at Wellesley, which means she carefully chose her audience, but I think she's alluded more to how the patriarchy (to use a Smith Scrabble(tm) word) has hurt her in other contexts too. and it has hurt her. but racism's hurt Obama. he's just been savvier about not mentioning it.
Then we get to the weird, unfortunate conclusion:
"What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system."
What a poorly constructed sentence. I had an email conversation with my mother about this line yesterday and we decided what she meant by "deny[ing] or escap[ing] the sexual caste system", to quote my mother is, "the attitude that “This doesn’t apply to me. I will be able to escape this prejudice because of my education, competence, intelligence, good looks, savvy, whatever.” Most young women have not faced overt sexual discrimination and don’t realize how insidious it can be." I get that. I think there is a tendency to either overlook sexism or think of it as an inherent fact of life, not something that can be fought against. but come on. the whole *point* of feminism is ultimately to "escape the sexual caste system."
As is obvious, I'm still not really sure what I think. But it did get me thinking. I recommend it as interesting reading.
I alternate between liking it a lot and being incredibly frustrated with it.
First she talked about how women need a lot more experience to be considered qualified than men do. She invented "Achola Obama," someone with Barack Obama's experience who was female, to prove her point. I agree that often women do need more experience to be considered qualified than men do, but I don't think either candidate actually has a ton of experience, so I'm not sure it's a relevant point for this race. The example did imply that being a mother with young children would hurt a candidate (why isn't she at home raising them?) while being a father with young children helps him. (aww, isn't his family adorable?) This is completely true. Still not relevant to this particular race, but interesting to consider.
Next she talked about how this election is following the same old pattern. For a while, blacks and women are allies, but then black people break barriers before women do. In a very qualified, wishy-washy way, I agree with her. It's a lot more complicated than that, but it's unquestionably historically true that, for example, black men and women, and white women all worked for suffrage together, but black men got the vote before any women did. But the reason black people achieved those legislative victories first is because they were demonstrably worse off to begin with. Women were not, for example, getting lynched. Discrimination against black people was violent and overt, whereas discrimination against white women was much more subtle and muted, and therefore easier to ignore.
Next she said "sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was." I agree SO MUCH with this. People in the mainstream LOVE to talk about inherent differences between the sexes. Major American newspapers feature stories claiming that women talk more than men, that they have a worse sense of direction than men, that they're worse at science than men, or any other number of poorly supported worn out cliches. Outside of the James Watsons of the world, you do not find people talking about inherent differences between the races because it's offensive and stupid.
She started to lose me when she essentially talked about the ways that sexism is supposed to be worse than racism, though. She said anything that affects males is seen as more serious than things that affect females. I think there's a grain of truth to this, but she's seriously overstating her case. She went on to say powerful women make men regress to childhood, whereas black men are stereotyped as "masculine" so to other men they are masculinity-affirming. When I was writing down my initial thougts on her piece, next to this I wrote, "omg, shut up with the pop psychology, gloria steinem!" It's such a bullshit thing to say. It's a deeply weird argument. The ways that black men have historically been stereotyped as "masculine" are very dehumanizing. They also don't apply to Barack Obama who's a major intellectual (hello, editor of the Harvard Law review). Intellectuals are pansies. we all know that. It's kind of why George W. Bush got elected.
Next, she started to sound like she worked for the Clinton Campaign.
She talked about how abolition and suffrage worked well togetherm so Clinton and Obama have to keep working together. (how DARE he challenge her. he should wait his turn!)
She said Clinton had more experience: look at all that "on the job" training. This is totally overvalued. no doubt, she's been thinking seriously about political issues for a long time and she has the years in the white house to prove that, but you don't need to live in the east wing to think seriously about the issues. the things she actually *did* in the White House after the republicans steamrolled her health care reform are insubstantial.
She said, "What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations."
Okay, maybe. except obama is *very careful* about how much he brings up civil rights. Clinton's trying to be fairly careful too. The "old boy's club" comment, I think was at Wellesley, which means she carefully chose her audience, but I think she's alluded more to how the patriarchy (to use a Smith Scrabble(tm) word) has hurt her in other contexts too. and it has hurt her. but racism's hurt Obama. he's just been savvier about not mentioning it.
Then we get to the weird, unfortunate conclusion:
"What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system."
What a poorly constructed sentence. I had an email conversation with my mother about this line yesterday and we decided what she meant by "deny[ing] or escap[ing] the sexual caste system", to quote my mother is, "the attitude that “This doesn’t apply to me. I will be able to escape this prejudice because of my education, competence, intelligence, good looks, savvy, whatever.” Most young women have not faced overt sexual discrimination and don’t realize how insidious it can be." I get that. I think there is a tendency to either overlook sexism or think of it as an inherent fact of life, not something that can be fought against. but come on. the whole *point* of feminism is ultimately to "escape the sexual caste system."
As is obvious, I'm still not really sure what I think. But it did get me thinking. I recommend it as interesting reading.
Friday, January 4, 2008
obama
he won! so freaking excited.
on the way to work this morning, I decided:
I like Kucinich for supporting gay marriage. I also remember when I heard him speak during the 2004 election, I thought he was batshit crazy for supporting things like universal healthcare and a "department of peace." I still think he's batshit crazy, but he also seems to be prescient and ahead of the curve on a lot of issues. This gives me hope that gay marriage won't be so damn controvertial in the future.
I liked Dodd for supporting a carbon tax. Even though he called it a "corporate carbon tax" which even with my lousy 4 semesters of economics I can tell is a lot of bullshit spin. If you tax corporations, they're going to try their hardest to pass on the extra cost to consumers. And if you want a tax to actually alter behavior, the whole point of it is to affect average Americans. Still, as far as I'm aware, he's the only one supporting a tax instead of a cap & trade system, and I think the tax is so much more elegant. Too bad he dropped out.
I really do not like Edwards. I think probably he'd be fine, but all his rhetoric about corporate greed really grates on me. It's utterly facile to pretend that all the large evil faceless corporations are out to crush the little guy and make your life more difficult. Large faceless corporations don't care enough about you to actively try to hurt you. They just want to make profits, and most of the time, the things they do to maximize profits tend to make most people better off. Trade is good.
The 2 other issues I think the most about are Iraq and Health Care. The thing is, I don't know what the correct policy decisions are on either of those issues. I think we shouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place, but now that we're there, when and how quickly we should withdraw seems an open question. I think health care in the country right now is completely fucked up, but I don't know that universal coverage is the answer. I don't know what the answer is. So on those two issues, I'm sort of indifferent between Hillary and Obama. They seem to be the most moderate, and while they don't have identical plans, their plans are enough alike that whatever legislation they actually managed to get passed would be quite similar.
But in the end, I'm an Obama supporter. I do give him credit for opposing the war before Clinton did, but that actually doesn't figure into my decision too strongly. I just like the vitality and energy he's bringing to the race. He's a new face. He's not entrenched in the party establishment. He's not still stuck back in the Vietnam war. He's the closest thing to youthful we've seen in a while. I'm ready to stop having baby boomers dominate every aspect of this country's culture. It's my generation's turn. If only we actually vote. (but we did, in Iowa last night!!!)
on the way to work this morning, I decided:
I like Kucinich for supporting gay marriage. I also remember when I heard him speak during the 2004 election, I thought he was batshit crazy for supporting things like universal healthcare and a "department of peace." I still think he's batshit crazy, but he also seems to be prescient and ahead of the curve on a lot of issues. This gives me hope that gay marriage won't be so damn controvertial in the future.
I liked Dodd for supporting a carbon tax. Even though he called it a "corporate carbon tax" which even with my lousy 4 semesters of economics I can tell is a lot of bullshit spin. If you tax corporations, they're going to try their hardest to pass on the extra cost to consumers. And if you want a tax to actually alter behavior, the whole point of it is to affect average Americans. Still, as far as I'm aware, he's the only one supporting a tax instead of a cap & trade system, and I think the tax is so much more elegant. Too bad he dropped out.
I really do not like Edwards. I think probably he'd be fine, but all his rhetoric about corporate greed really grates on me. It's utterly facile to pretend that all the large evil faceless corporations are out to crush the little guy and make your life more difficult. Large faceless corporations don't care enough about you to actively try to hurt you. They just want to make profits, and most of the time, the things they do to maximize profits tend to make most people better off. Trade is good.
The 2 other issues I think the most about are Iraq and Health Care. The thing is, I don't know what the correct policy decisions are on either of those issues. I think we shouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place, but now that we're there, when and how quickly we should withdraw seems an open question. I think health care in the country right now is completely fucked up, but I don't know that universal coverage is the answer. I don't know what the answer is. So on those two issues, I'm sort of indifferent between Hillary and Obama. They seem to be the most moderate, and while they don't have identical plans, their plans are enough alike that whatever legislation they actually managed to get passed would be quite similar.
But in the end, I'm an Obama supporter. I do give him credit for opposing the war before Clinton did, but that actually doesn't figure into my decision too strongly. I just like the vitality and energy he's bringing to the race. He's a new face. He's not entrenched in the party establishment. He's not still stuck back in the Vietnam war. He's the closest thing to youthful we've seen in a while. I'm ready to stop having baby boomers dominate every aspect of this country's culture. It's my generation's turn. If only we actually vote. (but we did, in Iowa last night!!!)
Thursday, January 3, 2008
New Year
Happy 2008!
My resolutions can be divided into 3 categories:
Happy 2008!
p.s. this post is brought to you by the following html tags: <dl>, <dt>, and <dd>
My resolutions can be divided into 3 categories:
- Maintenance
- Keep in touch with school friends. I saw about 12 of them this weekend, it was wonderful, and I am still coming down off that high. I've got to remain friends with these people because they're amazing.
- Keep Swimming. I'm pretty freaking proud of consistently dragging myself to master's swimming 3 times a week for the past year. Excercise is good. Even when there's excessive chlorine involved.
- Short Term
- Sign up for a class. I'm missing intellectual stimulation, and I'm pretty sure my brain is atrophying. Ideally, some local school is offering an evening or weekend course in AI. If not, I'll settle for just about any lit/philosophy/history class I can get into. I miss thinking.
- Commit to volunteering. Despite having my hat and coat stolen, one of the most fun things I've done in a while was volunteer through the JCC's day of service. I used to volunteer all the time in high school, but somehow I stopped in college and then never picked it up again. I miss it. Plus, it gets me out of the house. I don't know quite what to do, but there has to be some habitat for humanity or literacy tutor type thing I could sign up for.
- Up the Exercise. Swimming 3 times a week is awesome. Taking advantage of my gym membership by using any facilities at all besides the pool would be more awesome. I'm gonna make it to the Y at least 1 other time each week.
- Doctors' Appointments. I haven't seen a doctor since I graduated from college. That's bad. Also, I got authorization from my health insurance to see a therapist. Even if I'm not diagnosably depressed (though honestly, I almost certainly am), it's gotta be a good thing to see someone.
- Long(er) Term
- New Job. A while ago (maybe November of my Senior year), I confided in a friend that I was scared of taking some boring job for the money and then stagnating there for years because I was too lazy/complacent to find anything better. Well, guess what I did?
- Move. See above about lazy, complacent stagnating. I'm living with my parents. I'm 23. This is a problem.
- Apply to Grad School. I belong in school. I know this about myself. Everyone who knows me knows this about me. Why am I not there yet?
Happy 2008!
p.s. this post is brought to you by the following html tags: <dl>, <dt>, and <dd>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)