Pope denounces feminism

An AP story says:

The Vatican on Saturday denounced feminism for trying to blur differences between men and women and threatening the institution of families based on a mother and a father.

Seems obvious? No, some feminists are all upset:

The feminist author Natasha Walter questioned whether there were essential differences between men and women at all. "We have centuries and centuries of acculturation towards a 'vocation' of maternity, and men have only had a couple of generations of acculturation towards active paternity. Until we encourage men [to do more] it's too early to call on whether there are innate differences. The weight of tradition is so strong that it precludes the freedom to choose."

I guess she thinks that feminists should spend the next 500 years training men to be more like women.

Here is the Vatican letter.

Zoo monkey evolved

This AP story says that a zoo monkey evolved:

JERUSALEM (AP) - A young monkey at an Israeli zoo has started walking on her hind legs only -- aping humans -- after a near-death experience, the zoo's veterinarian said Wednesday.

Bad feminist research leads to bad law

The California case Marriage of Burgess (1996) was the precedent that made it very easy for divorced mothers to move away and terminate father's rights, while still collecting child support. I just learned that the decision was based on bad research by a forensic psychiatrist who claimed that children were usually better off with the father out of the picture.

Supposedly the decision was codified into law, but a recent California decision has thrown the issue back into turmoil.

Girlie men

Calif. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants us to vote out the "girlie men". I'll do my part. They are 3 weeks late passing a budget, and they haven't the guts to make the necessary cuts. No, Arnie is not apologizing.

Drug companies recommend drugs

All of the major news media carried the story that the medical experts were now recommending lowering LDL cholesterol to 70, using drugs if necessary. But this AP story says:

The new guidelines, issued Monday by the American Heart Association and the federal government, were aimed at preventing heart attacks.

They were written by nine of the country's top cholesterol experts. At least six have received consulting or speaking fees, research money or other support from makers of the most widely used anti-cholesterol drugs.

The new guidelines would add about 7 million more Americans to the 36 million already encouraged to take the pills to lower their cholesterol, ...

The authors did not disclose their biases. These drugs cost up to $100 per month, so this paper could generate billions of dollars of drug revenue.

A NJ paper says:

One panel member, NIH scientist Bryan Brewer, was chastised last week by Public Citizen, a watchdog group, for writing a favorable journal article about AstraZeneca's Crestor without disclosing that he received grants from the company. AstraZeneca has declined to discuss the nature of the grants or how much Brewer received. Brewer has declined to comment.

After the criticism, the authors finally disclosed a summary of their financial biases. 8 out of the 9 were paid off by cholesterol drug companies.

Democrats want kids on Prozac and Ritalin

Here in Silicon Valley, there is heavy demand for child shrinks.
The paper reports: 

"Everyone knows there's a nursing shortage. Everyone knows there's a teacher housing shortage. People aren't aware in the same way that there's an extremely long waiting list for kids who have dire needs" for psychiatric help, said Michael Zamore, an adviser to Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-Rhode Island, who co-sponsored a bill last year to create scholarships and loan forgiveness programs for people pursuing mental health services for youth. "Everyone knows there's a nursing shortage. Everyone knows there's a teacher housing shortage. People aren't aware in the same way that there's an extremely long waiting list for kids who have dire needs" for psychiatric help, said Michael Zamore, an adviser to Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-Rhode Island, who co-sponsored a bill last year to create scholarships and loan forgiveness programs for people pursuing mental health services for youth.

It is funny how everyone can know things that are false. There is no nursing shortage, no teacher shortage, and no pediatric psychiatrist shortage. They are the same politicians who brought hundreds of thousands of immigrants into Silicon Valley based on a theory that we had a computer programmer shortage, even tho we already had thousands of unemployed programmers.

Bad advice from Dear Abby

I am beginning to think that Dear Abby gives deliberately bad advice. Every time I look, the advice is incredibly wacky.

Today a parent wrote that his 16-year-old daughter was temporarily upset, and when he quizzed her about it, she said that she was gay. Dear Abby advises him that he needs to accept her orientation as an established fact, and that he should join a pro-lesbian lobbying organization that promotes the myth that a homosexual orientation can never be changed.

This is wacky. A girl does not get temporarily upset about being gay. Adolescent girls do often get confused and upset about a lot of different things, and some of those could cause them to be a little mixed up about their sexuality. This parent needs to get to the root of the problem. It is much more likely that she had a bad date, or suffered rejection, or is just going thru an odd phase, or something else. It is impossible for her to know that she is a lesbian if she has never even had a sexual experience.

Another letter writer complains that her retired mother spend a lot of time on the internet, and sends her 5 emails a day with jokes and other entertaining finds. She thinks that this is burdensome, and wants to politely tell her mother not to send her email. Dear Abby says that her mother must be told not to send so much email!

Other people have mothers who call on the telephone at all hours of the day and night, who visit unannounced, who stay for weeks at a time, who intrude on their social lives, who manipulate their spouses, who spoil their children, etc. This mother just sends 5 emails a day! Only the most miserable and ungrateful person could possibly object to 5 emails a day from her mother.

Armchair economics

The economic analyses of Steven E. Landsburg are always entertaining. In a couple of columns, he cites strong evidence that daughters cause more divorce than sons, and suggests that parents are happier with boys.

More recently, he suggests that the economic argument for executing computer worm writers is even more compelling than the argument for executing murderers. Economists estimate that each execution deters about 8 murders, on average.)

Stupid quote of the day

A race-baiting politician made a fool out of himself. CNN reports:

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- State Education Secretary Richard Riordan jokingly told a child her name, Isis, meant "stupid dirty girl," prompting the head of the California NAACP on Thursday to call for his resignation. ...

Democratic state Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally ... had scheduled a protest by civil rights organizations, ...

Dymally was quoted in the San Jose Mercury News Thursday saying the child was "a little African-American girl. Would he (Riordan) have done that to a white girl?"

The girl is white, with blonde hair.

Her picture is on the page. She looks very white to me.

Riordan is 74 years old, and not as sharp as he used to be. He grew up in an era when a man could tease a girl and get away with it.

Court Upholds Wife's Right to Complain

This AP story says:

A woman has the right to complain about her ex-husband - even if he finds it annoying, the [Washington] state Supreme Court ruled.

The high court on Thursday overturned a judge's order that barred a woman from complaining about her ex-husband to police and other agencies.

Some women would have nothing else to talk about!

Rape victims don't get pregnant

In order to get confirmed to be a federal judge, Leon Holmes had to apologize for saying that rape victims rarely get pregnant. But it is true that victims who report a rape do not get pregnant. They are given the equivalent of a morning-after pill. It is much more common for a woman to claim as an excuse for a pregnancy, but to never make a police complaint.

No Hitler, but bitches are everywhere

Bob sends this quote from Julie Delpy, a French movie actress"

I know a lot of women who use men, but the world is not perfect. Fifty years ago there was Hitler; now there are bitches everywhere.

Sen. Ted Kennedy wants to drug your kids

The Boston Globe says:

WASHINGTON -- A bill banning schools from coercing parents into putting their children on psychotropic drugs, passed with near-universal support in the House, is being tied up in a Senate committee by Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who contends it requires more study.

Supporters of the bill, which sailed through the House 425 to 1, said it will help prevent an epidemic of children on drugs like Ritalin and Prozac, and that Kennedy is being influenced by his longstanding ties to health and pharmaceutical associations, which contend the bill will discourage the diagnosis of mental illnesses that could be easily treated.

Stalker to become child psychologist

Ever wonder what sort of people become child psychologists? From today's news:

An alleged stalker who sent threatening letters to Catherine Zeta-Jones wrote to her again to say: "I'm sorry", it was revealed yesterday.

In a note to the 34-year-old actress and her dad-in-law, Kirk Douglas, Dawnette Knight said: "I want to apologise for any distress I have caused you and your families." ...

Knight asked to be forgiven so she could carry on with her studies in child psychology. She was remanded in custody.

Jack Ryan v. 7 of 9

The usual Democratic shills are complaining about a Republican sex scandal, and comparing it to Bill Clinton. Eg, William Saletan of Slate
charges hypocrisy:

Six years ago, Republicans demanded that Bill Clinton be investigated and impeached for having sex with an intern and covering it up. Now their nominee for the U.S. Senate in Illinois, Jack Ryan, is brushing off his then-wife's allegations that he repeatedly pressured her, despite her protestations, to have sex with him in front of other people. Instead of denouncing Ryan, many Republicans are defending him.

But his facts are wrong. Clinton was not impeached for having sex with an intern. He was impeached for lying about it under oath. He first denied it under oath in order to cheat Paula Jones in a civil lawsuit, and then he denied to the grand jury that the affair started while she was still an intern. (His autobiography now concedes that it started while she was an intern.)

You read the released 1999 Ryan divorce papers here, or an AP summary here. (Also here.)

The Chicago Tribune filed the lawsuit to get the papers released,
and it published a history of USA political sex scandals, including this:

Thomas Jefferson: The president carried on a 38-year affair with Sally Hemings, a slave. The relationship resulted in at least one -- and up to six -- illegitimate children.

In fact, there is considerable doubt about the Hemings story. This is some DNA evidence that a male relative of T. Jefferson fathered a child with Hemings, but there are historians with very good arguments that T.J. himself was not the father.

It is not clear why Jack Ryan's papers should be considered scandalous. They tell a personal story that doesn't belong in the newspaper. Much of it is still blacked out. From what I can gather, Jack and Jeri Ryan were married about 8 years and had 1 son. Towards the end of their marriage, her acting carreer took off as she got the TV role as Seven Of Nine in Star Trek Voyager. She then had an affair with another man, and secretly plotted to bail out of the marriage. She was the one that filed for divorce.

In order to make Jack look bad in a custody dispute, Jeri tells a story about how he had a fantasy about having sex with her at a kinky sex club. She refused. This occurred during a period in which Jeri had decided that the marriage was over, but Jack was trying to save the marriage.

What is sad here is that we have laws, courts, and lawyers who give incentives to wives to tells these stories, and judges and newspapers who try to manipulate an election by publicizing a 5-year-old sordid divorce dispute?

A spooky aspect to this story is the TV character Jeri played. 7of9 was absorbed into the Borg Collective, and is still part robot with unknown allegiances towards and evil robotic empire. Jack must have felt like his wife really was being absorbed into the Borg!

Update: Jack Ryan is now out. This is another example of the fact that divorce is usually caused by the wife, but the husband ends up getting blamed anyway.

Update: This story explains the unfairness of the Jack Ryan case. John Kerry also has a bitter ex-wife and some sealed divorce records. It will be interesting to see who thinks that the public has a right to see those records.

Court lets cops hassle couples

The Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Nevada just ruled 5-4 that a suspect has to identify himself to a Nevada police officer investigating a crime, even if he is not under arrest. (Actually, if he is under arrest, he can remain silent under the Miranda rules.)

This might be reasonable if the cops were fighting real crimes. But the whole premise of the case was that the police need to monitor and log minor domestic disputes where no one makes a complaint. Some busybody had claimed that Hiibel had some sort of fight with his wife or girlfriend, and the police insisted on intervening even tho all appeared well when they arrived on the scene.

Conventional wisdom says police need to intervene into domestic disputes, even if the wife is not complaining. People point out how the cops didn't do much when Nicole Simpson called 911, and a couple of years later O.J. stabbed her to death.

I don't buy it. If no one complains, then the cops should butt out. We already have no-fault divorce, in which any wife can walk out of any marriage at any time and for any reason. We have restraining orders, in which bitter ex-wives and ex-girlfriends can make sure that they won't be bothered. We don't need cops going around busting up ongoing marriages.

Clinton's stain

For an amusing Google searrch, check out Clinton stain. Half the hits refer to a stain on Monica's dress, and the other half quote Bill Clinton as saying, "I don't see it as a stain". Funny choice of words.

Low-flying turkey buzzard

John writes that Helmet can't protect you from a low-flying turkey buzzard.

HOLLAND [New Jersey] TWP. -- A motorcyclist was killed in a head-on collision Friday after tangling with a low-flying turkey buzzard, township police said. ...

Witnesses told police the buzzard slammed into Maglori's helmet and the motorcyclist then tried to fight off the 10- to 15-pound bird.

The motorcycle veered into the northbound lane and collided head-on with a stopped vehicle just north of Phillips Road, police said.

After a nasty lawsuit, I am expecting the helmet makers to have to put suitable disclaimers on motorcycle helmets!

The lies of Michael Moore

Even the left-wing ideologue Christopher Hitchens cannot stomach the lies of Michael Moore. See his scathing review of Fairenheit 9/11. In particular, much of the movie complains the Bush administration (actually it was the Bush-hater Richard Clarke) let bin Laden relatives leave the country a couple of days after 9-11-2001. Of course, those relatives are mortal enemies of Osama bin Laden, and were free to travel anyway. But where Moore is particular dishonest is that Moore opposed the invasion of Afghanistan because he claimed that Osama bin Laden is innocent!

Webster writes:

I'll admit that Moore's movie has a liberal bias, but Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity (who present themselves as legitimate journalists) have just as heavy a bias. You can find false statements and heavy spin from either one of these people, but I don't here half the country calling them liars. I'm not an ideology, and happen to like Bill O'Reily, and I agree with you on the point that it was O.K. for the Saudis to leave after 9/11. However, saying that the movie is completely full of lies is extreme. Moore takes a stab at "why" Bush does what he does. The "truth" is that no one will ever know why Bush does what he does.

You said in your article that Moore claimed Bin Laden's innocence. That is false, but I'm not calling you a liar. Moore said that Bush didn't put enough effort into going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan. His point was that he didn't put as much effort into Afghanistan because his real target was Iraq (and also because of the pipeline which I don't agree with him on). He does not claim that Bin Laden is innocent. Aside from the liberal spin in this movie there are some good points and I don't think people should be so threatened by it. Just remember it is biased.

My statement about Moore and bin Laden was based on Hitchens saying this:

In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified.

Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are right-wing commentators, and their opinions are certainly biased towards the right. But I have never heard either of them present deliberate lies the way Michael Moore does.

For more info on Michael Moore, see Jeff Jarvis, MooreLies.com, and MooreWatch.com. I actually haven't seen his new movie, but I watch Bowling for Columbine, and it was filled with misrepresentations and cheap shots from beginning to end.

Update: See also Fifty-six Deceits in Fahrenheit 911, More Distortions From Michael Moore (Newsweek), The New Republic, Spinsanity,
and a lot of others who point out lies in Moore's movies. Eg, Newsweek says:

we stand by our account that Unger's claims about the Saudi flights, as portrayed in "Fahrenheit 9/11," are contradicted by the findings of the 9-11 Commission.

50-50 custody is the only fair way

Michael Newdow is now famous for losing his Pledge of Allegiance case because of having lost custody of his daughter, and now he attacks custody law. He is right. The custody standards used by family court are incoherent and create more problems than they solve. He says:

More to the point, what in the world are the "best interests of the child"? Is it "better" for a child to have a tuna-fish sandwich or to eat at McDonald's? Tuna is healthier. McDonald's tastes better. Tuna's cheaper. McDonald's is more fun. Tuna saves on gas. McDonald's gets everyone out of the house. Who's going to value all these factors and decide what's "best"? Whether it's a trivial issue (such as lunch), or one far more important, this multiplicity of factors is involved in the thousands of decisions parents make each day. Add to the mix the impossibility of predicting how care today will impact any given child 10 years from now, and it's clear that no one can determine what is "best." The suggestion that anyone—judges, child psychologists, court-appointed evaluators, etc.—can do this is pure arrogance; arrogance for which there is not one shred of evidentiary support. In fact, it may well be that every custody decision made by these people has been the completely "wrong" one. … How would anyone ever know?