It’s telling that the owner of the slaughterhouse Amy Meyer filmed happens to be Darrell H. Smith, the town mayor. (Mayor Smith, the meatpacking company, and the local prosecutor did not return phone calls for comment). If that’s shocking to you, it shouldn’t be. In Iowa, for example, the nation’s first ag-gag law was sponsored by Rep. Annette Sweeney, who is the former director of the Iowa Angus Association.

In Utah, the bill’s sponsor, Rep. John Mathis, called undercover investigators “animal rights terrorists” and said video recordings of animal abuse are “propaganda.” In his opening remarks at a legislative hearing on the ag-gag bill, Mathis said: “It’s fun to see my good ag friends in this committee… all my good friends are here.” Ag-gag supporters couldn’t be any more transparent in their financial motivations for censorship.

It was prescient that, as the Utah bill was being considered, the Utah Sentencing Commission warned that it could be used against anyone who merely takes a photograph of a farm or slaughterhouse. At the time, Rep. Greg Hughes of Draper replied: “Who would really pursue that in terms of prosecution?” Now, the first ag-gag prosecution is for precisely that, in his own district.

Somehow people who document animal abuse are “animal rights terrorists” in the big business arena?

It seems that this pits the humane treatment of animals against big business and industry that appears to want to foster animal abuse.

Strange that the meat industry has never spoken out against animal abuse, strange that animal abuse seems almost welcomed, and even stranger that the first target is a woman standing on a street with a camera.  Then again, is the filming the issue, or is it the publication?  If it occurs on a public street, how is it that slaughterhouses get more protections than human beings?  Celebrities have no right to privacy on the street, but now slaughterhouses do?  Animal abusers have more rights than other people, namely the right to not have their abuses made public while celebrities have the onus to try to evade photographers without any protections? Why is it that animal abusers have different rights to privacy than entertainers or people working in the public eye?

Meyer was allowed to leave. She later found out she was being prosecuted under the state’s new “ag-gag” law. This is the first prosecution in the country under one of these laws, which are designed to silence undercover investigators who expose animal welfare abuses on factory farms. The legislation is a direct response to a series of shocking investigations by groups like the Humane Society, Mercy for Animals, and Compassion Over Killing that have led to plant closures, public outrage, and criminal charges against workers.

Even the most sweeping ag-gag bills, such as the American Legislative Exchange Council model legislation, don’t explicitly target filming from a roadside. But Nebraska, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Vermont are all considering bills similar to the Utah law right now.

Pennsylvania’s bill criminalizes anyone who “records an image of, or sound from, the agricultural operation” or who “uploads, downloads, transfers or otherwise sends” the footage using the Internet.

Here is an excerpt from Change.org, about a petition set up by people who want to see animal abuse reported. I am trying to figure out how to sign it. If any of my readers figure it out, please let me know in comments.

Why gay people should be able to get married is you can’t stop two adult’s from getting married because there grown and it doesn’t matter if it creeps you out just get over it. And you should be happy for them because it’s a big momment in their life. When I went to my grandparents wedding it was the happies momment.

As you can see gay people should have the right to get married and you shouldn’t judge other peoples lives because if you was gay you wouldn’t want people talking about you.

Yahoo’s article points out that this was originally published by the student’s teacher to show how far the student had come in distilling his argument, and what a stellar argument it is.

The other latest handwritten missive providing support to gay marriage is from the father of a son who was trying to figure out how to tell his parents he is gay.

The complete and total love from this father is an amazing testament to how powerful and generous we humans can be, even in these times of intolerance, to show that it is possible, that even children have this ability, just like the father, to show love and compassion to all people.  Note that the child makes the argument that people who are gay should be treated like someone else would want to be treated, that people shouldn’t live in judgment.

Truer words were never spoken, and even with the spelling errors, that writing teacher deserves an A+, and so does his student.

Ms. Caro died when she was 28, abut she wanted the world to know about her disease:

Under the headline ‘No Anorexia,’ images across newspapers and billboards showed Caro naked, vertebrae and facial bones protruding.

There is a new ad campaign speaking out against anorexia, profiled by Huffington Post

The tagline: “You are not a sketch. Say no to anorexia” is meant to be meaningful, but it doesn’t speak to me that way, because it’s pointless to blame the models for the standards set by the industry. Why is this somehow a woman’s fault, again?  Why isn’t there any kind of action taken, sanction, for fashion designers using anorexic models in their shows, in their advertising? With these ads, the woman is still being attacked for what she is or isn’t as opposed to the industry for asking her to be that way in order to get work.  I still think it’s sick, but it’s not the woman’s fault here.

Related articles

• Disturbing Anti-Anorexia Ads Compare Starving Women To Fashion Sketches
• Anorexia Nervosa
• Modelling Agencies Target Swedish Anorexia Patients

A fMRI scan showing regions of activation in orange, including the primary visual cortex (V1, BA17). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“.

A German study published online April 10th in the journal PLOS found that men do indeed have difficulty understanding how women feel — at least from looking their eyes. The researchers, led by Boris Schiffer of the LWL-University Hospital in Bochum, Germany, put 22 men between the ages of 21 and 52 in a functional magnetic resonance imaging scanner (fMRI), which uses blood flow as a measure of brain activity. The men were shown images of 36 pairs of eyes — half belonging to men and half belonging to women — and asked to choose which of two given emotions the person was feeling. An interpretation of a person’s emotions based only on a closeup of their eyes is called a “Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test.”

The researchers found that it was twice as difficult for the men to accurately guess what the women were feeling as it was for them to guess what the men were feeling. They also took longer attempting to interpret the women’s eyes.

Who is surprised by this? While the photo shown above isn’t representative of the study’s data, it does show how an fMRI scan could be interpreted, by looking at the dots of color that light up when the brain begins to process information.  Since the basis of the study, that it took twice as long to interpret results, was based on timing not the brain Lite-Brite machine, it’s difficult to determine why an fMRI scanner was used, but perhaps this adds validity when people can see pictures of the brain.  Might be a little short on the science here to use an fMRI when timing seems the goal, but it’s interesting nonetheless.

While I am perfectly fine with gleaning information from a timed test, that it took men twice as long to perform a task that women do more efficiently, say, reading emotions, the “science” such as it were, takes a marvelously weird and un-called for turn into caveman style shortly after the initial spot of brilliance.  Here is where the fMRI bit mucks things up, because not knowing what to do with visual representations of brain functioning, the “researchers” start making assumptions.  You know what assumptions do with the ass out of u and me bit, and here go the researchers ass-forward in grand style, because now that they have an image, they must comment, regardless of how stupid they sound, no edit here.

The fMRI showed that the amygdala – a part of the brain that helps process emotions — was activated more intensely when the men looked at the eyes of other men than when they looked at the eyes of women.

The cause of this discrepancy is unclear, [MY NOTE HERE: When the cause is unclear, "scientists" shouldn't speculate, because here comes a whopper of a tall tale....]though the researchers write in the paper that perhaps evolutionary imperatives made it more important for men to understand other men than to understand women. “As men were more involved in hunting and territory fights, it would have been important for them to be able to predict and foresee the intentions and actions of their male rivals.”

Cavemen are responsible for men’s problems with women, it seems, because now cavemen supposedly didn’t think women were important either.  How weird is that?  We can now determine what cavemen thought of women by looking at men who took twice as long to examine women’s eyes. Rational, just and valid sort of scientific finding, don’t you think, with sophisticated brain imaging techniques.  There you go, put a brain in a scanner with technological advances and blame everything on cavemen anyway.  The only  thing that seems true now is that men sure can’t escape their pasts.

Related articles

• Study Proves Men Have Trouble Reading Women’s Emotions
• Why Don’t Men Understand Women? Altered Neural Networks for Reading the Language of Male and Female Eyes
• It’s true: Men can’t read women’s emotions, study confirms
• It’s Official: Men Can’t Read Women’s Emotions

A New Hampshire state representative apologized on Wednesday for using “vagina” as a synonym for “woman” in a mass email to lawmakers as part of a gun-law debate.

Representative Peter Hansen was responding to fellow Republican Representative Steve Vaillancourt, who had urged repeal of the state’s Stand Your Ground law. The 2011 law allows use of deadly force even if people could safely retreat from a threatening situation.

“What could possibly be missing from those factual tales of successful retreat in VT (Vermont), Germany and the bowels of Amsterdam,” Hansen wrote in an email to the 400-member House of Representatives in response to a speech by Vaillancourt.

“Why children and vagina’s (sic) of course. While the tales relate the actions of a solitary male the outcome cannot relate to similar situations where children and women and mothers are the potential victims.”

The April 1 email drew widespread condemnation from both Democrats and Republicans after it was republished on Monday on a state political blog called Susan the Bruce.

So, then he claims he is sorry for using “stupid” language and another representative says that most of the time we call women “women,” as opposed to vaginas?

Hansen, who initially defended the email, issued a full apology on Wednesday.

“I want to apologize to my constituents, my colleagues and women, especially those in my life, for the blatantly offensive, insensitive and, frankly, stupid language I used in my email with House members regarding the Stand Your Ground legislation,” Hansen wrote in an emailed statement.

“I am embarrassed, to say the least. There is no place or need in the public discourse for the words I used. The people and the process deserve better than that.”

The Democrat-controlled House voted to repeal Stand Your Ground on March 27. The bill faces an uncertain future in the state’s Republican-controlled Senate.

Hansen’s comments especially stand out in New Hampshire, which has a female governor and an all-female delegation to Congress. The House speaker and chief justice of the Supreme Court are also women.

“It just seemed outrageous because it was going out to all 400 representatives,” said Democratic Representative Rick Watrous. “Usually we use the term ‘women’ when we’re talking about women.”

Why is no one on record, besides other women, saying this guy is just an asshole? Why is it only a problem to call women vaginas when only men are around, or if you are sending such a to any person, much less 400?  Why do the numbers make a difference?

I can’t tell what makes me more sick, the fact that this guy who has just been awarded my Asshole of the Week Award has called women by their anatomy, but that the other guy, Rick Watrous says it’s a problem because the women saw it. So, I kept reading, seeing if Rick Watrous really sounds like the second asshole in this equation, but he doesn’t, according to another source:

“Are you really using ‘vaginas’ as a crude catch-all for women? Really?” wrote back State Rep. Rick Watrous, a Democrat. “Please think before you send out such offensive language on the legislative listserve.”

Oh, um, wait, not “think before you use offensive language,” but “think before you send out such offensive language on the listserve”?? Of course, because to use this language itself in reference to women is appropriate, just not on the listserve.  Gee, thanks, Rick. What an asshole; yep, still think so.

At first, this stellar man Hansen, didn’t actually apologize for his remarks.  He defended them.

Having a fairly well educated mind I do not need self appointed wardens to A: try to put words in my mouth for political gain and B: Turn a well founded strategy in communication into an insulting accusation, and finally if you find the noun vagina insulting or in some way offensive then perhaps a better exercise might be for you to re-examine your psyche.

Consider my psyche examined, as it was a self-examination after all, but then, I still find that objectifying women by their anatomy offensive, so now what?

In his second attempt at “apologizing,” this was the result:

Speaking yesterday, Hansen claimed he was attempting to “get into the mind of the perpetrator,” and that the entire thing “has been totally blown out of proportion.” In signature non-apology fashion he also apologized “to those who took offense.”

(This from the article linked above, which was a bit earlier than the 3rd apology posted above, and this is from The Gawker. Yahoo didn’t have the guts to publish this.)

Guess we vaginas are just not happy with you penises.  Hmm, is “bitch” the next term that comes to mind?

Related articles

• Republican Lawmaker Refers to Women as ‘Vaginas’ in Email to Colleague
• New Hampshire Republican refers to women as “vaginas” in email to lawmakers
• New Hampshire Lawmaker Calls All Women ‘Vaginas’
• New Hampshire Lawmaker Peter Hansen (R-Penis) Refers to Women as ‘Vaginas’
• NH legislator sorry for calling women ‘vaginas’

Washington DC: United States Supreme Court (Photo credit: wallyg)

hearing the gay marriage arguments in a case pitting moral quandries with equal protection statutes, and claiming this is different from racial tensions. I can’t begin to describe how disgusting it is to me to be forced to listen to some fat old white male hacks lecture on the moral propriety of heterosexual marriage as though they are preachers on a pulpit. What happened to the separation of church and state? How is a discussion on “God’s purpose” for marriage, allegedly to procreate, a state matter? Whether marriage is damaged or not, what gives a federal agency liberty to enforce moral code?

And now the very private domain, heretofore protected by our right to privacy in our own homes (see Romer v. Evans or Griswold v. Connecticut), such as which type of person raises a child, with discrepancies made by gender, marital or sexual arrangement are now the moral fodder for the Federal Supreme Court of the United States? The Federal Supreme Court is somehow in the position to determine what is the best atmosphere in which to raise a child?

On the broader question of same-sex marriage, pressed by attorney Theodore Olson on behalf of two California same-sex couples, some conservative justices raised concerns about a lack of scientific data on same-sex couples raising children.

Justice Antonin Scalia said there is “considerable disagreement” about whether gays and lesbians should be able to raise children.

Kennedy agreed that there is “substance to the point that sociological information is new.”

On the liberal wing, justices probed Cooper on his assertion that the government’s interest in promoting procreation is a primary reason for limiting the definition of marriage.

Cooper said that expanding marriage “could well lead, over time, to harms” to the institution of marriage.

Newness of the concept of gay marriage or not, Scalia’s introduction on the propriety or newness of child rearing arrangements as a State issue based on the sexuality of the parents is a new low for the interference of the court in a matter strictly related to the personal domain of one’s home. Gay couples already raise children–that’s not at issue for the Federal Supreme Court of the United States to decide. If the argument presented is how a couple raises children, based on their sexual orientation alone, then the argument has moved away from awarding federal marriage benefits to gay couples and into a realm forbidden to the Federal Supreme Court, even in its grandiose visions of self grandeur, whether or not a person’s sexual orientation makes them suitable to parent a child.  The Federal Supreme Court of the United States is by no means allowed to determine who can procreate in this country based on sexual orientation, any more than it was called upon to determine the parenting abilities of a person based on sexual orientation–this is a forbidden zone, an abuse of power on the part of the Federal Supreme Court of the United States.

Since when is the Federal Supreme Court of the United States moonlighting as a parental advice syndicate? What gives the Federal Supreme Court of the United States the right to set parenting rules for the entire country? Just because Alito says gay parenting is new, to which I would argue that it’s not new, that he is simply old and out of touch so has not recognized homosexual behavior as far back as recorded human data exists, doesn’t mean that parenting values are the proper realm of the Federal Supreme Court of the United States to decide:

In a similar vein, Justice Samuel Alito also urged caution, noting that gay marriage, as a concept, is “newer than cellphones and the Internet.”

Regardless of how new Alito believes parenting is, one would have to argue that parenting itself is as old as human civilization and since we have no notion of how parenting emerged to its present status  besides inference, then to state that this is new is a flawed argument. To state that a parenting style is something to be determined as valid in the Federal Supreme Court is disgusting. Really, now the Supreme Court has become What to Expect When You Have a Toddler offering parenting advice similar to children’s books like: “I Have Two Mommies” or two daddies, or whatever else is out there?

Craziness. Abuse of power, and moral judgments don’t become them, so why are we becoming a country ruled by a moral majority rather than the legality of denying rights to a class of people?

Related articles

• Supreme Court Hears Arguments on CA Gay Marriage Ban
• Court could avoid ruling on gay marriage ban
• Supreme Court Raises Doubts on California Marriage Case.

Some people may wonder what sort of social change, or any change, really, an old man can effect.  How many men at 101 years of age are impacting only those in a nursing home? Actually, the men I’ve known about who made it past 100 were cared for by family members, and living that long in a nursing home is rare. Still, though, as we age, we all begin to wonder how much change we can provide in this world, and most of us want to change it for good. While we may wonder what about the human race pushes us to want to change the world for the better, to make this world a better place, we may more rightly consider: what can one do at such an advanced age to make the world a better place?  For Mr. Fauja Singh, the anser is: to run a marathon.

News outlets have made much ado about Mr. Singh’s retirement from the marathon community in the last year, but they have been less vocal in their promotion of Mr. Fauja Singh’s activist role, that of running to support women’s rights.  Mr. Singh had been greatly disturbed at the violence against women he had seen lately, and so he ran a marathon, alongside others much past the octogenarian stride, to make a statement about the rights of women:

In their interaction, Mr. Singh and Maan Kaur said that they had decided to participate in this unique event to express their concern on the recent rise in incidence of crime against women, which brought shame to India in the world comity. Maan Kaur was of the opinion that promotion of sports meant “developing healthy minds in healthy bodies”.

Mr. Fauja Singh in his message appealed to the people to rationalise their needs. “Though we all need money to survive, but it is not necessary to be greedy. Ohi sunno jo samajh aa javey, te ohi khao jo hajum ho javey (Listen that only what you can relate to and eat only what can be digested)” he said touching his turban that it was once an accepted fact that blessed by the Gurus, a Sikh would always stand in defence of women. While history was repeat with examples who Sikhs defended women of other faiths too, he said, “I am pained to listen that my daughters, grand daughters and great grand daughters are no longer safe.”

The organiser of the event Ms. Jagjit Kaur who is managing director of the Rozana Spokesman said that unless they were genuinely empowered in all walks of life, women would remain at the receiving end. She advocated the need for role fluidity, change in public perception and constant prodding towards bringing a social change. She quoted her own example that despite having run a media house and being an educationist, the society still resisted accepting her distinct identity.

Her husband, Joginder Singh Sawhney who is the Editor of the paper said that mere legislations would not help unless they were supported the necessary social change. He said that it was disturbing that despite the awareness which was associated with the resentment to the Delhi gang rape incident, crimes against women continued to rise. He said that “Mini Marathon” was aimed at associating non-controversial icons of the public, towards this unique campaign launched by the publication.

Mr. Singh is one in a million, literally, but I wish there were a million more men like him.

Still, Sandberg stresses what every good Ole White Man’s Club boy wants to hear: 1) men never really have to grow up and address women as equals and 2)if even women are criticizing other women, then it’s certainly acceptable to criticize women for doing double the work of most men for half the pay.  Hmm, and people wonder about divorce statistics… (See my post about women shunning marriage and children because of this work differential equation here:http://unaskedadvice.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/women-dont-want-to-get-married-and-have-children-because-its-a-lot-of-work-who-is-surprised/)

Sandberg’s work, if we can call it that, rests on the same old structure of knocking other women down so that she can get up, and it’s obnoxious, rude, and frankly, predatory. If Sandberg has the best of all worlds, and if she is so supposedly successful, why the need for demeaning other women for not working hard enough? If she is so secure, so stable, then there should be no need to demand more of other women, because she should be secure enough in herself, and herein lies the true rub: Sandberg is no more secure in her work than the rest of us, and it’s proved by her rhetoric.  Consider other business books like The 7 Habits of Highly Successful People, or The 4-Hour Workweek, both very successful books about business, or Rich Dad Poor Dad, and all with dubious concepts for success, and yet while written by men, leave off directly telling women in particular to work harder. If Ms. Sandberg were so cush in her success, her tone would have been much more generous and not so physically suggestive. “Lean in” to me sounds like “get close; brush your breasts; heave and pant while you’re at it; if you happen to touch is his penis, all the better…” “Leaning in” just frankly sounds like sex talk, not business speak about how to get ahead, and it’s in this respect that Ms.Sandberg shows just how little she knows.

Others are also bemoaning the admonishments from Sandberg, but without noting that the business reference sounds sexually suggestive:

Even Anne-Marie Slaughter, a policy analyst and Princeton professor who has fueled the debate with a piece in the Atlantic about why women “can’t have it all,” praised Sandberg for most of a New York Times book review on Sunday but gently circles back to a critical conclusion:

“Sandberg’s approach, as important as it is, is at best half a loaf,” she wrote. “(And) it is hard not to notice that her narrative is what corporate America wants to hear. For both the women who have made it and the men who work with them, it is cheaper and more comfortable to believe that what they need to do is simply urge younger women to be more like them, to think differently and negotiate more effectively, rather than make major changes in the way their companies work.”

This is unfortunate, Slaughter said. “Sandberg seems ideally placed to ask the question that all too often gets lost amid the welter of talk. … When it comes to ensuring that caregivers still have paths to the corner office, how can business lean in?”

And young career women reading the arguments seem to find it all confusing. “The bashing is unsurprising,” wrote Colleen Leahy on Fortune.com, “as it’s become something of a trend to tear apart powerful corporate females in an attempt to promote the women’s movement. (See guys, we are confusing!)”

Well, no, not really. The bashing has come because when you boil down Sandberg’s argument it really sounds like: “Try harder.” “Be tougher.” “Don’t give up.” And to a generation of women who have been burning the candle at both ends to achieve the Holy Grail of professional and personal fulfillment, that feels insulting.

Every working woman I have known for the past 20 years is justifiably exhausted.

Others are more cryptic, ambiguous with their critique, referring to the ubiquitous word in the English language, the all-purpose “fuck,” as in “Shut the fuck up, Sandberg.” And these critiques are saying what I have been feeling, that it’s not financially worth it for women to beat their heads against a wall to make half of what men make, and I am not alone. Not many women want the corporate world that Sandberg suggestively taunts. In fact, Sandberg’s book may have fallen on deaf ears for everyone except the white male corporate executive singing to himself: “See, I told you so. I thought so all along–women don’t work as hard as men.” This might be joined by other men who give high fives and join one another for rousingly  lonely drinks at a local bar to boast to one another about deals gone well in an attempt to mimic fraternal bromance. In other words, what Sandberg says reflects her ignorance, and her lack of knowledge about what women really want; for all that, she might as well be the high-fiving bromance dude:

High-profile female executives should save their breath and their advice – Millennial women aren’t buying what they’re selling.

Only 20% of Gen Y women say that they want to follow in the footsteps of the female leaders in their workplaces, says new research from Bentley University. The survey of 1000 college-educated Millennials found that while 84% of respondents said that they could identify at least one female leader at their job, most didn’t want to emulate her career path.

This rejection of the current iteration of female corporate achievement also extends to attitudes toward mentorship; only 5.5% of respondents claimed that a colleague, supervisor or role model was their primary source of career cheerleading, with spouses/partners or parents much more likely to be identified as key career supporters. And only 25% of Millennials of both genders give credit to a manager or supervisor for encouraging them to assume a leadership role at work…

And indeed, her research points to Millennials who are willing to make certain concessions for on-the-job advancement – for example, 84% would agree to a take a lateral move to gain beneficial work experience and 69% would be willing to travel frequently for work – but who also prioritize the intrinsic satisfaction they expect their careers to provide over the bottom line, with 84% claiming knowing that they’re making a difference in the world is more important to them than professional recognition and 79% rating a positive work environment as more important than the size of their pay check.

The research also highlights a breakdown in how corporate leaders are providing guidance and support to female subordinates and how these Millennial subordinates are receiving their overtures and the tangible effects this support has on career development. Only 35% of female survey respondents said they “often” received positive recognition at work, with women more likely to receive verbal praise and men more than twice as likely to say they received recognition in the form of financial compensation and almost twice as likely as women to say they received promotions or special assignments as a form of positive recognition. These findings echo research conducted by Catalyst in 2010 that found that not only did mentored men win more promotions than women, their promotions came with greater financial compensation – 21% increases to women’s 2%. Catalyst’s research also found that mentoring alone was not sufficient to close the gender wage gap between high-performing white collar workers.

Hmm, 2% for women to 21% for men–in what business world does this even come close to making financial sense for women to follow this path? How does “lean in” and “suggestively rub your breasts on his arm” close the gap for women who could sell out to make only a 2% raise to a man’s 21% raise?

For myself, I bowed out of the corporate world a long time ago. My partner and I completed an experiment when I was just out of undergrad, and he was just out of grad school, and we went to staffing agency to apply for the exact same temp jobs. What we found: I was offered low-end secretarial work, and he was offered jobs that were entry level business or marketing jobs, no matter which qualifications we put down to begin with, even if we put down equal qualifications. When I went to another state and did the same thing, I was assigned a secretarial job at a stock broker’s office. I asked if I would ever move up from secretary, because they had also just hired another young man my age, with the same qualifications, and their answer: “no.” I quickly realized that the corporate world could not match my intelligence with a pay-out.  Whenever I have taken a W-2 job, I have cut my income in half. By freelancing, I double my income. Those numbers, can’t argue with.  So, I say to Ms.Sanberg, as soon as you close that pay gap, Ms. Sandberg, maybe women will be willing to put in more hours, but until then, perhaps you could just entitle your book:”How to Please the Old White Man’s Club: Lean In and Rub…” (Oh, and call it a business manual, would you, please??? We wouldn’t want people to think you’re suggesting women prostitute themselves for any less than those boobies are worth!)

Related articles

• Sheryl Sandberg never claimed she was writing a feminist manifesto, so why this chorus of jeers?
• Viewpoints: Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg offers confusing career advice for women
• Career tips from Sheryl Sandberg’s ‘Lean In’
• Sheryl Sandberg pushes women to “lean in”

Feeding people’s “likes” into an algorithm, information hidden in the lists of favorites predicted whether someone was white or African American with 95% accuracy, whether they were a gay male with 88% accuracy, and even identified participants as a Democrat or Republican with 85% accuracy.  The ‘likes’ list predicted gender with 93% accuracy and age could be reliably determined 75% of the time. The pattern of online liking predicted drug use with 65% accuracy and whether someone was likely to drink alcohol with 70% accuracy.

Of course, there might not be a perfect answer to these troubling questions, as being a heterosexual male was also highly correlated with waking up confused from naps, but then nothing is perfect:

But other connections were more puzzling and may require deeper analysis to understand fully — liking “curly fries” or “thunderstorms,” for example, was strongly linked with high intelligence while being a fan of the make-up store Sephora, liking the “I love being a mom” page or the Harley Davidsonbrand were linked with low intelligence.  Being a heterosexual male was oddly linked with liking “being confused after waking from naps.”

I have a friend who fits the profile of liking Sephora and “loves being a mom,” so perhaps I could point out to her that the estimation of her intelligence is lowered by these comments. Makes me laugh.

Of course, if you want to confuse the sexual identity issue, just pick something like waking up confused after naps, because that seems to cover most of us, and you might just find your gender and sexual orientation assigned to you.

Related articles

• Facebook ‘Likes’ May Reveal Too Much
• Facebook Knows If You’re Gay, Use Drugs, Or Are a Republican
• What Are Your Facebook Likes Revealing About You? (Hint: It’s a lot)
• Facebook ‘likes’ reveal more than you think

Lest she stop there, Ke$ha went on to explain that she gets help on songs like “Gold Trans Am” from none other than her mom. “We write songs about boys and sex together,” she said. “That may not be normal to the average psychiatrist out there but I think it’s pretty cool.”

To push the envelope even farther than writing an ode to her “pussy,” as Kesha calls it, she wrote it with her mother.  I have to say I heard my grandmother and aunts refer to vaginas as “kitties,” as in: “Hey, Mom, wipe that kitty, and let’s go.” Or, some of my family refers to vaginas as “twillies,” sounding much like “kitties,” with the short “i” sound and double consonant. So, is it really odd for me to hear Kesha say that she wrote an ode to her pussy with input from her mother?  Perhaps in a commentary on my own family, not so much.  Kesha came from her mother’s pussy, so the idea that perhaps there is some line that is already drawn is kind of null and void.  And as parents, don’t we all hope that our children will talk to us about their relationships, even hope that when they get older they are able to enjoy sex with a partner? Is it any stretch then, really, that Kesha might write a song about sex and talk with her mom about it?

The only thing that creeps me out is Keisha’s reference to “boys and sex” in the same sentence, as if she is still playing with the concept of sex as a teenager would, or a child, and sex is not child’s play. The whole idea that she would talk about sex with her mom, not too surprising. I am not too shocked that she says “pussy” in front of her mother either, because in order to have Keisha, someone had a pussy.

And what mother who hasn’t birthed a baby wouldn’t be smiling at the thought of a young woman’s vagina being in “tip-top shape” when she wants to talk about herself?  Thank goodness Kesha has confidence in that sort of thing, which is much more refreshing that the whole discussion of labioplasty.

This song makes me want to have sex inside my car.

There is a little bit of Joan Jett, “I love Rock and Roll,” combined with some Kid Rock and the “freedom ride” bit.  Wonder how Kid Rock feels about it?  Stupid question, because he probably loves it.

“It began as a song about my car, which is a gold Trans Am, and it works about 40 percent of the time,” Ke$ha told Q Magazine. ”I don’t have another car because I love that one so much. But then like all great pop, it became a metaphor for something else — my p—y.”

“My vagina is in tip-top working order,” she continued. “Valeted and souped-up and working 100 percent of the time.”

I wonder who the valet is, or how one’s vagina gets “valeted,” but perhaps this isn’t a game of semantics but a young woman’s happiness with her body and sexuality. And, be honest here, aren’t all of us who aren’t in that position just a wee bit envious, remembering when we might have felt that way ourselves? I don’t know if I could say that my vagina “works 100 percent of the time,” because I don’t know how to qualify “working,” rather thinking of a vagina in a state of being, but hooray for Kesha’s working vagina!

I hear you that you are constantly trying to prove how smart you are, how educated, but let me give it to you honestly because you seem to feel privileged to lecture because you are a bartender: it’s hard to tell how intelligent you are when you are trying not to build foam from a beer tap.  It’s hard to tell how intelligent you are when you berate people for not knowing as much as a bartender about alcohol.  You have your own moralistic, elitist bullshit going on without even seeming to notice it.  And, here’s a news flash: I hate going to bars where people like you work, because as a customer, you always act like I owe you a break for your bad day (which would not be my fault), to your overworked status (also not my fault and for which I don’t always feel gracious when my food or drinks are wrong, cold, or supremely late–I am paying for that, not expecting a gift), to you whiny self-indulgent shit about how you are so intelligent but actually hate having to work in a bar.  Listen–not my problem.

I want to come into a bar, get a good drink, maybe eat, and relax, not have to deal with someone who is grouchy and rude because they are having a bad day. I seriously don’t care if you have underappreciated intelligence or whether or not you got a degree–I want my drink and I go out for entertainment.  Try working at a front desk where you have to smile, or working in sales, where a bad day will cost you your salary, or bad reviews will cost you your job.  Here’s a tip:  that’s called living a real world where your job demands a certain level of professionalism that seems foreign to you, which means not giving a personal judgment for someone not knowing the cost of wine in NYC.  So what if people tell you to smile.  I agree that you aren’t a dancing bear, but you do work in public and no one wants a grouch slamming drinks and dissing on all the shit they have going on when someone comes in for a drink.  News flash: it’s your job in a customer service industry to deal with assholes, because they are everywhere, and not to treat everyone else who comes in like an asshole.

So, Ms.Bartender Who Hates “You,” it’s no fun coming to your bar. People don’t care if you have a bad day or are working on your writing, or whether or not you had a bad day.  We hate bartenders like you.

I do know that many illegal immigrants drove in Michigan without a license or insurance, and it caused problems.  People who get hit by people who don’t have insurance get no reimbursement for damage from the other person’s insurance company, and I think this was why we have no-fault auto insurance, kind of a step-in for acknowledging those who refuse to get insurance.  That might change here in Michigan if illegal immigrants are allowed to get a driver’s license, which would then allow them to purchase auto insurance.  Critics will say that people who are in this country illegally won’t purchase insurance unless forced.  Of course there is the argument that getting a driver’s license will make it easier to track people who don’t follow the laws.

Illegal immigrants brought to the country as children can start applying for Michigan driver’slicenses and state IDs this week. Secretary of State Ruth Johnson’s office will begin accepting applications Tuesday.

President Barack Obama last year announced a policy letting illegal immigrants apply for temporary work permits if they were brought to the U.S. as children. But a small number of states including Michigan resisted allowing those immigrants to have driver’s licenses. Johnson, a Republican, changed her mind recently ago after the Obama administration clarified the younger immigrants’ legal status.

To be eligible, immigrants must prove they arrived in the U.S. before they turned 16, are 30 or younger, have been living in the country at least five years and are in school, have graduated or served in the military.

So I guess the question is: does entering the country illegally as a minor mean you are legal if you are in school, or is this just a way to register people with a government office to track them?  Maybe it’s just a way to allow younger people to have a license so they do get driver’s training. Too soon to tell, but it always makes you wonder what motivated a big change like this.  According to a news report, the State of Michigan now believes that the formerly illegal immigrants have now been granted legal status for two years, and so they will get a driver’s license with an expiration date.

Johnson reversed her position in February after U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services clarified that DACA recipients are, in fact, legally present. The new driver’s licenses will have a different design. The expiration date will match the expiration date on their work permits.

Discussion boards lit up on this, and apparently the news article may not have reported this quite accurately:

Sandra – Mr. Richards got back to me and said, “because a grant of deferred action does not confer lawful immigration status, or alter an existing immigration status, an individual is still considered an illegal immigrant during the 2 year deferred period”.

So – they are still considered “illegal” immigrants.

According to commentary, the status of the immigrant is still considered illegal, but they have two years here gratuitously, and I am not sure what they are supposed to accomplish in that time frame.  Do they reapply for legal status?  If they have a job, is the status renewed or deferred action renewed? Deferred action is just that, delayed not dismissed, so technically the only legal right they have been granted is the ability to drive.

Driver’s license test (Photo credit: KOMUnews)

Related articles

• N.C. to give driver’s licenses to immigrants in Deferred Action program
• Michigan to Issue Driver’s Licenses to Illegal Immigrants
• Michigan to issue driver’s licenses to immigrants
• MI to issue licenses to immigrants
• Gov. Brewer: I Won’t Allow Illegal Immigrants Granted Legal Status By Obama To Get Driver’s Licenses
• Michigan State Senators Trying to Create Insurance Program That Would Lend a Hand to Low Income Drivers
• Select Undocumented Workers Granted Michigan Licenses
• Why are Democrats Harboring Illegal Immigrants?
• Young undocumented immigrants in West Michigan apply for driver’s licenses on first day of eligibility

“Please, No African American Nurses to care for [redacted] Baby per Dad’s request. Thank you,” read a note that was attached to the baby’s clipboard and obtained by ABC affiliate WJRT in Flint, Mich.This followed a staff meeting and a call to the nurse’s home to inform her of the decision, according to the complaint.

A hospital lawyer eventually told the staff this was illegal, but the lawsuit alleges that black nurses were intentionally not assigned to the baby for the remainder of its stay in the hospital over the next month.

The hospital CEO spoke at a news conference on Tuesday after the local chapter of Al Sharpton’s National Action Network held a press conference at the hospital to demand answers.

“The father was informed that his request could not be granted, and as a result, all nurses remained available to care for his baby,” Hurley CEO Melany Gavulic said, according to WJRT. “We appreciate the community’s concern and involvement today, as we publicly clarify the facts of this case. The medical center looks forward to a quick and amicable resolution.”

The nurse had been employed at Hurley for 25 years. She is seeking damages for her distress, harassment and humiliation.

“She’s going to win this lawsuit. The real question is what’s it worth,” local attorney Tom Pabst told ABC12 last week. He is not involved in the lawsuit. “If you grant such a request, you’re engaging in unlawful conduct.”

The fact that the hospital called their employee at home to tell her that no women of color could care for this patient made me angry and sad, disgusted, and then angry all over again.  Who are these people who determine a person’s worth by their color, their nursing skills, a woman with 25 years experience deemed less capable because of her skin color?  What type of hospital administration gets away with this?  At what point did the administration ever take bigotry into account?

Related articles

• Hurley denies claims made in nurse’s lawsuit
• No Black Nurses Request Draws Lawsuit
• Nurse sues after hospital grants dad’s racial request
• Patient’s Rights Shouldn’t Be at Nursing’s Expense
• Lawsuit: Hospital granted request for no black nurses
• Black Nurses Banned From Caring for Child in Michigan Hospital

son 17 month (Photo credit: from_ko)

The minimum wage set in the United States, $7.25/hour, allows a person working 40 hours per week to earn about $15,000 a year. Let’s do the math, and even at a conservative estimate, it’s still not a living wage for a single person.

$15,000/year = $1,250/month

Rent: $450/ month

Utilities: $100/month

Gas: $100/month (driving to and from work, which means that at close to $4/gallon, this person would live very close to his or her work, driving only 25 gallons worth of gas each month, no weekend visits to see Grandma)

Groceries: $300/month (less than $100/week, so very inexpensive food)

Phone: $50/month (cheapest no-contract service through Boost)

Car: $200 (and this is not any new car for $200/month)

Clothing/Necessities: $100/month (think things like boots, work clothing, jackets, etc.)

Healthcare: $100/month (just to fill prescriptions, not actually see a physician)

Total Monthly Expenditures: $1,400/month

This doesn’t take into account things like your car breaking down, flat tires, the dryer going out, or anything like that. Notice that this doesn’t take into account actually seeing a doctor, paying for any health care procedures, or even  paying for health insurance. And, this amount is supposed to support a single person. Imagine throwing the costs of two children into this mix–it just doesn’t add up to enough money.

Related articles

• Obama sells Americans short on minimum wage
• Why The Minimum Wage Should Actually Be $21.72
• Obama, business groups differ on minimum wage plan
• Obama calls for raising minimum wage to $9
• Jared Bernstein: POTUS Proposes an Increase in the Minimum Wage

Sprinkles texture (Photo credit: julietvanree)

Related articles

• John Didn’t Eat The Sprinkles, Mom! Lay off!
• 3-Year-Old With Sprinkles All Over His Face Adamantly Denies Ever Eating Sprinkles