Well, I know there are actually people out there who read this blog, and hence may be disappointed/relieved to find that I haven’t published any new posts for a while. Let me assure you that things will pick up again, but maybe not for a little while.
I am currently involved in a very inspiring project which is taking up pretty much all of my oodles and oodles of spare time (ha, ha) and in order to give this project my very best (which is what it deserves) I have had to put the blog on the back burner.
I am sure that when you are presented with the fruits of my labour – which you will be – you’ll agree that it was worth it. Even if the world will temporarily have to live without important insights about, say, the benefits of Emeril Lagasse over Rachael Ray (the former cooks for pleasure and gets so turned on by it the audience blushes, while the latter darts about the kitchen trying to please a seemingly endless stream of visitors) or the pros and cons of school report cards for 5-year-olds (“progressing well in all academic areas but needs frequent reminders to be respectful of others and to follow classroom rules” – jeez! I’m 35, and still need frequent reminders of those same things!)
In order to avoid the situation where you stop checking in altogether, I might just have to publish occasional mysterious comments about how the Big Project is going, or quiz-like questions such as “please explain, in no more than 2000 words, the identity of No 6 along with his societal and personal significance”.
What I do definitely promise is that I will keep you posted – eventually.
PS. For some reason, I have been plagued recently by an inexplicable longing for damp, British B&B's with creaking beds, G&T's by the fire and mornings so cold the only remote chance of warming up again is to fill up with the carb-and-cholesterol overload called a full English breakfast. In order to combat this irrational wish for death-by-floral-wallpaper, a long weekend has been booked at what is supposedly one of the best hotels this side of the Rockies. (They had a special deal for the spring break - I'll be sure to report back to you whether they kept the five star staff on for the week or replaced them with something more suitable for the pretentious wannabe crowd.)
Friday, March 24, 2006
Friday, March 10, 2006
Wear green responsibly
It’s the middle of March, America is awash with all things green and the fact that St Patrick’s Day is still a whole week away doesn’t matter because now we are actually experiencing St Patrick’s Day Season! (Not "St Patrick’s Season", which would be linguistically acceptable if still conceptually dodgy.) I say. What is one to make of this, then?
Well, you could consider it to be little more than an innocent way of brightening what would otherwise be a pretty dull time of year, in between Christmas and summer fun (who cares about Easter?). But that wouldn’t really be conducive to any great debate, and as great debate is what life is all about, let’s instead look for the dark side. Is there one, and if so, what is it?
Some people would point out that St Patrick’s is just another excuse for cynical merchants to change their displays from red and heart-shaped to green and shamrock-shaped and thus persuade us to spend more money on rubbish. They would be partly right, but personally I don’t see this as a big problem. It’s free enterprise, and in my view there are worse things to profit from in a free market economy than green wigs and oddly shaped cookie cutters.
Or you might complain about the American penchant for overkill. Over here, St Patrick’s Day celebrations have to be just that little bit bigger, better and more than anywhere else (such as, say, in Ireland). When you know many Irish people (defined here as people actually from Ireland) who do very little on St Patrick’s Day except take a half day off work in order to get to the pub just that little bit sooner, it inevitably strikes you as a touch silly. Everyone everywhere is getting involved with what is really a fairly marginal celebration, albeit very cleverly marketed on a global scale by the Irish government. Even my 3-year old has been asked to wear green clothes to pre-school and bring with her, if possible, some “Irish paraphernalia”. (“Like what? A bomb?” the husband quipped, tastefully.)
This, too, I can live with. Americans have a wonderful ability to make anything a darn good party, and who am I to begrudge them? We miserly Europeans may not catch on so quickly, but that’s our problem. In the name of celebration, I will cheerfully dress my children in green and provide shamrock shaped sandwiches – heck, after a couple of pints of Guinness (please don’t call it “the black stuff”) I will even fake an Irish accent if it makes you happy.
Far juicier, then, is the religious and political symbolism inherent in the St Patrick’s Day concept. Only a few months ago the papers were filled with heated arguments as to whether Christmas should really be called Christmas or whether this could be perceived as offensive by non-Christians. I am surprised, to say the least, by the apparent lack of corresponding public debate on the political correctness of St Patrick’s Day.
Is it to be accepted without question that the symbolism of the catholic faith floods the nation and attempts to engulf everyone, including defenseless children? And are we to deny that in connection with Ireland and all things Irish, the act of promoting this particular faith over any other comes with connotations that easily extend into the political arena?
Sometimes I cynically suspect that many Americans suffer from the same misconceptions about Ireland and the Irish conflict as do Swedes, which is essentially that a) all real Irish people are catholic, b) if you are Irish and protestant, you may as well be English and c) the English are evil oppressors of a poor and underprivileged Irish population, inside and outside of Ireland.
This simplistic view has very little to do with reality but is, and always has been, shrewdly promoted by people with their own agenda. And who are those people? Well, for fear of being accused of slander, I wouldn’t like to say. It’s not really my fault that involuntary associations come into my mind, such as AOH-Noraid-IRA. Is it?
Well, you could consider it to be little more than an innocent way of brightening what would otherwise be a pretty dull time of year, in between Christmas and summer fun (who cares about Easter?). But that wouldn’t really be conducive to any great debate, and as great debate is what life is all about, let’s instead look for the dark side. Is there one, and if so, what is it?
Some people would point out that St Patrick’s is just another excuse for cynical merchants to change their displays from red and heart-shaped to green and shamrock-shaped and thus persuade us to spend more money on rubbish. They would be partly right, but personally I don’t see this as a big problem. It’s free enterprise, and in my view there are worse things to profit from in a free market economy than green wigs and oddly shaped cookie cutters.
Or you might complain about the American penchant for overkill. Over here, St Patrick’s Day celebrations have to be just that little bit bigger, better and more than anywhere else (such as, say, in Ireland). When you know many Irish people (defined here as people actually from Ireland) who do very little on St Patrick’s Day except take a half day off work in order to get to the pub just that little bit sooner, it inevitably strikes you as a touch silly. Everyone everywhere is getting involved with what is really a fairly marginal celebration, albeit very cleverly marketed on a global scale by the Irish government. Even my 3-year old has been asked to wear green clothes to pre-school and bring with her, if possible, some “Irish paraphernalia”. (“Like what? A bomb?” the husband quipped, tastefully.)
This, too, I can live with. Americans have a wonderful ability to make anything a darn good party, and who am I to begrudge them? We miserly Europeans may not catch on so quickly, but that’s our problem. In the name of celebration, I will cheerfully dress my children in green and provide shamrock shaped sandwiches – heck, after a couple of pints of Guinness (please don’t call it “the black stuff”) I will even fake an Irish accent if it makes you happy.
Far juicier, then, is the religious and political symbolism inherent in the St Patrick’s Day concept. Only a few months ago the papers were filled with heated arguments as to whether Christmas should really be called Christmas or whether this could be perceived as offensive by non-Christians. I am surprised, to say the least, by the apparent lack of corresponding public debate on the political correctness of St Patrick’s Day.
Is it to be accepted without question that the symbolism of the catholic faith floods the nation and attempts to engulf everyone, including defenseless children? And are we to deny that in connection with Ireland and all things Irish, the act of promoting this particular faith over any other comes with connotations that easily extend into the political arena?
Sometimes I cynically suspect that many Americans suffer from the same misconceptions about Ireland and the Irish conflict as do Swedes, which is essentially that a) all real Irish people are catholic, b) if you are Irish and protestant, you may as well be English and c) the English are evil oppressors of a poor and underprivileged Irish population, inside and outside of Ireland.
This simplistic view has very little to do with reality but is, and always has been, shrewdly promoted by people with their own agenda. And who are those people? Well, for fear of being accused of slander, I wouldn’t like to say. It’s not really my fault that involuntary associations come into my mind, such as AOH-Noraid-IRA. Is it?
This photograph is unrelated to the contents of the blog.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Boyd emergency contraception bill passed – thank you!
A bill that champion Rep. Betty Boyd, D-Lakewood, has tried to get through House four (!) times, was finally passed on Monday and will allow pharmacists (those who don’t carry some inherent objection to doing their job, that is) to prescribe so called morning after pills, without a doctor’s approval. In what the Denver Post describes as “an unprecedented shift of power from doctors”, sanity finally prevailed over patriarchy.
To illustrate what Boyd has been up against (and if it wasn’t for the relentless insistence of women like her, where would we be?) I will quote Rep. Dave Schultheis, R-Colorado Springs: “This is going to be used quite frequently by sexually active women --- If we allow it to be used with impunity, without strong doctoral oversight, I think we’re going to see an increase in sexually transmitted diseases”.
God help me. This is just the kind of comment that makes it really hard for me to stay calm and refrain from juvenile food-throwing. Would Mr Schultheis perhaps like to come to my house for a glass of wine and a little chat on women’s sexuality?
OK, just to recap, in case you haven’t spent the last few years thinking about women and sex. (What are you – the Gruffalo?!)
Medical science has come up with a solution to the problem of discovering too late that your contraception of choice didn’t work as intended. (Or that you indeed forgot to use contraception in the first place – a mistake that automatically qualifies you, too, for a little chat at my house.) This solution is called the morning after pill, and if you don’t know what that is, you have been living on a different planet for the last ten years and I’m not even going to bother.
So what do we do with this ground-breaking discovery? Well, we could make it available to women who request it. We could let these women use their own judgement to assess whether it would be morally appropriate to prevent an unwanted pregnancy (yes – prevent, which is what we are talking about here, not terminate like some people suggest). Women can even vote nowadays, you know!
Trouble is, if we do that, aren’t we going to get a whole load of floosies going around jumping into bed with anything that moves and contracting all manner of diseases? Well, of course we are! We all know that women have no brains, and don’t give a sh*t whether they contract STD – all that matters to women is that they don’t get some kid around their neck that might prevent them from pursuing their immoral lifestyle. So if we put at their disposal – WITHOUT DOCTORAL OVERSIGHT – a tool to prevent unwanted pregnancy, what is there to stop them?
And the men? Whaddyamean? This doesn’t have anything to do with men! (Well, unless they are dressed in white coats and able to exercise oversight.) Men? They just stick it in wherever they can, how do you expect them to think about stuff like babies or syphilis? Forget it – here we are at the most rotten core of patriarchy: women’s sexuality. Even in 2006, the mere mention of it is enough to make some people shudder. How could we possibly let women take control of their own sexuality? God knows what might happen!
And maybe it is to God that Mr Schulteis should turn, because I would like to know what this doctoral oversight that he is hoping for is supposed to entail, exactly. Will you bear with me for a moment, Sir, while we go back to basics?
Boy meets girl. Boy wants to have sex with girl. Girl says yes. Girl wakes up next morning with big headache and growing anxiety. Girl realises pregnancy may occur and wishes to use morning after pill. Now what?
Well, in my world, she goes to Walgreens to buy it (and any pharmacist who refuses to sell it will be history, serving latte at Starbucks). In Mr Schulteis’ world she goes to the doctor for some “oversight”. In STD terms, the difference is what, exactly? She either contracted something from that guy or she didn’t, right? No amount of doctoral oversight is going to change an event that already happened.
Or perhaps what Mr Schulteis is saying is that if we reverse back to when the irresponsible little good-for-nothing wanted to get this little tramp into bed, she would have had the following conversation with herself:
- Mmm, yeah, he’s pretty fly, but what are we going to do about protection? I don’t want to get pregnant or nothin’. But hang on a minute… There’s that pill, right? So if I mess up tonight I can just go get something to make sure I don’t get pregnant? Right on, let’s GO!!
Sorry, Mr Schulteis, but perhaps it’s time for that chat now? The door is open, come right in.
To illustrate what Boyd has been up against (and if it wasn’t for the relentless insistence of women like her, where would we be?) I will quote Rep. Dave Schultheis, R-Colorado Springs: “This is going to be used quite frequently by sexually active women --- If we allow it to be used with impunity, without strong doctoral oversight, I think we’re going to see an increase in sexually transmitted diseases”.
God help me. This is just the kind of comment that makes it really hard for me to stay calm and refrain from juvenile food-throwing. Would Mr Schultheis perhaps like to come to my house for a glass of wine and a little chat on women’s sexuality?
OK, just to recap, in case you haven’t spent the last few years thinking about women and sex. (What are you – the Gruffalo?!)
Medical science has come up with a solution to the problem of discovering too late that your contraception of choice didn’t work as intended. (Or that you indeed forgot to use contraception in the first place – a mistake that automatically qualifies you, too, for a little chat at my house.) This solution is called the morning after pill, and if you don’t know what that is, you have been living on a different planet for the last ten years and I’m not even going to bother.
So what do we do with this ground-breaking discovery? Well, we could make it available to women who request it. We could let these women use their own judgement to assess whether it would be morally appropriate to prevent an unwanted pregnancy (yes – prevent, which is what we are talking about here, not terminate like some people suggest). Women can even vote nowadays, you know!
Trouble is, if we do that, aren’t we going to get a whole load of floosies going around jumping into bed with anything that moves and contracting all manner of diseases? Well, of course we are! We all know that women have no brains, and don’t give a sh*t whether they contract STD – all that matters to women is that they don’t get some kid around their neck that might prevent them from pursuing their immoral lifestyle. So if we put at their disposal – WITHOUT DOCTORAL OVERSIGHT – a tool to prevent unwanted pregnancy, what is there to stop them?
And the men? Whaddyamean? This doesn’t have anything to do with men! (Well, unless they are dressed in white coats and able to exercise oversight.) Men? They just stick it in wherever they can, how do you expect them to think about stuff like babies or syphilis? Forget it – here we are at the most rotten core of patriarchy: women’s sexuality. Even in 2006, the mere mention of it is enough to make some people shudder. How could we possibly let women take control of their own sexuality? God knows what might happen!
And maybe it is to God that Mr Schulteis should turn, because I would like to know what this doctoral oversight that he is hoping for is supposed to entail, exactly. Will you bear with me for a moment, Sir, while we go back to basics?
Boy meets girl. Boy wants to have sex with girl. Girl says yes. Girl wakes up next morning with big headache and growing anxiety. Girl realises pregnancy may occur and wishes to use morning after pill. Now what?
Well, in my world, she goes to Walgreens to buy it (and any pharmacist who refuses to sell it will be history, serving latte at Starbucks). In Mr Schulteis’ world she goes to the doctor for some “oversight”. In STD terms, the difference is what, exactly? She either contracted something from that guy or she didn’t, right? No amount of doctoral oversight is going to change an event that already happened.
Or perhaps what Mr Schulteis is saying is that if we reverse back to when the irresponsible little good-for-nothing wanted to get this little tramp into bed, she would have had the following conversation with herself:
- Mmm, yeah, he’s pretty fly, but what are we going to do about protection? I don’t want to get pregnant or nothin’. But hang on a minute… There’s that pill, right? So if I mess up tonight I can just go get something to make sure I don’t get pregnant? Right on, let’s GO!!
Sorry, Mr Schulteis, but perhaps it’s time for that chat now? The door is open, come right in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
