Crafting Copyright Confusion Causes Katian Craziness

(Don't hit. How often do I get to be that alliterative? ^_~)

Mini rants:

Rant 1: The need to slap up an "I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice" disclaimer on stuff like this. Why do we live in such a paranoid society? Frivilous lawsuits are actually very rare. And usually started by corporations, not individuals out to make a buck.

Rant 2:

• Clothing is a useful good.
• Useful goods cannot be copyright.
• Therefore, a clothing pattern with a standard "all rights reserved" copyright notice and nothing supplemental to that covers the pattern itself, but NOT the finished item. It is not "always illegal to make something for sale from a copyrighted pattern."
• Many designers now do include extra licensing terms. How legal these are remains to be seen, but in a society that allows click-through licenses to add additional conditions with no additional return, the odds are good they would be binding. *eye roll*

Rant 3: There is a difference between 'legal', 'ethical', and 'moral'. Going to the almighty dictionary:

• Legal: conforming to or permitted by law.
• Ethical: conforming to accepted professional standards of conduct.
• Moral: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior.

Ideally the three coincide, but something can be any one without being the other two. Especially easy to conflate are ethical and moral, but they are different. Indeed, many ethical practices are immoral. For example, a doctor or hospital who refuses to treat a mortally ill patient who can't pay may be ethically in the States (acceptable behavior of the profession), but I will look askance at you if you think that is moral.

The other thing to remember is that morality is changeable and individual. There are certain big things that society as a whole considers immoral (example: murder), but even those are changeable and debatable given the circumstances (example: killing during a war).

If you ever want to see the stages of moral development in action, watch a copyright and licensing thread on a craft board. I would probably help my sanity a lot of I'd remember that many people don't make it past level 4, "legal = right".

(In general, it's sad how many people never get past the second stage - "What's in it for me?".)

Atheist writers

I am about ready to toss in the towel looking for a good, open-minded, inclusively leaning atheist writer. My atheist friends, I really feel for you. It's not enough that you guys face major discrimination, that a majority of American voters wouldn't vote for an atheist candidate, you have to put up with this weird Freudian projection thing from opponents, that... Well, you know the laundry list better than I do. But on top of that, the representatives who get the major air time are... Well, it's about like if I were judged on the basis of Fred Phelps, Pat Buchanan, and Pat Robertson. (Never trust an evangelist named Pat.)

The two I've found who don't significantly trigger the nut-o-meter are both internet celebs. They're not really getting the big book deals and video shots.

Greta Christina's generally OK. Except when she gets angry. Then I'm the enemy and nothing I can say or do will change that unless I change a fundamental part of myself or cease to exist. Can't help you there, ma'am. If you're interested in working together to solve those problems once you calm down, gimme a shout.
PZ Myers is also OK, but I personally wouldn't really call his page an atheist blog, because he generally concentrates on science. No, the two are not the same. Which nicely leads to my biggest complaint about most of the big name, well-known (well, as well-known as possible) atheist names.

Just because I have some religious beliefs does not mean I am a flaming moron who is actively hostile to fact-based reality and has no understanding of science.

I'm an extremely fact based person. I love data. Show me a study, and I want to know your sample size and your margin of error. Show a confidence interval too, and I'll squee. (Literally. I really did the last -- OK, the one -- time I saw a confidence interval included in a mass media write-up of some study or other.) I not only support the theory of evolution in the same way I 'support', say, the theory of gravity, but furthermore, I know the difference between a theory, a hypothesis, and a law.

Yes, I have some beliefs that are not fact based. Um, so does everyone. (Any Cubs fans? Sorry, guys, but the idea that "this is their year!" is not fact-based.) I personally don't expect other people to share my non-fact-based beliefs. They don't even have to like them, but I do expect a certain basic level of respect for the fact that I have them. If someone calls me a flaming moron for the mere act of having such beliefs, he and I are not going to get along. Point blank.

OK, I'll be honest. Anyone calls me a flaming moron, he and I are not going to get along, period. Everyone's got buttons.

Usually at this point someone says "Oh, you'll like Dawkins." No, I will not like Dawkins. According to Dawkins, I'm a wishy-washy fence-sitter who doesn't have the guts to be an atheist. I'm a liberal, you see, and liberal religious apparently doesn't compute so well him for him. So we're obviously in denial.

Actually, this brings up another point. A while back I watched this chunk of a Dawkins video. No more, because after getting slapped with the insanely irrational idea that religion is the only thing that will make 'good' people do 'bad' things (uh huh. Jingoism, fear, greed, lack of survival needs, those have NEVER caused such things. It's 100% religion. *eye roll* Tell me how this is rational.), I decided that an hour of my life was worth more than that. But, at the end of that snippet, he asks how religious people (Christians in particular) decide which parts of their scriptures, traditions, etc to believe and which to toss in a rhetorical tone that supports the "don't have the guts to be an atheist" implication.

Let's say I drop a stack of scientific studies on the desk in front of you. Some of these studies are well-done and insightful. Some are poorly done and biased. Some have a broad body of work ahead of them. Some are brand new areas, wholly unique. Now, how do you decide which of these studies to believe for the time being, which should be filed away for future observation but are not yet strong enough to act on, and which to toss as complete junk?

Same thing, guys. When I decide which portions of scripture might be worth keeping around and which should just be ignored, I look at my own life, I look at the contradictions in the work itself and the relative dates they were produced, I look at what we now know scientifically (yes, data trumps scripture for me), I weigh against some base assumptions (for instance, I refuse to believe in an incompetent asshole god), I use a little judgment, and I do come back and re-evaluate every now and then. It also helps to know a little history behind some of the books in the Bible. [Not all 66 (isn't that a terribly ironic number?), but I can tell you, for instance, that the books of Ruth, Job, and Jonah were all written as fiction, not intended to be taken literally, and Revelations likely was as well. (Apocalypses were a popular literary movement at the time. And Revelations was not necessarily a description of the end of the world anyway. The Greek word used in it is 'eon', an age.) See, more data. I like crunchy bits.]

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. So, Dawkins does not work for me due to his message that anyone who does understand and agree with science is either an atheist or a closet atheist, and conversely all religious people are morons, often violent. And he's about as good as it gets in the mainstream channels. Then there's Hitchens, who's probably about the most well-known atheist writer out there from my perspective. He's also the nuttiest. I'd almost think he was responsible for the "atheism is a religion too" BS some fundies spout, because the man is a zealot. And like many zealots, he has no problem lying to promote his beliefs. (He's also terribly sexist, and an arrogant dick to boot.)

I almost think it's a conspiracy that the atheist writers/speakers who get the air time and wide distribution are the nutty, non-mainstream ones. The media has an agenda to show that there's "something wrong" with atheists, so they only let atheists who are hostile to theists have the camera. Which doesn't help me find books by intelligent, inclusively-minded atheists, and certainly doesn't help my atheist friends get treated with the basic respect and rights all humans deserve.

Zealots ruin everything.

During my last chain store visit, I was frustrated to discover that prayer shawls are going the way of the WWJD bracelet: something that had good meaning and intention when it was limited to a small group who believed in it, moved into yet another brainwashing technique, and is now on its way to becoming meaningless commercial fluff.

I suppose first I should specify that I'm talking about Christian prayer shawls, not to be confused with the Jewish Tallit or any other article of religious clothing. A Christian prayer shawl is given to someone during a time of hardship. The very original seed of the idea was a wonderful one. The idea was to mindfully knit a comforting items for a (preferably specific) person in a difficult time in their lives, keeping them in mind while working. It was to be a very spiritual, meditative practice, basically a physical manifestation of a prayer.

Well, it went wrong almost as soon as it started with The Prayer Shawl Ministry. Yes, I am aware that I'm saying the people who first codified the idea are doing it wrong. You know why? 'Cause they're doing it wrong. As soon as just about anything becomes a 'ministry', it becomes a failure at its original purpose. Why? Because the focus is no longer about helping people in need; it's about 'spreading the word of Jesus'. Only last I checked, the 'word of Jesus' was about loving and helping people. If you stop concentrating on loving and helping people in favor of talking about it, you've failed. It's a terribly tragic spiral. People are the message, and if you've put aside the people in favor of the message, you've put aside the real message.

In the case of the Prayer Shawl Ministry itself, almost immediately the focus was no longer the people in need, but rather the shawls. Prayer Shawls became yet another way for churches to get face time, and giving aid to people in pain was a convenient side effect. Many makers are not mindful, but rather crank them out, just thinking or praying for the recipient "when they come to mind" as one maker put it on Ravelry. Some churches keep a stock of them back to hand out whenever they're 'needed', which can be anything from a tragic accident to a birthday gift. It doesn't matter who gets them; it only matters who from what organization makes them. So, basically the original idea is in the toilet.

Naturally, Lion Brand yarn is very happy to help you with your Prayer Shawl. They recommend Lion Homespun. Interestingly enough, it seems that most prayer shawls are made out of Homespun. So much for grass-roots and non-profit.

Suffice to say, I'm pretty disgusted, both in how this particular idea was corrupted into a propaganda scheme, and how that seems inevitable with anything spiritual in modern American Christianity.

Eternally 15 years away...

I've got a little quote for you, and I want you to guess when it was written:

"You may think that undue stress is being laid upon this driving force in her, upon this business ability. But remember that this was fifteen years or more ago, before women had invaded the world of business by the thousands, to take their place, side by side, salary for salary, with men."

Go ahead, guess when that was written. I'll wait. When was 15 years ago before women had invaded the workforce?

... waiting...

1917! Nineteen hundred and effin' seventeen!

*snarls* I'm sick of being lied to and jerked around about women's history.
Why wasn't I taught about Nellie Bly as a child? Why wasn't I told that women journalists were normal in the late 19th century?
Why wasn't I told about the roll of women war workers in bringing about American women's suffrage? Why wasn't I told there WERE woman workers during WWI. Rosie the Riveter was nothing new; she was part of a very long tradition.
In fact, why wasn't I told that since the 1920s if not before, most women have worked at some point in their life. Yes, even during the 1950s.
What else is being hidden back there? I want to know, dammit! I want every 11-year-old girl in this country to know!

You find some really scary/shocking/annoying stuff when you start reading primary sources. >:P

Somewhat different rant, I am really truly sick of the "romantic stalker" storyline. Stalking is not romantic. Ever. It's creepy and stalkers should be forced to have regular talks with Mr. Police Man about why it is not appropriate behavior. And a shrink would be good too.
And the storyline itself is un-freakin'-believably insulting. "Women don't really know what's best for them or what they want. Here, this terribly creepy man knows what you want better than you do. Give up your free will and self-determination and give in to him. He won't go away until you do." And this is supposed to be romantic? Who do I need to strangle?

And off of that, I'm really sick of certain men trying to tell me what women want and what women think. What the hell makes them think that they are more qualified than me on this topic? Last I checked, I'm the one with boobs!

I need to knit me one of these for moments like this, I think. I wonder what ever happened to the stuffed rat creature I used to keep around for when I needed to smack something around and shout "stupid STUPID rat creature!"

I need to rage.

There's a number of things I want to rage about, and I'm having a hard time deciding, so I think I'll go rage about rape. It is very rage-able.

I know it's old, but did you hear about this case? There is a fairly recent (and not positive) update, though. In a rape trial, the victim was slapped with a gag order preventing her and the prosecutors from using the words “victim,” “assailant,” “rape,” “date rape drugs,” “sexual assault kit,” and “sexual assault.” The only terms she was allowed to use in her testimony to describe what happened were "sex", "sexual intercourse" and "intercourse".

Where does a woman even start with the rage here? Can you imagine a burglary case where the judge banned the use of the words "theft", "stole", and "crime scene investigation", and only allowed the words "transaction" and "property transfer" to define the crime? Can you imagine that judge keeping his job? Can you imagine the media not being all over that? But put "Tory Bowen" (the woman's name) into a news search at Google, and only 6 results come up!

I will never be allowed on a rape jury. Why? Because I know the mere fact that I'm there means there's a 95% chance the guy is guilty, and about a 5% chance he'll be convicted, and about a literal 1% chance overall that he'll do any time for it.

A little look at the statistics shows why justice for raped women is almost an impossibility. You know what statistics I want to see shoved down our throats as much as the one-in-four? I want everyone to be told just as often that at least 1 in 8 men is a rapist, and that 1 in 2 think it's OK "under certain circumstances" (which are typically everyday things -- spending a lot of money on her, she's wearing the wrong thing, they've been going out for a while, etc.).

Now, assuming you have a rape trial jury that's only half male (I suspect they're typically more than half male), that means there is a 55% chance that there will be a rapist on the jury. And a 98% chance that at least 1 of the male jurors will think rape is OK. When you consider all the men that are involved in a rape trial -- maybe police officers, maybe doctors, maybe lawyers, maybe the judge -- it's practically a guarantee that a rapist will be in at least one key position in the trial.

How can we ever expect justice in that sort of environment?

There is something seriously wrong with the way rape is presented to men as opposed to women. As I've ranted before, I was taught that rape was the absolutely worst thing that could possibly happen to me, far worse than even being murdered. That's so fucked up. And yet I think that my upbringing was pretty typical in this regard. I'm quite certain it wasn't terribly atypical.

I do not believe that half of all men are monsters. I don't believe that even 12% of them are.

Therefore I must believe that large portions -- no, humongous portions! At least half, as a matter of fact! -- of the male population is not taught to view rape NEARLY as severely as women are.

This needs to change.

Worse, somehow we need to lessen the way women as a group view rape while strengthening the way men as a group view it. I'd like to see both genders view rape as an assault. If someone gets stabbed, few people ask what they did to deserve it, or blame the victim for it happening, or expect the victim to be ruined for life. Likewise, few people think that it's OK to stab someone "under certain circumstances" (and certainly not under fairly everyday ones), and I'm almost certain that the number of men who have stabbed someone is significantly less than 1 in 8.

Sometimes other people embarrass me.

First and foremost, I'm fed up and so I'm just going to say it.

If someone's opinion depends on the idea that science has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, they are not worthy of serious debate.

If their opinion depends on the idea that science has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and that religion does not, they don't deserve to be talked to like an adult unless they've shown critical thinking skills elsewhere.

Ditto on that last part for governments or corporations.

---

Not related to that last part, but have you ever read something so stupid that you are embarrassed for the writer, even though you don't know them?
I've been getting that every time I see an article by Grace Hutton on Fiber Femmes. Every time she has one, she sounds like a flaming moron. Her articles are poorly researched, poorly thought out rants.
Take Predator Friendly -- Not Me. There are organizations out there that encourage livestock owners not to kill naturally occurring predators. There are areas with a near-natural wildlife balance where this is practical. She doesn't live in one; she apparently lives in an area where the black bear population is greater than the natural wildlife can support. Fine, predator-friendly livestock management is not a viable option for her. There's nothing wrong with that. But no, she has to go off on how the very concept is stupid, and makes herself look like a complete moron in the process. Some representative, but non-exhaustive examples:

1. She complains that yearly elk calf survival in Yellowstone is 14 calves per 100 elk cows, and obviously this horrible number must be because of predators.
1. Problem: Wild elk have an average lifespan of 10 to 13 years, which means the sustainable replacement rate is 7 to 10 elk per 100. So, depending on the number of males in that population and the adult lifespan for same, that could very well be a sustainable number.
2. Problem: Predation is not the only cause of death. There's also disease (sometimes transmitted, interestingly enough, by livestock), human hunting/poaching, lack of correct food, and so on.
2. She says that the Pennsylvania Game Commission advised her to bait her electric fence with bacon so that bears will learn this is not a place they want to be, and then states "Bear baiting and dog fights are regarded to be cruelty of the worst sort."
1. Hold on, so she's in Pennsylvania. Then what in the world does Yellowstone, a completely different ecosystem 1500 miles away, have to do with her situation?
2. 'Bear baiting' was the practice of using a bear as bait for dogs, not of baiting the bear. The term is sometimes used for a hunting practice of leaving bait for a bear until it has established a pattern of taking it, and then waiting for the bear to show up and shoot it. It has nothing to do with developing a negative association in the bear against your property.
3. She attempts to redefine predator to include parasites, so she can then dismiss the idea of predatory-friendly as ludicrous because it protects parasites. *eye roll*
4. And at the end of the article, we have a nice little appeal to tradition. Killing predators was good enough for her ancestors, dammit, so it's good enough for her, and anyone who "ignores the lessons of history" must be a moron. Ma'am, I'd like to point out that one of the lessons of that exact same history and those very same ancestors is that if you eliminate the natural prey sources and provide an alternative one, you're going to have closer encounters with predators, while at the same time if you eliminate all of the predators you're going to have a terrible time with destructive, unchecked prey animals.

That was bad enough, but then I looked through some of the archives at the site, and found an article that made me want to curl up and whine, and then take her hand and say "Honey, you're making a complete ass of yourself. "'Ethical' Issues with Wool".

The very first sentence: "Lately what is making me so mad my hair is about to catch on fire is the notion that there are “ethical” issues with using wool."

The article argues that there are absolutely no ethical issues with wool. That's ludicrous! I've previously ripped PETA a new one for their misrepresentation of the issues, but going to the other extreme is just as insane and irresponsible. Again, let's take some key, but non-exhaustive, points from this article.

1. "Most of the plant and man-made fibers require some powerful chemicals to dye them pretty colors. Wool on the other hand can be dyed permanently with food safe colors - - think Kool Aid and Easter egg dyes plus diluted vinegar." This one's my favorite.
   
1. Yes, you heard it here. There were absolutely positively NO dyed cotton or linen ever before the invention of industrial aniline dyes in 1856. Except, um, there were. Even today some of our cotton jeans are dyed with indigo. Plant fibers can be dyed very well with natural dyes and safe mordants.
2. Food safe dyes on wool do not produce results that most people would call "permanent". They are infamously fragile and prone to fading, not to mention generally starting in very pastel shades.
2. She brings in the cattle industry, and then denies that existence of factory farms that never pasture their cows. Not only is that delusional, it's not even remotely topical. Last I checked, cows don't produce wool.
3. Because short-tailed sheep exist and there is an "ethnic market" (her term) that desires uncastrated lambs, the issues of tail docking and castration without anesthesia simply do not exist. She's not arguing that they aren't as cruel as they seem to an uninformed outsider; she's saying that because it is not an issue in all cases, it is not an issue in any case.

Every industry and every fiber has ethical issues. Cotton is usually raised with massive amounts of pesticides and fertilizers. Even organic cotton requires massive amounts of water, which is not a problem in some areas but could be in others. Hemp is illegal to grow in the U.S. Synthetics produce pollution. Corn can use genetically modified plants, with the issues that come with them. Soy fibers are a biproduct of a food industry that pumps them into foods as cheap filler with no regard for the long-term health effects of the extra plant estrogens. Cashmere can be made finer by underfeeding the goat from which it comes, and overgrazing is leading to widespread desertification. Sheep can be treated poorly, their waste can be managed poorly, or wool can be imported from countries with serious human rights violations. Any and all fibers can be harvested or produced and processed with dangerous chemicals, and by child labor, political prisoners, or underpaid workers.

It's up to each individual to determine what the ethical issues are with each fibers, and which best align with their values. Thus for some people acrylic is preferable to leather ethically, and for others the reverse is true. By all means address and, if possible, correct the ethical concerns with your own fiber of choice. But pretending that those simply don't exist is flat-out delusional.

Men's Crafts versus Women's Crafts

OK, first off, apologies for the title. Naturally there's no such thing as a "man's" craft or a "woman's" craft. I don't know of a single craft done with the use of a penis, and you could probably use a dildo if there was. Likewise female genitalia is not used in any craft I can think of. So properly speaking, the title should be "Predominately men's crafts versus predominately women's crafts." But that's not as pithy and doesn't fit in the subject line as well. And certainly doesn't let me share the mental image of penile and vaginal craft projects.

Anyway, what I'm actually hear to talk about are attitudes towards intellectual property rights in scroll sawing and wood carving (traditionally male-dominated crafts) and knitting, crocheting, and sewing (traditionally female-oriented crafts). For some reason, women seem to be a LOT more stingy about the IPRs. You would be hard pressed to find a modern fiber craft book that does not have a "patterns may be made for personal use only" disclaimer in the front. I've seen ones that try to put limits on how many copies you can make for yourself to mark up as you work -- copies no one else ever even sees.

On the other hand, you pop open a scroll saw book or magazine, and there's good odds that there's advice on how to sell what you've made from the patterns. (For example, Scroll Saw Scandinavian has a nice little section on how best to display the items it's giving you patterns for.) Not to say I've never seen the complaint about someone making money off of a designer's work. I did once, from someone who walked into a Hallmark store and saw hundreds of lasercut ornaments made with his pattern and without a license.

Ladies, what are we doing here? They're worried about mass production; we're worried about a church raffle. Why is this?

I know it's not that the men's crafts are harder or slower. I've been knitting and crocheting since I was a kid, but give me a choice of making a coaster with an elaborate design with yarn or on the scroll-saw, and I'll be down making some sawdust. It's so much faster.

Are men more secure in their IPs? I'll be the first to admit that men's crafts are more respected; it's much rarer for a woodworker to be told "you know, you can buy one of those" compared to a yarn artist. The hypothetical coasters: I strongly suspect the scroll-sawed one will get more wow's than the yarn.

I don't think the men's crafts have a larger customer base, and I'm quite certain that's not the cause in any event. In the 1980s, when knitting was a terribly niche market, many American patterns had a limited license (allowance to make 100 items/year for sale, or for 'pin money', or some other non-mass-production commercial use OK).

Is it related to the way women are taught to hate each other and view each other as competition? This is the one I always suspect, although I wouldn't try to say whether it's an effect or part of a cause. Is it really that horrible for your work to help another woman ease her financial burden? It's insanely rare for a crafter to be in direct competition with the designer selling the finished article, and the sort of person who would buy the pattern is not the sort to buy the finished article. (Otherwise we wouldn't be in this knitting thing; it's faster and cheaper to buy sweaters from the store.) So why not let other women sell what they've made?

I'd really like to see women's crafts open sharing back up. I mean, isn't it cool to think that the thing you designed has helped pay for another woman's car, or a meal, or a doctor's visit? Or even just a couple of balls of yarn? Designers don't have to close it off to individuals in order to prevent mass manufacturing. Heck, you will almost never see me suggest this, but grab a Creative Commons license. Instead of worrying about small losses, let's think about the big helps we can provide.

A Customer Profile

While I was out shopping, I picked up the latest issue of Beadwork magazine, and one of the "bead biz" articles caught my eye. It was describing a particular kind of art jewelry customer:

• Regular customer
• "used to buy a lot more from you, but still comes to see you on a regular basis for little purchases"
  
• Perhaps in her 50s
• Dresses well.
• Knows your name, a bit about you, often asks about your husband and children
• Comes to all the shows; maybe even brings cookies to her favorite vendors

So why was this person being described? Kind of customer to cultivate? Maybe tips on how to get back the "a lot" she used to buy?
Nope. "Every shoplifter we have ever caught in our store or at our bead show has fit this profile somewhat."

Much of that doesn't surprise me, but what blows my mind is the "knows you, a bit about you, and asks about your husband and kids" part. I can understand people who steal from people they don't know: the "they'll never miss it" attitude, the belief that this stranger can afford the loss, the idea that you're not hurting a real human. But to know someone as an individual, to know them by name and family, to know that they really can't spare it, and to take from them anyway... I just can't imagine looking at the world that way.

Then again, my step-cousin did steal my poverty-line-hovering mother blind, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Still. *shakes head*

Blog Anti-Torture Day

The Bush administration claims that torture is a crucial interrogation method, absolutely essential to "keeping America safe".

This is bullshit.

First and foremost, torture is not an effective interrogation technique. Even the most cursory glance at history will tell you this. Witch hunts? Inquisition? Any of these ring a bell? Even today, name me one specific, documented, imminent terrorist attack that has been thwarted by torture tactics. I mean the same detail that was released when the 2006 airline liquids ban went into place: expected dates, expected targets, actual means to do so in the near future. If torture is so critical, then after 6 years there ought to be at least one case the Bush administration could trot out whenever challenged, one instance where they could say "had we not used these tactics, then on Nov 23, 2005, approximately 700 people would have been killed due to a bomb explosion in Time Square" or something similar.

There's not. The administration and its lackeys may like to say that "we've stopped dozens of potential attacks because of this", but why should we believe it when not a single one is at a stage where definite, concrete details can be given -- as they were the day the liquids ban went into place?

Now, think about this a little more, and get scared. If torture is not an effective interrogation technique, why is it being used?

Let me point something out. Torture is a common war tactic to demoralize a populace. Vietnam showed us this. So did WWII, and probably every war before that. The point of torture as a war tactic is not just the person being tortured. At least as important, often more so, is the populace scared into inaction by fear of that torture.

This is also why it's a very common tactic of terrorist groups. Since the start of the Iraq war, how many journalists/aid workers/others have been kidnapped in the Middle East and tortured on video in attempts to scare the torturers' enemies into complying with their demands? Enough to have kept the media busy for a while.

When we do the same, we are the same. When we use terrorist tactics, we are morally no different than any terrorist group. Having large funding and government approval makes such tactics more onerous, not less.

The trick when using torture as a war (or terror) tactic is for your enemies to know about it, and your proponents not to. Now I have to point out that many Iraqs outside the prison knew about Abu Ghraib long before the American press caught wind of it. Hmm...

The catch is, the Bush administration didn't keep the cat in the bag very well. Now, America is supposed to be a civilized country. We don't like that kind of thing. But, the administration wasn't about to abandon their torture tactics, so their task became making us like, or at least tolerate, them. Which is more likely to garner that result: "we want to use it to terrify a populace into submission", or "we want to use it to keep you, each and every one of you, safe."

Don't think for a second that torture tactics are really about protecting us; they're not. That's merely a smoke screen, a ruse to get the American people to look the other way. Torture tactics are an unacceptable means to an unjustifiable end, and America's citizens should demand that they be stopped.

Teeth

Some of you may have seen this already, but for those of you who haven't, the story. Rachel Nabors is a comic book artist, living paycheck to paycheck like most young (and many not-so-young) people in US society today. She has a severe cross-bite that is causing the bone of her jaw to thin. This needs to be treated in the near future, or the damage will become too severe to fix, and she risks losing her teeth. The procedure costs $25,000. Rachel doesn't have insurance, so at the encouragement of her friends, she's asking for donations.

Now, let me toss in a little from my own experience. I'm currently wearing braces. Before they first went on, I had to have four permanent teeth removed in addition to the four wisdom teeth that shouldn't have been left there as long as they were. So, from my own experience:

Insurance wouldn't help. Not enough. It might cover the surgical portion of it, IF it's considered a medical procedure instead of a dental one. (Goofiest thing. On me, the anesthesia was covered by medical, but the extraction was dental.) If it's dental... No, not gonna help much. 8 extractions put me WELL over my yearly dental coverage limit. I ended up paying several hundred dollars out of pocket. Even if she had really good dental insurance, that would maybe knock off $2K from the $25K if the surgery was considered dental.

The orthodontia, nothing covers. No insurance if you're over 23, no federal benefits, nothing. Both insurance companies and the federal government say that orthodontia is always cosmetic for adults.
Bull shit.
I would not be having this done for cosmetic reasons. Because of my age, I've developed one exposed root and two or three partially exposed roots as a complication from the procedure (which may or may not heal after the braces are off), it's excruciatingly painful some days, and it is really helluva expensive! And, I will probably be wearing a retainer every night for the rest of my life. No, the reason I'm having it done is because my choices were have my teeth straightened and keep them for the rest of my life, or come in for more fillings every few years until they finally had to be pulled and replaced with dentures. As an added benefit, I no longer have a tooth literally cutting into my tongue, which is nice.
Furthermore, if it's cosmetic for adults, it's cosmetic for children. That's a bullshit excuse to cut off all adults from help.

This is not something Rachel "got herself into". This would not be addressed if she were somehow "more responsible" or "got a real job with insurance". She's a victim of a shitty system, and there's lots of people out there. So:
1) she could use some help. It is a serious problem, not just a cosmetic issue. Please donate if you can. (Just click on the banner, and it'll take you to a page with the full story and a donate button.)
2) it's time Americans started holding our politicians feet to the fire and demanding that this country act like it has citizens instead of walking resources fit for exploitation.

The Clueless Rich

I rarely go onto "banter" or "OT" sections of forums, because the assholes feel even more free to be there than on-topic locations. But I foolishly clicked such a thread, and saw someone insist this regarding estate taxes (which do kick in or are proposed to kick in, I'm not sure which, at $2 million):

"In saying that $2 million in wealth doesn't make you wealthy, I was thinking of a retired person with a good home and a nest egg that they lived off of, since that is usually who is passing on an estate. If $500,000 is the home value, then $1.5 million is used to generate your income for retirement, the person could probably get about 10% per year to live off of which would be $150,000."

1) Half a million dollar home? In some American markets that's downright ostentatious, in others it would be reasonable for a family home, but in all cases I know of, that would be an overly large house for a retired couple.
2) $150,000/year nicely qualifies someone as the top-most 10% of the economy, maybe the top 5% (top 2% starts at $200K) -- in other words, RICH. Even more so with an elderly person, as the rest of us are expected to cut our spending in half once we leave the work force. (At least according to the few remaining pension plans out there.)
3) That's $150,000/year without touching the principle! Most responsible retirement planning for people who aren't rich involves carefully managing depletion of principle, so that a person does not end up broke and perhaps leaves behind a moderate inheritance, but enjoys most of the spoils of what they earned in their youth. The only people who can bring in $150K a year without touching principle are, again, RICH.
4) This is all beside the point anyway, because the estate tax is charged on the heirs, not the cute old grandparently couple the speaker is trying (and failing) to make us sympathize with.

Yes, $2 million in wealth DOES make you wealthy, ya selfish dumbass.

Duelling Billboards!

OK, this is just fun: Duelling with the "God Speaks" billboards.

Now, I will admit that I had a "That 'love that neighbor' thing? I mean that." T-shirt, and loved it. Was very sad when the cotton wore out, and I'd happily get another. (Was even sadder when my "Love 'em all, let God sort 'em out" shirt wore out, because they're not made any more. :( ) I like the shot at the way the more important tenants of Christianity have been ignored in favor of trivial, superceded, and hate-mongering ones.
And I find a lot of the Godspeaks stuff fairly innocuous.
But then they ran out of good ones, and started getting annoying and insulting. Like, say, the "Big Bang theory? You've gotta be kiddin' me" one. Good way to take already non-Universal statements, narrow the fuck out of them, and make them insulting to those outside the circle. Do you really think that's going to encourage people to join your side?

Anyway, enjoy the hypocrisy smack-down. I did. :)

The person Kati would like to slap today.

Dr. Nicholas Christakis, for his conclusions that obesity is contagious. He analyzed data from a study from one town (Framingham, Massachusetts), and found a correlation of friends becoming obese with other friends. "It did not even matter if the friend was hundreds of miles away - the influence remained." Conclusion: having fat friends makes you fat.

*smoldering rage*

*Slap!* *Slap!*

Hello! OBVIOUS cause-effect fallacy here. What makes people friends? Similar interests and attitudes. Similarities are further enhanced by growing up in the same town. The obesity correlation is FAR more likely to be caused by shared factors than by interpersonal influence. For hypothetical example: Joe didn't become fat because Bob did; Bob and Joe both became fat because they share a love of drawn butter and a hatred of jogging. The fact that physical separation does not affect the correlation supports my hypothesis FAR more than it supports Dr. Christakis's, and in fact should have eliminated (or at least greatly reduced attention to) the possibility of direct interpersonal influence. If your friend is hundreds of miles away, and your friendship is either not being maintained, or maintained by telephone, e-mail, and letters, you very well may not know that your friend has gained weight. If you don't, there's no way your friend's weight can affect you. But, the shared influences will remain.

I question Dr. Christakis' ability as a researcher that he did not consider (or dismissed) the more obvious and likely conclusion here in favor of the more discriminatory and fear-mongering one.

An Economic Thought

And perhaps one that shows my ignorance on just what Ben Bernanke is thinking at any given time, but let me throw it out there nonetheless. And, BTW, forgive that this entry is very Ameri-centric.

Interest rates have been kept low for ages to "encourage economic growth." But, on the level of private citizens, the economy has been in the crapper for years, and now the word 'recession' is being bandied about.

Now, theoretically, high interest rates encourage saving, and low interest rates encourage borrowing and spending.

But, a private individual can only borrow so much before they've reached the point where they can't pay it back. Have we reached the point where we as a citizenry are tapped out, and lower interest rates are hurting the situation by giving us no way to build real assets?

Worse, have we reached a point where corporate and individual good are diametrically opposed. It is often to a corporation's benefit to borrow money, use it for development, and pay it back later rather than spend there own. This is especially true since bankruptcy laws are SO much more lenient for corporations than individuals. (Individuals can declare bankruptcy only once in a lifetime. Corporations can declare multiple times, with less obligation attached.)

But, individuals are rarely in a position where it's beneficial to borrow, spend, and pay back later.

Now, add on that many corporations are doing most of their investing overseas. In other words, the money they borrow here is not being spent here, and so is not enriching out economy as a whole. In that case, are lower interest rates actually hurting us by funneling resources out of our country faster?

After all, the last several years have proven that "business" can be doing well, while the population as a whole, the people, are doing very poorly.

In Honor of Women's History Month

Here's a picture from the women's suffrage movement (with a little commentary):




You know, it kind of reminds me of this post about the confusion of sexual desire and sexual agency, and especially Nenena's remark on how every blog she's seen defending the Playboy Wonder Woman cover as "empowering" has been a man's, and Lost_angelwings' agreeing snark "Women have no idea what empowers us and what we want. If we want empowerment we need guys to give it to us, that's true female empowerment!"

That's not priviledge.

Someone linked me to this blog entry, which in turn links to a list of "women's privileges". What we have here is either a serious problem with reality perception, or Satire Fail.  Either way, we have Fail. As great a job as Rachel does ripping it, I'd like to give my own spin on it, given my own life experiences.

1. I am physically able to give birth to another human being, and then do my best to mold her or him into the kind of person I choose.
Other than my derisive laugh at the second half, I think Rachel covers that nicely.

2. I am not automatically expected to be the family breadwinner.
We are expected to work outside the home full time, AND be solely responsible for all child care duties, AND be solely responsible for all daily internal household maintenance. Since it is assumed we are not the family breadwinners, even if in fact we are, we will be paid 80%-90% as much as our male coworkers in equivalent positions. The laws will not protect us from this in any but the sloppiest of cases, as false documentation to support claims of inferior performance is insanely easy.

3. I feel free to wear a wide variety of clothes, from jeans to skimpy shorts to dresses as appropriate, without fear of ridicule.
We are expected to both possess and be able to perfectly match a near-infinite combination of clothing, and will be punished if we fall short of perfection. Punish may range from derision, to pay cuts, to rape and murder.

4. I can choose to remain seated to meet most people.
*sputter* Can I just say "Um, no"? That is so 1950s. That issue simply does not exist anymore. No one rises for someone merely because they are a woman. If I am meeting a supplier, customer, or other guest at my company, I MUST rise to shake hands just like everyone else. No one gets out of their seat when I enter a room, unless one of us is a guest and we're shaking hands.

5. I am not ashamed to ask for others’ perspectives on an issue.
We may, however, be declared technically incompetent if we do so and suffer a penalty to we pay. Men asking similar questions will be praised for "seeking out mentoring" and rewarded monetarily.

6. I feel free to exhibit a wide range of emotions, from tears to genuine belly laughter, without being told to shut up.
Not true. Perhaps in a casual setting, where men are also allowed to more freely exhibit emotion, but in a professional setting, women are allowed LESS expression of freedom. A man breaks into tears: "Oh my God, Joe, what's wrong?" It must be legitimate. A woman breaks into tears? Oh, it's probably nothing, she's just hysterical. If a man starts yelling, it is usually assumed he is legitimately angry and actions are taken to change this. A woman is just getting hysterical. A man laughing is relaxed; a woman isn't taking things seriously enough.

7. My stereotypical excesses in shopping, clothes, jewelry, personal care and consumption of chocolate usually are expected, even the source of jokes.
This is privilege? Even under their definition, if you indulge in one of these hobbies, you will be made fun of? That's not even getting into the fact that it's assumed a woman will indulge in them.
Actually, I'll go one better. "I am expected to take excess in these areas. If I do, I will be mocked for it. If I do not, I will be declared abnormal and be punished for it."

8. Public policies generally offer me an opportunity to bond with my offspring.
What does that even mean? There's 12 weeks unpaid family leave in the US, but that's for both genders. There's no public child care. Best I can figure, this is "there is a good chance I will be forced to leave my profession and take full responsibility for all child care whether I like it or not due to a lack of support or affordable day care."

9. I am among the first to get off a sinking ship.
Um, wha? Well, I see someone watched "Titanic". That is so not the case anymore. If it ever was.

10. I can usually find someone with superior strength to help me overcome physically challenging obstacles, such as changing a tire or cutting a huge Christmas tree.
Going with Rachel here again. We'll be assumed to be incapable despite actual ability or personal desire.

11. Changing my mind is seen as a birthright or prerogative.
And so our decisions are never taken serious, and the reasons behind changes in stance are wholly ignored in favor of "well, you know how women are."

12. I feel free to explore alternate career paths instead of being bound to a single career ladder.
Can I get another "Um, wha?" Oh, no, I see what they're talking about. Every time we hit the goddamn glass ceiling and have to change jobs to get around it, we're supposed to be thrilled. It's an "alternate career path", not getting screwed like a rabbit on Viagra.

13. I am used to asking for help, around the kitchen table or the proverbial water cooler or the conference room.
Again, not true. Women I know rarely ask for help. We're supposed to help others, not need it themselves. When we do ask for help, we're often denied it. In professional settings, just like #5, we will again be assumed to be incompetent and punished monetarily. Men behaving in the same manner are "seeking mentoring opportunities" and rewarded.

14. People I’ve never met are inclined to hold doors open and give up their seats for me.
Rachel covers the reasons this was, and I'll throw on another "completely outdated" to sweeten the deal.

15. I can be proud of the skill I have worked to develop at stretching limited financial resources.
So, all women will be forced to stretch limited financial resources. Well, I'll grant that it's a lot more likely for women than men, statistically speaking. Men who are in that situation are also allowed to be proud of it, last I knew.  

16. I am not ashamed of using alternatives to positional power to reach my goals.
Conventional methods will be blocked to us and we will be forced to manipulate the system. We will then be punished for being for being manipulative

17. I know how to put a new roll of toilet paper in use and am not above doing it for the next person.
Men do not know how to install toilet paper? Men are selfish assholes? I don't believe that. (Guys, you need to have a fit when people like this try to talk for you!) 

18. I am not ashamed to admit that the decisions I make reflect my personal values.
All decisions will be assumed to have been made on some "gut instinct" or "intuition", and no amount of data will cause us to be taken seriously in some cases.

19. I am not afraid to create and maintain honest relationships with others.
Well, let's see. We're taught other women, and perhaps we ourselves, are "catty" and unworthy of friendship. We're taught that men will use us and harm us. Sorry, I've got to say that society actually tries to isolate women. Actually, it tries to isolate everyone, but that's getting deeper than I have time for.

20. I do not fear being accused of having an ethic of care in my professional life.
I fear it! It means "that was your last promotion. You're too weak to keep moving upwards. Why don't you go have some babies or something?"

21. When I enter an office, I am likely to encounter those who can help me “in low places.”
Because those who can help us in high places won't give us the time of day, thus forcing us to manipulate the system from below. We'll then, again, be punished for being manipulative.

22. I am more likely to get hugs than handshakes, depending on the situation.
So help me God, the first time a supplier or customer hugs me, my knee is going straight in his groin soooo hard and sooooo fast, I don't care who the hell he is. It is not a privilege to be treated like a child or a plaything instead of a professional peer

A little aside here. It really annoys the hell out of me when a man I'm being introduced to shakes my hand like he's afraid he's going to break it. Dude, just return the level of pressure I'm giving you. I personally have never received the two-fingered "pixie" handshake, but I did have one guy try to turn my hand horizontal.

23. I am less likely to be seen as a threat, which allows me more subtle alternatives.
Do I need to do the "I will be forced to be manipulative and then punished for it" again. How about pointing out that "not seen as a threat" can be spin for "not taken seriously."

24. I can use men’s “sheer fear of tears” to my advantage.
*points and laughs* Suuuure. Need a bridge in New York? Got one I'll sell ya cheap.

25. I can complain that these female privileges are relatively minor compared with the vast assortment of dominant male privileges, but I wouldn’t change places for the world.
I'd change places in a heartbeat, myself.
Damn, I wish I remembered all the words to "If I had a penis". *sings* "If I had a penis, I'd still be a girl. But I'd make lots more money and take over the world."

What's the Worst That Could Happen?

The global warming "controversy" is an excellent example of why I ignore the American news media. In the 1990s, more than half of news stories on global warming said it wasn't happening, or there was doubt as to whether it was happening. A examination of a randomly selected sample of 10% of the peer-reviewed scientific studies on global warming published during the same time period, a sample size of thousands of papers, found that not a single one doubted global warming.
50+%, versus none. I'm forced to conclude that either the American news media was lying to us, or they couldn't identify a reputable source if their life depended on it. Either way, the end conclusion is that they are absolutely worthless.