February 27th, 2009
I hate leaving your comments unresponded to – I figure if you take the time to leave them, I should show you the courtesy of responding to them. Plus I like it! So I wanted to explain why they are lying fallow. It isn’t because I hate you. I’m just working this part of the week and my work involves a loooong commute. Occasionally real life interferes with internetting. So, I’ll be back soon.
Please, discuss amongst yourselves!
February 25th, 2009
Oh! I know I already posted tonight but I just had to tell you this story about my first day of kindergarten. It was strangely prophetic (I was destined to always hate school) and also tangentially related to tonight’s other post (it involves crying). Here is what happened:
The first thing I did in kindergarten was make a green construction paper frog with springy, folded paper legs. I distinctly recall enjoying this part of the school experience and to this day enjoy art projects, but alas, the good feeling was not to last. Our teacher instructed us to place our frog in one of the cubbies that were located behind a small wall in our classroom; each child was to have a single cubby for the entire year, a repository for handouts, art projects, lunches, and whathaveyous.
I was four when I started kindergarten so it really can’t be held against me that I thought this sounded like a wonderful idea, but my teacher should have known better. Twenty-five four and five year olds made identical art projects and, since none of us could read, they weren’t labeled. Yet somehow they were meant to act as individual placeholders for our cubbies – I now speculate with malice on my teacher’s qualifications.
At some later point we were going to play with a parachute so we had to take our shoes off, and the teacher instructed us to place our shoes in our cubbies. A melee ensued – children are many things but they are not orderly on their first day of school. At least not when they are under the control of a woman who thinks unlabelled frogs make good cubby tags.
At this point it is probably useful to tell you about a special talent I possess: I have an excellent visual-spatial memory, and I always have. I lose something about once every other year. I can put my hand into a messy drawer with my eyes closed and pull out the exact thing I wanted without fumbling. When Husband asks, “Where is my comfortable pen?” I can say “It’s on the left rear corner of the breakfast bar next to the multivitamins and under the fajita package” from another room without a moment’s thought. And when I was in kindergarten, I knew where my frog was.
But someone else’s shoes were on it. Imagine the injustice of having someone else’s shoes on your frog when you can’t prove that the frog is yours! If only I had been one of those smart toddlers who learned to read early instead of being the greedy toddler who smuggled olives out of the fridge when no one was looking.
Another thing about me: I like to follow the rules and am generally quite obedient so when it became apparent that I couldn’t follow the instructions (because someone else’s shoes were on my frog), I just fell apart. I stood behind the cubby wall and cried for what felt like a really long time. To this day my clearest memory of my early school years is of standing in a white and yellow dress, holding my for-school shoes in my hands, and sobbing with anxiety and frustration while staring at a pair of gleaming black shoes resting on my frog.
Finally, the teacher discovered what I was up to, and a rather predictable conversation ensued in which the teacher questioned my ability to know my own frog (I didn’t, but I knew where I’d placed it – and while we’re at it, doesn’t this prove my point about the stupidity of her plan?) and I became increasingly distressed, until she took another tack and in short order was able to identify whose shoes were on my frog. They belonged to a little girl whom I can’t recall at all other than that she owned those black, shiny shoes. The teacher got that little bitch to move them to her own fucking frog and, at last, I was able to place my shoes where they belonged.
And thus a career at school was born.
February 24th, 2009
Is there a meaningful difference between these two:
1. Selecting between two embryos for implantation, choosing the one that will turn into a baby with a disability instead of the one that will turn into a non-disabled baby
2. Genetically tinkering with an embryo such that it becomes disabled when it would not otherwise have been.
I’m not sure how to logically defend approving the former while preventing the latter, but my gut says that’s the way it should be. Does anyone have any ideas on this? Or even just thoughts in general on this topic?
February 23rd, 2009
So I’m reliving the musical tastes of my youth and I have run into a snag. It’s probably due to me being bad at the internet so I am turning to you, more expert internetters, for advice. I’m trying to find a place to download a song called Kerosene by Big Black – studio version, from the album Atomizer, not the live version from Pigpile. And, er, the cheaper the better *cough*.
Do you know what happens when you ask the internet to search with the terms “Big Black”? Yes, that.
They also have an album called Songs About Fucking which I found with no trouble at all, go figure.
Edit: Toren is awesome and sent me the file. Yay!
February 23rd, 2009
So I assume you’ve all heard about the woman in California who has attracted a media storm because she just had octuplets as a result of IVF, in addition to her six other children. Also she is on welfare and has no partner and lives with her parents and looks oddly like Angelina Jolie etc.
I have noticed a really disturbing trend in the comments and critiques that are being leveled at her (disclosure: my data comes from browsing the so-called “mommy blogs” which I find inexplicably fascinating). On the one hand they are saying a woman should have complete reproductive control in her own life, meaning she should carry, birth, or abort as many children as she wants in whatever manner she wants, with the support of the medical infrastructure. On the other hand, they are harshly criticizing the doctor who performed the IVF for his unethical behaviour.
Does anyone other than me see the gross contradiction in there? A woman should have total control… as long as her doctor says yes? Is that really what they mean? Or do they mean women can’t make a reasonable choice so we must rely on doctors to tell us whether our choice is ethical or not? Because that’s what you’re saying when you say that the buck stops with the doctor, that he is horribly unethical for performing the procedure. How can it be that he’s unethical for doing it, but she’s not unethical for asking for it?
Frankly, it reeks. Clearly lots of people know, perhaps just on a gut level, that something is wrong with this situation – and they seem unwilling to blame the woman because to do so would be a head on collision with dearly held ethical standards. So what’s left to do? Blame the doctor! It’s bad logic and it’s procrustean.
This is what I think: if you really support a woman’s right to be in control of her reproduction, in control 100%, then you should be pleased as punch with all concerned in this little scenario. Woman makes a choice freely, seeks medical aid, receives it. Hooray for everyone. The fact that this doctor is riding heat is a clear signal that many folks are not in fact in support of a woman having 100% control over her own reproduction.
This is the other thing I have noticed in the blog storm: everyone is talking about the woman – her wishes, her rights, her body. Far fewer people are talking about the babies (and children already born in the family). My take: Whether you agree with her choice, one thing is for sure – she has doomed her children to a childhood characterized by socioemotional deprivation and then almost certainly a life of socioeconomic deprivation.
I wish there was a way to set the moral standard in such a way that we could rule in the good behaviours and rule out the bad ones, but there are no moral absolutes in practice. I think what this woman did was wrong because it harms her children, and think what the doctor did was wrong for the same reason, though I place the primary burden of responsibility on the woman. Doctors advise and provide services – it’s not for them to say what you can and cannot do with your own body.
I am still on record as being 100% in support of women’s reproductive rights. Making restrictions that would prevent the situation that happened here would unavoidably unfairly restrict the rights of other women who should not be restricted. I think less rules are better than more. And let’s face it, this sort of situation is pretty rare. Do we need to get all hot under the collar about it? No. A big clutch of poor kids who will have an utterly overtaxed and therefore inattentive mother is bad, but not really that bad, relatively speaking. At least she wants them. I wish she had made a different choice and I feel bad for those babies, but I do think it was her choice to make. And it was the duty of her doctor to respect that, because she is not mentally incapacitated or requesting treatment that will kill her when it is not her intention to die.
And making her blameless and her doctor responsible is gross patriarchy in action and I absolutely reject that.
Edit: Apparently I had some facts wrong. See comments for updated information from a commenter and my response.
February 22nd, 2009
Toren posted a link from a TED talk on his blog – it’s about wisdom and morality and I really liked it. (Here is a link to the talk on YouTube.) Just today I started a new book and the introductory paragraph is related, so I thought I’d post it here not only for Toren but in case my wise and thoughtful readers have any thoughts on the topic:
Chapter 1: Why We Must Disestablish School
Many students, especially those who are poor, intuitively know what the schools do for them. They school them to confuse process and substance. Once these become blurred, a new logic is assumed: the more treatment there is, the better are the results; or, escalation leads to success. The pupil is thereby “schooled” to confuse teaching with learning, grade advancement with education, a diploma with competence, and fluency with the ability to say something new. His imagination is “schooled” to accept service in place of value. Medical treatment is mistaken for health care, social work for the improvement of community life, police protection for safety, military poise for national security, the rat race for productive work. Health, learning, dignity, independence, and creative endeavor are defined as little more than the performance of the institutions which claim to serve these ends, and their improvement is made to depend on allocating mroe resources to the management of hospitals, schools, and other agencies in question.
Illich, Ivan. (1971). Deschooling Society. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.
I find this a very interesting idea. Just last night Husband and I were out with our cousin/friend Chris and discussing school: what does it accomplish, particularly for the young? Are there better alternatives to traditional schooling (which is itself not so traditional, being something like only 100 years old as a standard institution)? In particular, how does school address the important issues of moral learning, values, emotional development and wellbeing, in addition to academic work?
I’m just beginning to think about this stuff so I have no firm conclusions. I will say my school experience when I was young was pretty dismal – the other kids seemed like savage, nasty rotters to me, I was deeply unhappy, and also bored and unchallenged by the academic work. I don’t think I came out of public school with much in the way of integrity, dignity, self esteem, happiness, emotional well being, or for that matter education. Of course it’s not the job of school to provide the full measure of all of those but I think it should be the job of school to provide some portion of all of those – otherwise how can they justify demanding the presence of developing children all day long?
Any thoughts?
February 21st, 2009
BC has a provincially funded body called the Therapeutics Initiative whose job it is to review literature on pharmaceuticals and tell the province what medications should be funded. It is made up of experts who have no conflicts of interest – in other words, they don’t work for/get kickbacks from drug companies or other groups with a vested interest. They work to make sure British Columbians have access to good medicine which the province pays for – and their work is good enough to garner us an international reputation. Which is no surprise – having impartial experts assess the science just makes sense!
And we might lost it. Health Minister George Abbott formed a panel which advised the TI be disbanded. News source Tyee describes the members of the panel this way: “The panel was stacked with people from the drug industry and one of the co-chairs was the head of a drug lobby group.” (See article.) So a bunch of drug shills don’t like impartial science informing public policy – what a surprise. I’m sure they’d rather the province funded whatever it is they have to sell, at whatever price they choose to set – without any reference to the science, if that could be managed. And it might, if we lose the TI.
In a typically Palin move, Abbott has taken a recent academic review of the TI (which says it’s good and should receive more stable funding to continue its work) and simply stated that the review agrees with what his panel said (which it does not) – “The academic review doesn’t undercut his task force’s report,” he said. “I think it’s consistent with what the task force report had recommended, so we’re looking very closely at the recommendations and moving forward with them.”
Translation? We’re going to ignore the academic review, scrap the TI, and put the drug shills in charge. Sure, there will be a veneer of respectability. They will maintain a scientist or two. But the panel pushing the change is headed by drug companies, and you know they aren’t making this move out of altruism.
Anyone in BC who values science, and their funded access to medications that the science says are good, should write to Minister Abbott and make their voice heard. Salesmen have enough power. They shouldn’t be in a position of influence that allows them to say what medicine we can and can’t have – and for anyone who isn’t rich, that’s what it comes down to. For many people, especially in these hard times, if it’s not covered by the province, they can’t afford the medication.
You can email the Minister Abbott directly: hlth.health@gov.bc.ca
Here is what I wrote to him:
Dear Minister Abbott,
I am a British Columbian writing to let you know that I support maintaining the Therapeutics Initiative, and furthermore support creating a stable and ongoing source of funding for it. It is in the public interest to have an impartial and science based body, with no ties to pharmaceutical companies or other vested interests, advise the government on the critical issue of which medications are funded. Allowing drug industry interests to become part of that advising process is mercenary and demonstrates your lack of concern for the wellbeing of British Columbians. Additionally, stating that the recent academic review of the TI agrees with the findings of your task force is clearly dissembling.
The first line in the Ministry of Health Services’ most recent Service Plan (February 2009) is: “The Ministry of Health Services supports Government’s vision of a world class public health care system with a mandate to guide and enhance the Province’s health services to ensure British Columbians are supported in their efforts to maintain and improve their health.” Given the content of the academic review, there is no possible explanation for disbanding the TI that is consonant with this mandate.
Is everything for sale, including the health of the people you are supposed to represent?
Sincerely, (me)
February 19th, 2009
That was the sound of me losing a post for the first time because my blogging software decided to take a big shit without warning. I am normally a compulsive saver of drafts as I work so it isn’t usually a problem, but today, clicking “save draft” causes WordPress to take a Big Shit and delete my work.
Amusingly enough, so does clicking “publish” which explains why this is the second time I’ve written this little post. Oh internet. You make me laugh so.
February 18th, 2009
February 17th, 2009
So I just this very minute started reading The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker, which is a book Husband has been nagging me to read for about… ever since we met. And being somewhat intimidated by the size of my new psychoanalysis book (seriously, it is now the biggest book I own. It is enormous – so enormous I struggle not to impute conscious intentions to it.), I grabbed this fellow – and not one full page into the preface got a total shock when I found myself endorsing some rather horrendous things while somewhat absently thinking I was agreeing with something else entirely. Since I live to share, I thought I’d reproduce that first page for your reading pleasure. Maybe you will be shocked like I was.
The selection I am reproducing has quotations of its own, so for clarity I’m not going to put the whole selection into the quotation block, just the inner quotations. If you see what I mean. Quotation begins now:
” ‘Not another book on nature and nurture! Are there really people out there who still believe that the mind is a blank slate? Isn’t it obvious to anyone with more than one child, to anyone who has been in a hetersexual relationship, or to anyone who has noticed that children learn language but house pets don’t, that people are born with certain talents and temperaments? Haven’t we all moved beyond the simplistic dichotomy between heredity and environment and raelized that all behaviour comes out of an interaction between the two?”
This is the kind of reaction I got from colleagues when I explained my plans for this book. At first glance the reaction is not unreasonable. Maybe nature versus nurture is a dead issue. Anyone familiar with current writings on mind and behaviour has seen claims to the middle ground like these:
If the reader is now convinced that either the genetic or environmental explanation has won out to the exclusion of the other, we have not done a sufficiently good job of presenting one side or the other. It seems highly likely to us that both genes and environment have something to do with this issue. What might the mix be? We are resolutely agnostic on that issue; as far as we can determine, the evidence does not yet justify an estimate.
This is not going to be one of those books that says everything is genetic: it isn’t. The enviroment is just as important as the genes. The things children experience while they are growing up are just as important as the things they are born with.
Even when a behaviour is heritable, an individual’s behaviour is still a product of development, and thus it has a causal environmental component… The modern understanding of how phenotypes are inherited through the replication of both genetic and environmental conditions suggests that… cultural traditions – behaviours copied by children from their parents – are likely to be crucial.
If you think these are innocuous compromises that show that everyone has outgrown the nature-nurture debate, think again. The quotations come, in fact, from three of the most incendiary books of the last decade. The first is from The Bell Curve by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, who argue that the difference in average IQ scores between American blacks and American whites has both genetic and environmental causes. The second is from The Nurture Assumption by Judith Rich Harris, who argues that children’s personalities are shaped by their genes as well as by their environments, so similarities between children and their parents may come from their shared genes and not just from the effects of parenting. The third is from A Natural History of Rape by Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer, who argue that rape is not simply a product of culture but also has roots in the nature of men’s sexuality. For invoking nature and nurture, not nurture alone, these authors have been picketed, shouted down, subjected to searing invective in the press, even denounced in Congress. Others expressing such opinions have been censored, assaulted, or threatened with criminal prosecution.”
Quotation ends.
I read the selected quotations Pinker inserted and thought yes, yes, of course, isn’t that obvious as I did so – and then I read where they came from and went Holy shit, did I just endorse the idea that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites? Not in so many words, of course, but it seems that’s the position you take when you mindlessly endorse the willy-nilly notion of a blending of nature and nurture in the broad, unexamined way I did it.
Most intriguing is the idea that those authors were right. I have experienced academic censorship first hand and let me tell you, it is alive and well. Some ideas just can’t be accepted, usually out of good intentions – for example if we think blacks are less intelligent, then we will racially cleanse them! (etc.) While the conclusions are virtually always not necessary outcomes, fear of them can motivate the censorship. I disapprove on principle because that position is anti-learning and anti-science, but given the idiocy of the masses and their tendency to do horrific things like racial cleansing I sometimes think it’s a good safety measure – and fortunately I am not tasked with the responsibility of deciding.
In any case this single page exposure has thrown into sharp relief my ignorance of these issues. And it has whetted my appetite. Psychoanalysis may have to wait a week or so!