Tuesday August 1st, 2006Previous Entry | Archive Index | Current Blog | Next Entry
And on the tack of being controversial, Ann was asked and repeated that Bill Clinton might be gay, since, of course, many people recognize that wild promiscuity in men is often the result of a secret homosexuality. The hypocrisy of this assertion is incredible, with conservatives like Ann insisting homosexuality is a choice-- sounds like Bill is "choosing" what conservatives would have him choose. Whether you agree with that or not, however, the real point is-- how is this in the least relevant? Finally, she was asked if the war in Lebanon is correct, or if it just glorifies Hezbollah's cause-- she replied it is right to attack one's enemies. And when asked how a chicken farm and a Christian town qualified as enemies, she said, well, that's collateral damage, too bad, that's why it's called war. So, when innocents die, it's dismissed as collateral damage, eh? How many of the victims of 9/11 were wearing uniforms that day? Thanks, Ann, for belittling the very foundation of any civilization-- it's citizenry. That thankyou, by the way, was sarcasm, just in case you are once again willing to discuss "words."
O'Rourke makes the book approachable with humor, knowing when to cut the numbers and statistics short, and expertly weaving human details of his experiences in with the over-arching discussion of one country or another's economic landscape. Through the course of the book he visits: The New York Stock Exchange, Albania, Sweden, Cuba, Russia, Tanzania, Honk Kong, and Shanghai. He has many drinks in each place, meets people both low and high on the economic ladder, and details the culture that is either the cause of the result of each place's economic history. The end result is a fairly comprehensive picture. By the end of the book he concludes that, more or less, democracy and a free market are the best shots at good economies, allowing for the best opportunities for citizens. He points out that general poverty benefits specific wealth, (a notion I myself have been professing for years), but he also notes that specific wealth does not cause specific poverty-- its pointless to blame one's destitution on another's success. Then again, he wrote this all before Enron, so who knows if he's elaborated since then. All told, I would recommend this book to pretty much anyone, even those who feel they have an adequate grip on economics, because even when not being informative, P.J. O'Rourke is entertaining.
I guess this makes sense. Fisherman shouldn't butcher cattle, and politicians shouldn't develop pharmaceuticals. But it seems to me that this makes Eschenbach a politician now, and his decision to approve Plan B will be a political decision, which will mean it has political consequences. Which will mean the Morning After Pill will be used as a political tool. It already is being used as a tool, of course. Conservatives say the pill will promote promiscuity in teens. Ultra conservatives say rapists will use it to cover up evidence (I am not making this up). I say the pill will just make it more likely affluent, educated women will avoid pregnancy more often than poor women. We're all idiots. Show me the statistics that say there are legions of young girls who's only obstacle to sex is the desire to do so without a condom or the pill but without getting pregnant. Show me the statistics that the vast majority of rapists are convicted based on habeas fetus. And just because the poor can't afford something doesn't mean the rich shouldn't have it too. Whatever it is, it seems to be more hypocrisy. Plan B is just a reformulation of birth-control drugs, packaged to make it convenient-- any woman with a prescription for the pill and few instructions from her doctor can achieve the same results (the again, if she's on the pill, she shouldn't need to). And prescriptions for the pill are NOT limited to only girls 18 and older. The message, thus, is clear: get on the pill when you reach puberty, and then you can stop taking it when you hit 18. What we REALLY need is a Morning Before Pill-- give it to boys on Friday and Saturday mornings, so that in the evening their libidos crash and no one gets pregnant. Oh, wait, they do have that already. It's called Nintendo.
|
Ann Coulter was on "Hardball with Chris Matthews" a few days ago, defending her book, and according to herself, being forced to defend the "words" she used as opposed to the content. So be it, Ann, we'll try not let your words get in the way of your meaning. The interview was largely controversial, which, in my opinion, does no one any good, but then again, it's literally the first time I've ever seen Chris Matthews, so I have no idea if that's his usual style. At any rate, when asked more than once if she though the kind of things she was writing was doing anyone any good, she replied that having five fat bestsellers was proof enough that her formula was the correct one. In other words, she expertly dodged the question; after all, Jerry Springer's show is hugely popular, and on would argue that it's an important, useful part of America's culture development.
Just finished Eat the Rich, by P.J. O'Rourke. It might be a tad out of date, having been published in 1998, but it also took more than a few years to write, and quoted sources that O'Rourke himself knows are suspect. P.J. is no slouch writer, and so what the book might lack, eight years later, in timeliness, he already made up for by approaching his subject from the angle of an understanding world economics in general, not a particular economic phenomena as it developed.
Dr. von Eschenbach announced yesterday that the FDA would begin moving toward approving Plan B for sale to women 18 and older as an over-the-counter drug. But Hillary Clinton and Patt Murray say Eschenbach, as interim head, only made the announcement to defer opposition to his appointment as permanent head of the FDA, hearings for which are going on right now in the Senate. Clinton and Murray said they would block a final vote on the appointment until Plan B was officially approved.
Probably the only school-board race that the country pays attention to, the Kansas BoE is up for grabs again this November, as half of the ten seats are up for re-election, with four of those five seats being held currently by conservatives. The board has been going back and forth between conservative and liberal majorities for over ten years now, with the swaying taking chunks out of each sides' evolution platform. Conservatives claim to have given up the religionesque themes of Intelligent Design, and want to merely raise "scientific" criticisms of the theory of evolution. My title for this section was supposed to be funny, of course, but seriously-- how can the conservatives not think evolution is a viable explanation, when their very debate is literally evolving as they speak?