Population shift happens

Get over it! People have been moving since the dawn of time!

Cal Thomas is whining in a piece called "Vanishing England" about all the foreigners moving to England and all the English moving away. He also complains about Britons having abortions and immigrants having lots of babies.

He neglects to note that the Angles and the Saxons came from somewhere else...specifically northern Europe a long time ago and were not always Britons. Not to mention the Normans of 1066. What is his take on the Celts? They didn't originally live on the British Isles either. They came from somewhere else, though no one is really sure from where.

Also, being a colonial power, (historically) trading in slaves and goods from all over the world kinda makes it ridiculous to try to want an insular England. If you tell them that they're British, they probably would feel that they have every right to go to England. Brown skinned people are nothing new. With all the white Britons spread all over the globe, it's only natural that other people would go to Britain.

Migrations of people are ongoing. Establishing borders and trying to keep people in or out is just unnatural. Get over it. The character of the country will change. I agree. That's life.

It's kinda like all the children and grandchildren of immigrants, who were essentially squatters on Native American land, bitching about the most recent waves of immigrants.

And don't even get me started on language policy as it relates to immigrants!

Just stop being so xenophobic and get to know "them" as individuals. You'll find that people are people, regardless of their skin color, religion or language!

Choosing a major in high school

Phyllis Schlafly is all freaked out about a new trend in schools, in which students are required to choose a high school major. Let me quote a bit from her article "The Latest "Major" Fad in Public Schools."

Freshmen at Dwight Morrow High School in New Jersey, starting this fall, must declare a major, and they must take at least one course in that subject every trimester for four years. The major will be noted on their diplomas.

She complains that this is bad, because kids change their minds about everything a lot. She writes:

Most teens are not ready to lock into a lifetime career so early; they need to explore and investigate options and opportunities. Anyway, there are magnet schools for those who are ready for specialization.

See, I would argue that the major path would be an exploration of an option. I think that kids in high school are already required to take a number of classes that they might not enjoy, but at least if they are taking career oriented classes, they can see how what they have been learning might (or might not) fit in to actual future education/employment. I guess an important question to ask might be how this is fit into the rest of their schedules. Which courses are there besides the major track? How many are required and how many are elective? As far as magnet schools, I would argue that not all kids have the opportunity to go to magnet schools.

Another thing to consider, is that it is common in Europe for university bound students to have already selected a major, or at least a track in literature or science, for example, before they are able to graduate high school. Their high school exit exam (often named something very close to "Bachelors") is geared towards that field.

I find it odd that she ends her article with this:

Public schools should teach all first-graders to read by the time-tested phonics system, and teach all schoolchildren to know and use the fundamentals of arithmetic by the end of the third grade. This would end the shocking epidemic of illiteracy that now permits students to get into high school and even graduate without being able to read, write or calculate change at the grocery store.

Choosing a major won't solve the problem of high school dropouts who can't read, write, add, subtract, multiply, or divide. Public schools will remain a national embarrassment unless and until the fundamentals are taught in elementary classes.

How does a lack of literacy have anything to do with encouraging kids to explore career options? Yes, please teach children to read (and please do it before they reach high school!). I think that everyone would agree that this is important. However, learning to read and learning the basics about law, or physics, or literature are not mutually exclusive! In fact, if the students do find a field that they are excited about, maybe that would motivate them to hone their basic academic skills.

All that said, I think that it is important to strike a balance between letting kids be kids and helping them to find their path in life. I would advise observing the results of major based high school education, allowing some time for fine-tuning, and then decide whether it is a net positive or negative.

Civil Unions documented in medieval France

Thanks to Anomalousdata.com, I have learned that there was an arrangement in medieval France, very similar to civil unions.

ScieneDaily reports on recent University of Chicago Journal article. Here is an excerpt:

For example, in late medieval France, the term affrèrement -- roughly translated as brotherment -- was used to refer to a certain type of legal contract, which also existed elsewhere in Mediterranean Europe. These documents provided the foundation for non-nuclear households of many types and shared many characteristics with marriage contracts, as legal writers at the time were well aware, according to Tulchin.

The new "brothers" pledged to live together sharing 'un pain, un vin, et une bourse' -- one bread, one wine, and one purse. As Tulchin notes, "The model for these household arrangements is that of two or more brothers who have inherited the family home on an equal basis from their parents and who will continue to live together, just as they did when they were children." But at the same time, "the affrèrement was not only for brothers," since many other people, including relatives and non-relatives, used it.

The effects of entering into an affrèrement were profound. As Tulchin explains: "All of their goods usually became the joint property of both parties, and each commonly became the other's legal heir. They also frequently testified that they entered into the contract because of their affection for one another. As with all contracts, affrèrements had to be sworn before a notary and required witnesses, commonly the friends of the affrèrés."

Tulchin argues that in cases where the affrèrés were single unrelated men, these contracts provide "considerable evidence that the affrèrés were using affrèrements to formalize same-sex loving relationships. . . . I suspect that some of these relationships were sexual, while others may not have been. It is impossible to prove either way and probably also somewhat irrelevant to understanding their way of thinking. They loved each other, and the community accepted that. What followed did not produce any documents."

He concludes: "The very existence of affrèrements shows that there was a radical shift in attitudes between the sixteenth century and the rise of modern antihomosexual legislation in the twentieth."

Here is a reference to the full article: Allan Tulchin, "Same-Sex Couples Creating Households in Old Regime France: The Uses of the Affrèrement." Journal of Modern History: September 2007.

Another book down

I just finished reading another book, Dragon and Phoenix by Joanne Bertin. This book is interesting, because it sat on my shelf for so long without getting read. It was a a birthday or Christmas present from the boyfriend that I had in 1999. I had just assumed that I had read it before, but decided to read it again anyway. The first chapter was familiar, but I guess that's only because it had been printed at the end of the previous book, The Last Dragon Lord, as a teaser and I had read it there. The further I got into it, the more I noticed that I had no idea what was going to happen. It was a pleasant surprise, since I usually remember the ending of a book that I decide to re-read about half way through.

Happiness is lounging around and reading fantasy fiction...not that that is all I did all day. I also did legitimate work, uploading worksheets and such a a lesson-share site for other teachers to work with.

Really hungry ferrets

In the past, the ferrets have been satisfied with one ice-cube worth of ferret gruel. Just this morning, they've finished off three. I'm wondering if I didn't put enough of something in the mix on this batch. I'm surprised that they're still hungry. Maybe there is too much water and not enough kibble or chicken. I guess I'll just feed them until they stop eating.

Arabic and Islam - are they the same?

A couple of recent pieces on Townhall.com have prompted me to comment a bit on the relationship of Arabic to Islam.

Ken Connor has written to express his concerns about a new Arabic school in NYC.

Abraham Lincoln once famously observed, "The philosophy of the school room in one generation is the philosophy of government in the next."

The truth of Lincoln's observation is, no doubt, at the core of the apprehensions that New Yorkers have expressed about the Khalil Gibran International Academy scheduled to open next month in Brooklyn. Adding to their apprehensions is the fact that KGIA is just three blocks from a mosque which has a history of employing radical imams and which was frequented by one of the terrorists implicated in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

It takes a lot to rankle Gotham City dwellers, but, given their experience with radical Islam, one can sympathize with their angst. Mind you, KGIA is a public school and will be funded with public tax dollars, some of which will come from families of the victims of 9/11. World Net Daily reports that the school's curriculum "will integrate intensive Arabic language instruction and the study of Middle Eastern history and historical figures," including the life and teachings of the prophet Muhammad. WND also explains that field trips will include destinations in the Middle East and that "teacher materials will be adapted from publications supplied by the Council on Islamic Education." New York City school officials have tried to assure the public that the school will be "non-religious" and will not promote a political or religious ideology, but skepticism abounds.

He seems to be concerned about the school training terrorists. He also insists that

...it is duplicitous to suggest that one can separate Arabic culture from the religion of Islam. That's like trying to square a circle. It can't be done. In Islam, there is no separation of church and state. Islamic fundamentalists do not draw a distinction between religion, culture and politics. The three are united under Sharia law. These religious zealots see the state as a primary vehicle for advancing Islam. Indeed, the coercive power of the state is essential to spreading the teachings of the Koran. ...

I suspect that we can't really know what the aims of this school are until its curriculum can be reviewed. I would have to agree with Connor that a public school should not teach Islam any more than a public school should teach Christianity. However, I do believe that the school should be able to teach ABOUT Islam, Christianity or any other religion in order to enable students to understand others and other religions. (Perhaps Connor would have benefited from a unit on Islam in his schooling.) The biggest problem with a curriculum about religion is determining who should teach it and what the 'truths' are that should be taught, since there is so much variation even between different denominations of the same umbrella religion. (Try asking a Roman Catholic, a Southern Baptist and a Jehovah's Witness what Christianity is, and you will get 3 very different answers once you get beyond belief in Christ as the Savior.)

------------------------------------------

Another right-winger, Doug Giles, has written to insist that "Allah" should not be used to talk about the Christian God, because he ignorantly believes that it is only used by Muslims. Giles goes so far as to personally attack a Dutch bishop, who suggested using "Allah" in Christian ceremonies. Giles writes:

Tiny Muskens, a Dutch Roman Catholic Bishop in Amsterdam, released another nifty idea this week upon his wooden shoe wearing sheep. Minister Muskens, well-known for stupidity aplenty, came up with a fresh game plan of which he said would aid the Dutch, yea, the entire world in getting along with Muslims Gone Wild. Tiny proposed “that people of all faiths refer to God as Allah to foster understanding.”

...

According to the Netherlands' biggest-selling newspaper, De Telegraaf, Tiny, after tabling his plan to reporters, said he had no further comment. He simply smiled, did a pirouette, stripped down to his pink boy shorts, put on a spaghetti-strapped yellow sun dress which he had in his exorcist kit and then started skipping down the cobblestone street with Boy George blaring from his iPod mini.

Well, I'm not sure where Giles gets his copy of De Telegraaf, but I read the two articles that come up on when searching for "Tiny Muskens" and "Allah" ("Muskens: 'God' vervangen door 'Allah' - telegraaf.nl" and "Bisdom: Muskens sprak niet namens bisschoppen - telegraaf.nl") and found no reference to 'no comment' (or to what Muskens might have been wearing - maybe De Telegraaf should sue for misrepresentation) and even found that some other Dutch bishops disassociated themselves with Muskens' suggestion, but noted the following:

Het bisdom wijst erop dat Allah in het Aramees, de taal die in de tijd van Jezus werd gesproken, Heer betekent. In het Arabische taalgebied is het voor zowel christenen als moslims en joden de meest gangbare naam om God aan te duiden. Oosterse christenen, vooral de kopten, gebruikten het woord Allah al, voordat de islam in de zevende eeuw ontstond.

For those who don't read Dutch, this can be translated as:

The bishopric notes that Allah in Aramaic, the language spoken in Jesus' time, means Lord. In Arabic language region, it is the most common name used to refer to God for Christians as well Muslims and Jews. Eastern Christians, especially the Copts, had already used the word Allah before the inception of Islam in the seventh century.

While it is true that many of the idioms used in Arabic are tied to the Islamic faith, it is not necessary to believe in Islam to learn Arabic. When I was learning Arabic over the summer, 'Alhamdu-llah' and 'Ensha'allah' were very common phrases that everyone picked up. They made an atheist student feel weird, because they referred to God. They made me feel weird, having grown up in a Protestant tradition, because it sounded too much like taking God in vain. However, we have the same idioms in English: 'Thank God' and 'God willing'. It's really not that you have to become indoctrinated into Islam; it's just that you need to become more comfortable with hearing 'God' frequently.

It is also important to note that the Koran is written in Arabic, so Muslims consider the Arabic language to be sacred. For a copy of the Koran to be considered legitimate, it must include the original Arabic, even if there is another language translation provided.

Not all Muslims are Arabs. Many Muslims have only a very limited knowledge of the Arabic language; just enough to read from the Koran. Sometimes, they don't even understand what they are reading; they may have just been trained in recitation. One might consider the relationship of Christianity to Latin, particularly during the Middle Ages (though this is also not the best characterization, since the Bible was not originally written in Latin).

The Bible exists in Arabic as well and is used by Christians throughout the Arab world.

So, I think that it is safe to say that Arabic is spoken by non-Muslims, and Muslims don't all speak Arabic. Therefore, there can be a distinction made between the two.

Elbow Room & Lebensraum

Has anyone watched this (School House Rock - Elbow Room) since developing social awareness??? "Manifest Destiny" is the same as the "Lebensraum" policy of Hitler as far as I can tell. How can we still glorify this mentality? No wonder we are having trouble with the rest of the world!

One thing you will discover
When you get next to one another
Is everybody needs some elbow room, elbow room.

It's nice when you're kinda cozy, but
Not when you're tangled nose
to nosey, oh,
Everybody needs some elbow, needs
a little elbow room.

That's how it was in the early days
of the U.S.A.,
The people kept coming to settle though
The east was the only place there
was to go.

The President was Thomas Jefferson
He made a deal with Napoleon.
How'd you like to sell a mile or two, (or three, or a hundred or a thousand?)
And so, in 1803 the Louisiana Territory was sold to us
Without a fuss
And gave us lots of elbow room,

Oh, elbow room, elbow room,
Got to, got to get us some elbow room.
It's the West or bust,
In God we trust.
There's a new land out there...
Lewis and Clark volunteered to go,
Good-bye, good luck, wear your overcoat!
They prepared for good times and for bad (and for bad),
They hired Sacajawea to be their guide.
She led them all across the countryside.
Reached the coast
And found the most
Elbow room we've ever had.

The way was opened up for folks with bravery.
There were plenty of fights
To win land rights,
But the West was meant to be;
It was our Manifest Destiny!

The trappers, traders, and the peddlers,
The politicians and the settlers,
They got there by any way they could (any way they could).
The Gold Rush trampled down the wilderness,
The railroads spread across from East to West,
And soon the rest was opened up for - opened up for good.

And now we jet from East to West.
Good-bye New York, hello L.A.,
But it took those early folks to open up the way.

Now we've got a lot of room to be
Growing from sea to shining sea.
Guess that we have got our elbow room (elbow room)
But if there should ever come a time
When we're crowded up together, I'm
Sure we'll find some elbow room...up on the moon!

Oh, elbow room, elbow room.
Got to, got to get us some elbow room.
It's the moon or bust,
In God we trust.
There's a new land up there!

Done with Arabic Camp

خلاص

I'm at my parents' house after the 8 week experience in...I don't know...right now the memories are just calling up a sense of dread.

After the initial shock of being in control of my life again wears off, I hope to be able to write an academic article about the experience in "intensive immersion" (the exact definition and what I actually experienced might not quite jive). Other first year students in the program said that they'd be interested in co-authoring such a project. (Originally, I was thinking that I would write it and would interview my fellow students as participants/subjects in a study, but I'm having trouble getting a professor to sign off on the human subjects committee protocol, because they don't want to risk upsetting their colleagues / bad publicity for the program if the subjects report too many negative experiences.)

Right now, I can say this: I learned a lot of Arabic, but I could have learned a lot more and been a lot farther away from a mental breakdown if things had been administered differently.

More hawk photos

Here are some pictures of a younger hawk. Unfortunately, I didn't zoom in close enough to get really good shots. This one was also a lot further away than the other one.

squirrel pictures

I like taking pictures of squirrels and stuff. Completely random, I know.



The squirrels in the first picture are not doing what it looks like they might be doing. Really, they had just run up about 3 feet on a 7 foot tree to escape any threat that they thought that I might pose and are climbing over each other to get out of the way.


This squirrel was shrieking at us for a long time.

A new understanding of the Holy Spirit

A friend of mine just shared this anecdote with me:

She was in a high school history class that was discussing the history of Christianity. There was also a girl from Asia there, who was not familiar with many of the concepts commonly held by various groups within Christianity. Some people in the class explained to her that God sent the Holy Spirit into Mary, and Jesus was born. So the girl thought about it and says: "So, the Holy Spirit is like God's sperm?"

Priceless.

another wrinkle on the hijab question

Another couple of Saudi guys told me the following about why women are to cover themselves, even though men don't have to:

• There are some things that humans should not ponder too hard. For example, in Islam, men are not supposed to wear gold. In some brands of Christianity, there is the Holy Trinity, which is also a sacred mystery, not meant to be understood.
  
• A lot of the application of the women-covering rules is local tradition and not inherent to Islam per se.
• Men are stronger at controlling their emotions than women (an example of how men and women are different; beyond physical strength and child-bearing ability).
• Unlike women, men are unable to control their sexual urges.

I'm not one for taking things on faith. If there is a prohibition, I want some sort of answer other than "just because". Sorry, can't ask me to stop pondering.

I think that everyone is capable of controlling their sexual behavior. Period. Sure, you'll get turned on by things, but that doesn't mean that you are powerless when it comes to deciding whether to act on those urges or not.

I think that the argument that men are better able to control their emotions is an artifact of their socialization. There are men who cry because they've never been taught not to, and those who won't because they've been led to believe that it is unmanly. I don't believe that it has much to do with sex; only with gender roles.

On the other hand, the hormonal cycles are different in men than in women (or visa versa). So, maybe there is more to it that should be considered.

Comments?

Kids' reading list

I would like to recommend the following socially conscious Dr. Seuss books for kids:
The Butter Battle Book



The Sneetches and Other Stories



The Lorax


They are great for getting kids to engage with social issues of the "other", both at home and abroad, foreign policy, and the environment. I'm sure that there are others, but these are the ones that I really loved when I was a kid!

Update on the hijab question

I asked my Iraqi friend what he thought about the whole women covering and men not covering thing. Here's his response:

Karen: My question: In strict traditional Islam, women are required to cover (at least) their hair. This is because of the concern that the female body will incite a sexual reaction in men. So, I ask; why is it that men don't also have to cover up? Why is it that in many countries, the women wear long robes and scarves, but the men wear western dress? Why don't men cover up to avoid awakening a sexual response in women?

Jassim: well

Jassim: let me think a little lol

Karen: ok

Jassim: it looks a good issue to talk about

Jassim: breifly, men should cover themselves too, this role is for men and women equaly, but because of the rugh nature of men (I think) so they not obay roles while force women to do it,

Jassim: actually I believe that all people women and men must be modest in their cloths to avoide these unneeded desires publicly, not to over practise it like some people does, they make women in those countries like a black bag, I don't think this is necessary , it is enough to be moderate in clothing

Jassim: Islam rised in Arabic land, not in Iran, Pakistan or india , arabic women were riding horses, speaching, telling portery and fighting in battles if necessary, they were modist as well as men,

Jassim: but not over covering even the face such as what known about arabic culture, actually alot of the history is not true about arabs, many things needs to be reknown

Jassim: I hope that I answered your question dear and I'm glad to answer

Something to think about from the Western standpoint is this: Women have to cover their chest, but men don't. Why is that exactly? A man with his shirt off can be incredibly arousing.

It's just a question...

So, I've been spending a lot of time around Arabic speakers. There is a very high concentration of Saudi Arabian students studying here, and they come to dinner with us.

I've been asking a number of them a question that has been getting some interesting responses.

My question: In strict traditional Islam, women are required to cover (at least) their hair. This is because of the concern that the female body will incite a sexual reaction in men. So, I ask; why is it that men don't also have to cover up? Why is it that in many countries, the women wear long robes and scarves, but the men wear western dress? Why don't men cover up to avoid awakening a sexual response in women? (A couple of these Saudi guys are REALLY cute!)

The first Saudi man I asked told me that when he is in Saudi Arabia, he wears the full Thobe with head covering. He said that the Prophet covered himself more than the women did. He said that he personally only wears western dress here so that he will blend in and not get attacked as an Arab. He also explained that in his country, if a woman is raped, the men in her family will kill the offender without involving the police, so there is a certain responsibility on the part of the woman to do what she can to keep that from happening.

The second guy looked awfully uncomfortable and evaded the question. I found out later that he hates talking about religion. I probably shouldn't have asked him and might have gone about it differently if I'd known. (I'd been working under the assumption that the Saudi students were all about sharing Islam, since that's what a friend who spends a lot of time with them had told me. Apparently, this particular one wasn't one of them, unlike the first guy I'd asked.)

The third guy also seemed a bit uncomfortable, but explained that it had more to do with physical ability to rape. He said that since women are the ones who are vulnerable, they are the ones who need to be protected by the hijab.

The fourth guy also didn't know what to respond, but promised to ask a friend of his, who is more knowledgeable in such things and get back to me. I asked him a bit later if I had offended him, and he assured me that I could ask him anything I wanted and that if he didn't have an answer, he would find out. I made a point of telling him that he didn't have to answer my questions if he didn't want to. I haven't seen him since, but it's only been a day or so.

Every time I ask this question of someone, my friend (who was present for conversations 2, 3 and 4; and is Muslim to some degree, though even he is unsure at this point...really long story) berates me for asking this question. He asks me why I am not just satisfied with what the third guy said. Tonight, he asked me not to ask this question anymore in his presence.

It was this friend who told me that the Saudi students were interested in convincing people of Islam. I'd say that this is definitely true of the first guy I asked, not true of the second, perhaps true of the third and of the fourth. This same friend told me that the third and fourth guys are both very religious and that the fourth guy talks about Islam a lot. So, my thought is, that if (the rhetorical) you are going to want to convince me of your beliefs, then I want to know how this apparent double-standard is resolved. If you are going to ask me to believe, then I need to know what I am supposed to believe and why.

Also, I've asked more than one guy, because there is more than one version of Islam. Some schools of thought don't require any particular garments. Others require them to more or lesser degrees. I wanted to know what the belief is. From my experience, asking four Christians about what it takes to get to heaven will all potentially elicit very different responses, so I figured that it's probably the same with Muslims. I should note that the first guy I asked is very openly anti-Shia, so I suspect that this is indicative of such schisms.

I think that I should ask my Iraqi friend. Maybe he will answer. Actually...I might have already asked him once and I don't think that he had a clear answer, but I can always ask again in light of these conversations.

The vase-anorexia link

Vrouwen voelen zich dikker door dunne vaas

Vrouwen die ontevreden zijn over hun lichaam voelen zich nog dikker bij het zien van een dunne vaas. De Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (RUG) deed er onderzoek naar en maakte de resultaten dinsdag bekend.

Het onderzoek toonde aan dat vrouwen zich ook met objecten vergelijken en niet alleen met andere vrouwen. Debra Trampe onderzocht hoe vrouwen die ontevreden zijn over hunl ichaam, reageren op een dikke of een dunne vaas. 'De vrouwen die de dikke vaas te zien kregen behielden hetzelfde lichaamsbeeld', vertelt Trampe. 'De vrouwen die de dunne vaas zagen voelden zich nadien nog ontevredener.' Volgens Trampe vergelijken vrouwen zich met alle vormen waarin ze een lichaamsvorm kunnen zien.

---------------------

Bron:
De Standaard, webeditie, 30 mei 2007
http://www.standaard.be


Women feel fatter through slender vases. 

Women who are dissatisfied with their bodies feel even fatter when they see a thin vase.  The Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (RUG) did a study about this and reported the results on Thursday. 

The study demonstrated that women also compare themselves with objects and not just women.  Debra Trampe studied how women, who are dissatisfied with their bodies react to a wide or narrow vase.  'The women who saw the wide vase kept the same body-image', says Trampe. 'The women who saw the slender vase felt even less satisfied afterwards.'  According to Trampe, women compare themselves to all forms in which they can see a human figure.  

---------------------

Source:
De Standaard, web edition, 30 May 2007
http://www.standaard.be

The Twenty-Fifth Hour by C. Virgil Gheorghiu

I recently finished reading The Twenty-Fifth Hour by C. Virgil Gheorghiu (as opposed to the handful of books by the same title by other authors). It had been recommended to me by Jassim, who has read it at leasts a dozen times. He said that it really describes the current situation in Iraq, even though the protagonist is a WWII era Romanian farmer, who is wrongfully imprisoned and passed from internment camp to internment camp throughout the war.

There is a review of it from TIME from 1950:

...It is the innocent helplessness of its heroes that gives The Twenty-Fifth Hour its heavy coating of irony. Men, Gheorghiu is saying, no longer think in terms of individuals or their happiness. Human life has ceased to mean anything except as a cog in some machine or pattern. Production, material results, categories, statistics—these are all that count. The criminals are not so much the Nazis and the Communists as the big-machine boys everywhere. And of all the nations in the world, says Gheorghiu, it is the U.S. that most fervently worships the twin cults of bigness and the machine. Author Gheorghiu (who steadfastly refuses to visit the U.S.) offers his novelist's proof: his heroes, sure they can count on justice from the Americans, get a heartless shake in U.S. Army P.W. camps.

Choice in Despair. Despite its European popularity, The Twenty-Fifth Hour is no literary masterpiece. Its plot is heavily propped with coincidence, the characters are undeveloped and its message is spelled out with "petitions" that bring the story to repeated full stops. Gheorghiu's villain, machine-age power, is neither an original nor a persuasive one. What gives the book its impact is its assembly of evidence of man's inhumanity to man, by no means peculiar to the machine age. ...

As stated in the TIME review, the mechanics weren't excellent, but most of the book was a compelling read and it certainly made an impact, despite the occasional sermon/manifesto-like tone interspersed throughout the narrative.

gay fetus

I saw a new (to me, anyway) question posted online:

If the fetus you save is gay, will you still fight for its rights?

Torture in Germany

I just found out a from a German friend of mine, that women who have an abortion are required to look at the aborted fetus. Apparently, they are also required to have a 'counseling session' before the abortion, in which they show how horrible a decision it is. (I don't know if this is an actual law, local practice or what, just that my German friend understands it to be widespread.)

I'm not opposed to having a counseling session, if the information is provided in a 'just the facts' way to let the woman know what potential health and psychological risks are. It's also OK to let her know what various social implications might be. However, such a session should not be aimed at convincing the woman to decide one way or the other.

I think that bombarding the woman with images of ripped apart fetuses does nothing but attack her mental well-being. I don't believe that she should be forced to not only make the difficult decision but also be tortured with having to see what remains of the fetus.

All that said, I can understand why they force women to see the fetus. It is reminiscent of the American policy at the end of WWII to march locals through the concentration camps to make them see what they allowed to happen.

I don't know. I guess it all comes down to whether you consider a fetus a living, thinking being or not. For me, I guess the line really does come down to when it becomes aware of its surroundings.

I don't think that I would personally feel comfortable with an abortion, but I wouldn't deny a woman the right to make that decision for herself.

Stay the course!

That's right! Stay the course! Keep eating that dinner, even if you come to believe that it is poisoned! No flip-flopping!