Accidental Blogger

A general interest blog

Recent posts

about

  • Colombia: Or, Why I Don’t Entirely Trust CNN

    On CNN: Travel today I read a story about how Columbia is rapidly becoming a top tourist destination.

    [A]fter decades of being shunned as too dangerous for travelers, the country is riding an unprecedented tourist boom.

    Spurred
    by news of the country’s dramatically improved security situation and
    healthy economy, nearly a million foreigners visited last year, a 21
    percent jump over 2004 and the largest influx since 1982, according to
    Colombia’s Commerce, Industry and Tourism Ministry. Their goal for 2006
    is to double that again, to 2 million foreign visitors.

    "The buzz
    about Colombia is spreading faster than we ever hoped for or can maybe
    even handle," said the country’s tourism director, Carlos Vives.

    Credit
    goes to the country’s popular right-wing president, Alvaro Uribe, whose
    firm-handed pursuit of the rebels has restored relative safety to once
    perilous roadways. Kidnappings have dropped 78 percent during Uribe’s
    four years in office, to 371 last year according to the government.
    That may even be below Haiti and the tourist haven of Mexico, where
    kidnappings-for-cash have boomed.

    I wanted to see if the New York Times had a write-up, because they tend to have the best writers and thus the best stories; so I ran a Google News search for "Colombia."  Here’s what I came up with:

    Hostage handover fails in Colombia (AP)

    The promised release of two hostages held for six months by leftist
    rebels failed to take place Saturday – with the government blaming
    jungle rains and relatives saying the state sabotaged the handover by
    sending troops to the region.

    In a surprise gesture, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia,
    or FARC, said March 15 that it would free a police officer and an
    18-year old cadet seized last year.

    The rebels gave an exact time and place for their handover –
    Saturday at noon in the Amazon basin hamlet of Afilador, 340 miles
    south of the capital.

    The handover never occurred.

    Colombia’s government blamed lashing rains, but relatives of the
    hostages faulted the government for sending troops to the region.

    "It wasn’t the weather, it was the government’s fault," Alba Patron,
    mother of captive officer Luis Almanza, told Colombian television, and
    wept.

    The International Red Cross, overseeing the release, said guerrillas and the army had clashed.

    Colombia makes $800m cocaine haul (BBC)

    The Colombian authorities have seized a shipment of
    cocaine with a street value of $800m (£455m) on board a ship in the
    Caribbean port of Cartagena.

    They found the cocaine, weighing 2.7 tons (2,700kg), in a disinfectant container during a routine inspection.

    Colombian journalist faces terror at home (Mercury News)

    How would I sleep at night if I were a well-respected professional,
    tops in my field — and living in exile because of death threats my
    family received for doing my work? Indeed, how would I regard my
    country when I had to return in a few months?

    That’s the position [Daniel] Coronell, 41, a senior research fellow at
    Stanford, finds himself in. And his unease is not exactly soothed by
    President Alvaro Uribe Vélez of Colombia, who on Wednesday responded to
    international pressure from the Committee to Protect Journalists by
    expressing support for the importance of journalists’ work.

    It’s the least a president running for re-election can do in a democracy.

    “I live a little sad here,” said Coronell, an award-winning
    investigative journalist and founder of an independent television news
    program. “From this distance, I see my country in the worst part of
    its history.”

    The affable Coronell was already traveling in armored cars when
    successive death threats were made last spring. One came in the
    chilling form of a funeral wreath bearing the name of his 6-year-old
    daughter.

    There’s an old colloquialism that goes, "two out of three ain’t bad."  Only in this case, the two are bad, so I suppose that means that two out of three ain’t good.  And the (nonsequential) third, the drug bust, isn’t necessarily promising in any way–perhaps I’m jaded because of the failed "war on drugs" here in the U.S., but I don’t see how the authorities grabbing a shipload of cocaine is in any way indicative of less future drug-related violence (the argument can probably be made that this will just increase the violence, in destination countries and probably in Colombia as well–supply goes down, demand goes up?).  Now if they nabbed a kingpin, that might be a different story, but I think a minor detail like that would have been mentioned.

    Sorry CNN, but I don’t see myself going to Colombia anytime soon.  Maybe I’ll start with Panama (and from there a side-trip to Cuba so I can spend my American dollars without getting caught–take that, harmful American policymakers!) and work my way up to Colombia over the years, giving the new administration a bit more time to figure things out.

  • An Upside Down Oath of Office

    Now, here is a Democrat who is not cowed down by Bible thumpers. An exchange between Nancy Jacobs (R) and James Raskin (D) during a debate before the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee in Maryland. The subject was gay marriage and civil rights.

    Sen. Nancy Jacobs, a Republican who represents Harford and Cecil counties, engaged in an impassioned debate with Jamie Raskin, a constitutional law professor from American University, over the influence of the Bible on modern law.

    "As I read Biblical principles, marriage was intended, ordained and started by God – that is my belief," she said. "For me, this is an issue solely based on religious principals (sic)."

    Raskin shot back that the Bible was also used to uphold now-outlawed statutes banning interracial marriage, and that the constitution should instead be lawmakers’ guiding principle.

    "People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution; they don’t put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible," he said.

  • The Voice of My Republican Neighbors

    Tom DeLay recently won the Republican primary in the Texas district where I live and he sneered at his opponents for "[using] those Democrat tactics as their platform."  Of his Democratic challenger in November, Congressman Nick Lampson, he said, "It’s always easy to beat Lampson."  

    Why should he worry?  Read what one of his Republican constituents has to say about any Democrat who might go up against DeLay. As I have said before, for voters like me in District 22 of Texas, the only real hope is Jack Abramoff.

    "Right now, I wouldn’t vote Democratic if Jesus Christ was running." Judy Deats, a Texas Republican, who is standing by Rep. Tom DeLay in his re-election bid despite the fact that his association with lobbyist Jack Abramoff has made him vulnerable to political opposition for the first time in more than 20 years

  • What Took Them So Long?

    What a difference a year makes! For a long time most of the world and a sizeable minority of Americans saw George Bush for what he is. But it took Iraq, Katrina and other disasters to reshape the opinion of the rest of the US. With his overall job approval rating at a dismal 33%, people are now moving beyond numbers – they are using words to describe what they think of Bush as a leader.

    "As Bush launched a series of speeches to drum up support for the war, a new round of opinion polls found growing skepticism about Iraq and distrust of Bush. His image declined sharply, with one poll finding "incompetent" to be the most frequent description of his leadership.

    Bush’s approval rating dipped as low as 33 percent in one recent poll after a string of bad news for the White House, including uproars over a now-dead Arab port deal, a secret eavesdropping program, a series of ethics scandals involving high-profile Republicans and a bungled response to Hurricane Katrina.

    "His strong points as a president were being seen as personally credible, as a strong leader. That has all but disappeared," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center, whose latest independent poll found a dramatic decline in Bush’s credibility.

    A majority of Americans, 56 percent, believe Bush is "out of touch," the poll found. When asked for a one-word description of Bush, the most frequent response was "incompetent," followed by "good," "idiot" and "liar." In February 2005, the most frequent reply was "honest."

    "The transformation from being seen as honest to being seen as incompetent is an extraordinary indicator of how far he has fallen," Kohut said……

    In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, 61 percent said the Iraq war would be a very important or the most important issue in deciding their vote for Congress. As the third anniversary of the invasion approaches, they preferred Democrats over Republicans in handling Iraq by 48 to 40 percent.

    Independent pollster Dick Bennett of American Research Group said Bush’s failure to acknowledge public anxieties added to his troubles. "The biggest problem the White House faces is reconnecting with people. People simply aren’t buying it anymore," Bennett said. "People can see for themselves that things actually are not fine."

    But given the unfailing cravenness of the invertebrates in the Democratic Party, I won’t hold my breath for any major gains in November, 2006.

  • Richa Arora – Update

    I have added two more paintings to the earlier post, Richa Arora – A Delhi Artist of Interest.  The titles are "Crystallization II" and "Towards the Beyond."  Please check them out.

  • More Pearls From Pat

    A bit late in the day, Pat Robertson (the gift that keeps giving to us bloggers) has weighed in on the Danish cartoons.  Calling Muslims "Satanic" and bent on world domination, he said the following on his TV show, the 700 Club:

    [He] said that the outpouring of rage elicited by cartoons "just shows the kind of people we’re dealing with. These people are crazed fanatics, and I want to say it now: I believe it’s motivated by demonic power. It is satanic and it’s time we recognize what we’re dealing with." He also said "the goal of Islam … whether you like it or not, is world domination."

  • George Clooney in 2008?

    Why not?  At least Clooney has the intestinal fortitude to say what he believes.

    "I am a liberal. And I make no apologies for it. Hell, I’m proud of it.

    Too many people run away from the label. They whisper it like you’d whisper "I’m a Nazi." Like it’s dirty word. But turn away from saying "I’m a liberal" and it’s like you’re turning away from saying that blacks should be allowed to sit in the front of the bus, that women should be able to vote and get paid the same as a man, that McCarthy was wrong, that Vietnam was a mistake. And that Saddam Hussein had no ties to al-Qaeda and had nothing to do with 9/11.

    This is an incredibly polarized time (wonder how that happened?). But I find that, more and more, people are trying to find things we can agree on. And, for me, one of the things we absolutely need to agree on is the idea that we’re all allowed to question authority. We have to agree that it’s not unpatriotic to hold our leaders accountable and to speak out.

    The fear of (being) criticized can be paralyzing. Just look at the way so many Democrats caved in the run up to the war. In 2003, a lot of us were saying, where is the link between Saddam and bin Laden? What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? We knew it was bullshit. Which is why it drives me crazy to hear all these Democrats saying, "We were misled." It makes me want to shout, "Fuck you, you weren’t misled. You were afraid of being called unpatriotic."

    And the elected Democrats in congress?  They are still running away from the truth, from questioning a corrupt leadership, looking for the nearest hole to hide in whenever it is time to take a stand.

    "Democrats distanced themselves Monday from Wisconsin Sen. Russell Feingold’s effort to censure President Bush over domestic spying, maneuvering to prevent a vote that could alienate swing voters. A day of tough talk between Feingold and Vice President Dick Cheney ended with Senate leaders sending the matter to the Judiciary Committee.  Republicans dared Democrats to vote for the proposal.

    Feingold’s fellow Democrats said they understood his frustration, but they held back overt support for the resolution. Several said they wanted first to see the Senate Intelligence Committee finish an investigation of the warrantless wiretapping program that Bush authorized as part of his war on terrorism.

    Asked whether he would vote for the resolution, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada declined to endorse it and said he hadn’t read it.  Feingold’s censure resolution drew empathy but no outright support from House Democraticleader Nancy Pelosi of California. Pelosi "understands Sen. Feingold’s frustration that the facts about the NSA domestic surveillance program have not been disclosed appropriately to Congress," her office said in a statement. "Both the House and the Senate must fully investigate the program and assign responsibility for any laws that may have been broken."

    The Democrats are still mouthing idiotic criticisms like "not enough troops", "tactical mistakes" etc. about Iraq, instead of saying outright that it was a morally reprehensible and wrong war.  And that in spite of this. What are they scared of?  Do you see a viable presidential candidate for 2008 in this bunch?

  • IED – The New Battle Cry

    However boring you may think a speech by Bush (or one of his warmongering henchmen) is, listen carefully.  Among the litany of false alarms, boastful claims, rosy scenarios and the next bogeyman they want to protect you from, there is always the germ of a new idea – for more warfare and renewed belligerence. One catch-phrase is woven into the speech. Next day the right wing media and government mouthpieces play it back, magnified many times, until it becomes the next  "Axis of Evil", "WMD" or "Mushroom Cloud". Yesterday’s speech on Iraq (meant to be an exercise in truth telling) was peppered with references to the menace of the IED (improvised explosive devices) and how it is taking billions of dollars to stop them from impeding progress in Iraq. I heard Bush’s speech. It was predictably about self congratulatory claims of "democracy" making its way in Iraq, thanks to the valiant efforts of the US military and Iraqi civilians. The only fly in the ointment we were told, are the new and improved IEDs supplied by who else, but the next target this administration is itching to destroy – Iran.  As soon as I heard this, I realized that the speech was not an update on Iraq at all as advertised by the White House. It was a blatant attempt in the further demonization of Iran. If Iran is portrayed not only as a threat to Israel but also to our soldiers fighting in Iraq, will the American public (and the cowardly Congress) give the administration another pass for going to war, however reluctantly?

    " The United States is pouring billions more dollars and fresh platoons of experts into its campaign to "defeat IEDs," the roadside bombs President Bush describes as threat No. 1 to Iraq’s future.

    "As we’ve improved our armor, the enemy’s improved his IEDs. They’re bigger, and with better detonating mechanisms," said Maj. Randall Simmons, whose Georgia National Guard unit escorts convoys in western Iraq that are regularly rocked, damaged and delayed by roadside blasts.

    The bomb makers have the White House’s attention. In a radio address on Saturday, Bush said roadside bombs "are now the principal threat to our troops and to the future of a free Iraq."

    Bush said in a speech Monday that Iran had supplied IED components to Iraqi groups, but U.S. officials have presented no evidence to support that, nor did Bush explain why Shiite Muslim Iran would aid Iraq’s Sunni-dominated insurgency…."

  • Richa Arora – A Delhi Artist of Interest

    It is always interesting when practitioners and students of science cross over to the world of literature and the arts.  Is their artistic endeavor superior to more traditionally trained artists? I do not know. I can only speak for myself. The scientific perspective in art and literature invariably impresses me. The clear eyed precision scientist-artists bring to their craft confers a particularly satisfying uncluttered quality to their work.   

    On my recent visit to New Delhi, I visited one of the city’s well known art galleries. Among the gallery’s many works, I came across an exhibition of paintings by young Richa Arora. Her work is bold, interesting, clean and impressively confident. I had the pleasure of meeting Richa who was present at her show. She graciously gave me the permission to post some of her pictures on my blog. I hope the readers will enjoy her paintings as much as I did. And perhaps leave some comments for her.

    Opening_023_1_1_1

    A few words about Richa Arora:  Richa graduated from Delhi University in 1999 with a major in physics. Changing trajectory, she decided to pursue a career in art and has trained with Rameshwar Broota at Triveni Kala Sangam since 2002. She has participated in several group exhibitions in major art galleries of Delhi. Her solo exhibition is currently on at Triveni Kala Sangam. After graduation, Richa vacillated between a career as a pilot or an artist. In the end she chose flight of fancy over flying and we are glad for that.

    Richa has this to say of her work:

    "For me art is an unending journey into new possibilities. Sometimes celebrating life’s spectacles, sometimes questioning its various frames of meanings. I as an artist am always in search of new frames of mind….  What I paint does represent the natural world, but does so by capturing something of its immutable, intrinsic qualities rather than by imitating its external appearance. My work depicts real forms in a simplified or rather reduced ways, keeping only an allusion of the original natural subject."

    The paintings posted here are all oil and acrylic on canvas – from left to right (please click on images for an enlarged version):

    Ascent, Integration, Cross Beam I, Crystallization I, Cross Beam II, Contours of Blue, Substratum, Crystallization II & Towards the Beyond

    Ascent_1_6_1_7

    Integration_6_1_6 Cross_beam_i_3_1_1_7 Crystallization_i_5_1_1_6 Cross_beam_ii_4_1_1_7 Contours_of_blue_2_1_1_11 Substratum_7_1_5 Crystallization_ii_1_1 Towards_the_beyond_2_1

  • Would Freud call this “uterus envy?”

    Did you know there’s a National Center for Men?  Well apparently there is, and it’s backing the lawsuit (filed in U.S. District Court in Michigan) of Matt Dubay, who doesn’t want to pay child support.  The NCM even has a website and a press release about this absurdity.  In the AP story linked to above, the argument is summarized like this:

    If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.

    Okay, so women have the right to abdicate responsibility and men don’t–even in the actual case where Dubay’s girlfriend allegedly repeatedly told him that she was physically unable to become pregnant.  Why shouldn’t men have the same right?  Sounds pretty reasonable, right?  Well, no, not if you actually examine the argument.

    Abortion as an abdication of child-rearing responsibility is just a non sequitur.  Abortion is a means the woman has for maintaining control of her own body; no one is asking men to unwillingly sacrifice their own bodies for nine months for the benefit of a fetus which possesses human potentiality.  An actual baby, on the other hand, is a human person which cannot care for itself and therefore must be cared for.

    But what about the relevant claim, that if a woman does not want her baby she can offer it up for adoption, but that if a man does not want the baby, he’s stuck paying child support?  It seems to me that this claim is factually incorrect.  If the woman does not want the child, the man would gain custody; if the man also does not want the child, it would go up for adoption.  If the custody were transferred to the father, wouldn’t the mother be responsible for child support payments?  So the only legitimate claim to be made would be about custody battles, and why absent compelling factors one way or the other the mother typically gains custody (or, I guess, split custody, or the father might only be granted visitation rights–I haven’t looked up the precise statistics).  Unless, of course, you want to make the untenable argument that deadbeat dads shouldn’t be forced to support their children because deadbeatedness is a fundamental human right?

    What’s particularly striking to me is the transparency of motive.  The first paragraph in the press release reads:

    On March 9, 2006 The National Center For Men will file suit in a United States district court in Michigan on behalf of a man’s right to make reproductive choice, to decline fatherhood in the event of an unintended pregnancy. We will call our lawsuit Roe vs. Wade for Men. TM

    They’re actually calling it Roe for Men!  That is, this lawsuit is aimed not at its purported target, but rather Roe–they want it overturned.  Why no real effort to mask this?  It’s just like the South Dakota legislation, which fails to include the popular exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother.  I don’t get it; why no effort to be "reasonable?"  Why alienate the mushy middle?  I can see how this might fracture the Republican party, but I fail to see why the dominant political faction (social conservatives) would want to strip themselves of the moderate Republican support which allows them to control the House, the Senate, and the Executive Branch.  What would the real consequences of Roe for Men be?  Abortion overturned?  Not going to happen.  Forced adoption if the mother cannot support the child without the father’s help?  I know it’s fashionable in some parts these days to hate women, but I don’t see that playing well outside of the psychopathic fringe.

    On a tangential note, I think this is kind of sad because there probably needs to be a "men’s liberation" movement to echo the women’s lib. movement.  This Roe for Men nonsense, of course, would not fall under that umbrella, and only serves to delegitimize such a claim.  But macho culture certainly dominates American culture today.  George Bush’s little "mission accomplished" codpiece stunt comes to mind.  John Kerry was smeared as an effete liberal.  Men aren’t supposed to have feelings–like, that’s totally gay, man.  And for that matter I don’t think male homosexuality is as socially acceptable as female homosexuality.  Real Men don’t read books or go shopping or go to Broadway musicals; Real Men go hunting.  Real Men shoot 78-year-old men in the face because those 78-year-old men could be small wingless birds in disguise.  Now stop being a pansy and put down that Spenser!

    [Update] It’s been brought to my attention that Ethan Leib is a proponent of men’s rights.  After reading some of his thoughts on the matter, my new, modified position can be found at Unreal City.  I think a reasonable case can be made for male "choice," or men’s reproductive rights; I still don’t like or trust the National Center for Men, however.

  • Does She Regret Decision 2000?

    Too little too late, wouldn’t you say?  Justice Sandra Day O’Connor may in hindsight, regret the tarnished role of the Supreme Court in perpetuating the injustices of the 2000 presidential election which strengthened the hands of the extremists in the GOP. She sees the country on a slippery slope to dictatorship. Why is it that so many of us saw fascism creeping up on the horizon and many supposedly "smart" people did not?

    "NPR’s Nina Totenberg aired an amazing story this morning about a talk that just-resigned Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor gave at Georgetown University. The first woman to serve on the High Court wouldn’t allow her actual words to be broadcast, and that’s a shame, because — based on Totenberg’s report — every American needs to hear what she said. The Reagan appointee who became a moderate and an American icon — Bush v. Gore notwithstanding — all but named names in thinly veiled attacks on former House majority leader Tom DeLay and Texas Sen. John Cornyn, and ended with a stunning warning. …."

    Please read the whole story.

  • Saturn & SAT – It’s All About Water

    The Cold Faithful : NASA’s spacecraft Cassini, currently orbiting Saturn, has detected geysers of water containing carbon particles erupting from Enceladus, one of Saturn’s moons. This has planetary scientists all agog with expectation. Presence of water and carbon particles raises hopes of finding biological activity in that far off (and very cold) planet.

    "Experts think reservoirs of liquid water beneath the moon’s icy crust contain enough heat to cause nearly continuous eruptive activity. Liquid water, a source of heat and carbon-based chemical compounds are needed for life as we know it to exist.

    "We realize that this is a radical conclusion — that we may have evidence for liquid water within a body so small and so cold," said Carolyn Porco, who leads Cassini’s imaging team as a scientist at the Space Science Institute in Boulder, Colo.  "However, if we are right, we have significantly broadened the diversity of solar system environments where we might possibly have conditions suitable for living organisms."

    Damp Test Scores: The recent discovery that the SAT test scores of several students (mostly from the northeast USA) may have been off by as much as 100 points due to a marking error, has made many high schoolers anxious and thrown college admission committes into a state of confusion.  The testing agency Pearson Educational Measurement in Austin where the mistake was discovered has an explanation: 

    "The affected test day, Oct. 8, coincided with the beginning of a week of heavy rain in the Northeast, where most of the tests came from. As much as 10 inches fell on New Jersey.

    "When there’s moisture in the paper, it actually grows," said Pearson spokesman David Hakensen. That causes the ovals students fill in "to move just slightly, enough so that it will be out of registration for the scanning head to read the answers."

    Whatever the explanation, this has left the poor students hanging out to dry!

  • A Distant Land of Milk and Honey

    As promised, here is Book II of the two part book review I had planned some time ago.

    Who Are the Jews of India? by Nathan Katz

    Who Are the Jews of India?

    Of all the Jewish communities in the Diaspora, the Indian Jews were among the oldest and perhaps the most interesting. They adjusted without assimilating within the larger culture and were not persecuted in any way by the majority Hindu community. Nathan Katz’s book, "Who Are the Jews of India?" is an in-depth account of the history of Indian Jews.  For those who are interested in learning about this once tiny (now fast disappearing) but influential community, Katz’s book will be a rich source of information. Attractive black and white photographs accompany the text.

    Within a year of each other, India gained independence from Britain and Israel was established as a Jewish state. After these two events, the majority of Indian Jews left for Israel, UK, Australia and other places. Despite the presence of some prominent Jews on the Indian cultural scene of my youth (poet Nissim Ezekiel, actors David Abraham and Nadira, cartoonist Abu Abraham) and a Jewish distant cousin in my family, I never paid much attention to the history and heritage of Indian Jews until much later. Actually, not until I became acquainted with Jews in America.

    To paraphrase historian Bernard Lewis, Judaism flourished in Europe and the Islamic world not inspite of but BECAUSE of the hostility of the Christian and the Muslim hosts (Christians being much more brutal than Muslims). Lewis concludes that it was the fear and the adversity of living as a beleaguered minority that lent vibrancy to Judaism and its scholarship in Europe and the middle east.  He goes on to assert that in China and India, two countries where Jews were welcome and remained unmolested by the majority culture, Judaism atrophied and assimilated into the host culture. Katz argues the opposite – that  it was precisely the welcome and respect accorded to Indian Jews that enabled them to continue being fully observant Jews while being respectful of the host nation’s religions and culture. According to Katz, "Indian Jews lived as all Jews should have been allowed to live: free, proud, observant, creative and prosperous, self-realized, full contributors to the host community. Then, when twentieth century conditions permitted they returned en masse to Israel, which they had always proclaimed to be their true home despite India’s hospitality. The Indian chapter is one of the happiest of the Jewish Diaspora." Whatever the truth, Nathan Katz paints India as an idyllic and tranquil haven within the turbulent and sometimes tragic Jewish history – somewhat like the present day USA.

    Jews arrived in India in three distinct waves.  The exact date of the earliest arrival is murky, wrapped as it is in several myths and legends. The date goes back to as early as the destruction of the first Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, to the 2nd century A.D.  The second influx is thought to have occured around the 10th century A.D and the last one in the 1800’s.  Three culturally distinct communities of Indian Jews arose around these separate groups of immigrants.

    (more…)

  • What Next – The Blulitzer?

    Attention Blauthors: Limber up those fingers, polish up your grammar and don’t forget to spell-check. The Brits are giving out literary awards for blog writings.

    "The first short-list for a literary prize that rewards bloggers turned bookwriters has been announced. Dubbed the Blooker Prize, the contest is for those bloggers who have turned their episodic journals into something more substantial.

    British entries on the Blooker short-list include the intimate diary of a prostitute and a guide to the UK’s best "greasy spoon" cafes. The first winner of the Blooker Prize will be announced on 3 April.

    The Blooker Prize was first suggested in October 2005 and was the creation of Bob Young, founder of self-publishing site Lulu which sponsors the prize.Books from blogs, or "blooks", were becoming hugely popular, said Mr Young. The entries are arranged into three categories – fiction, non-fiction and comics – and the winners of two of these sections get a cash prize of £550 ($1,000). The winner of the grand prize gets a cash prize of £1,100 ($2,000).

    The short-list is dominated by US entries but the UK has two strong contenders in the running. One is notorious Belle De Jour, who blogs about life as a prostitute…"

    Thanks to Manoj Joshi for the pointer.

    Correction:  Because the link to this story is to a BBC article and the Booker Prize is British, I assumed that the Blooker Prize too is from Britain.  I have just been alerted by Coturnix, a veteran of the blogosphere, that the Blooker is actually awarded here in the US. Well, I guess since we have taken the "Blooker", the Brits can award the "Blulitzer" as a show of intercontinental reciprocity. Coturnix’s comments below:

    "British? Blooker Prize is awarded by Lulu.com, here in Raleigh, NC. Judges are Paul Jones (http://ibiblio.org/pjones/wordpress), Cory Doctorow (BoingBoing) and a techie blogger whose name escapes me right now."

    "Blooker Prize actually has its own blog, so you can check out all the contestants, not just the finalists:
    http://lulublookerprize.typepad.com/"

  • Pregnancy – Nine Months to Life

    I have always suspected that for the misogynists in the anti-abortion movement, banning abortion is not so much about saving the life of an unborn child as it is about punishing the pregnant woman. If abortion is an outcome they frown upon, one would think that they would be in favor of making all means of contraception available to women. But as I wrote in a previous post, it has become increasingly clear to me and others that for some, it is women’s sexuality which is the problem. Their opposition to not just abortion but also contraception, makes sense only if one understands how they view preganancy. It is almost as if being pregnant and giving birth is a means to curtail women’s freedom, a punishment, a just retribution for profligacy – there is nothing joyful about it nor is it a celebration of life. Unwillingness to give birth is viewed as a criminal act and if they could, they would incarcerate women for that "crime". The two articles below illustrate my point – the authors explain well the motives behind the methods.

    Enough of sorry politics on Plan B birth control : By SUSAN F. WOOD (Wood is a former assistant commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and is a senior policy adviser to the Reproductive Health Technologies Project).

    "Time and again in my travels I am asked, "What happened to derail Plan B?" I have to answer honestly that I don’t know. The manufacturer agreed to take the "controversial" issue of young teens’ access to emergency contraception off the table in 2004; now we are talking only about adult access to safe and effective contraception. Over 98 percent of adult women have used some form of contraception. So what is the objection?

    Perhaps it is that posed by a small but vocal political minority that insists on labeling emergency contraception as abortion, or at least confusing the two. One of the main questions I hear is, "Does this pill cause an abortion?" In fact, the only connection this pill has with abortion is that it has the potential to prevent the need for one. Emergency contraceptive pills work exactly the same way as other birth control pills, and they do not interfere with or harm an existing pregnancy…..

    Plan B emergency contraception available over the counter, so that women, including rape victims, could have a second chance to prevent an unintended pregnancy and the need for an abortion. How many chances have we missed? I still can’t explain what is going on here, and why women 17 and older are still denied this product in a timely way. When did adult access to contraception become controversial? And why have we allowed it to happen?"

    The truth S.D. lawmakers won’t tell on abortion law : By LYNN PALTROW and CHARON ASETOYER

    "Monday the governor of South Dakota signed into law a bill that would ban virtually all abortions in the state. Neither the governor nor any of the law’s supporters, however, have been honest about what the cost and effect of such a law will be.  Those who authored this bill and those who voted for it want to create the impression that only the people providing the abortions will be punished, not the women having them. They are not brave enough or honest enough to admit what is clear: Women will be punished, and they and their families will suffer if this law goes into effect.

    South Dakota, like many other states, has adopted numerous laws that seek to establish the unborn as full legal persons. For example, South Dakota has a feticide statute that makes the killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of prenatal development fetal homicide, manslaughter or vehicular homicide, as well as a law that requires doctors to tell women that an abortion ends the life of "a whole, separate, unique living human being." The new law banning virtually all abortions states that it is based on the conclusion "that life begins at the time of conception," and that "each human being is totally unique immediately at fertilization."

    If the unborn are legal persons, as numerous South Dakota laws assert, then a pregnant woman who has an abortion can be prosecuted as a murderer under already existing homicide laws. Farfetched? Not at all…..

    (more…)